HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022/01/24 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JAN. 24, 2022
The St. Louis Park City Council will hold its meeting on Jan. 24, 2022 via interactive technology/
videoconferencing. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13D.021, subd. 1, and Resolution No. 22-018, the
city manager and the city council have determined that an in-person meeting of the St. Louis
Park City Council is not practical or prudent because of the COVID-19 health pandemic, and the
surge of the Omicron variant.
Due to the measures necessary to contain and mitigate the impacts of the pandemic, it has been
determined that attendance at the regular meeting location by members of the public is not
feasible and that the physical presence at the regular meeting location by at least one member
of the body, chief legal counsel, or chief administrative officer is not feasible. All members of the
St. Louis Park City Council will participate in the Jan. 24, 2022 study session by electronic device
or telephone rather than by being personally present at the city council's regular meeting place
at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. Cisco Webex will be used to conduct videoconference meetings of the
city council, with council members and staff participating from multiple locations.
Members of the public can watch via webstream at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil. Visit bit.ly/slpccagendas
to view the agenda and reports.
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.
6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – council chambers
Discussion items
1. 30 min. US Internet update
2. 90 min. Community policing discussion
5 min. Communications/updates (verbal)
Written reports
3. Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
4 Quarterly development update – 1st Quarter 2022
5. 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
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 after 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: January 24, 2022
Discussion item : 1
Executive summary
Title: US Internet update
Recommended action: No action required. This is an update of US Internet (USI) activities in St.
Louis Park and plans for the next few years. No council approval is required.
Policy consideration: Th is investment by USI supports the long-term council goals of:
1.Have more competition and choice of Internet Service Providers in St. Louis Park;
2.Make St. Louis Park a technology connected community from the 2015 – 2025 city
council goals and priorities
3.Support more recently approved Smart Cities initiatives from the Community
Technology Advisory Commission (CTAC).
Summary: US Internet began providing Internet service in St. Louis Park in July 2017, following
a few years of discussion with staff. The first site to receive service was the then Meadowbrook
Manor complex, now Era on Excelsior. Since then, USI has expanded its service offerings to other
locations in St. Louis Park, including several MDU’s and the south Sorensen neighborhood.
Recently, USI purchased property in St. Louis Park and made the commitment to offer fiber-to-
the premise (FTTP) high-speed Internet service throughout the city over the next 3 years.
A project of this magnitude and work in the public right-of-way inevitably results in expected
and unexpected community responses. It is important that both council and staff are prepared.
USI CEO Travis Carter and CFO Tim Martin plan to attend this meeting remotely to describe the
project and address council questions.
Financial or budget considerations: No financial implications for the city; deep financial
investment on the part of USI.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Clint Pires, chief information officer
Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: US Internet update
Discussion
Background: Because we have only 30 minutes for this item, including council Q&A, more detail
than normal for a discussion item is provided below to anticipate some common questions.
For many years since Internet service was made available to the general public in the 1990’s,
the most common providers have been the incumbent telephone and cable tv companies. That
has been true in St. Louis Park and throughout the United States. In general, it is still true today.
Satellite -based Internet joined the offerings more recently, though it currently remains more
limited in popularity in urban areas.
The cable tv company and telephone company use different technologies to provide Internet
service. The cable tv company was able to use coax cabling infrastructure constructed in the
1970’s and updated over time to provide internet service throughout the city. That was not the
situation for the telephone company and the service area and speeds were much more limited.
As a result, starting in the mid -late 1990’s , council expressed interest in trying to find ways to
encourage the incumbent telephone company to expand its DSL service and with greater
speeds to more of the city. To some extent, that has occurred over the years in St. Louis Park
and elsewhere. Other major providers did not appear.
In 2005, council directed staff to research and test a public wi-fi network with a private sector
company. Research and testing occurred in 2006, with the award of a bid to ARINC at the end of
2006. ARINC started the project in April of 2007 and was declared in default in December of
that year. As a result, nothing changed in terms of Internet service competition and choice.
In 2012, council authorized a study of the city’s fiber network to determine what other uses
could be made of the network to produce additional benefits for the city and community
development in general. Most of those recommendations were approved and successfully
implemented. One of the long-term recommendations was focused on consideration of
construction of a fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) network, as a way of providing another choice for
Internet service. The consultants agreed that FTTH could provide a very robust service
alternative. That said, due to the cost to construct and / or operate such a network, they
recommended the city attempt to encourage private sector providers to build it and be the
Internet Service Provider (ISP) as well. ISP’s provide the retail side of Internet service. The city
council agreed.
At council’s direction, staff contacted various ISP’s, including the incumbent cable tv and
telephone companies, to let them know of council’s interest in construction of a FTTH network.
In 2015, council authorized staff to enter into agreements that allowed the city to lease
available fiber strands and conduit as a way to incentivize new entrants to consider building in
St. Louis Park. Building a citywide fiber network is a very capital-intensive endeavor and
capturing additional market share relative to ROI is challenging. The goal of these lease
arrangements was to encourage expansion of the fiber footprint to aid economic development,
not to create a major revenue source. Agreements allow for charging market rates or exchange
of fiber segments or other services of approximately comparable market value.
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 1 ) Page 3
Title: US Internet update
Present considerations: Two compan ies started serious conversations with staff about building
in St. Louis Park : Arvig and US Intern et (USI). Arvig typically supports fiber access to commercial
firms and across regions. They entered into an agreement with the city and continue to provide
services.
Between 2015 and 2017, USI presented its initial plans at the then technology advisory
commission (now CTAC) and city council. USI entered into an agreement with the city to lease
fiber infrastructure and space to rack equipment in three city buildings to begin providing
service in 2017. As part of the agreement, from an equity perspective, USI first offered service
at Meadowbrook Manor, then to other multi-unit residential buildings and commercial
buildings. In 2019, they began to offer service in the south Sorensen neighborhood, a largely
single -family home area. In late 2021, USI purchased property in St. Louis Park on Gorham
Avenue where they are building a data center and central office from which to distribute fiber.
They plan to pass every residential and non-residential property in the city with fiber and its
service offering. Here are some important points to note:
1. USI indicates they plan to build out the bulk of St. Louis Park in 2022 and 2023, with a
few remaining areas done by 2024. The USI coverage map shows currently served areas
(green) and the planned 2022 construction (light purple) in St. Louis Park.
2. Relative to equity, the CDC uses a number of factors to develop what they call the Social
Vulnerability Index (SVI), a measure of how residents and families are faring relative to
income, access to food, access to transportation, healthcare, and other livability indices .
St. Louis Park has two census tracks that rank in the highest level of need. It should be
noted that about 25% of these census track areas are in USI’s 2022 construction plan,
with the remainder in the 2023 plan.
3. USI is not a cable tv company and does not offer cable tv programming. As such, USI
customers receive any video through “Over the Top” (OTT) services such as Hulu,
Netflix, or A mazon Prime.
4. Because USI is an Internet Service Provider and telephone provider, current law does
not allow for collection of local franchise or other fees as cable tv does.
5. USI will be subcontracting parts of its construction.
6. USI has met with engineering and natural resources to cover permitting, inspections,
and environmental concerns (e.g., trees).
7. Contact information has already been exchanged by USI and city staff for quickest
resolution of resident and business concerns during construction.
8. The USI central office is on Gorham Avenue. USI is working with community
development to lease a city -owned lot across the street as temporary storage during the
3-year buildout.
Next steps: Following this update, USI will be working largely on its own to install what is
basically the first new citywide utility since cable tv in the 1970’s. This is a large undertaking. St.
Louis Park will likely be the first community USI has built end -to-end. This will necessitate
effective coordination with city staff from teams such as engineering and natural resources. It
will also necessitate USI’s effective communication with residents and businesses during
construction and restoration phases, as all construction is underground (compared with aerial
cable tv construction). Because of the scope and impact of this multi-year project, both USI and
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 1 ) Page 4
Title: US Internet update
staff felt it important to brief the council and CTAC, so there is mutual understanding of the
plans and on-the -ground impacts of this buildout. One advantage USI has in this regard is its 12
years of experience building similar fiber networks, including in large parts of Minneapolis.
Separate yet related, the city with leadership from CTAC, is making application for funding to
support marketing of Internet payment assistance (e.g., Affordable Connectivity Program) and
digital literacy efforts in St. Louis Park through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
This effort is designed to leverage the growing availability of broadband provider choice (e.g.,
USI) with information and education on options, affordability , and learning to use the Internet
effectively, open to all in St. Louis Park with an emphasis on the disadvantaged.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: January 24, 2022
Discussion item : 2
Executive summary
Title: Community Policing discussion
Recommended action: None at this time. The purpose of this study session is to provide
information to the council regarding community policing in SLP.
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: Staff will provide council with a review of community policing and the operating
philosophy of our police department. Staff will then provide an update on what the police
department has been working on since our last policing discussion with council on Feb. 22,
2021. Updates will include information on response to resistance reporting, weekly updates
and monthly statistics provided to council, race data collection on traffic s tops, policy manual
updates, duty to intervene policy and training, school resource officers MOU, public safety
information specialist, public safety technology support specialist, training sergeant, youth and
community outreach officer, our Hennepin County embedded social worker and officer
wellness programs. Staff will also provide information on the future of policing in S LP to include
information on our mental health response model, community engagement, staffing level
evaluation, recruiting and retention, leveraging future technologies and race data on traffic
stops analysis.
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: Discussion
Prepared by: Mike Harcey, police chief
Bryan Kruelle , deputy police chief
Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Community Policing discussion
Discussion
Background: Staff's update to Council will review three areas: community policing in St. Louis
Park, an update on police department activities since the policing discussion with council on
Feb. 22, 2021, and the future of policing in St. Louis Park.
The first area, community policing in St. Louis Park , will begin with a review of the department’s
mission, whose purpose is to provide a safe community through quality service, community
partnerships, and professionalism. The operating philosophy is also a critical aspect of the
department’s values and belief system and expresses a commitment to community-oriented
policing, the delivery of effective and efficient services, and providing a positive work
environment for employees. The department’s core values explicitly note the following:
•Service is the foundation for existence.
•Ethics and integrity are the building blocks.
•Prevention is the optimal solution for addressing crime and disorder along with
protecting the community.
•Responsiveness is critical.
•Focusing internally on the department’s greatest resource, its employees, is a priority.
•Remaining in continuous alignment with the City of St. Louis Park’s mission, values, and
goals is paramount.
The police department’s problem-solving model emphasizes the proactivity inherent with an
approach that emphasizes prevention. Problem-oriented policing relies upon collaboration and
partnerships completely. This includes relationship building at the individual, group, and
organizational levels with the public; our law enforcement partners at the local, state, and
federal levels; other departments at the city who are critical to our collective success; and
internally as all divisions, work groups, and employees must seamlessly connect. An
engagement process that can be found through countless examples each day. Through the
continuous engagement of this entire network, the SARA model of problem-oriented policing is
effectively leveraged; a model that stands for Scanning, Analyzing, Respond, and Assess. A
proven approach that is effective at not only addressing crime and disorder but is more
responsive to the diverse community that we serve.
As policing and society have both evolved, our department has remained intentional with its
focus of maintaining its gold standard of community-oriented policing and adapting as needed.
This approach to policing aims to ensure that our responsiveness meets the current needs of
the public that we serve. The pillars of 21st Century Policing that were constructed from the
philosophical moorings of procedural justice is a critical example of community policing’s
adaptations, and a guiding force behind our department’s commitment to our community. The
department is dedicated to ensuring legitimacy through procedural justice. This approach relies
upon fairness and consistency, allowing an individual’s voice to play a part in the process
through representation, remaining transparent and open, and being directed by impartiality
and unbiased decision making. These elements have been shown through research to better
build trust and legitimacy with the community, and guide the critical areas of service delivery,
policy development, training, education, officer safety, and wellness.
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 2 ) Page 3
Title: Community Policing discussion
Following the murder of George Floyd, the council asked to review the policing model in St.
Louis Park , the second area being discussed. Staff met with council on July 27, 2020. During the
meeting, council reviewed and discussed the police department’s use of force policy, reviewed
the 8 Can’t Wait policy recommen dations and got an update on the recent legislation passed by
Minnesota legislature. At the Sept. 29, 2020 council meeting, Chief Harcey and Deputy Chief
Kruelle presented information on the department’s 21st century policing initiatives and 2018-
2019 statistical information. Facilitator Shawn Sorrell then led the council in a facilitated
discussion on the information and also worked with council to deve lop the areas of concern the
council would like to explore to better inform policy considerations that align with St. Louis Park
strategic initiatives. On Feb . 22, 2021, staff met with council to provide updates on progress
made since the last council discussion and Facilitator Shawn Sorrell led a conversation to gain
clarity around remaining topics or areas of concern. The following section outlines the work
that Council had asked staff to work on since our last policing discussion with council on Feb.
22, 2021.
1. Response to Resistance Reporting – The police department began publishing an annual
report on the department’s response to resistance in 2019. The reports have been
published and made available on our website. After reviewing the 2019 and 2020
reports with Council there was a request for additional information and further
examination of the data. Staff worked with council members Kraft and Mohamed to
add additional information in the report to assist with future examination of the data.
Staff is currently working on making the data available on our website in a live
dashboard format.
2. Council weekly updates and monthly statistics – Council had requested additional /
more timely statistical updates that would assist in providing context to the
information. During 2021, staff began providing a weekly update report and highlights
from the week by email to Council. In addition, staff worked with council member Kraft
to provide a monthly statistical report to assist in providing context to the information
over time.
3. Race Data Collection on Traffic Stops – Council had provided direction to move forward
with the race data collection on traffic stops initiative. Staff has completed our work on
developing our Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Records Management System
(RMS) to be able to collect the information we need to gather race data and the
information we will need for the comparison data. Officers began the data collection on
Jan. 1, 2022, and we anticipate the ability to have enough valid data to analyze after a
year of data collection. The addition of our rece ntly hired Public Safety Technology
Specialist and continued use of our consultant has assisted staff in completing the
project and will be of great value when we are able to gather the appropriate amount
of data for analysis.
4. Use of Force Policy Updates – During the 2021 Legislative session the state statute on
the use of force was amended and the Police Officer Standards and Training (POST)
Board was mandated to provide a model policy that all police departments in
Minnesota were required to adopt as presented or in a substantially similar policy.
During the fourth quarter of 2021, staff worked with our Police Advisory Commission,
Human Rights Commission, and our Police Multi-cultural Advisory Committee to review
and update our policies on the use of force. The collaborative process sought
community involvement in the policy used to guide officers in their duty to protect the
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 2 ) Page 4
Title: Community Policing discussion
sanctity of life and guide our interaction with the community. The policy has been
updated and approved by the POST board to meet the model policy standards set.
5. Duty to Intervene Policy – The 2021 legislative session also resulted in requiring police
departments to adopt a duty to intervene policy. Staff developed a duty to intervene
policy to meet the requirements of the POST Board model policy. In addition to the
policy update, staff has sought out a national recognized model to train officers on
creating a culture in which officers routinely intervene as necessary to prevent
misconduct, avoid police mistakes and promote officer wellness. Two of our staff have
received Active Bystandership for Law Enforcement (ABLE) instructor level training from
Georgetown Law Center for Innovations in Community Safety. The instructors have
begun training session for all department members that will be completed in the first
quarter of 2022.
6. School Resource Memo of Understanding – During council discussions on policing in
2020 and 2021, council requested information on the role of our School Resource
Officers in the schools. To assist in clarifying and formalizing our roles and our
relationship with the St. Louis Park Public Schools, staff worked in partnership with
Superintendent Osei to develop a memo of understanding defining our role in working
with the schools. The memo of understanding was reviewed and adopted by the St.
Louis Park Public Schools and by council.
7. Public Safety Information Specialist – With approval to move forward with a crime
analysis position in 2020, staff developed and hired our first Public Safety Information
Specialist. The work done by this role has been instrumental in providing crime analysis
information to the department, city administration and city council. Staff has also be en
involved in the implementation and support of our race data collection and analysis
which council has requested.
8. Public Safety Technology Support – Technology needs of the department have grown
over the years and the need for a dedicated public safety technology specialist become
necessary to help generate efficiencies throughout the police and fire department and
further leverage the use of technology to assist in public safety. With approval to move
forward with the position in 2021, staff developed and hired our first Public Safety
Technology Support Specialist. The work done by this role has assisted police and fire in
maximizing the use of our current technology, brought a systems approach to our
current technology, and assisted in developing new technologies to assist in providing
additional public safety initiatives.
9. Training Sergeant- Additional mandated training for police officers, changes in state
statutes and policy updates have increased our need for a more comprehensive and
cohesive training program. Now, more than ever, the importance of staff development
is vital to our ability to provide quality professional service to our community. To ensure
we are providing our staff the training they need, staff developed and implemented a
dedicated Training Sergeant position in 2021 to be responsible for the development
and delivery of all of the department training. The position has been instrumental in
ensuring that we are providing the highest quality training to our officers in a cohesive
and efficient manner.
10. Youth and Community Outreach Officer - During council discussions on policing in 2020
and 2021, Council requested information on the role of our School Resource Officers in
the schools. As a result of those discussions staff worked with Superintendent Osei to
refine the role of our School Resource Officer that taught DARE in the elementary
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 2 ) Page 5
Title: Community Policing discussion
schools. We came to a mutual agreed upon understanding on the value of having a
police officer partnered with the elementary schools but decide to stop teaching the
DARE curriculum to allow teachers more time with their students. To ensure we
continued to provide police assistance to the elementary schools and further our
community engagement activities in the rest of the community we developed and
assigned our first Youth and Community Outreach Officer.
11. Officer Wellness measures – The mental health of our officers is vital to our success in
providing quality and professional service to the community. To address this important
need, staff has contracted with a mental health therapist that specializes in providing
services to public safety professionals. All department staff are required to complete an
annual mental health wellness check in with a therapist. In addition, staff has assisted
an employee led effort to develop a peer support program available to all employees.
The program allows officers the ability to connect with peers on our department or
several other local departments to confidentially work through personal issues that
may develop during the course of their duties.
The third area of discussion, the future of policing in St. Louis Park, begins with one of the most
challenging issues facing policing as well as the community today, mental health. As the
department proactively addresses the issue by adopting both innovative and industry best-
practices solutions, a holistic approach must be the philosophy to building meaningful and
effective mental health response strategies. In 2022, a visible part of the department’s mental
health response will occur with the hiring of a dispatch supervisor. This position will be
instrumental in helping the department navigate those first touchpoints from the public in
mental health calls for service and respond with the most appropriate and effective resources
for each situation. Our response model relies upon the department’s new full-time embedded
Hennepin County Licensed Social Worker as well and is an expansion from what was only a
part-time resource in 2021. The combination of both positions will significantly elevate the
department’s service to the community in mental health response through improved triage and
diversion of calls for service. These improvements can only be realized through additional
staffing alongside training, research, analysis, coordination with external mental health experts,
and expanded internal partnerships efforts like those with the fire department.
The future of policing will continue to place the highest priority on engagement with the
community including a police -community relationship that steers the department’s operating
philosophy in all ways. The last two years have presented challenges unseen previously on a
global scale due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This in conjunction with the outcomes faced in
policing from the murder of George Floyd have only served to reaffirm the department’s
commitment to community engagement. An area that the organization has always led from out
front in and will continue to do so. With the anticipated state of the pandemic in 2022 likely
allowing for increased public gathering opportunities, many of the engagement strategies
leaned upon in the past will restart again. Activities like listening sessions, in -person commission
meetings, and youth programs are vital to our success . The creative and resourceful abilities of
our staff have also generated successful ventures such as Basketball in the Park, Skateapalooa,
Fishing with a Cop, and others. We are planning for these all to be relaunched and serve as
signals of the department’s dedication to the community we serve . These powerful and
meaningful interactions are not only important to the community, but also to police officers .
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 2 ) Page 6
Title: Community Policing discussion
These interactions provide a critical forum to form strong, personal relationships with
community partners.
The future of policing will again demand that operational evaluations that include how staff and
resources are deployed will continue to be a priority in 2022 and beyond. Calls for service are
growing; officer retention, recruitment and hiring grows more challenging; community
engagement is critical; and development in the city creates additional complexity and demand
for services. Understanding and implementing legislative changes, policy updates, new training
requirements and initiatives , and employee wellness needs also create demand on officer and
leadership time and capacity.
Evaluating and meeting all of these needs must be a continuous process and include both
review of current practices and consideration of different or additional resources. The list of
priorities is significant and challenging, yet the police department stands ready to adapt and
respond successfully through the efforts of a staff that are well-prepared, committed, and
capable of taking head on.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: January 24, 2022
Written report: 3
Executive summary
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Recommended action: No action at this time. The public hearing and first reading of ordinance
and resolution establishing the Bridgewalk HIA is scheduled for Feb. 7, 2022.
Policy consideration: Does the city council support the creation of a Housing Improvement
Area for the Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association?
Summary: The city is authorized by state statute to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private
housing improvements. An HIA is a defined area within a city where housing improvements are
made and the cost of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the
properties within the area. The city adopted an HIA policy in 2001 and has previously
established eight HIAs. The Bridgewalk HIA proposal meets the intent of the city policy.
The Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association (Association) submitted an application
Oct. 5, 2021 for $5.77 million dollars to create an HIA . With city fees and soft costs the total
request is $5.97 million. Bridgewalk is a 92-unit condominium building with one, two and three
bedroom units. Bridgewalk was built in 1972 and needs improvements to the exterior, interior,
mechanical and electrical system, pool, and garage. The association hired a consultant, Doug
Strandness of Dunbar Strandness, Inc., to work with them on establishing the HIA.
The association submitted signed petitions January 5, 2022 from a majority of owners
requesting the city council schedule a public hearing to establish the HIA and impose fees. Per
state statue, cities may only establish an HIA when 50% or more of the association owners
petition the city to do so. The city has imposed a 70% threshold for this HIA due to the size of
the funding request and fees. 78% of owners (72 of 92 owners) submitted petitions to the city.
As of Jan. 11, 2022, the city clerk has certified petitions from 74% of the owners, or 68 o f the 72
petitions submitted. Staff are working with the Bridgewalk HIA consultant to remedy the issues
with the four outstanding petitions.
Financial or budget considerations: If approved the HIA would be funded with a combination of
bonds and an EDA internal loan. The maximum HIA amount would be $5.97 million.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
HIA fee structure
Prepared by: Marney Olson, housing supervisor
Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Michele Schnitker, housing manager/deputy CD director
Karen Barton, CD director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Discussion
Background: The city is authorized by state statute to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private
housing improvements. An HIA is a defined area within a city where housing improvements are
made and the cost of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the
properties within the area. HIAs are typically utilized by multifamily ownership housing
associations, such as townhome and condominium associations. The city adopted an HIA policy
in 2001 and has previously established eight HIAs. The Bridgewalk HIA proposal meets the
intent of the city policy.
The association hired a consultant, Doug Strandness of Dunbar Strandness, Inc., to work with
them on establishing the HIA. Mr. Strandness initially contacted the city in 2019 regarding the
city’s HIA policy. City staff did a walkthrough of the property in March 2020 with Mr. Strandness
and a board member to see the necessary improvements. The association submitted an
application May 27, 2020 with a $6.9 million dollar request, not including the city’s fees and
soft costs. Based on the unknown impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the city’s budget the
city was not in a position to consider the HIA at that time. In addition, the HIA was complex
with fees significantly higher than any other HIA in the past, and the timeline being requested
was not feasible. Staff informed Mr. Strandness that the city was not able to move forward with
the HIA request at that time but stated the request could be revisited in the future. The
association used the time to evaluate the scope of work and budget.
Present considerations: The association submitted an application Oct. 5, 2021 for $5.77 million
dollars to create a Housing Improvement Area. With city fees and soft costs the total request is
$5.97 million. Bridgewalk is a 92-unit condominium building with one, two and three bedroom
units. Bridgewalk was built in 1972 and is in need of improvements to the exterior, interior,
mechanical and electrical system, pool, and garage. The association hired Encompass to
evaluate the repairs needed at Bridgewalk along with a budget estimate. The application also
included a reserve plan, financial plan and reserve study conducted by Reserve Advisors. The
reserve and financial plan demonstrate how the association will ensure that they adequately
plan for future improveme nts and ongoing maintenance.
The association does not have the reserve funds to make the necessary improvements and has
been turned down by two financial institutions for financing. The HIA is a last resort financing
tool when associations have no other viable option for raising money for improvements. State
law requires at least 50% of the owners sign petitions requesting the city council hold public
hearings to establish the HIA and impose the fee. The city has imposed a 70% threshold for this
HIA due to the size of the funding request and fees.
The association undertook extensive outreach to educate and inform homeowners about the
HIA project. The city has been working with the association’s consultant since 2019 and hosted
two informational meetings in December 2021 to meet with residents and review the HIA
process, petition, and fees. 78% of owners (72 of 92 owners) submitted petitions to the city. As
of Jan. 11, 2022, the city clerk has certified petitions from 74% of the owners, or 68 of the 72
petitions submitted. Staff are working with the Bridgewalk HIA consultant to remedy the issues
with the four outstanding petitions.
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 3 ) Page 3
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Eleven homeowners are interested in seeking a hardship deferral of the HIA fees. Homeowners
apply for a hardship deferral and if they meet the requirements, the principal and interest
payments are deferred. The deferred payment (principal and interest) becomes due and
payable upon sale or transfer of ownership. Qualifications for hardship deferral include:
• Applicant must be 65 years of age or older OR retired because of permanent and total
disability, and
• Property must be homesteaded; and
• Income must be at or below 50% of Area Median Income
Proposed Scope of Work: There is extensive work needed at Bridgewalk identified in the reserve
study and the comprehensive assessment completed by Encompass. In addition to being 50 years
old the building has not been well maintained. Major building components have not been
replaced when they should have been. Some of the components of the HIA project will
significantly reduce utility consumption for both the association and the individual homeowners.
The following work would be scheduled to begin in 2022:
• Exterior building elements, including flat roofs over portion of pool area, north and
south buildings; main entry improvements; balconies; exterior siding.
• Interior building elements, including lobby vestibule; elevator improvements; common
area carpeting and paint; unit hallway doors; locker rooms renovation; party/community
room renovation.
• Building service elements, including electrical panel in boiler room; security systems
upgrade; common area air handling units; hot water boilers and storage tank; boiler
room upgrades; life safety system.
• Pool elements, including west wall replacement; pool refurbishment (pool & hot tub
interiors plus deck); pool equipment; pool HVAC.
• Garage elements, including lighting, waterproofing; wall paint; ceiling cleaning; exhaust
and heating systems.
• Property site elements, including asphalt (mill & overlay); concrete bridge at southwest
corner of building; concrete ramps and aprons; privacy fences between unit patios;
courtyard/patio improvements.
• Unit elements, including unit windows and patio doors (low-E glass)
Funding: The HIA will be funded using a combination of an internal EDA loan and general
obligation special assessment debt for HIAs. The EDA loan will cover the amount of anticipated
hardship deferrals and the balance will be bonds. The association plans to use a construction
loan and has requested the city issue a construction loan commitment letter. The city has
agreed to Bridgewalk’s use of a construction loan and there are no drawbacks to the city. The
primary benefit to the city is that the construction loan will handle all draw requests.
The city is protected from financial risk in several ways:
• Repayment of the loan is made through owner’s real estate tax payments.
• In foreclosure events, tax liabilities including special assessments, must be paid by any
party that purchases the unit. In cases of foreclosure, HIA fees have been treated the
same as special assessments.
• There is a 105% debt coverage as shown on the attached fee table.
• A development agreement is required which will provide additional contractual
conditions to ensure financial stability of the association.
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 3 ) Page 4
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Association information: Bridgewalk is located at 450 Ford Rd.
• The association is comprised of 92 condominium units built in 1972
• There are 35 units with one bedroom, 50 units with two bedrooms, and seven units with
three bedrooms
• The 2021 median estimated market value (EMV) is $131,900 and the range of EMV is
$95,600 to 183,900
• 73 of the 92 units (79%) are homesteaded
Affordable homeownership
All units at Bridgewalk, even with the HIA fees, will be affordable to ho useholds at 80% Area
Median Income (AMI) based on the affordable homeownership limit of $316,000 set by the
Metropolitan Council. The majority of the units will be below the 60% AMI ($256,300) or 50%
AMI ($201,500) affordable homeownership limit. All homes are well below the maximum home
purchase price for existing homes under the state’s first -time home buyer program which is
currently $352,300.
The creation of the Bridgewalk HIA will preserve affordable homeownership in St. Louis Park.
Total Loan Amount
The total loan amount is $5,970,000: $5,770,000 primary purpose fund for construction and
soft costs , $145,400 for costs associated with bond issuance, and $54,600 for city
administrative, legal, financial costs , and rounding.
Bridgewalk HIA Sources & Uses 20 Years
Sources of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $5,200,000
EDA Cash Contribution $770,000
Total Sources $5,9970,000
Uses of Funds
Total Underwriter’s Discount (1.200%) $62,400
Costs of Issuance $83,000
City Admin Fee (0.5%) $28,850
Primary Purpose Fund (Construction loan) $5,770,000
EDA Soft Costs $25,000
Rounding Amount $750
Total project costs $5,970,000
The term of the loan and imposed fees would be 20 years. The loan will be repaid by a fee
attached to each property unit. The county will receive the payments through the property tax
system and pass back to the city. This is a low risk way for the city to assist with bringing the
property up to date to ensure many years of continued use for current and future owners.
Preliminary estimates of the fees to be imposed on housing units in the Bridgewalk
Condominium Homeowner’s Association are based on an interest rate of approximately 4.83%.
This interest rate is subject to change based on market conditions.
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Amount to be charged against each housing unit: Estimates of the Housing Improvement Fee to
be imposed on housing units in the Bridgewalk HIA range from $41,253 to $112,833, as shown in
the attached table . Fees per unit are based on square footage (percentage of undivided ownership)
as prescribed in Exhibit A to the Bridgewalk Condominium Declaration. Unless prepaid by August
1, 2022, interest on the per-unit fees will be charged at a rate of 4.83% per annum. Final Housing
Improvement Fees may not be more than the amounts described in this paragraph.
Payments in full are allowed in future years by November 15 of each year. No partial payments are
allowed. At the time of sale the HIA fee can remain with the unit or be paid off.
Filing an objection and veto period: Before the ordinance is adopted or at the hearing in which
it is to be adopted, the owner of a housing unit in the proposed HIA may file a written objection
with the city clerk asserting that the owners’ property should not be included in the HIA or
should not be subjected to a housing improvement fee and objecting to the inclusion of the
housing unit in the HIA, for the reason that the property would not benefit from the proposed
improvements
If residents of 45 percent or more of the housing units in the HIA file an objection to the
ordinance with the city clerk before the effective date of the ordinance, the ordinance will not
become effective.
Within five days after the adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to
mail to the owner of each housing unit in the Bridgewalk HIA: a summary of this ordinance; notice
that owners subject to the proposed Housing Improvement Fee have a right to veto this ordinance
if owners of at least 45 percent of the housing units within the Bridgewalk HIA file a written
objection wit h the City Clerk before the effective date of this ordinance; and notice that a copy of
this ordinance is on file with the City Clerk for public inspection.
Next steps: The next step in the HIA process is the public hearing and first reading of the
ordinance and resolution scheduled for February 7.
Bridgewalk proposed HIA timeline:
Feb. 7, 2022 Public hearing, first reading of ordinance and resolution
Feb. 22, 2022 Second reading/adoption of ordinance and resolution
By Feb. 27, 2022 Mail summary of ordinance to unit owners
By March 22, 2022 Mail ordinance to Commissioner of Revenue
April 9, 2022 Veto period ends
April 18, 2022 Development agreement and construction loan commitment letter
Aug. 1, 2022 Prepayments due
Sept./Oct. 2022 EDA loan approved and issue bonds
City of St. Louis Park
Housing Improvement Area - Bridgewalk HIA
Assessment Allocation
Association Unit No.
Percentage
Interest
Total Common Area
Construction Cost
Total Financing &
Soft Costs
TOTAL COSTS
(PREPAYMENT
AMOUNT)
* Annual Fee
(105% of Total
Costs)
Total P & I Paid Per
Unit (105%) - Non
prepaid only
101 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97
102 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30
103 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30
104 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30
105 0.01678 $96,821 $3,356 $100,177 $8,318.34 $166,366.72
106 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97
107 0.01102 $63,585 $2,204 $65,789 $5,462.94 $109,258.72
108 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30
109 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97
110 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30
111 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30
112 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30
113 0.01412 $81,472 $2,824 $84,296 $6,999.70 $139,993.93
114 0.01100 $63,470 $2,200 $65,670 $5,453.02 $109,060.43
115 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97
116 0.01100 $63,470 $2,200 $65,670 $5,453.02 $109,060.43
117 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97
118 0.01678 $96,821 $3,356 $100,177 $8,318.34 $166,366.72
119 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97
120 0.01371 $79,107 $2,742 $81,849 $6,796.45 $135,928.95
121 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97
122 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30
123 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97
124 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30
125 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30
126 0.01412 $81,472 $2,824 $84,296 $6,999.70 $139,993.93
127 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97
128 0.01100 $63,470 $2,200 $65,670 $5,453.02 $109,060.43
129 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97
130 0.01100 $63,470 $2,200 $65,670 $5,453.02 $109,060.43
201 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
202 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
203 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
204 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
205 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
206 0.01731 $99,879 $3,462 $103,341 $8,581.07 $171,621.45
207 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
208 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
209 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
210 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
211 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
212 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
213 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
214 0.01454 $83,896 $2,908 $86,804 $7,207.90 $144,158.05
215 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
216 0.01126 $64,970 $2,252 $67,222 $5,581.91 $111,638.22
217 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
218 0.01126 $64,970 $2,252 $67,222 $5,581.91 $111,638.22
219 0.01731 $99,879 $3,462 $103,341 $8,581.07 $171,621.45
220 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
221 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
222 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
223 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
224 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
225 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
226 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
227 0.01454 $83,896 $2,908 $86,804 $7,207.90 $144,158.05
228 0.01126 $64,970 $2,252 $67,222 $5,581.91 $111,638.22
229 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
230 0.01126 $64,970 $2,252 $67,222 $5,581.91 $111,638.22
231 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
301 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
302 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
303 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
304 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
305 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
306 0.01731 $99,879 $3,462 $103,341 $8,581.07 $171,621.45
307 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
308 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
309 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
310 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
311 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
312 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
313 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
314 0.01454 $83,896 $2,908 $86,804 $7,207.90 $144,158.05
315 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
316 0.01126 $64,970 $2,252 $67,222 $5,581.91 $111,638.22
317 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
318 0.01126 $64,970 $2,252 $67,222 $5,581.91 $111,638.22
319 0.01731 $99,879 $3,462 $103,341 $8,581.07 $171,621.45
320 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
321 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
322 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
323 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
324 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
325 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
326 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24
327 0.01890 $109,053 $3,780 $112,833 $9,369.28 $187,385.64
328 0.00691 $39,871 $1,382 $41,253 $3,425.49 $68,509.78
329 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
330 0.01126 $64,970 $2,252 $67,222 $5,581.91 $111,638.22
331 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86
GRAND TOTAL 100.00%$5,770,000.00 $200,000.00 $5,970,000.00 $495,729.21 $9,914,584.14
BRIDGEWALK CONDOMINIUM HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA
Bridgewalk
* Note: Annual fee amount is calculated based upon payment of total costs at 105%
Page 6 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 3)
Title: Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA)
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: January 24, 2022
Written report: 4
Executive summary
Title: Quarterly development update – 1st Quarter 2022
Recommended action: None. The attached report summarizes the status of major development
projects in St. Louis Park.
Policy consideration: Not applicable. Contact staff with any questions.
Summary: The attached report is meant to keep the EDA/city co uncil informed on a quarterly
basis as to the metrics and tentative schedule of major development projects occurring in the city.
An interactive map of St. Louis Park Developments may be found on the city’s web site at:
https://stlouispark.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Shortlist/index.html?appid=22479412aa344fdfa9de4
cc1e8964663
A listing of all proposed, approved, and completed developments may also be found on the city’s
website at:
https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-divisions/community-
development/development-projects
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Major developments in St. Louis Park – 1st Quarter 2022
Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, redevelopment administrator
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, economic de velopment manager
Karen Barton, community de velopment director, EDA executive director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Quarterly development update – 1st Quarter 2022
Major Development s in St. Louis Park
1st Quarter 2022
Multifamily housing development summary Total Market rate Affordable
Proposed units 803 539 264
Approved units 974 729 245
Units under construction 674 485 189
All units 2,451 1,753 698
Proposed developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Aldersgate Church
3801 Wooddale Ave. S.
Real Estate Equities LLC
Redevelopment of former Aldersgate Church property
adjacent to Burlington Coat/Micro Center and Highway 100.
Proposed is a 114-unit apartment building (all affordable to
households at 60% AMI) along with 205 parking stalls, of
which 117 stalls w ould be underground.
Estimated total development cost $30.1 million
Website: NA – too early in the process
Planning
applications
expected Q1 2022.
A warded $17.5
million in LIHTC
bonds Jan. 2022
Commence
construction upon
securing TIF
Beltline Blvd Station
Site
SE quadrant of CSAH 25
& Beltline Blvd
Sherman Associates
multi-phase development adjacent to
SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station.
Phase I includes:
•Seven-story mixed -use building with six levels of market
rate housing (156 units) and 19,500 SF of neighborhood
commercial space, potentially anchored by a grocer.
•A 594-stall parking ramp, which would include 268 park
& ride stalls , 326 residential stalls and
approximately 1,800 SF of commercial space.
Estimated development cost $55 million
Awarded $13.7
million in LIHTC
bonds Jan. 2022
for affordable
components.
Received $418k
grant from
Hennepin County
for site cleanup in
Jan. 2022
Neighborhood
meeting planned
for Feb. 2022.
Planning and TIF
applications and
agreements
expected Feb.
2022.
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Quarterly development update – 1st Quarter 2022
Proposed developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Phase II includes:
• Five -story market rate apartment building with 146
units.
Estimated development cost $47 million
Phase III includes:
• Four-story all affordable apartment building with 82
units, 77 units will be available at 60% AMI and five units
will be available at 30% AMI. 22 units will have three -
bedrooms.
Estimated development cost $25 million
Altogether, the multi-phase redevelopment will have 384
apartment units of which 82 (21%) would be affordable.
Estimated total development cost: $139 million
Website: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-
divisions/community-development/development-pro jects/beltline-
development
Construction on all
phases anticipated
Q4 2022
Minnetonka Blvd
redevelopment
5707 – 5639
Minnetonka Blvd
GMHC (Greater
Metropolitan Housing
Corporation) &
(WHAHLT) West
Hennepin Affordable
Housing Land Trust
Proposed is the removal of four modest single-family houses
and construction of four twin homes (eight -units), providing
eight affordable home-ownership opportunities.
Estimated total development cost $3.7 million
Website: NA – too early in the process
Construction
commencement
Q1 2023 upon
securing LIHTC
financing
Wooddale Station
redevelopment site
5950 W. 36th St.
& 5802 36th St.
Saturday Properties and
Anderson Companies Proposed mixed -use, mixed income, transit-oriented
development next to SWLRT Wooddale Station.
Entitlement
applications
Q1 or Q2 2022
Construction
anticipated Q1
2023
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 4 ) Page 4
Title: Quarterly development update – 1st Quarter 2022
Proposed developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Two six -story, mixed use buildings with 297 total apartment
units
• 237 market rate units
• 30 affordable units @ 50% AMI
• 30 affordable units @ 60% AMI
• 12,600 SF of ground floor commercial space
• 3,500 SF of co -working/community space
• 15,000 SF public plaza for public events, site
amenities, and public art
Estimated total development cost: $88.7 million
Website: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-
divisions/community-development/development-projects/wooddale -
station-redevelopment-site
Approved developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
9920 Wayzata
(former Platia Place )
9808 & 9920 Wayzata
Blvd
Bigos Management
Redevelopment of former Santorini’s restaurant property at
northwest quadrant of I-394 & US 169.
Six -story, 233-unit, mixed income apartment building with
20% (47) of the units affordable to households at 50% AMI.
Estimated total development cost $68.6 million
Website: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-
divisions/community-development/development-projects/slp-living
Planning
applications
approved
Negotiating
business terms of
the redevelopment
contract
EDA/council
review of terms
Feb./Mar. 2022
Construction
commencement
spring 2022
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 4 ) Page 5
Title: Quarterly development update – 1st Quarter 2022
Proposed developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Arlington Row
East & West
7705 Wayzata Blvd. &
7905 Wayzata Blvd.
Melrose Company
Two development sites:
• 7905 Wayzata includes two three -story apartment
buildings with 34 units total and off-street parking
covered by a solar power carport.
• 7705 Wayzata includes a three -story apartment
building with 27 units and surface parking.
Estimated construction cost: $TBD
Website: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-
divisions/community-development/development-projects/arlington -row-
amendment
Planning
applications
approved
Tentative
construction
commencement
summer 2022
Beltline Residences
3440 Beltline Blvd.
Opus Group
Five -story, 250-unit mixed-use, mixed income development
with two retail spaces totaling 7,445 square feet and
Six live/work units. 10% of the units (25) will be affordable to
households at 50% AMI.
Estimated total development cost $78.1 million
Website: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-
divisions/community-development/development-projects/3440-beltline-
blvd
Building permits
submitted for
review Jan 2022
Construction
commencement by
February 2022
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 4 ) Page 6
Title: Quarterly development update – 1st Quarter 2022
Proposed developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Bremer Bank
7924 State Highway 7
Frauenshuh The retail building containing Knollwood Liquor and Papa
Murphy’s Pizza to be removed and replaced with a two-story,
5,850 SF office building to be occupied by Bremer Bank.
Website: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-
divisions/community-development/development-projects/bremer -bank
Developer’s
conditional use
permit extended to
6/15/2022
Rise on 7
8115 Hwy 7
CommonBond
Redevelopment of former Prince of Peace church property
across from Shops at Knollwood. Includes a four-story, 120-
unit, all affordable apartment building with units ranging
between 30%-80% AMI along with a 6,600 SF “affordable”
early childhood center.
Estimated total development cost $39.3 million
Website: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-
divisions/community-development/development-projects/rise-on-7
Planning
applications
approved in July
2021
Awarded $20.5
million in LIHTC
bonds Jan. 2022
Construction
commencement
fall 2022 upon
securing TIF
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 4 ) Page 7
Title: Quarterly development update – 1st Quarter 2022
Proposed developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Risor
3510 Beltline Blvd
Roers Company
Six -story, 177-unit apartment building with 4,100 square feet
of ground floor commercial space and 14 ground floor live -
work units. The development will be an age restricted (55+)
community with 10% (18) of the units affordable at 50% AMI.
Estimated construction cost: $TBD
Website: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-
divisions/community-development/development-projects/3510-beltl ine-
boulevard
Planning
applications
approved in
October 2021
Construction
commencement
March 2022
Union Park Flats
3700 Alabama Ave &
6027 37th St W
PPL (Project for Pride in
Living)
Redevelopment of the north portion of the Union
Congregational Church with a three story, 60-unit affordable
apartment building on. All units would be affordable to
households ranging from 30%-80% AMI. Union
Congregational Church plans to remain on the south portion
of the property .
Estimated total development cost: $22.2 million
Website: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-
divisions/community-development/development-projects/union-
congregational-church
Planning
applications
approved in July
2020
Construction
commencement
fall 2022 upon
securing LIHTC
financing and TIF
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 4 ) Page 8
Title: Quarterly development update – 1st Quarter 2022
Under construction
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Louisiana Crossing
3745 Louisiana Ave
Loffler Companies
Loffler Companies is renovating the 132,485 square foot
former Sam’s Club building. The Midwest’s largest office-
technology and IT-services company is consolidating its
headquarters and warehouse operations here resulting in
over 500 jobs. 30,000 square feet is available for lease. Loffler
may sell off the south end of property for multifamily housing
in the future.
Estimated construction cost: $TBD
Warehouse
operations move in
Q4 2021
Office renovation
expected to be
completed in
Q2 2022
Luxe Residential
5235 Wayzata Blvd
(Phase VI of
Central Park West)
Greystar Real Estate
Partners
Redevelopment of former Olive Garden property in The West
End area.
Luxe Residential is a six -story, 207-unit, apartment building
(including eight affordable units at 60% AMI) along with two
levels of underground parking. The development also includes
a new pocket park along 16th Street and pedestrian
improvements connecting the apartment building to the rest
of The West End area. Estimated construction cost: $51.8
million
Website: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-
divisions/community-development/development-projects/luxe-residential
Construction
commence ment
October 2021
Complete by
September 30,
2023
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 4) Page 9
Title: Quarterly development update – 1st Quarter 2022
Under construction
Project Description Tentative
Schedule
e xpansions
Buildings 8 & 9
5005 County Road 25
Dalquist Properties LLC
21,853-square-foot warehouse and loading dock addition to
Building 8. 45,000-square-foot warehouse and loading dock
addition to Building 9 along with a small café and outdoor
patio on the property’s south side facing the regional trail.
Estimated construction cost: $11.6 million
Website: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-
divisions/community-development/development-projects/nordic-ware
Construction
commencement
summer 2021,
complete Q1 2022
Parkway Residences
W 31st St between
Inglewood Ave &
Glenhurst Ave
Sela Group & Affiliates
Multi-phase redevelopment includes four, multi-family
buildings with 211 units. The affordable housing includes 24
rehabilitated units at 50% AMI, and six new units at 60% AMI.
• Phase I: Four-story, 95-unit apt. building, six -unit apt
building & rehab of 24 NOAH apartment units
Estimated development cost $40.6 million
• Phase II: Four-story, 37-unit apartment building
• Estimated development cost $14.6 million
• Phase III: Eleven-story, 73-unit apartment building
Estimated total development cost $36.2 million
Website: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-
divisions/community-development/development-projects/parkway -
residences
Phase I
commenced
May 2020
Complete
April 30, 2022
(Parkway Place
occupancy issued
Jan. 14, 2022)
Phase II start
Q2, 2022 (demo of
single -family
homes complete)
Phase III start
April 30, 2024
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 4) Page 10
Title: Quarterly development update – 1st Quarter 2022
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
Texa-Tonka
Apartments
NE corner Texas Ave &
Minnetonka Blvd
Paster Development
Mixed income redevelopment includes 101 apartment units
in a three - to four-story building, and 11 walk-up style
townhome units located in two two-story buildings on the
northern end of the site. Twenty percent (23) of the units
would be affordable at 50% AMI.
Estimated total development cost $26.6 million
Website: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-
divisions/community-development/development-projects/ne-corner-
texa-tonka
Construction
commencement
September 2021
Complete
Q3 2023
VIA Sol
SE quadrant Hwy 7 &
Wooddale Ave
5855 Highway 7
PLACE
Mixed -use, mixed-income , transit-oriented development
including a five -story, 217-unit apartment building (65 market
rate units, 22 at 50% AMI, and 130 at 80% AMI), bike shop,
e-generation, anaerobic digester, wind turbine, solar panels,
and one -acre urban forest.
Estimated total development cost $88.4 million
Website: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-
divisions/community-development/development-projects/via -place
Commenced
Jan 2020
Closed on
additional
financing Jan. 2022
Complete
apartments by
9/30/2022
Complete
e-generation
building by
6/30/23
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 4 ) Page 11
Title: Quarterly development update – 1st Quarter 2022
Recently completed developments
Project, location &
developer Project Description Tentative
Schedule
10 West End
(Phase IV of
Central Park West)
Excelsior Group and
Ryan Co. Eleven story, 343,000 sq. ft. Class A , LEED certified, office
building with 3,500 SF of ground floor commercial space,
5,000 sq. ft. of shared outdoor amenity space and
1,214 stall parking structure.
Estimated construction cost $55.8 million
Website: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-
divisions/community-development/development-projects/10 -west -end
Completed
January 2021
The Quentin
4900 Cedar Lake Road
Crowe Companies LLC Project include d the removal of three substandard buildings
and construction of a five story, 79-unit sustainable
apartment building that includes two levels of structured
parking. The housing includes eight affordable units at 50%
AMI. Estimated total development cost: $21.3 million .
Website: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-
divisions/community-development/development-projects/cedar-place
Completed
August 2021
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 4) Page 12
Title: Quarterly development update – 1st Quarter 2022
Recently completed developments
Project Description Tentative
Schedule
5605 W. 36th St.
Main Street Companies
Five story, 70-unit mixed -use, mixed income senior
development (53 market rate and 17 units affordable to
households at 60% AMI), 4,400 SF of ground floor
office/commercial space.
Estimated total development cost $15.2 million
Website: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-
divisions/community-development/development-projects/the-elmwood
Complete d
August 2021
Xchange Medical Office
6009 Wayzata Blvd.
Davis Group
Three -story, Class A, medical office development fronting I -
394. Ear Nose & Throat Specialty Care (ENTSC) and Surgical
Care Affiliates (SCA) will anchor the 77,996 -square foot
medical office building. Includes one level of underground
parking with 51 stalls and 253 surface parking stalls on the
building’s south side.
Estimated construction cost: $13 million
Website: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-
divisions/community-development/development-projects/xchange-
med ical-office
Complete d
Nov 2021
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: January 24, 2022
Written report: 5
Executive summary
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Recommended action: None at this time. This report is intended to provide an overview of the
proposed 2022 Pavement Management Project. This project will have a public hearing at the Feb.
7 council meeting. Council will be asked to take final action on this project at the Feb. 22 meeting.
Given the extensivness of the report, council is asked to forward questions regarding project
design and recommendations to Aaron Wiesen, project engineer, by Jan. 31. Th ese questions will
then be addressed with in the Feb. 7 council report.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to pursue the pavement rehabilitation, sidewalk
installation, bikeway installation and impervious reductions recommended as a part of this project?
Summary: The annual Pavement Management Project rehabilitates several miles of local
residential streets. In 2022, the streets to be rehabilitated are in Pavement Management Area 8
(Fern Hill Neighborhood). Street rehabilitation work consists of replacing the existing bituminous
pavement, replacing the concrete curb and gutter as needed. Other work includes sidewalk
repairs, sewer repairs and watermain replacement.
There are Connect the Park sidewalk and bikeway segments in this project. Consistent with the
Living Streets policy, staff identify gaps in the existing sidewalk network . This resulted in
consideration of sidewalk gap segments as a part of this project. These sidewalk segments are
identified as “gap sidewalks” in this report.
In addition to the Connect the Park and gap sidewalks, several neighborhood residents asked the
city to explore the construction of additional sidewalks to provide more north-south pedestrian
connections. These sidewalk segments are identified as “resident feedback sidewalks ” in this
report.
Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city’s 2022 capital
improvement plan (CIP) and will be paid for using franchise fees, utility funds, and general fund
balance . A construction cost estimate is being finalized and will be provided as a part of the
Feb. 7 public hearing report.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Attachment #1: Recommendation maps
Attachment #2: Bik eway f easibility report
Attachment #3: Sid ewalk f easibility report
Attachment #4: Resident feedback – sid ewalk segments
Attachment #5: Resident feedback – proposed street width changes
Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, project engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Discussion
Background: The city’s pavement management program (PMP) proactively addresses the
condition of the residential streets within the city. Many of these streets are now 50 years of
age or more. The city’s residential streets are still in relatively good condition due to the fact
that the streets were built well, are generally situated on good soils, utilize curb and gutter for
drainage , and have been well maintained. City maintenance crews have continually worked to
keep residential streets in good condition using maintenance strate gies such as patching and
seal coating. However, as pavements age, more aggressive maintenance strategies are needed
to prolong their life.
The PMP was developed in 2003 to extend pavement life and enhance system-wide
performance in a cost-effective and efficient way by providing the right pavement strategy at
the right time. Using pavement management software, staff documents street condition ratings
and monitors their performance. Staff then evaluates the condition of streets and selects cost-
effective treatments to extend pavement life.
In addition to the needed street and utility work, the council has provided staff direction to look
at the Living Streets policy considerations as a part of our transportation projects. Consistent
with this policy, staff has reviewed the sidewalk network, stormwater runoff, traffic
management, and street trees.
Project description
This year’s project will be performed in Area 8 of the city’s eight pavement management areas.
It includes work on the west side of the Fern Hill neighborhood. The attached maps identify the
streets that have been selected for rehabilitation and outline the various work to be performed
on each street. The s election was based on street condition and field evaluations to determine
the condition of the pavement, curb and gutter, and the city’s underground utilities. A team of
staff members from streets, utilities, and engineering worked together to select streets and to
recommend appropriate rehabilitation techniques for inclusion in this year’s Pavement
Management Project.
Many of the street segments are proposed to include additional infrastructure upgrades such as
watermain replacement, sanitary sewer repairs, storm sewer construction, and sidewalk installation .
Watermain and water service replacement
The watermain on these streets is approximately 60-75 years old and experiencing deterioration.
The work will consist of replacing the watermain and the water services to the curb stop. The
watermain is approximately 7.5 feet deep and located under or near one of the curb lines,
running parallel to the street. To replace the watermain on a street segment, the asphalt
pavement and curb are removed, and the street is open cut to the depth of the watermain. The
removal of the entire curb line on at least one side of the street gives the city an opportunity to
modify the width of the roadway. There is more information on the proposed modifications to
the street widths later in this report.
The water services connect to the watermain and run to the curb stop and then to the house.
The curb stop is located between the curb and gutter and the right of way line. The city owns
the water service between the watermain and the curb stop, while the p roperty owner owns
the water service between the curb stop and the house.
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5 ) Page 3
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
As a part of this project, the water service is proposed to be replaced between the watermain
and the city-owned curb stop. The water service is also approximately 7.5 feet deep and must
be open cut to replace. Replacing water services has significant impacts on existing trees,
landscaping, sidewalks, driveways, retaining walls, etc.
Street widths
This is the sixth year that the city has taken the opportunity to right-size our streets as a part of
the Pavement Management Project. Doing so is consistent with council direction and the Living
Streets policy.
The majority of the roads in our residential neighborhoods are 28 feet wide or less. When we
are removing the curb along the entire length of at least one side of the road as a part of a
project, staff will recommend reducing the width of the street if it is greater than 28 feet wide
and has a low parking demand.
As noted previously, as a part of the project, we are replacing the watermain on several streets
in the neighborhood. This will require the removal of the curb on one or both side s of these
streets. Staff recommends reducing the widths of our streets for the following reasons:
1. Enhance pedestrian connections – by reducing the street width, pedestrians have a
shorter crossing distance at intersections, creating safer connections.
2. Traffic management – narrower streets can reduce vehicle speeds.
3. Stormwater management – a reduction in pavement area means less runoff going into
our lakes, wetlan ds, and Minnehaha Creek.
4. Support the urban forest – a wider grass boulevard provides more space for existing
street trees to thrive and for planting new trees.
5. Cost – narrower streets reduce the cost of initial construction and future maintenance
(i.e., pavement overlays, sweeping, salt application, snow plowing, etc.).
6. Less pavement reduces the potential for solar-generated heat, contributing to a
reduction in the urban heat island effect.
7. Reduction in construction-related greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled – reducing
the width of the streets will reduce the number of trucks hauling bituminous and
aggregate to the site during construction.
In single -family residential areas, not directly adjacent to a commercial node or high -density
housing, the majority of the available on-street parking is not used on a daily basis. The police
and f ire departments have reviewed our street width standards, and they do not have a
concern about a 28-foot wide road with parking on both sides.
When staff recommends reducing the street width to less than 28 feet, it is usually
accompanied by a recommendation to limit parking to one side of the street in order to address
concerns regarding emergency vehicle access. Ottawa Avenue , which is currently 26 feet wide ,
is already restricted to one -sided parking. There are no recommended parking restrictions due
to the proposed street width changes.
On the south side of 28th Street between Princeton Avenue and Monterey Parkway, the
sidewalk is at the back of the curb. This leaves no space for snow storage, street tree planting,
or infiltration of sidewalk stormwater runoff. Staff recommends reducing the width of the
street to 28 feet to create a grass boulevard that varies from 4 to 6 feet wide. This
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5 ) Page 4
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
recommendation is consistent with the city’s living streets policy. A graphic representing staff’s
street width recommendations is attached.
The following are the recommended street width changes:
Street segment Existing
(ft)
Proposed
(ft)
Toledo Avenue (28th Street to 27th Street) 30 28
Salem Avenue (27th Street to 26th Street) 30 28
Raleigh Avenue (Minnetonka Boulevard to 29th Street) 30 28
Raleigh Avenue (27th Street to 26th Street) 30 28
Quentin Avenue (Minnetonka Boulevard to 26th Street) 30 28
28th Street Avenue (Princeton Avenue to Monterey Parkway 30-34 28
The following streets are recommended to stay at their current width:
Street segment Existing
(ft)
Proposed
(ft)
Toledo Avenue (27th Street to 26th Street) 30 30
Salem Avenue (Minnetonka Boulevard to 28th Street) 30 30
Raleigh Avenue (29th Street to 27th Street) 30 30
Princeton Avenue (Ottawa Place to 27th Street) 21 21
Princeton Avenue (dead end to 26th Street) 34 34
Ottawa Avenue (Minnetonka Boulevard to 28th Street) 26 26
Ottawa Avenue (Ottawa Place to 27th Street) 21 21
Natchez Avenue (Minnetonka Boulevard to 29th Street 29 29
Monterey Parkway (29th Street to 28th Street) 29 29
Natchez Avenue (dead end to 26th Street) 30 30
29th Street (Toledo Avenue to Natchez Avenue) 30 30
28th Street (Toledo Avenue to Princeton Avenue) 30 30
Ottawa Place (Princeton Avenue to Ottawa Avenue ) 21 21
27th Street (Highway 100 to Ottawa Avenue) 30 30
26th Street (dead end to Barry Street) 44 44
A parking inventory was conducted on the streets recommended for width changes in the
neighborhood. On most streets, less than 20% of the available on -street parking is used, including
weekends. The segment of Quentin Ave nue (between 28th and 29th streets) and Raleigh Avenue
(between 26th and 27th streets) have a higher parking utilization ranging from 20 to 30%.
Parking restrictions
There are no proposed parking restrictions due to the street width changes, sidewalk
installation or bicycle facility . While some of the streets in the neighborhood are less than 28 ft
wide, there were no requests from property owners to restrict parking, so staff is not
recommending any changes to parking in the neighborhood.
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5 ) Page 5
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Traffic management
As part of the 2022 Pavement Management Project, the city sought to leverage an opportunity
to pilot traffic management elements within the Fern Hill neighborhood. Over the past several
years and from feedback heard during the initial project survey, neighborhood residents
expressed concerns such as cars not stopping at stop signs, speeding and cut-through traffic
from surrounding institutions. Residents expressed that the traffic at times made for an unsafe
and unpleasant environment for those walking, rolling, or playing in the neighborhood.
City staff intentionally utilized the pilot project method for testing traffic management
opportunities. Pilot projects utilize temporary, low -cost materials to test potential solutions
before committing significant resources on permanent infrastructure. Among the key benefits
of this approach is the ability to quickly install a project, test against real-world conditions,
adapt the design in real-time, and remove the project at the end of a duration period.
The pilot project intended to test and evaluate a series of traffic management solutions to mitigate
safety and operations concerns related to traffic moving through the Fern Hill neighborhood.
On Oct. 27, 2021, the city installed ten (10) neighborhood traffic circles (NTC) and three curb
extensions. Traffic volumes and speeds were taken before and during the installation period.
The planned timeframe was for the pilot project to be installed for 2-3 weeks. The pilot project
ended early on Nov. 9, 2021, due to contractor availability, expected wintry weather and
feedback received so far from the community.
During the time the pilot project was in place, the city received valuable feedback from the
community and collected data to help inform recommendations for the overall pavement
management project. Summary of the resident feedback was:
• Drivers not yielding at NTC or uncertain about traffic pattern
• Drivers going the wrong way through NTC
• Drivers not yielding to pedestrians
• Uncomfortable pedestrian experience at the NTCs that did not have sidewalks
A lesson learned from the pilot project, based on the pedestrian counts in the area of the pilot
project, is that NTCs may not be well suited for intersections without sidewalks, as the re is not
a dedicated space for pedestrians and the NTCs put pedestrians walking in the street closer to
vehicles in and around the NTC.
Based on public feedback and measured traffic impacts, the NTCs as designed did not result in a
reduction in vehicle speeds, counts, or increase in expressed pedestrian safety.
Due to the lack of change in traffic data/driver behavior and the expressed pedestrian safety
concerns heard from the neighborhood, staff is not recommending the permanent installation
of any of the traffic management solutions that were tested in the pilot project as a part of this
project.
Storm sewer
Staff has identified stormwater best management practices (BMPs) opportunities in order to
reduce runoff volume , reduce pollutants, and improve stormwater quality as a part of the
project. These include reducing the street’s impervious surface by 2.6%.
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5 ) Page 6
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Street trees
A tree inventory has been completed in the project area. This inventory reviewed the size,
species, health, and condition of all the trees within the project limits. As a part of the design,
staff worked to preserve existing boulevard trees to the maximum extent possible. There are a
number of trees that are being recommended for removal because of health, watermain
construction , or sidewalk construction. Tree replacement will be completed based on the city’s
tree ordinance. Street trees will be planted in the neighborhood the year following construction.
Sidewalk and bikeway feasibility review
At the April 19, 2021, study session , council gave staff direction on a feasibility review process
to be conducted for each proposed Connect the Park segment. This process would be applied
to each segment as they are designed and brought forward to the council for consideration. All
bikeway, sidewalk and trail will use the same criteria as a part of the feasibility review to inform
the comparative return on investment. This is the first project that staff has evaluated using this
process. Attached are the feasibility review reports for sidewalks and bikeways. Below is a
summary of the recommendations contained in these reports. This is the first application of the
feasibility review process. We can refine it for future projects based on city council feedback
and staff recommendations to increase its usefulness and ease of implementation.
Sidewalks
As a part of the project development, staff reviewed the neighborhood sidewalk network and
the Connect the Park plan. There are Connect the Park sidewalk segments in this project.
There are streets with existing sidewalks on one or both sides of the streets. This includes
streets with gaps in the sidewalk system. Some blocks have no sidewalks on either side.
Consistent with the Living Streets policy, staff evaluated the existing sidewalk network as a part
of this transportation project to identify gaps. For purposes of discussion, a “gap” is considered
a section of sidewalk that is missing on a continuous street block. This resulted in the
consideration of a few “gap sidewalk ” segments as a part of this project.
In addition to the Connect the Park and gap sidewalks, several neighborhood residents asked
the city to explore the construction of additional sidewalks to provide more north-south
walking options to the various destinations near the neighborhood. These sidewalk segments
are identified as “resident feedback sidewalks” in this report. The resident-requested sidewalk
segments on Monterey Parkway and Quentin Avenue were added early in the public process
due to feedback received from the survey questionnaire and interactive map. The resident
requested sidewalk segments on Salem Avenue and Raleigh Avenue we re added between Open
House #1 and #2 from email feedback from residents.
In all, 2.27 miles of sidewalk were identified to be considered as a part of this project. This
includes 0.39 miles of Connect the Park sidewalks , 0.18 miles of gap sidewalks and 1.70 miles of
resident feedback sidewalks.
The sidewalk segments were broken down block by block and evaluated individually for
impacts, costs, and returns. There are 23 different segments that were evaluated. Included in
the attached sidewalk feasibility report are the individual evaluation sheets for each of the
segments. Comments received at the public meetings and other communication from property
owners along with details on each segment, are on the individual segment pages.
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5 ) Page 7
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
These segments, if approved, would be constructed at no cost to the property owners, and the
city would be responsible for future repairs to defective sidewalk panels. Consistent with city
policy , sidewalk segments are designated as either neighborhood or community sidewalk .
Neighborhood sidewalks are the property owner’s responsibility for snow removal; community
sidewalks are the city’s responsibility. This designation is based on the following definitions:
Community sidewalks are located on a street that is directly adjacent to an activity
node. They make major connections within the city and to neighboring cities’ systems.
These pedestrian facilities (sidewalks and/or trails) are spaced roughly at ¼-mile
intervals across the city. Most of these sidewalks are located along collector and arterial
roadways that have high traffic volumes. In general, activity nodes are community or
area destinations such as; the library, schools, retail areas, parks, regional trails, transit
nodes, and places of worship.
Snow removal on community sidewalks is the city’s responsibility.
Neighborhood sidewalks are all other sidewalks in the city. They provide accessibility
for pedestrians within the immediate area and feed into the community sidew alk
system. These sidewalks are generally located on lower-volume roads.
Snow removal on neighborhood sidewalk is the property owner’s responsibility.
Recommended sidewalk segments
Staff used the feasibility review process to evaluate the recommended sidewalk network as a
whole , even though many of the sidewalk segments are not in the Connect the Park plan. The
table below is a summary of all the sidewalks evaluated for this project, along with staff
recommendations for construction in 2022. The bolded segments are sidewalks that staff
recommends for construction.
Staff is recommending that 12 segments or 1.11 miles of sidewalk be built as a part of this
project. This will result in sidewalk on at least one side of every north -south street west of
Ottawa Avenue.
The council has shared the importance of understanding the cost-effectiveness and return on
inves tment (ROI) that the recommended sidewalk network provides. In the attached sidewalk
feasibility report, the sidewalk segments are evaluated block by block for impacts, costs, and
returns. For each block, the impacts for sidewalk construction on both sides of the street were
evaluated, and usually , one side was recommended. Staff recommendation was based on the
side of the street with the lower impact and cost. Consistent with past council direction, special
attention was given to preserving street trees when all other impacts were similar.
The impacts to build these sidewalks are typical and the costs are within the CIP budget. The
installation is consistent with city’s updated Connect the Park goal of more livable
neighborhoods that provide convenient and safe ways to use low-carbon and no-carbon travel
methods. The expanded network of sidewalks removes barriers by filling in sidewalk gap s and
creates connections to the destinations in the Fern Hill neighborhood and beyond.
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5 ) Page 8
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Furthermore, the recommended sidewalks respond to requests from residents to have
additional sidewalks within the neighborhood. Building sidewalks along at least one side of the
north-south blocks creates a network of sidewalks in the Fern Hill neighborhood.
The resulting network remove s barriers to walking, create s a connected sidewalk network and
is consistent with the vision for the community. For these reasons, the recommended sidewalks
create a positive return on investment for the Fern Hill neighborhood and the community.
Number Description
Maintenance responsibility
Build in
2022?
1
Toledo Avenue – west side
(76 feet south of 26th Street to 26th Street)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident) Yes
2
Toledo Avenue – east side
(35 feet south of 26th Street to 26th Street)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident) Yes
3
Salem Avenue – west side
(27th Street to 26th Street)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident) Yes
4
Salem Avenue – east side
(27th Street to 26th Street)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident) No
5
Salem Avenue – west side
(28th Street to 27th Street)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident) No
6
Salem Avenue – east side
(28th Street to 27th Street)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident) Yes
7
Salem Avenue – west side
(29th Street to 28th Street)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident) Yes
8
Salem Avenue – east side
(29th Street to 28th Street)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident) No
9
Raleigh Avenue – west side
(28th Street to 27th Street)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident) No
10
Raleigh Avenue – east side
(28th Street to 27th Street)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident) Yes
11
Raleigh Avenue – west side
(29th Street to 28th Street)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident) Yes
12
Raleigh Avenue – east side
(29th Street to 28th Street)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident) No
13
Raleigh Avenue – west side
(Minnetonka Boulevard to 29th Street)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident) Yes
14
Raleigh Avenue – east side
(Minnetonka Boulevard to 29th Street)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident) No
15
Quentin Avenue – west side
(27th Street to 26th Street)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident) Yes
16
Quentin Avenue – east side
(27th Street to 26th Street)
Community sidewalk (City)
Yes
17
Quentin Avenue – east side
(28th Street to 27th Street)
Community sidewalk (City)
Yes
18
Ottawa Avenue – west side
(29th Street to 28th Street)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident) No
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5 ) Page 9
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
19
Ottawa Avenue – east side
(29th Street to 28th Street)
Community sidewalk (City)
Yes
20
Monterey Parkway – west side
(29th Street to 28th Street)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident) No
21
Monterey Parkway – east side
(29th Street to 28th Street)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident) No
22
28th Street – north side
(152 feet west of Salem Avenue to Salem
Avenue)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident)
No
23
27th Street – south side
(Highway 100 to 92 feet east of Highway 100)
Neighborhood sidewalk
(Resident) No
Bikeway
This project includes Connect the Park bikeway segments. All but one of the bikeway segments,
26th Street (Quentin Ave nue to France Ave nue ), are on streets included in the 2022 Pavement
Management project, which provides greater design flexibility, is more cost -effective and limits
the construction impact to one season. The bikeway segment on 26th Street (Quentin Ave nue
to France Ave nue) is outside the scope of the 2022 pavement management project.
Connect the Park alignment
Segment
Toledo Avenue (28th Street to 26th Street)
Ottawa Ave S (Minnetonka Boulevard to 28th Street)
Quentin Ave (28th Street to 26th Street)
28th Street (Quentin Ave nue to Ottawa Ave nue )
26th Street (Toledo Ave nue to Quentin Ave nue )
26th Street (Quentin Ave nue to France Ave nue)*
The city council has provided staff with direction to bring forward options for bikeways, both in
design type and location. So, in addition to the alignment in the Connect the Park plan, staff
identified an alternate route. The segments included in the alternate alignment are below. The
segments that differ between the alignments are in grey . 28th Street (Monterey Parkway to
France Ave nue) is a parallel route through the neighborhood and is not scheduled for pavement
replacement as a part of the 2022 Pavement management project.
Alternate alignment
Segment
Toledo Avenue (28th Street to 26th Street)
Ottawa Ave nue S (Minnetonka Boulevard to 28th Street)
Quentin Avenue (28th Street to 26th Street)
28th Street (Toledo Avenue to Quentin Ave nue )*
28th Street (Quentin Ave nue to Ottawa Ave nue )
28th Street (Ottawa Ave nue to France Ave nue )*
26th Street (Toledo Ave nue to Quentin Ave nue )
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5 ) Page 10
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
In the attached feasibility review , staff evaluated three bikeway options.
1. Connect the Park alignment – shared-use trail (north side)
2. Connect the Park alignment – shared-use trail (south side)
3. Alternate alignment – share the road bikeway
Please see that document for a complete discussion of the impacts, costs and returns for the
bikeway options.
Recommended bikeway segments
If the council would like to move forward with the installation of a bikeway as a part of the
2022 project, staff recommends option 3. Installing a bikeway on the alternate alignment will
provide the most comfort for potential users while still providing a bikeway connection through
the neighborhood. The table below is a summary of bikeway segments and bikeway type
recommended for construction in 2022.
Alternate alignment
Segment Interested but concerned
bikeway type
Toledo Avenue (28th Street to 26th Street) Share the Road
Ottawa Ave nue S (Minnetonka Boulevard to 28th Street) Share the Road
Quentin Ave nue (28th Street to 26th Street) Share the Road
28th Street (Toledo Ave nue to Quentin Ave nue)* Share the Road
28th Street (Quentin Avenue to Ottawa Avenue) Share the Road
28th Street (Ottawa Ave nue to France Ave nue)* Share the Road
26th Street (Toledo Ave nue to Quentin Ave nue) Share the Road
This recommendation is based on the relatively low impacts and cost. This route directly
connects destinations while still serving approximately the same population as the Connect the
Park alignment.
Staff does not recommend installing a bikeway on the original Connect the Park alignment ; this
is due to the extensive impacts to private properties in the corridor, tree removal, and cost.
Public process
There have been a number of opportunities for residents to learn more about the proposed
project and to provide feedback on the proposed plans. Notifications were done through
letters, postcards, neighborhood signs, neighborhood associations, NextDoor, GovDelivery, and
the city website. What follows is a summary:
1. Letter – Preliminary survey (August 2019)
o Staff sent a letter to the neighborhood notifying them that the data collection/
preliminary survey was to begin in preparation for the Pavement Management
project. This was the first letter to the neighborhood on this project.
2. Letter – Project delayed from 2021 to 2022 (April 2020)
o Staff sent a letter to the neighborhood to inform them that the project was
delayed from construction in 2021 to 2022 in response to the COVID-19
pandemic.
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5 ) Page 11
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
3. Postcard #1 – Survey questionnaire and interactive map (January 2021)
o A postcard was sent out to invite the neighborhood to provide feedback using a
survey questionnaire and interactive GIS map.
4. Postcard #2 – Summary of feedback received (September 2021)
o Staff sent a postcard to inform the neighborhood on the summary of feedback
received from the questionnaire and interactive map and that staff will use the
information to direct the design of the project.
5. Open house #1 (October 2021)
o The purpose of this open house was to provide attendees with the preliminary
design for streets and sidewalks. The preliminary plans show impacts to trees,
landscaping, retaining walls, etc. Residents were able to look at preliminary
layouts and provide feedback to staff. Many residents asked questions, wrote
post-it notes on the plans, and provided suggestions for modifications to this
preliminary design. Staff tried to incorporate these comments into a refined
design. Feedback from this meeting ultimately helped guide city staff on the final
designs.
o There were approximately 30 residents at this open house out of 519 letters
mailed .
6. Postcard #3 – Traffic management pilot project installation notice (October 2021)
o A postcard was sent out to the neighborhood informing on the what, why and
when for the temporary traffic management pilot project.
o The traffic management pilot project was conducted in response to resident
feedback regarding traffic behavior in the neighborhood. There were seve ral
temporary traffic modifications installed to address concerns regarding speeding
and stop sign compliance.
7. Letter – Additional sidewalk proposed on Salem and Raleigh avenues (November 2021)
o After the open house, the city received resident feedback to e xplore the
construction of additional sidewalks on Raleigh Avenue and Salem Avenue to
provide more north-south walking options to the various destinations near the
neighborhood. A letter was sent to residents on these two streets to notify them
that sidewalks were being evaluated.
8. Sidewalk Signs (November 2021)
o As another way of ensuring residents are notified of proposed sidewalks, the city
installed signs with QR code to the project website for each street where
sidewalks are being evaluated.
9. Open house #2 (January 2022)
o The purpose of this open house was to provide attendees with the staff
recommended final design for streets, sidewalks , bike faculty and traffic
management. The final plans show impacts to trees, landscaping, retaining walls,
etc. This was the last public information meeting before bringing this project to
city council for a public hearing and action.
o There were approximately 25 residents at this open house out of 519 letters
mailed.
10. City council study session report (Jan. 24, 2022)
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5) Page 12
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
o The study session report provides an overview of the project and staff
recommendations.
11.Public hearing city council meeting (Feb . 7, 2022)
o The public hearing will provide an opportunity for residents to speak to council
regarding the project.
12.Project approval city council meeting (Feb . 22, 2022)
o The council will then be asked to approve the project as recommended or
approve a modified project based on resident feedback.
If property owners were unable to attend the meetings, or if they had specific concerns that
they wanted to walk through, staff met with them on-site or virtually . Using the information
gathered from the open houses, individual site visits, virtual meetings, phone calls, and emails,
staff revised the sidewalk design to try to minimiz e the impacts within the right of way. When
impacts could not be avoided, staff proposed mitigation.
Engineering staff worked closely with operations and recreation staff to ensure the network of
sidewalk s being built would meet the objectives for tree preservation/replanting and
acceptable widths and design features for snow removal on community sidewalk segments.
Next steps: The proposed schedule for the segments recommended by staff to facilitate
const ruction in 2022 is as follows:
Council study session Jan. 24, 2022
Council public hearing Feb. 7, 2022
Council project approval Feb. 22, 2022
Council awards construction bids Early April 2022
Construction May to November 2022
29'30'30' to 28'26'30' to 28'30' to 28'30'30' to 28'30' to 28'30' to 28'44'
30'30'30'
30'30'30'30'30'
30'30'30'30'30'30'
30' to 28'30' to 28'34' to 28'21'26'
30'21'30'34'44'30'30'29'30' to 28'26'30' to 28'30'30'MONTEREY AVE SMONTEREY AVE SMINNETONKA BLVDMINNETONKA BLVD OTTAWA AVE SOTTAWA AVE S26TH ST W26TH ST W
NATCHEZ AVE SNATCHEZ AVE S28TH ST W28TH ST WUTICA AVE SUTICA AVE S29TH ST W29TH ST W
27TH ST W27TH ST W
HIGHWAY 100 SHIGHWAY 100 STOLEDO AVE STOLEDO AVE SRALEIGH AVE SRALEIGH AVE SQUENTIN AVE SQUENTIN AVE SPRINCETON AVE SPRINCETON AVE SSALEM AVE SSALEM AVE SMMOONNTTEERREEYYPPKKWW YYCarpenterCarpenter
ParkPark
Twin LakesTwin Lakes
ParkPark
Fern HillFern Hill
ParkPark
2022 Pavement Management Project
Staff recommendations: street rehabilitation, street widths, and utilities
Legend
Watermain replacement/Street
rehabilitation
Street rehabilitation Existing street width
Proposed street width changes
XX'XX' to XX'
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 13
MONTEREY AVE SMONTEREY AVE SMINNETONKA BLVDMINNETONKA BLVD OTTAWA AVE SOTTAWA AVE S26TH ST W26TH ST W
NATCHEZ AVE SNATCHEZ AVE S28TH ST W28TH ST WUTICA AVE SUTICA AVE S29TH ST W29TH ST W
27TH ST W27TH ST W
31ST ST W31ST ST WHIGHWAY 100 SHIGHWAY 100 STOLEDO AVE STOLEDO AVE SRALEIGH AVE SRALEIGH AVE SQUENTIN AVE SQUENTIN AVE SPRINCETON AVE SPRINCETON AVE SSALEM AVE SSALEM AVE SMMOONNTTEERREEYYPPKKWW YYCarpenterCarpenter
ParkPark
Twin LakesTwin Lakes
ParkPark
Fern HillFern Hill
ParkPark
´
2022 Pavement Management Project
Staff recommendations: sidewalks and snow removal responsibility
Legend
Sidewalk not recommended
Sidewalk recommended
Existing sidewalk
Existing trails
Sidewalk/trail snow removal by citySW #1SW #2SW #3SW #4SW #5SW #6SW #7SW #8SW #9SW #10SW #11SW #12SW #13SW #14SW #15SW #16SW #17SW #18SW #19SW #20SW #21
SW #22
SW #23
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 14
BARRY STBARRY STQQUUEENNTTIINNCCttOTTAWA AVE SOTTAWA AVE SOTTAWA PLOTTAWA PL
28TH ST W28TH ST W
29TH ST W29TH ST WUTICA AVE SUTICA AVE S27TH ST W27TH ST W
26TH ST W26TH ST W
RALEIGH AVE SRALEIGH AVE SPRINCETON AVE SPRINCETON AVE STOLEDO AVE STOLEDO AVE SHIGHWAY 100 SHIGHWAY 100 SSSEERRVVIICCEEDDRRHHIIGGHHWWAAYY110000SSQUENTIN AVE SQUENTIN AVE SSALEM AVE SSALEM AVE STwin LakesTwin Lakes
ParkPark
0500 1,000250
Feet
´
2022 Pavement Management Project
Staff recommendations: traffic management
Legend
Traffic circle locations not recommended
Curb extension locations not recommended
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 15
HHIIGGHHWWAAYY110000SSIINNGGLLEEWWOOOODDAAVVEESSGGLLEENNHHUURRSSTTAAVVEESSCEDAR LAKE AVECEDAR LAKE AVE
MINNETONKA BLVDMINNETONKA BLVDOTTAWA AVE SOTTAWA AVE SJOPPA AVE SJOPPA AVE SNATCHEZ AVE SNATCHEZ AVE S28TH ST W28TH ST W
29TH ST W29TH ST W
SSUUNNSSEE TT BB LLVV DD
2277TTHH SSTT WW
22 66 TT HH SS TT WW
CEDAR SHOR
E
CEDAR SHORE
DRDR
CEDAR
S
T
CEDAR
S
T
FRANCE AVE SFRANCE AVE SKIPLING AVE SKIPLING AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SMONTEREY AVE SMONTEREY AVE SLYNN AVE SLYNN AVE SSSEERRVVIICCEEDDRRHHIIGGHHWWAAYY110000SSTOLEDO AVE STOLEDO AVE SRALEIGH AVE SRALEIGH AVE SQUENTIN AVE SQUENTIN AVE SPRINCETON AVE SPRINCETON AVE SSALEM AVE SSALEM AVE SMMOONNTTEERREEYYPPKKWW YYCC OO UU NN TT YY RR OO AA DD 22 55
BARRY STBARRY ST
CarpenterCarpenter
ParkPark
Twin LakesTwin Lakes
ParkPark
Fern HillFern Hill
ParkPark
Legend
Share the road bike facility recommended
Bike facility not recommended at this time
Existing Bikeway
Existing trails
Municipal Boundaries
Staff Recommendations - Bikeways
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
Pavement Management Area 8, Fern Hill
Project no. 4021-1000
Introduction: The engineering department has completed the design of the 2022 Pavement
Management Project. This project includes rehabilitation of several miles of local residential
streets in the Fern Hill neighborhood. As part of the project development, sidewalks and
bikeways identified in the city’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) have been evaluated for
inclusion into the project.
The following feasibly review focuses on the bikeways identified as part of the Connect the Park
CIP. As a part of project development, the alignments that were included in the Connect the
Park plan was evaluated as well as an alternate route that meets the criteria (discussed later in
this report) of an interim design and the interested but concerned cyclist.
Feasibility review: The process includes using the following criteria to determine return on
investment (ROI).
1.Scope
Understanding the scope of the project is key for putting together the impacts and costs.
This report is a feasibility review for proposed Connect the Park bikeway segments; the
original alignment is shown on exhibit A.
All but one of the bikeway segments, 26th Street (Quentin Avenue to France Avenue), are
on streets included in the 2022 Pavement Management project, which provides greater
design flexibility, is more cost-effective and limits the construction impact to one season.
During the initial review of the Connect the Park alignment for this bikeway, it became
apparent that an alternate alignment should be reviewed. The reasons for this are discussed
in the next section. The alternate alignment is shown on exhibit B. The bikeway segment on
28th Street (Monterey Parkway to France Avenue) is outside the scope of the 2022
pavement management project.
26th Street (Quentin Avenue to France Avenue) and 28th Street (Monterey Parkway to
France Avenue) are parallel routes through the neighborhood. 26th Street carries a higher
volume of traffic and is also used as a transit route.
2.Data
Before beginning design, data is collected to help inform the bikeway design
recommendations. For the segments of the bikeway on streets included in the 2022
Pavement Management project, this data was collected as a part of the larger project.
However, the bikeway segments on 26th Street (Quentin Avenue to France Avenue) and
28th Street (Monterey Parkway to France Avenue) were not scheduled for pavement
replacement. To understand how much additional data needed to be collected for the
bikeway segments not scheduled for pavement replacement, we first needed to identify the
recommended bikeway design.
Page 17 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 2 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
The Connect the Park plan was developed with the premise that the city would install on-
street bike lanes. Since the approval of the plan in 2013, bikeway design and the
expectations of the bikeway facilities within the community have evolved.
Bikeway facility type is informed by an understanding of the different types of bicyclists and
consideration of the relationship between the bicyclist and the street network.
Characteristics commonly used to classify design user profiles are comfort level, bicycling
skill and experience, age, and trip purpose. Selecting the design user profile is often the first
step in assessing the type of bicycle facility.
A study by researchers at Portland State University found that of adults who are interested
in bicycling, there are three types of potential and existing bicyclists as shown in Figure 1:
highly confident bicyclists, somewhat confident bicyclists, and interested but concerned
bicyclists. Each user has a different tolerance for traffic stress when bicycling.
Figure 1- Bicyclist Design User Profiles
source: Bikeway Selection Guide (Federal Highway Administration)
To determine the bikeway design recommendations, staff did an initial review of roadway
characteristics to establish the level of traffic stress. To appeal to the most potential riders,
consideration would be given to the interested but concerned bicyclist.
Page 18 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 3 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
The level of traffic stress (LTS) is a way to evaluate the stress a bike rider will experience
while riding. Whether or not people will bicycle is heavily influenced by the stresses they
encounter on their trip. Motor vehicle speed and volume increase the LTS for bicyclists. It is
used to categorize roads by the types of riders who will be willing to use them based on
traffic speed, volume, and the type of bike facility. In general, the user served is dependent
on the LTS, and the LTS can be reduced by the type of facility constructed.
Due to the interdependence of user served and bicycle facilities, staff first reviewed the LTS
for the individual road segments. Staff consulted industry design guidance to determine the
type of bikeway facility for each LTS. This includes numerous sources such as the National
Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT), and Municipal State Aid
manual.
In some cases, a bicycle facility will meet the minimum design guidance but may fall short of
the interested but concerned criteria. In most cases, the minimum design guidance bikeway
will still reduce the level of traffic stress on the roadway. See Table 1 below for types of
bicycle facilities needed to meet the minimum design guidance and the interested but
concerned design:
Figure 2: LTS and bicycle user profiles
source: Minnesota Bicycle Facility Design Manual
Page 19 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 4 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
Table 1
Level of Traffic
Stress
(LTS)
Minimum design
guidance
Interested but concerned design
1 Share the road Share the road
2 Share the road /
bicycle lane
Bicycle lane/ buffered bicycle lane/
protected bicycle lane
3 Bicycle lane Buffered bicycle lane/ protected
bicycle lane/ shared-use trail
4 Protected bicycle lane/
separated bicycle lane/
shared-use trail
Protected bicycle lane/ separated
bicycle lane/ shared-use trail
For this project, staff evaluated two alignments for the proposed bikeway: the alignment
that was identified in the Connect the Park plan (Table 2) and an alternate alignment (Table
3)through the neighborhood. The following is a list of roadway characteristics and the
associated LTS for each bikeway alignment:
Table 2
Connect the Park alignment
Segment Vehicle
volume
Average
speed
Level of
traffic
stress
Toledo Avenue (28th Street to 27th Street) 103 21 1
Toledo Avenue (27th Street to 26th Street) 114 21 1
Ottawa Avenue S (Minnetonka Blvd to 29th Street) 720 21 1
Ottawa Avenue S (29th Street to 28th Street) 452 20 1
Quentin Avenue (28th Street to 27th Street) 957 23 1
Quentin Avenue (27th Street to 26th Street) 693 20 1
28th Street (Quentin Avenue to Princeton Avenue) 752 23 1
28th Street (Princeton Avenue to Ottawa Avenue) 785 25 1
26th Street (Toledo Avenue to Salem Avenue) 157 19 1
26th Street (Salem Avenue to Raleigh Avenue) 560 26 1
26th Street (Raleigh Avenue to Quentin Avenue) 1,043 21 1
26th Street (Quentin Avenue to France Avenue)* 2,600 32 3
Page 20 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 5 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
Table 3
Alternate alignment
Segment Vehicle
volume
Average
speed
Level of
stress
Toledo Avenue (28th Street to 27th Street) 103 21 1
Toledo Avenue (27th Street to 26th Street) 114 21 1
Ottawa Avenue S (Minnetonka Blvd to 29th Street) 720 21 1
Ottawa Avenue S (29th Street to 28th Street) 452 20 1
Quentin Avenue (28th Street to 27th Street) 957 23 1
Quentin Avenue (27th Street to 26th Street) 693 20 1
28th Street (Toledo Avenue to Salem Avenue)* 89 19 1
28th Street (Salem Avenue to Raleigh Avenue)* 199 22 1
28th Street (Raleigh Avenue to Quentin Avenue)* 340 22 1
28th Street (Quentin Avenue to Princeton Avenue) 752 23 1
28th Street (Princeton Avenue to Ottawa Avenue) 785 25 1
28th Street (Ottawa Avenue to France Avenue)* 680 25 1
26th Street (Toledo Avenue to Salem Avenue) 157 19 1
26th Street (Salem Avenue to Raleigh Avenue) 560 26 1
26th Street (Raleigh Avenue to Quentin Avenue) 1,043 21 1
*segments that differ between the two alignments
In general, a share the road bikeway design will meet the needs of the interested but
concerned bicyclist on LTS 1 streets (low-speed/low-volume streets). The data for the LTS 1
streets is similar and is summarized in Table 4:
Page 21 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 6 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
Table 4
Toledo Avenue (26th Street to 28th Street)
Ottawa Avenue (Minnetonka Boulevard to 28th Street)
Quentin Avenue (26th Street to 29th Street)
26th Street (Toledo Avenue to France Avenue)
28th Street (Toledo Avenue to Quentin Avenue)
Level of Traffic Stress 1
Traffic volumes 103-1,043 vehicles/day
Traffic speeds (average) Less than 26 mph
(Data collected prior to 20 mph posted speed limit)
Existing right of way 50 to 60 feet
Street width The available space in the right of way varies from street
to street and even between each side of the street on a
block. Usually, it is 11 feet to 17.5.
Space between curb and
right of way
The available space in the right of way varies from street
to street and even between each side of the street on a
block. Usually, it is 11 feet to 17.5.
Existing sidewalk/trails There are streets with existing sidewalks on one or both
sides of the streets. This includes streets with gaps in the
sidewalk system. Some blocks have no sidewalks on either
side.
Trees There are trees in the boulevard along all street segments
Topography of boulevard While generally flat, there are areas where the slope
results in the need to construct retaining walls.
Driveways The number of driveways varies from 1 to 12 driveways
for each street segment.
Utilities in right of way There are power poles and fiber handholes. Other utilities
that could be observed are gas and communications lines.
Drainage There is adequate drainage throughout the neighborhood.
Destinations Schools, places of worship, transit, commercial buildings,
and parks. See exhibit A for specific facilities within this
neighborhood.
Building setbacks All homes are at least 30 feet from the right of way.
Page 22 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 7 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
The Connect the Park alignment includes a bikeway segment on 26th Street (Quentin
Avenue to France Avenue). The data for this LTS 3 street shown in Table 5 is significantly
different for this road when compared to the rest of the segments.
Table 5
26th Street (Quentin Avenue to France Avenue)
Level of Traffic Stress 3
Traffic volumes 2,600 vehicles/day
Traffic speeds (50th
percentile)
32 mph
(Data collected before city went to 20 mph posted speed
limit)
Existing right of way 60 feet (Barry Street to Monterey Avenue)
40 to 50 feet (Monterey Avenue to France Avenue)
Street width 32 feet (Barry Street to Monterey Avenue)
29.5 feet (Monterey Avenue to France Avenue)
Space between curb and
right of way
North side: 0 to 5 feet
South Side: 6 to 15 feet
Existing sidewalk/trails North Side (Barry Street to Monterey Avenue) and
(Huntington Avenue to France Avenue): 6-foot wide
sidewalk, with a 5-foot grass boulevard. The sidewalk
along Twin Lakes Park is at the back of the curb, with no
grass boulevard.
South side (Monterey Avenue to France Avenue): There is
a sidewalk along the south side of this street, between
Monterey and France avenues. The sidewalk is 6 feet wide
and is at the back of the curb. There is not a grass
boulevard.
Trees There are approximately 25 trees public trees within the
right of way along this street segment.
Topography of boulevard While generally flat, there are areas where the slope
results in the need to construct retaining walls.
Driveways There are 20 driveways on this street segment.
Utilities in right of way There are power poles and fiber handholes. Other utilities
that could be observed are gas and communications lines.
Drainage There is adequate drainage throughout the neighborhood.
Destinations Schools, places of worship, transit, commercial buildings,
and parks. See exhibit A for specific destinations within
this neighborhood.
Building setbacks There are 23 homes between Monterey Avenue and
France Avenue. Fourteen of them are less than 20 feet
from the curb.
Page 23 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 8 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
3.Design
The city council has asked staff to bring forward options for bikeway types. As a part of this
feasibility review, staff will evaluate options for an interim and interested but concerned
bikeway design for both the Connect the Park alignment and the alternate alignment.
•Interim bikeway design – Many Connect the Park bikeways are proposed to be
installed on road segments not scheduled for pavement replacement. When this
happens, staff will look for an interim design. This design would strike a balance with
the existing roadway and context of the surrounding area while still meeting the
industry design guidance. In most cases, the interim bikeway will reduce the traffic
stress on the roadway for bicyclists. In some cases, it will also meet the needs of the
interested but concerned bicyclist.
•Interested but concerned bikeway design – this is the bikeway type that will provide
the most comfort for people who want to use it. On LTS 3 and 4 streets, it can also
require significant changes to the roadway corridor.
Table 6 identifies the recommended bikeway type for the Connect the Park alignment and
Table 7 identifies the recommended bikeway for the Alternative alignment.
Table 6
Connect the Park alignment
Bikeway segment Level of
traffic
stress
Interim bikeway
type
Interested but
concerned
bikeway type
Toledo Avenue (28th Street to 27th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
Toledo Avenue (27th Street to 26th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
Ottawa Avenue S (Minnetonka Blvd to 29th
Street)
1 Share the Road Share the Road
Ottawa Ave S (29th Street to 28th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
Quentin Ave (28th Street to 27th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
Quentin Ave (27th Street to 26th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
26th Street (Toledo Ave to Salem Ave) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
26th Street (Salem Ave to Raleigh Ave) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
26th Street (Raleigh Ave to Quentin Ave) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
26th Street (Quentin Ave to France Ave)* 3 Bicycle lane/
shared-use trail
Buffered bicycle
lane/ protected
bicycle lane/
shared-use trail
*segments that differ between the two alignments
Page 24 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 9 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
Table 7
Alternate alignment
Segment Level of
stress
Interim bikeway
design
Interested but
concerned
bikeway design
Toledo Avenue (28th Street to 27th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
Toledo Avenue (27th Street to 26th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
Ottawa Ave S (Minnetonka Blvd to 29th
Street)
1 Share the Road Share the Road
Ottawa Ave S (29th Street to 28th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
Quentin Ave (28th Street to 27th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
Quentin Ave (27th Street to 26th Street) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
28th Street (Toledo Ave to Salem Ave)* 1 Share the Road Share the Road
28th Street (Salem Ave to Raleigh Ave)* 1 Share the Road Share the Road
28th Street (Raleigh Ave to Quentin Ave)* 1 Share the Road Share the Road
28th Street (Quentin Ave to Princeton Ave) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
28th Street (Princeton Ave to Ottawa Ave) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
28th Street (Ottawa Ave to France Ave)* 1 Share the Road Share the Road
26th Street (Toledo Ave to Salem Ave) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
26th Street (Salem Ave to Raleigh Ave) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
26th Street (Raleigh Ave to Quentin Ave) 1 Share the Road Share the Road
*segments that differ between the two alignments
4.Impacts and cost
Often on streets with a high level of traffic stress, the bikeway design will change with the
corridors. These changes include physical impacts to the environment, private and public
property. There are also financial considerations, including cost, operation, maintenance,
and general levy. Below is a summary of this information for the different options reviewed.
Connect the Park alignment: Interim design
Staff is not recommending an interim design for the Connect the Park (CTP) bikeway
alignment. This is primarily due to the segment of 26th Street between Monterey
Avenue and France Avenue. Due to the level of stress, a share the road bicycle facility
does not meet the minimum design guidance for this road. While bicycle lanes meet the
design guidance for this segment, the road is not wide enough to accommodate them.
To fit two bicycle lanes and two driving lanes requires a street that is at least 30 feet
wide. This street segment is only 29.5 feet wide, so there is not adequate room to install
bicycle lanes without widening the street.
Since this road has a bus route, the road would have to be further widened by 10 feet at
each bus stop to provide space for the bus to pick up and drop off riders without
Page 25 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 10 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
blocking the bike lane. The road sits in 40 to 50 feet of right of way. The bus pull-offs
would require the road to be 38 feet wide at a single bus stop, and 46 feet wide where
there are bus stops across from each other on the road. There is not adequate right of
way for this design. Purchasing the necessary right of way would result in significant
impacts to private property. These impacts are discussed as a part of the interested but
concerned bicycle design.
Connect the Park alignment: Interested but concerned design
In general, most of the CTP alignment is on roads with a LTS of 1. A share the road
bikeway design will meet the needs of the interested but concerned bicyclist on LTS 1
streets (low-speed/low-volume streets). This type of bicycle facility will fit within the
existing road footprint and there will be no impacts to public or private property. Due to
this, we did not include a table showing the impacts on these street segments.
However, 26th Street (Quentin Avenue to France Avenue) has an LTS 3 and interested
but concerned bicyclists will be looking for a buffered bicycle lane, protected bicycle
lane, or shared-use trail. Due to the presence of a bus route on this road and limited
right of way, no on-street bikeways were evaluated for this design. The bikeway design
that would meet the needs of the interested but concerned users is a shared-use trail.
The following options were reviewed and the impacts are shown in Table 8:
•Shared use trail (north side): the existing sidewalk on the south side of the street
would remain and a 10-foot-wide trail would be constructed on the north side of the
road at the back of the curb. To fit this design into the existing right of way, the
street would be narrowed by 6 feet.
•Shared use trail (south side): the existing sidewalk on the south side would be
removed and a 10-foot-wide trail constructed in its place. To fit this design into the
existing right of way, the street would be narrowed by 4 feet.
Table 8
Interested but concerned design
26th Street (Quentin Avenue to France Avenue)
Physical impacts-
environmental
Shared-use trail (north side) Shared-use trail (south side)
Tree removal 52 trees would be removed. This
includes both public and private
trees.
58 trees would be removed.
This includes both public and
private trees.
Impervious change Increase by 10% (13,120 SF) to
the impervious that is directly
connected to the storm sewer
system.
The street is being narrowed to
accommodate the trail. This
results in no increase to directly
connected impervious.
Physical impacts -private Shared-use trail (north side) Shared-use trail (south side)
Total private properties 14 properties 19 properties
Page 26 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 11 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
Driveway parking The driveways at two homes
would be too short to park cars
in without blocking the trail:
2538 Kipling Avenue and 2544
Lynn Avenue
The driveways at four homes
would be too short to park cars
in without blocking the trail:
2601 Monterey Avenue, 2600
Lynn Avenue, 2601 Lynn
Avenue, and 2600 Kipling
Avenue
Right of way acquisition 1 to 5 feet of right of way would
need to be purchased from 14
properties: 2517 Quentin Court,
2509 Princeton Court, 2552
Monterey Avenue, 2563
Monterey Avenue, 2544 Lynn
Avenue, 2541 Lynn Avenue,
2538 Kipling Avenue, 2537
Kipling Avenue, 2538 Joppa
Avenue, 2537 Joppa Avenue,
2536 Inglewood Avenue, 2537
Inglewood Avenue, 2544
Huntington Avenue, and 2545
Huntington Avenue
1 to 5 feet of right of way
would need to be purchased
from 16 properties: 2600
Glenhurst Avenue, 2601
Huntington Avenue, 2600
Huntington Avenue, 2601
Inglewood Avenue, 2600
Inglewood Avenue, 2601 Joppa
Avenue, 2600 Joppa Avenue,
2600 Kipling Avenue 2601 Lynn
Avenue, 2600 Lynn Avenue,
2601 Monterey Avenue, 2600
Monterey Avenue, 4801 26th
Street, 2601 Princeton Avenue,
2600 Princeton Avenue, and
2600 Quentin Avenue
Building setbacks House setback would be
reduced and the trail would be
less than 10 feet from 4 houses:
2541 Lynn Avenue,2544 Lynn
Avenue, 2537 Kipling Avenue
and 2538 Kipling Avenue.
There would be significant
impact to 2544 Lynn Ave. The
trail would be 8 feet from the
front door of the home. It may
not be possible to maintain
access to their front door. Due
to this, it may require purchase
of the home
House setback would be
reduced and the trail would be
less than 10 feet from 13
houses: 2600 Huntington
Avenue, 2601 Inglewood
Avenue, 2601 Joppa Avenue,
2600 Joppa Avenue, 2600
Kipling Avenue, 2601 Lynn
Avenue, 2601 Lynn Avenue,
2600 Lynn Avenue, 2601
Monterey Avenue, 2600
Monterey Avenue, 2601
Princeton Avenue, 2600
Princeton Avenue, and 2600
Quentin Avenue
Fences Three fences would need to be
removed and relocated at: 2552
Monterey Avenue, 2541 Lynn
Avenue, and 2537 Joppa Avenue
Nine fences would need to be
removed and relocated at:
2600 Glenhurst Avenue, 2600
Huntington Avenue, 2600
Inglewood Avenue, 2601 Joppa
Page 27 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 12 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
Avenue, 2600 Joppa Avenue,
2600 Kipling Avenue, 2601
Monterey Avenue, and 2603
Quentin Avenue
Landscaping Seven private landscaping areas
would need to be removed at:
2544 Huntington Avenue, 2537
Inglewood Avenue, 2538 Kipling
Avenue, 2544 Lynn Avenue,
2563 Monterey Avenue, 2552
Monterey Avenue, and 2509
Princeton Court
Eight private landscaping areas
would need to be removed at:
2600 Joppa Avenue, 2600
Kipling Avenue, 2601 Lynn
Avenue, 2600 Lynn Avenue
4801 26th Street, 2601
Princeton Avenue, 2603
Quentin Avenue, and 2600
Quentin Avenue
Private utility relocations There are three power poles
that will need to be relocated
There are 18 power poles that
will need to be relocated
Physical impacts - public Shared-use trail (north side) Shared-use trail (south side)
Street modifications:
Lane width reduction,
change of number of lanes
or street width
The road would be narrowed by
6 feet.
The road would be narrowed by
4 feet
On-street parking On-street parking: Parking would be restricted between Barry
Street and Monterey Avenue on the south side of the road. Parking
on the north side of the road at Twin Lakes Park would be
preserved.
Currently, there is no parking allowed on either side of the road
between Monterey Avenue and France Avenue.
Retaining walls needed There are 2 locations where an
existing retaining wall will need
to be removed and
reconstructed: 2544 Lynn
Avenue and 2563 Monterey
Avenue
The 4 locations where a new
retaining wall is required due to
slope of the boulevard:
2544 Huntington Avenue, 2537
Inglewood Avenue, 2536
Inglewood Avenue, and 2537
Joppa Avenue
There are 9 locations where an
existing retaining wall will need
to be removed and
reconstructed: 2600 Glenhurst
Avenue, 2601 Huntington
Avenue, 2600 Huntington
Avenue, 2600 Inglewood
Avenue, 2600 Joppa Avenue,
2601 Lynn Avenue, 2601
Monterey Avenue, 2600
Monterey Avenue, and 2600
Quentin Avenue
The 5 locations where a new
retaining wall is required due to
slope of the boulevard:
Page 28 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 13 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
2600 Glenhurst Avenue, 2601
Huntington Avenue, 2665
Natchez Avenue, 2600 Natchez
Avenue, and 2600 Quentin
Avenue
Financial Shared-use trail (north side) Shared-use trail (south side)
Cost The estimated cost to design and build either trail is $2,200,000.
This does not include the cost to purchase right of way and replace
private landscaping.
The cost to install the Share the road bikeway on the other
segments in the neighborhood is $115,000.
Total bikeway cost $2,315,000.
Budget vs. estimated costs The CIP estimate to install this bikeway is $300,000.
Operations and
maintenance costs
Snow removal on the new trail
would be the city’s
responsibility.
Since this option removes a
sidewalk and replaces it with a
trail, there are no additional
operations and maintenance
costs.
General levy If general obligation bonds are used to pay for the bikeway, there
would be an increase in the general levy over what has been
factored into the council’s budget discussions to date.
Social capital
•Neighborhood
reception/ acceptance
•Community reception/
acceptance
•Public input
Most of the feedback received for bikeways has been from
residents that live along the streets scheduled for pavement
replacement and with focus on those segments.
We have received no community feedback on these bikeway
segments and have not met with impacted property owners.
Due to this, if council would like to pursue a bikeway on 26th
Street east of Ottawa, staff recommends additional community
engagement.
Alternate alignment:
All segments of the alternate alignment are on roads with an LTS of 1. A share the road
bikeway design will meet the needs of the interested but concerned bicyclist on LTS 1
streets (low-speed/low-volume streets). Therefore, we are not evaluating an interim
bikeway for the alternate alignment. This type of bicycle facility will fit within the
existing road footprint and there will be no impacts to public or private property. See
Table 9 for impacts and costs.
Page 29 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 14 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
Table 9
Interested but concerned design
Alternate alignment
Physical impacts-
environmental
Tree removal None
Impervious change
Physical impacts -private
Driveway parking None
Right of way acquisition None
Building setbacks None
Fences None
Landscaping None
Private utility relocations None
Physical impacts - public
Street modifications:
Lane width reduction,
change of number of lanes
or street width
None
On-street parking None
Retaining walls needed None
Financial
Cost The estimated cost to design and build the Share the road
bikeway is $300,000
Budget vs. estimated costs The city’s CIP estimate to install this bikeway is $300,000.
Operations and maintenance
costs
There are no additional operations and maintenance costs.
General levy The estimated cost is within the budget for this project. As a
result, general levy impacts have already been factored into
council budget discussions.
Social capital
•Neighborhood
reception/ acceptance
•Community reception/
acceptance
•Public input
Most of the feedback received for bikeways has been from
residents that live along the streets scheduled for pavement
replacement. The most common question was would the
bikeway remove on-street parking, which is not necessary to
install a share the road bikeway. We have received no
community feedback on these bikeway segments.
Page 30 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 15 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
5.Returns
Destinations Connected: Exhibit A shows the various destinations connected with the
Connect the Park alignment. Exhibit B shows the various destinations within the
neighborhood that the alternate route will connect. Both alignments connect many
important destinations within and adjacent to the Fern Hill neighborhood.
Population served: The Connect the Park and alternate alignment bikeway routes serve the
following populations. The table includes residents within St. Louis Park (SLP) and
Minneapolis (Mpls) due to the 0.5-mile buffer of the east end of the 26th Street and 28th
Street bikeways.
Table 10
Population served
(within 0.5 mile)
Connect the Park Alignment Alternate Alignment
Within SLP Within Mpls Within SLP Within Mpls
Number of residents
within 0.5 mile 8868 804 8761 1851
Age
Under 5 years 6% 6% 6% 3%
5 - 19 years 14% 7% 14% 3%
20 - 64 years 67% 49% 67% 75%
65 and up 13% 38% 13% 19%
Race
White 77% 90% 77% 88%
BIPOC 23% 10% 23% 12%
Gender
Male 48% 49% 48% 53%
Female 52% 51% 52% 47%
Barriers overcome: Highway 100 is a barrier to the west of the neighborhood. There is an
existing bicycle/ pedestrian bridge over the highway at 28th Street. There is a bikeway on
France Avenue. This bikeway will create a connection to this bridge for users, promoting a
safe, comfortable, low-carbon/ no-carbon travel method option for travel through this
neighborhood.
Safety: The recommended bikeways offer a convenient, low-stress access to local
destinations through the neighborhood. This route is designed for people of all ages and
abilities. The bikeway will increase comfort for users and promote safety. Designating a
bikeway through the neighborhood will raise awareness for drivers to watch for bicycles.
6.Return on investment (ROI)
At past study sessions, the council discussed the importance of determining the cost-
effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) the recommended bikeway alignment
provides to the city. Staff evaluated the impacts, costs, and returns for the recommended
Page 31 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 16 of 16
Bikeway Feasibility Review
bikeways to develop a ROI for this project. This feasibility report provided this analysis for
the following bikeway options.
1.Connect the Park alignment – shared-use trail (north side)
2.Connect the Park alignment – shared-use trail (south side)
3.Alternate alignment – share the road bikeway
The conclusion from the evaluation is that staff is recommending option 3. This
recommendation is based on the relatively low impacts and lower costs. This route directly
connects destinations, while still serving approximately the same population as the Connect
the Park alignment.
Staff does not recommend installing a bikeway on the original Connect the Park alignment;
this is due to the extensive impacts to private properties in the corridor, tree removal, and
high cost.
The installation of this bikeway is consistent with city’s updated Connect the Park goal of a
more livable neighborhoods that provide convenient and safe ways to use low-carbon and
no-carbon travel methods.
Additionally, the installation of the bikeway is consistent with city’s strategic priorities to
“be committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the
city, comfortably, safely, and reliably.”
This bikeway will provide the most comfort for potential users while still providing a
bikeway connection through the neighborhood. For these reasons, the alternate alignment
bikeway creates a positive return on investment for the Fern Hill neighborhood and the
community.
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Connect the Park bikeway alignment: Destinations connected
Exhibit B: Alternate bikeway alignment: Destinations connected
Page 32 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
HHIIGGHHWWAAYY110000SSIINNGGLLEEWWOOOODDAAVVEESSGGLLEENNHHUURRSSTTAAVVEESSCEDAR LAKE AVECEDAR LAKE AVE
MINNETONKA BLVDMINNETONKA BLVDOTTAWA AVE SOTTAWA AVE SJOPPA AVE SJOPPA AVE SNATCHEZ AVE SNATCHEZ AVE S28TH ST W28TH ST W
29TH ST W29TH ST W
SSUUNNSSEE TT BB LLVV DD
2277TTHH SSTT WW
22 66 TT HH SSTT WW
CEDAR SHOR
E
CEDAR SHORE
DRDR
CEDAR
S
T
CEDAR
S
T
FRANCE AVE SFRANCE AVE SKIPLING AVE SKIPLING AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SMONTEREY AVE SMONTEREY AVE SLYNN AVE SLYNN AVE SSSEERRVVIICCEEDDRRHHIIGGHHWWAAYY110000SSTOLEDO AVE STOLEDO AVE SRALEIGH AVE SRALEIGH AVE SQUENTIN AVE SQUENTIN AVE SPRINCETON AVE SPRINCETON AVE SSALEM AVE SSALEM AVE SMMOONNTTEERREEYYPPKKWW YYCC OO UU NN TT YY RR OO AA DD 22 55
BARRY STBARRY ST
CarpenterCarpenter
ParkPark
Twin LakesTwin Lakes
ParkPark
Fern HillFern Hill
ParkPark
Legend
Connect The Park alignment
Existing bikeway
Minneapolis existing and planned bikeway
Existing trail
METRO bus stop
METRO bus route 17
METRO bus route 25
Faith center
Parks
Municipal boundary
Connect the Park alignment: destinations connected
M i n n e a p o l i sBeth El SynagogueBeth El Synagogue
Exhibit A
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 33
HHIIGGHHWWAAYY110000SSIINNGGLLEEWWOOOODDAAVVEESSGGLLEENNHHUURRSSTTAAVVEESSCEDAR LAKE AVECEDAR LAKE AVE
MINNETONKA BLVDMINNETONKA BLVDOTTAWA AVE SOTTAWA AVE SJOPPA AVE SJOPPA AVE SNATCHEZ AVE SNATCHEZ AVE S28TH ST W28TH ST W
29TH ST W29TH ST W
SSUUNNSSEE TT BB LLVV DD
2277TTHH SSTT WW
22 66 TT HH SSTT WW
CEDAR SHORE
CEDAR SHORE
DRDR
CEDAR
S
T
CEDAR
S
T
FRANCE AVE SFRANCE AVE SKIPLING AVE SKIPLING AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SMONTEREY AVE SMONTEREY AVE SLYNN AVE SLYNN AVE SSSEERRVVIICCEEDDRRHHIIGGHHWWAAYY110000SSTOLEDO AVE STOLEDO AVE SRALEIGH AVE SRALEIGH AVE SQUENTIN AVE SQUENTIN AVE SPRINCETON AVE SPRINCETON AVE SSALEM AVE SSALEM AVE SMMOONNTTEERREEYYPPKKWW YYCC OO UU NN TT YY RR OO AA DD 22 55
BARRY STBARRY ST
CarpenterCarpenter
ParkPark
Twin LakesTwin Lakes
ParkPark
Fern HillFern Hill
ParkPark
Legend
Alternate alignment
Existing bikeway
Minneapolis existing and planned bikeway
Existing trail
METRO bus stop
METRO bus route 17
METRO bus route 25
Faith center
School
Parks
Municipal boundary
Alternate alignment: destinations connected
M i n n e a p o l i sTorah Academy Torah Academy
of Minneapolisof Minneapolis
Congregation Congregation
Bedek HabayisBedek Habayis
Beth El SynagogueBeth El Synagogue
Exhibit B
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 34
Sidewalk Feasibility Review
Pavement Management Area 8, Fern Hill
Project no. 4021-1000
Introduction: The engineering department has completed the design of the 2022 Pavement
Management Project. This project includes rehabilitation of several miles of local residential
streets in the Fern Hill neighborhood. As part of the project development, sidewalks and
bikeways identified in the city’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) have been evaluated for
inclusion into the project.
The following feasibly review focuses on the sidewalks identified as part of the Connect the
Park CIP. Consistent with the Living Streets policy, staff has evaluated the existing sidewalk
network as a part of this transportation project to identify gaps. This has resulted in the
consideration of a few sidewalk gap segments as a part of this project.
In addition to the Connect the Park and gap sidewalks, several neighborhood residents have
asked the city to explore the construction of additional sidewalks to provide more north-south
walking options to the various destinations near the neighborhood.
Together the recommended system of sidewalks creates the recommended sidewalk network
shown in exhibit C.
Feasibility review: The process includes using the following criteria to determine return on
investment (ROI).
1.Scope
Understanding the scope of the project is key for putting together the impacts and costs.
This report is a feasibility review for proposed sidewalks. These sidewalk segments are
associated with the 2022 Pavement Management project, which provides greater design
flexibility, is cost-effective and limits impacts to residents to one construction season.
2.Data
Before beginning design, staff collected data to help make design recommendations. Table
1 below is a summary of this information. Exhibit A and B contain specific information for
each sidewalk segment broken out block by block.
Page 35 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 2 of 6
Sidewalk Feasibility Review
Table 1
Traffic Volumes 100 to 1,000 vehicles/day
Traffic Speeds (average) 19 to 25 mph
(Data collected prior to 20 mph speed limits)
Existing right of way 50 to 60 feet
Space between curb and
right of way
The available space in the right of way for sidewalk
varies from street to street and even between each side
of the street on a block. Staff found this distance varied
from 11 feet to 17.5 for the recommended sidewalk
segments.
Existing sidewalk There are streets with existing sidewalks on one or both
sides of the streets. This includes streets with gaps in the
sidewalk system. Some blocks have no sidewalks on
either side.
Trees There are approximately 45 trees in the boulevard on
the recommended sidewalk segments.
Topography of boulevard While generally flat, there are areas where the slope
results in the need to construct retaining walls.
Driveways The number of driveways varies from 1 to 12 driveways
for each sidewalk segment. The driveway slopes and
lengths are adequate on the recommended sidewalk
segments to construct a compliant sidewalk.
Utilities in right of way There are power poles and fiber handholes. Other
utilities that could be observed are gas and
communications lines.
Drainage There is adequate drainage throughout the
neighborhood.
Destinations Schools, places of worship, transit, commercial
buildings, and parks. See exhibit C for specific
destinations within this neighborhood.
Building setbacks All homes are at least 30 feet from the right of way.
3.Design
The type of facility will guide the base design. The standard design for a sidewalk is a 6-foot-
wide concrete sidewalk with a 5-foot-wide grass boulevard for community sidewalks. The
width of the concrete sidewalk is reduced to 5 feet for neighborhood sidewalks. The extra
foot of concrete on the community sidewalks assists the city with snow removal due to the
width of their equipment. This typical design is applied to the corridor and adjustments are
made, where possible, to minimize impacts. For this project, the adjustments result in the
boulevard varying from 0 to 11.25 feet to protect existing trees.
Page 36 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 3 of 6
Sidewalk Feasibility Review
4.Impacts and cost
The design results in impacts. These include physical impacts to the environment, private
and public property. There are also financial considerations, including cost, operation,
maintenance, and general levy. Below is a summary of this information. Exhibit B contains
specific information for each sidewalk segment broken out block by block.
Table 2
Physical impacts- environmental
Tree removal Out of the 45 boulevard trees, there are 19 trees that will be
removed to build the recommended sidewalk. When
evaluating the sidewalk network and making individual
segment recommendations, staff placed a priority on saving
mature, higher-value trees.
To support our urban forest, trees removed will be replaced
based on size (caliper inch). Two hundred fifty-four (254)
caliper inches of trees will be planted to replace the trees
removed.
Impervious change The sidewalk is designed to drain to the grass boulevard and
infiltrate into the ground. As a result, in most areas, there is
no increase to the impervious directly connected to the
storm sewer system due to sidewalk construction.
On 28th Street between Princeton Avenue and Monterey
Parkway, the street will be reduced from 30-34 feet wide to
28 feet wide to add a grass boulevard between the existing
sidewalk and the street. This impervious reduction will offset
the areas of sidewalk that were moved to the back of curb to
protect trees.
Physical impacts -private
Parking changes There are no on-street parking changes due to
recommended sidewalks.
Right of way acquisition There are no right of way acquisition needs due to
recommended sidewalks.
Fences There are no impacts to fences due to recommended
sidewalks.
Landscaping There will be impacts to four private landscaping areas due
to recommended sidewalks. Staff will work with residents on
impacts limits and timing in order to salvage landscaping as
necessary.
Private utility relocations There are four power poles and two communication hand
holes that will need to be relocated due to the
Page 37 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 4 of 6
Sidewalk Feasibility Review
recommended sidewalks. Staff will work with private utility
companies on relocations.
Physical impacts - public
Street modifications:
lane width reduction,
change of number of lanes,
or street widths
On all new sidewalks, there is not a need to change the
street width to minimize impacts for sidewalk construction.
On 28th Street between Princeton Avenue and Monterey
Parkway, the street will be reduced from 30-34 feet wide to
28 feet wide to add a grass boulevard between the existing
sidewalk and the street.
Note, there are street width reductions due to watermain
construction and street right-sizing; these are recommended
regardless of sidewalk construction.
Retaining walls needed There are two locations where an existing retaining wall will
need to be removed and reconstructed for the
recommended sidewalk. There is one location where a new
retaining wall is required due to slope of the boulevard. The
new retaining wall will require railing on the top due to the
height of the wall (approx. 4 feet tall)
Social capital
•Neighborhood
reception/ acceptance
•Community reception/
acceptance
•Public input
The public input received for each sidewalk segment and
sidewalks in general can be found in exhibit B. Most of this
feedback is from neighborhood residents. We have received
very little community feedback on these sidewalks segments.
Financial
Cost The cost to design and build the recommended sidewalks is
$815,120
Budget vs. estimated costs The city’s CIP includes $831,600 for new sidewalk
construction.
Operations and
maintenance costs
The additional operations and maintenance costs are
planned for in the budget.
General levy The estimated cost is within the budget for this project. As a
result, general levy impacts have already been factored into
council budget discussions.
5.Returns
The returns of a project are quantified in the destinations connected, the population
served, the removal of barriers to non-vehicle travel and the improvements to safety.
Destinations connected: Exhibit C shows the important destinations within and adjacent to
the neighborhood that these sidewalks will connect.
Page 38 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 5 of 6
Sidewalk Feasibility Review
Population served: The recommended sidewalk network serves the population shown in
Table 3.
Table 3: Population served (within 0.25 mile)
Number of residents within 0.25 mile 3141
Age
Under 5 years 7%
5 - 19 years 14%
20 - 64 years 67%
65 and up 12%
Race
White 76%
BIPOC 24%
Gender
Male 47%
Female 53%
Barriers overcome: Many of the street segments in this neighborhood do not have
sidewalks on either side of the road. In addition, there are blocks where the sidewalk is not
continuous, creating gaps in the sidewalk network. Installing the recommended sidewalks
will remove these barriers.
Safety: In this neighborhood, the north-south roads carry higher volumes of vehicle traffic.
Building a dedicated pedestrian network on at least one side of the road on many of the
north-south roads in the neighborhood will create a safe space for pedestrians.
6.Return on investment (ROI)
At past study sessions, the council discussed the importance of determining the cost-
effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) the recommended sidewalk network provides
to the city. Staff evaluated the impacts, costs, and returns for the recommended sidewalks
to develop a ROI for this project.
Staff has refined the design of the recommended sidewalks to minimize the overall impacts
to the neighborhood. These impacts are typical for this type of project and the costs are
within the CIP budget.
The installation of the recommended sidewalks is consistent with city’s updated Connect
the Park goal of more livable neighborhoods that provide convenient and safe ways to use
low-carbon and no-carbon travel methods.
Additionally, the installation of the recommended sidewalks is consistent with city’s
strategic priorities to “be committed to providing a variety of options for people to make
their way around the city, comfortably, safely, and reliably.” The expanded network of
sidewalks removes barriers by filling in sidewalk gaps and creates connections to the
destinations in the Fern Hill neighborhood and beyond.
Page 39 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Page 6 of 6
Sidewalk Feasibility Review
Furthermore, the recommended sidewalks respond to requests from residents to have
additional sidewalks within the neighborhood. Building sidewalks along at least one side of
the north-south blocks creates a robust network of sidewalks in the Fern Hill neighborhood.
The resulting network created by the addition of these sidewalk segments removes barriers to
walking, creates a connected sidewalk network and is consistent with the vision for the
community. For these reasons, the recommended sidewalks create a positive return on
investment for the Fern Hill neighborhood and the community.
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Sidewalk map
Exhibit B: Sidewalk segment matrix
Exhibit C: Recommended sidewalk network: Destinations connected
Page 40 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
MONTEREY AVE SMONTEREY AVE SMINNETONKA BLVDMINNETONKA BLVD OTTAWA AVE SOTTAWA AVE S26TH ST W26TH ST W
NATCHEZ AVE SNATCHEZ AVE S28TH ST W28TH ST WUTICA AVE SUTICA AVE S29TH ST W29TH ST W
27TH ST W27TH ST W
31ST ST W31ST ST WHIGHWAY 100 SHIGHWAY 100 STOLEDO AVE STOLEDO AVE SRALEIGH AVE SRALEIGH AVE SQUENTIN AVE SQUENTIN AVE SPRINCETON AVE SPRINCETON AVE SSALEM AVE SSALEM AVE SMMOONNTTEERREEYYPPKKWW YYCarpenterCarpenter
ParkPark
Twin LakesTwin Lakes
ParkPark
Fern HillFern Hill
ParkPark
´
2022 Pavement Management Project
Staff recommendations: sidewalks and snow removal responsibility
Legend
Sidewalk not recommended
Sidewalk recommended
Existing sidewalk
Existing trails
Sidewalk/trail snow removal by citySW #1SW #2SW #3SW #4SW #5SW #6SW #7SW #8SW #9SW #10SW #11SW #12SW #13SW #14SW #15SW #16SW #17SW #18SW #19SW #20SW #21
SW #22
SW #23
Exhibit A
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)Page 41
Exhibit B: Page 1 of 23
Segment #1
Toledo Avenue (west side) – 2600 Block
Gap sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 114 vehicles/day
Average speed 20 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 16 feet
Proposed boulevard width 6 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 6 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 76 feet (12%)
Existing sidewalk length 540 feet (88%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 1 tree
Trees removed 1 tree (16 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 1 residential property
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls Replace 70 feet of existing retaining wall
Private utility relocations Relocate 1 power pole
Financial:
Construction cost $12,233.74
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $160.97 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Completion of sidewalk on west side of the
street would provide a sidewalk connection
between Minnetonka Boulevard and
destinations throughout the neighborhood.
Exhibit B
Page 42 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 2 of 23
Segment #2
Toledo Avenue (east side) – 2600 Block
Connect the Park sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 114 vehicles/day
Average speed 20 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 12.5 feet
Proposed boulevard width 5.75 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 6 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 35 feet (6%)
Existing sidewalk length 540 feet (94%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard None
Trees removed None
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 1 residential property
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls Replace 95 feet of existing retaining wall
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $5,241.75
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $149.76 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Completion of sidewalk on east side of the
street would provide a sidewalk connection
between Minnetonka Boulevard and
destinations throughout the neighborhood.
Page 43 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 3 of 23
Segment #3
Salem Avenue (west side) – 2600 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 399 vehicles/day
Average speed 22 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 16.5 to 17.5 feet
Proposed boulevard width 8 to 11.25 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 617 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 9 trees
Trees removed 2 trees (30 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 9 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $41,839.22
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $67.81 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Salem Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. There is more right of way on
the west side and less tree impacts.
Page 44 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 4 of 23
Segment #4
Salem Avenue (east side) – 2600 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 399 vehicles/day
Average speed 22 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 13 to 14 feet
Proposed boulevard width 6 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 620 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 9 trees
Trees removed 9 trees (155 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 9 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) New sidewalk would result in 3 steep
driveway grades
Landscaping None
Retaining walls Install 56 feet of new retaining wall
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $64,589.96
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $104.18 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Salem Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. There is more right of way on
the west side and less tree impacts.
Page 45 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 5 of 23
Segment #5
Salem Avenue (west side) – 2700 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 489 vehicles/day
Average speed 25 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 12.5 to 14.5 feet
Proposed boulevard width 4.25 to 8 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 619 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 7 trees
Trees removed 2 trees (60 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 9 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping 1 property (vegetation)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $52,621.96
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $85.01 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Salem Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. There is more right of way on
the east side and less tree impacts (by
caliper inches).
Page 46 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 6 of 23
Segment #6
Salem Avenue (east side) – 2700 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 489 vehicles/day
Average speed 25 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 14 to 16 feet
Proposed boulevard width 3 to 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 619 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 5 trees
Trees removed 3 trees (24 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 10 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations Relocate one power pole and one handhole
Financial:
Construction cost $55,046.08
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $88.93 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Salem Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. There is more right of way on
the east side and less tree impacts (by
caliper inches).
Page 47 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 7 of 23
Segment #7
Salem Avenue (west side) – 2800 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 565 vehicles/day
Average speed 21 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 15.5 to 17.5 feet
Proposed boulevard width 0 to 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 631 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 3 trees
Trees removed 1 tree (50 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 7 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping 1 property (vegetation)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $77,546.95
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $122.90 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Salem Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. There is more right of way on
the west side and impacts to driveway at
5132 28th Street would cause a steep
driveway that would make access difficult.
Page 48 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 8 of 23
Segment #8
Salem Avenue (east side) – 2800 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 565 vehicles/day
Average speed 21 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 11 to 13 feet
Proposed boulevard width 3 to 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 629 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 3 trees
Trees removed 2 trees (15 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 7 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) New sidewalk would result in 1 steep
driveway grade
Landscaping 1 property (brick pavers, fireplace, bench)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $85,829.98
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $136.45 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Salem Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. There is more right of way on
the west side and impacts to driveway at
5132 28th Street would cause a steep
driveway that would make access difficult.
Page 49 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 9 of 23
Segment #9
Raleigh Avenue (west side) – 2700 Block
Gap sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 844 vehicles/day
Average speed 24 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 15 feet
Proposed boulevard width 3 to 7 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 565 feet (90%)
Existing sidewalk length 60 feet (10%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 10 trees
Trees removed 1 tree (8 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 9 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls Install 136 feet of new retaining wall
Private utility relocations Relocate 2 power poles and 1 handhole
Financial:
Construction cost $76,864.88
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $123.18 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Raleigh Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. The sidewalk on the east side
required less changing of the boulevard
width to save trees, less root damage to
existing trees, less tree impacts (by caliper
inches) and no retaining wall.
Page 50 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 10 of 23
Segment #10
Raleigh Avenue (east side) – 2700 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 844 vehicles/day
Average speed 24 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 14 feet
Proposed boulevard width 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 621 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 1 tree
Trees removed 1 tree (5 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 9 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping 1 property (vegetation)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations Relocate 1 handhole
Financial:
Construction cost $67,235.51
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $108.27 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Raleigh Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. The sidewalk on the east side
required less changing of the boulevard
width to save trees, less root damage to
existing trees, less tree impacts (by caliper
inches) and no retaining wall.
Page 51 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 11 of 23
Segment #11
Raleigh Avenue (west side) – 2800 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 849 vehicles/day
Average speed 25 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 15 to 17 feet
Proposed boulevard width 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 626 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 1 tree
Trees removed 1 tree (12 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 7 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations Relocate 1 power pole
Financial:
Construction cost $71,147.77
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $113.65 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Raleigh Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. There is more right of way on
the west side and less tree impacts
Page 52 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 12 of 23
Segment #12
Raleigh Avenue (east side) – 2800 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 849 vehicles/day
Average speed 25 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 11.5 to 14 feet
Proposed boulevard width 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 626 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 6 trees
Trees removed 5 trees (103 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 6 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $63,126.25
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $100.84 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Raleigh Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. There is more right of way on
the west side and less tree impacts.
Page 53 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 13 of 23
Segment #13
Raleigh Avenue (west side) – 2900 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 918 vehicles/day
Average speed 24 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 13.5 to 15.5 feet
Proposed boulevard width 4 to 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 602 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 13 trees
Trees removed None
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 9 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $38,474.23
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $63.91 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Raleigh Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. The west side has no tree
impacts, where the east side has tree
impacts, landscaping impacts and would
require a new retaining wall.
Page 54 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 14 of 23
Segment #14
Raleigh Avenue (east side) – 2900 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 918 vehicles/day
Average speed 24 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 15.5 to 17.5 feet
Proposed boulevard width 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 602 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 4 trees
Trees removed 2 trees (12 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 7 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) New sidewalk would result in 1 steep
driveway grade and 1 driveway shorter than
20 feet.
Landscaping 1 property (vegetation)
Retaining walls Install 117 feet of new retaining wall
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $67,890.39
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $112.77 / foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalks on Raleigh Avenue. Due to
feedback received and traffic volumes, staff
recommends sidewalk on at least one side
of the street. The west side has no tree
impacts, where the east side has tree
impacts, landscaping impacts and would
require a new retaining wall.
Page 55 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 15 of 23
Segment #15
Quentin Avenue (west side) – 2600 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 693 vehicles/day
Average speed 20 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 16.25 feet
Proposed boulevard width 5 to 9 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 619 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 4 trees
Trees removed None
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 12 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping 1 property (vegetation)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $45,071.28
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $72.81/ foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested the
construction of a sidewalk on the west side
of Quentin Ave. This sidewalk on would
provide continuous sidewalk between
Minnetonka Boulevard and destinations
throughout the neighborhood.
Page 56 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 16 of 23
Segment #16
Quentin Avenue (east side) – 2600 Block
Connect the Park sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 693 vehicles/day
Average speed 20 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 14.25 feet
Proposed boulevard width 3 to 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 6 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 619 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Community sidewalk (city)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 4 trees
Trees removed 3 trees (45 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 9 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping 1 property (vegetation)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $60,475.39
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $97.70/ foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Construction of sidewalk on east side of
street that would provide a sidewalk
between Minnetonka Boulevard and
destinations throughout the neighborhood.
Page 57 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 17 of 23
Segment #17
Quentin Avenue (east side) – 2700 Block
Connect the Park sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 957 vehicles/day
Average speed 22 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 14 feet
Proposed boulevard width 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 6 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 157 feet (26%)
Existing sidewalk length 462 feet (74%)
Snow removal responsibility Community sidewalk (city)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard None
Trees removed None
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 1 residential property
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls Install 142 feet of new retaining wall
Private utility relocations Relocate one power pole
Financial:
Construction cost $47,244.45
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $300.92/ foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Construction of sidewalk on east side of
street that would provide a sidewalk
between Minnetonka Boulevard and
destinations throughout the neighborhood.
Page 58 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 18 of 23
Segment #18
Ottawa Avenue (west side) – 2800 Block
Connect the Park sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 452 vehicles/day
Average speed 19 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 50 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 10.75 to 11.25 feet
Proposed boulevard width 4 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 6 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 624 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 13 trees
Trees removed 13 trees (229 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 7 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping 3 properties (stone, vegetation)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations Relocate one power pole
Financial:
Construction cost $57,122.78
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $91.54/ foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on Due to traffic volumes and resident
feedback, staff recommends sidewalk on
this block. Due to limited right of way and
tree impacts, staff recommends sidewalk on
only the east side of the street. The east side
has significantly less tree and landscaping
impacts.
Page 59 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 19 of 23
Segment #19
Ottawa Avenue (east side) – 2800 Block
Connect the Park sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 452 vehicles/day
Average speed 19 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 50 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 11.25 to 12 feet
Proposed boulevard width 4 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 6 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 624 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Community sidewalk (city)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 7 trees
Trees removed 7 trees (72 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 8 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $51,918.88
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $83.20/ foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? Yes
Recommendation based on Due to traffic volumes and resident
feedback, staff recommends sidewalk on
this block. Due to limited right of way and
tree impacts, staff recommends sidewalk on
only the east side of the street. The east side
has significantly less tree and landscaping
impacts.
Page 60 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 20 of 23
Segment #20
Monterey Parkway (west side) – 2800 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 110 vehicles/day
Average speed 19 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 50 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 6 to 13 feet
Proposed boulevard width 0 to 6.25 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 750 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 7 trees
Trees removed 3 trees (40 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 8 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) New sidewalk would result in 1 steep
driveway grade
Landscaping 1 property (vegetation)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $71,738.32
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $95.65/ foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalk on Monterey Parkway. Due to
lower traffic volumes, private property
impacts, tree impacts and limited right of
way that requires sidewalk at back of curb
for parts of the block, staff is not
recommending this sidewalk at this time.
Page 61 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 21 of 23
Segment #21
Monterey Parkway (east side) – 2800 Block
Resident-requested sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 110 vehicles/day
Average speed 19 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 50 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 6 to 11.5 feet
Proposed boulevard width 0 to 4 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 5 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 807 feet (100%)
Existing sidewalk length 0 feet (0%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 8 trees
Trees removed 2 trees (10 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 9 residential properties
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping 1 property (bushes)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations Relocate 1 power pole
Financial:
Construction cost $78,624.08
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $97.43/ foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on Resident feedback requested additional
sidewalk on Monterey Parkway. Due to
lower traffic volumes, private property
impacts, tree impacts and limited right of
way that requires sidewalk at back of curb
for parts of the block, staff is not
recommending this sidewalk at this time.
Page 62 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 22 of 23
Segment #22
28th Street (north side) – Between Toledo and Salem avenues
Gap sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes 89 vehicles/day
Average speed 19 mph
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 66 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 16.75 feet
Proposed boulevard width 8 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 6 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 152 feet (51%)
Existing sidewalk length 144 feet (49%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard 5 trees
Trees removed 2 trees (15 total caliper inches)
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 1 residential property
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping 1 property (wall, vegetation)
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations None
Financial:
Construction cost $14,519.91
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $95.53/ foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on There already is an existing sidewalk on
south side of 28th Street that is continuous.
This sidewalk segment would only complete
a sidewalk gap on one block of the north
side.
Page 63 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
Exhibit B: Page 23 of 23
Segment #23
27th Street (south side) – Between Hwy 100 and Toledo Avenue
Gap sidewalk
Data:
Traffic volumes No data
(Low volume, estimated <50 vehicles/day)
Average speed No data
Design:
Right of way (ROW width) 60 feet
Distance from back of curb to ROW 13.5 feet
Proposed boulevard width 5 feet
Proposed concrete sidewalk width 6 feet
Proposed sidewalk length 92 feet (49%)
Existing sidewalk length 97 feet (51%)
Snow removal responsibility Neighborhood sidewalk (resident)
Impacts:
Trees in boulevard None
Trees removed None
Properties adjacent to proposed sidewalk 1 residential property
Driveway impacts (slope, length, etc.) None
Landscaping None
Retaining walls None
Private utility relocations Relocate one power pole
Financial:
Construction cost $15,089.79
Cost per liner foot of new sidewalk $164.02/ foot
Staff recommendations:
Build in 2022? No
Recommendation based on Low traffic volumes and lack of connection
to destinations or existing sidewalks.
Page 64 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
HHIIGGHHWWAAYY110000SSIINNGGLLEEWWOOOODDAAVVEESSGGLLEENNHHUURRSSTTAAVVEESSCEDAR LAKE AVECEDAR LAKE AVE
MINNETONKA BLVDMINNETONKA BLVD OTTAWA AVE SOTTAWA AVE SJOPPA AVE SJOPPA AVE SNATCHEZ AVE SNATCHEZ AVE S28TH ST W28TH ST W
29TH ST W29TH ST W
SSUUNNSS EE TT BB LLVV DD
2277TTHH SSTT WW
22 66 TT HH SS TT WW
CEDAR SHORE
CEDAR SHORE
DRDR
CEDAR
S
T
CEDAR
S
T
FRANCE AVE SFRANCE AVE SKIPLING AVE SKIPLING AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SMONTEREY AVE SMONTEREY AVE SLYNN AVE SLYNN AVE SSSEERRVVIICCEEDDRRHHIIGGHHWWAAYY110000SSTOLEDO AVE STOLEDO AVE SRALEIGH AVE SRALEIGH AVE SQUENTIN AVE SQUENTIN AVE SPRINCETON AVE SPRINCETON AVE SSALEM AVE SSALEM AVE SMMOONNTTEERREEYYPPKKWW YYCC OO UU NN TT YY RR OO AA DD 22 55
BARRY STBARRY ST
CarpenterCarpenter
ParkPark
Twin LakesTwin Lakes
ParkPark
Fern HillFern Hill
ParkPark
Legend
Recommended sidewalk
Existing trails
Existing sidewalk
METRO Bus stop
METRO bus route 17
METRO bus route 25
Apartment
Commercial
Faith center
School
Parks
Municipal boundary
Recommended sidewalks: destinations connected
M i n n e a p o l i sCongregation Congregation
Bedek HabayisBedek Habayis
Beth El SynagogueBeth El Synagogue
Congregation Congregation
Bais YisroelBais YisroelCongregation Congregation
Darchei NoamDarchei Noam
Torah Academy Torah Academy
of Minneapolisof Minneapolis
St. George's St. George's
Episcopal ChruchEpiscopal Chruch
The Minneapolis The Minneapolis
Community KollelCommunity KollelMikvah Mikvah
MinneapolisMinneapolis
Exhibit C
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)Page 65
Attachment #4
Resident feedback – sidewalk segments
Page 66 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
General sidewalk support
Page 67 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Sunday, November 7, 2021 7:19 AM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:side walks
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
I think it would be wonderful to put sidewalks on as many streets as possible, it promotes safety for pedestrians, joggers,
and children, and that is our priority for this wonderful city!
Thank you for your consideration,
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 68
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Tuesday, November 9, 2021 11:55 AM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Sidewalks and narrowing streets
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hi,
I know the city is working on changes in St. Louis Park to create a safer neighborhood. I think sidewalks would be a huge
help at keeping kids safe. There are nearby schools where teens drive really quickly down Quentin, Raleigh, and Salem,
and there are so many young children in these homes playing outside. Sidewalks would help keep kids out of the streets.
I also feel very strongly that the streets should absolutely NOT be narrowed. Cars park on both sides of the street and it
is already hard for 2 cars coming in opposite directions to safely pass. They recently narrowed streets on my side of
town, Inglewood and 26th street area and it is so difficult to get down streets. Cars are constantly coming at each other
head on. Turning is dangerous if becuase cars are parked close to the end of the block and you literally cannot see if cars
are coming at you. This is in nice weather, the winter makes it even more dangerous. A solution for the already
narrowed streets would be allowing parking on only one side of the block, but for streets that haven't been narrowed
they need to be left as is! It is truly a safety hazard to make less room for Cars to pass especially in the winter with snow
and ice!
Thank you for taking the time to read my email,
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 69
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Friday, November 5, 2021 2:17 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Sidewalks in SLP
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
Just a short note to let you know we would absolutely LOVE sidewalks on Quentin, Raleigh and Salem ave. It would feel
so so much safer for our kids to whom we always say to use sidewalks whenever possible.
Thank you,
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 70
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Friday, November 5, 2021 1:28 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Sidewalks
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
My name is and I am a recent new‐homeowner in St. Louis Park.
I have a toddler at home and another baby on the way, and as the nights get earlier, I am increasingly concerned about
the lack of lighting and sidewalks on our blocks. Would we be able to please put sidewalks and street lamps along all the
blocks in the neighborhood, specifically Salem, Raleigh, and Quentin between 26th and Minnetonka? I am scared to take
my daughter down the block because there are no sidewalks, and soon there will be no lights, too. There are so many
children in this neighborhood, that sidewalks and street lamps seem like a very effective way to protect the children
from accidents. Even if the cars keep speeding, at least our children can be safe and visible on their well‐lit sidewalks.
Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you,
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 71
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 72
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Friday, October 8, 2021 3:47 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen; Tom Leonhardt
Cc: 'Margaret Rog'
Subject:2022 Pavement Project feedback/concern
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Good afternoon!
We are concerned that that in the current 2022 Pavement Project proposal there are no sidewalks included for portions
of Raleigh Ave. (2800, 2900 blocks) and Salem Ave. (2600, 2700, 2800 blocks). We live in this neighborhood and
frequently walk along those streets. Additionally, there are many other people who walk in this neighborhood, often in
the evenings. Given the amount of vehicle traffic that occurs along Raleigh and Salem on a daily basis, we feel that it is a
safety concern.
We respectfully request that the project plan be revised to include sidewalks on the 2800 and 2900 blocks of Raleigh
Ave. and the 2600, 2700, and 2800 blocks of Salem Ave.
Thank you for your consideration.
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 73
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 74
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Tuesday, November 9, 2021 3:56 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Sidewalks for Salem / Raleigh / Quentin
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I would be happy for the residents of Salem, Raleigh and Quentin to have sidewalks. I do not think taxes should be used
for it, rather I would like to see a special assessment to those blocks so the residents of those blocks pay for the
improvement.
p.s. I am happy to help you with all your jewelry needs.
Please excuse my grammar and spelling, I am good at other things!
Call me anytime! Want a guarantee? Schedule it!
M m m
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 75
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Friday, November 5, 2021 12:41 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Sidewalks and Roundabouts
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hi.
I am a resident at 2834 Raleigh Ave.
I am in favor of sidewalks on our block as well as Salem and Quentin. I am happy to speak with you about it. It would be
a great benefit to both the children and adults. Sidewalks create a safer environment. We are big walkers and it is an
extra measure of safety.
In addition, I am both appalled and confused about the current roundabouts. They are EXTREMELY dangerous. Cars are
no longer stopping because stop signs were taken away. I personally almost got into two accidents this week at the
corner of Raleigh and 29th as I was attempting to make a proper left turn going around the circle. On two different days
a car coming to my right made no indication of slowing down and I had to honk repeatedly (I never honk my horn) to
stop them from crashing right into the right side of my car.
I also no longer allow my grandchildren ages 9, 7, and 4 to walk home from Raleigh to Salem in fear of cars no longer
needing to stop and not using the roundabouts properly. Every car I see just turns left (without stopping) and does not
go around the circle.
Please reconsider this dangerous situation for our community. We need our streets to be safe for both walking and
driving.
2834 Raleigh Ave
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 76
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Friday, November 5, 2021 12:29 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Cc:Craig Aizman
Subject:sidewalks
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mr. Wiesen,
We are very happy to hear that the city is considering sidewalks on Quentin / Raleigh / Salem area. As you
know, there are many families with young children in that area and it would bolster safety and quality of
life. Sidewalks are a wonderful asset in family neighborhoods. I hope to hear that it will be happening!
There will be a time when all the concealment of this world will be shattered.
The wrappings will fall away and we will see how each prayer was answered.
And we will hold all the blessings of all those millennia in our hands. ~ Lubavitcher Rebbe
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 77
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Friday, November 5, 2021 1:11 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Sidewalks
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Mr. Wiesen,
I heard the city is considering building sidewalks on Raleigh, Quentin, and Salem. As someone who lives in the
neighborhood, this would be fantastic. It would make it less dangerous when I walk to friends after dark. It would also
greatly increase the quality of life of my friends who have kids so they have a safe place to walk and play.
I hope the city moves forward with building the sidewalks.
Thank you,
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 78
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 79
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Friday, November 5, 2021 1:15 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:side walks
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
I believe all-the street should have side walks and 4 way stop signs.
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 80
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Friday, November 5, 2021 1:15 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Sidewalks
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello‐
I wanted to give my input on sidewalks on the Quentin/Raleigh/Salem blocks. I live on the corner of Salem and 27th. I
see cars fly on these blocks and oftentimes don't even slow down for stop signs for roundabouts. As someone who walks
a lot and has a small child, sidewalks would really help ensure the safety of our family and community. Also, considering
the road is going to be narrowed, having a sidewalk will make sure that there is ample and safe walking room.
Thank you for asking for input!
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 81
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 82
Sidewalk # 3 & 4
2600 Block Salem Avenue
Page 83 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Sunday, November 14, 2021 7:17 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Sidewalk on Salem Ave
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello!
I live at the corner of 26th and Salem and if we could get a sidewalk on our block that would be great! Our kids would be
able to walk more themselves and it would be safer for us to walk as a family.
Thanks for all of your work on behalf of St. Louis Park!
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 84
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Tuesday, November 23, 2021 2:17 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Regarding sidewalks on Salem avenue ad Raleigh ave letter we received
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you for talking my call the other day. My email might not do or mean much to the city and sidewalk situation but I
prefer NOT having one in front of my house. One, i have no interest in shoveling it in the winter months from all the heavy
snow that the city plow shoves onto it. With my disk issues and health i cant move that type of snow. Second, if a sidewalk
reduces the size of my yard's property i especially do not want that to happen. Front yard grass property is small enough
and i dont want mine reduced any further. Third, If that means removing my large blvd tree I don't want that happening
either. If it means going in front of the tree and that means roots will enviably push the side walk pieces up like like all up
and down 28th street we dont want that either. If the sidewalk does get installed I for one will not be shoveling it or taking
care of it it any way shape of form.
Thank you,
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 85
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Friday, November 5, 2021 2:15 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Streetlights and sidewalks
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
My name is and I am a recent new‐homeowner in St. Louis Park.
I have a toddler at home and another baby on the way, and as the nights get earlier, I am increasingly concerned about
the lack of lighting and sidewalks on our blocks. Would we be able to please put sidewalks and street lamps along all the
blocks in the neighborhood, specifically Salem, Raleigh, and Quentin between 26th and Minnetonka? I am scared to take
my daughter down the block because there are no sidewalks, and soon there will be no lights, too. There are so many
children in this neighborhood, that sidewalks and street lamps seem like a very effective way to protect the children
from accidents. Even if the cars keep speeding, at least our children can be safe and visible on their well‐lit sidewalks.
Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you,
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 86
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Friday, November 5, 2021 12:22 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Sidewalk on Salem Ave
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
To whom this may concern.
My family and I would VERY MUCH appreciate a sidewalk on Salem avenue between 26th St through 28th Street. We
very often walk on these blocks and live on this block as well. I find it dangerous to be walking around cars while pushing
a stroller and children walking next to me. In addition it is a place where the youngest of children can ride their tricycles
and scooters.
A sidewalk would be utmost appreciated and beneficial for the community.
Thank you.
2634 Salem Ave
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 87
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Tuesday, November 9, 2021 8:24 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Sidewalks
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
As the city is deciding on sidewalks , I’d like to request a sidewalk on the 2600 block of Salem . I feel it would be a lot
safer for the children to have a sidewalk to walk and ride on .
Thank you for all that you do on behalf of our city.
Sincerely,
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 88
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Tuesday, December 14, 2021 11:28 AM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Sidewalk Salem
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Aaron
I am writing regarding the proposed sidewalks for Salem. I reside at 2647 Salem.
I am not in favor of the proposed sidewalks for our street. First reason, I do not feel that we have enough pedestrian
traffic to warrant sidewalks. The second reason is that I would not like to see the removal of the boulevard trees.
I understand with the street improvements the city is making Salem Ave narrower. One of the reasons given is to reduce
the amount of rain run-off. Making the streets narrower it allows additional grass to absorb the run-off. If the city adds
sidewalks, this would decrease the area where this run-off would be absorbed. Again, defeating one of the purposes of
making the streets narrower.
I thank you for the opportunity of allowing me to express my opinion.
2647 Salem
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 89
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Friday, November 5, 2021 1:15 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Sidewalks
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello‐
I wanted to give my input on sidewalks on the Quentin/Raleigh/Salem blocks. I live on the corner of Salem and 27th. I
see cars fly on these blocks and oftentimes don't even slow down for stop signs for roundabouts. As someone who walks
a lot and has a small child, sidewalks would really help ensure the safety of our family and community. Also, considering
the road is going to be narrowed, having a sidewalk will make sure that there is ample and safe walking room.
Thank you for asking for input!
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 90
Sidewalk # 7 & 8
2800 block of Salem Avenue
Page 91 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Monday, November 8, 2021 10:36 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:sidewalk survey
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. Wiesen,
Hi! Margaret Rog said you are looking for feedback about the potential addition of sidewalks to our block. Thank you for
asking!
I am at 2834 Salem Ave S. I spoke with the two others on the block who have large families. We all felt that at this
point we would rather not have the sidewalks. Two of us no longer have really young kids, so the larger lawns are more
important for their football games etc. and the sidewalks aren't as necessary as when they were younger. Even the one
family next door to me with younger kids feels that they'd rather not have the sidewalks.
Aside from the three of us, I don't think anyone else on the block has younger kids at home at all.
In addition, my neighbor and I have sprinkler systems underground. Margaret told me the cost of redoing those would
NOT be covered by the city. So I would certainly vote against the sidewalk placement for that reason too.
Thank you for giving us the chance to express our wishes!
4221 Sunset Blvd
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 92
1
Aaron Wiesen
To:
Subject:RE: Sidewalks on Salem - Fern Hill Neighborhood
From:
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 11:41 AM
To: Aaron Wiesen <awiesen@stlouispark.org>
Subject: Sidewalks on Salem ‐ Fern Hill Neighborhood
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Aaron,
My name is and I have lived on the corner of 28th and Salem almost my entire life.
I am writing to you today about the sidewalks on the west and east side of Salem.
This concerns me greatly. I have two very old oak trees on my property and had a tree guy out there to assess the
possible damage a sidewalk could do to the trees. I pray first and foremost that you do not plan on taking these trees
out just for a sidewalk.
Secondly, I was told that due to the hill going down to the street and the possible surface level roots, putting a sidewalk
in could be detrimental to these trees. There is not enough room to put a sidewalk and there is a serious risk to the trees
if one is put in.
If a sidewalk has to be put on Salem I beg you that it is only put on the eastside of Salem and not the west. I have
marked in red where the sidewalk would be an issue and in green where (if absolutely needed) a sidewalk could be
placed.
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 93
2
Please let me know who I need to talk to to make sure this does not happen.
Thanks!
5201 West 28th Street
Saint Louis Park, MN 55416
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 94
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 95
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Wednesday, November 10, 2021 8:51 AM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Re; Sidewalks on Salem
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Good Morning!
We live on Salem Between 28th and 29th.
At this point we would prefer the street stays as is WITHOUT Sidewalks.
Thanks for all you do for the City!
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 96
Sidewalk # 9 & 10
2700 Block of Raleigh Avenue
Page 97 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Friday, November 5, 2021 12:41 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:sidewalk on Raleigh ave between 27th and 28th
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Aaron,
Hope all is well. We would love to see a sidewalk on Raleigh between 27th and 28th. We live at 2738 Raleigh and we
have 3 boys and it's scary walking down the block without a sidewalk. Please let me know what else I can do to
advocate for this to get done.
One more thing.. I understand that the traffic circles are being tested to see if they should replace the stop signs.
People have no clue how to use them and are just speeding by (Benilde St. Margaret students that sped before and only
slowed down for stop signs are now not even slowing down), and other people are just making sharp lefts and not using
the circles properly. I understand that this is being tried, but as someone we lives between 2 of them. I see only more
accidents happening. I would rather see stop signs at all intersections..
I would love to chat to discuss this matter more on the phone or in person.
Thank you
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 98
Sidewalk # 11 & 12
2800 Block of Raleigh Avenue
Page 99 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Friday, November 5, 2021 12:16 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:New sidewalks
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I heard the city is considering putting sidewalks in the Salem/Raleigh/Quentin area. I live on the 2800 block of Raleigh
and would love to have a sidewalk. I would feel much safer watching my kids bike and skate and walk on the sidewalk
than in street.
Thank you,
Have a great weekend!
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 100
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Wednesday, November 10, 2021 8:58 AM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Sidewalks on Raleigh ave!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi!
I have been hearing there is a possibility of putting sidewalks on some streets in SLP. I would be thrilled to see sidewalks
on Raleigh Ave. As I do have 6 young children who love to ride bikes and scooter and sidewalks makes it so much more
safe! Right now they have to ride in the street and very often cars have to stop because the see children riding and want
to be cautious. Sidewalks on Raleigh would be very a wonderful idea!
Thank you so much for taking time to read this!
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 101
Sidewalk # 13 & 14
2900 Block of Raleigh Avenue
Page 102 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
1
Aaron Wiesen
Subject:RE: Sidewalk on 29th & Raleigh
From:
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:56 PM
To: Margaret Rog <mrog@stlouispark.org>
Cc: aweisen@stlouispark.org <aweisen@stlouispark.org>
Subject: Sidewalk on 29th & Raleigh
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Nice to get a chance to briefly talk with you regarding the proposed sidewalk, which I realize is not recommended for my
side of the street. But since that is not official as yet, I want to express my concerns.
Besides the added cost a sidewalk on my side of the block would impose, it specifically is very negative to my yard
because—
1). It would completely alter my landscaping I have worked hard to create on a hill with a variety of rocks, wildflowers,
ground cover, and two trees.
2). If my extra parking space is shortened, a car would not fit; it would intrude on the sidewalk. To lengthen the space I
would need to cut down an elm which abuts it.
3). Since my garage is partly underground on a deep slant, I would have 9 feet less vision and now people and dogs as
obstacles to avoid as I backed out. I already have problems pulling out with another car to swing around and sometimes
huge snow mounds creating blind corners. Now it would not only be cars to worry about but people and dogs on a
sidewalk that I might hit. This last point is the most important as safety comes first.
2905 Raleigh Avenue
Sent from my iPhone
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 103
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 104
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 105
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 106
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 107
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 108
Sidewalk # 15 & 16
2600 Block of Quentin Avenue
Page 109 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Thursday, August 15, 2019 10:06 AM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:2021 Pavement Management Project - Quentin Ave
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Aaron,
I received your letter in the mail regarding the 2021 Pavement Management Project for Fern Hill Neighborhood (City
Project No. 4021‐1000).
I live on the 2600 block of Quentin Ave. We have ~25 school aged children who reside on our block alone. It is
imperative for the safety of our children and the neighborhood that the city install sidewalks on our block as soon as
possible.
This is a very heavy traffic area due to BSM, Beth El and a thorough‐way between Minnetonka Blvd. and HWY 100.
There are sidewalks on the 2600 blocks of Raleigh and Toledo. There are also sidewalks on the 2700, 2800, and 2900
blocks of Quentin. However, our block does not have a sidewalk on either side of the street and the safety of our
children is at risk each day.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 110
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Friday, November 5, 2021 12:44 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Sidewalks
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I have lived at 2644 Quentin Ave for over 40 years. We have always wanted sidewalks for our street. My 5 children have
grown up and two of them live on Raleigh. The number of children on these blocks have grown greatly. I am strongly in
favor of sidewalks. Thanks.
Sent from my iPhone
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 111
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Wednesday, November 10, 2021 10:18 AM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Sidewalks for Quentin and environs
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Aaron,
I heard the city is asking for input from residents on certain streets. I am one: 5024 West 29th Street.
My husband and I think that because this area is relatively low usage and traffic, it does not warrant The
expense of putting in streets at this time.
We have lived here 28 years and have not seen a major issue with the lack of sidewalks.
So we would like to register our opinions as opposed because we don’t see that the need is high and think there are
other priorities that should interest the city more.
In particular, we are amazed that a city so friendly to biking has not installed a thru way between this part of the Park
and the West End area. So people who want to go back and forth must walk/bike along the freeway access Or go way
around. Now that’s where you need a sidewalk or other passage way, from the bike trail, over the tracks, and on to
West End.
Thanks for listening,
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 112
Sidewalk # 18 & 19
2800 Block of Ottawa Avenue
Page 113 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
1
Aaron Wiesen
Subject:RE: November Update from CM Rog
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From:
Date: Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: November Update from CM Rog
To: <rogforslp@gmail.com>
Hi, Margaret!
Thanks for the awesome update. Glad to receive these emails now.
I wanted to share some quick feedback about the traffic circles in the Fern Hill neighborhood. Would you mind making
sure this email makes its way to the staff member collecting feedback?
While I like the innovation of the Engineering Department, I'm not a fan of the traffic circles or bump outs.
Traffic doesn't seem to slow down as much going through the traffic circles as it does stopping at the stop signs
(even if the cars didn't stop, they slowed down more with the stop signs).
I'm concerned about my children crossing those intersections with the moving traffic. I feel like the circles
obstruct the view across the intersection and it's harder to see pedestrians.
They are an eyesore (I know they won't look like the temporary ones, but the permanent structures are still an
eye sore). There is already too much sign pollution, and these traffic circles will only contribute to the clutter in
the roadway and sides of the streets.
Also, I heard something about 18 mature trees being taken down along Ottawa Ave. to put in sidewalks. Mature trees
should never be cut down except for being diseased. They contribute so much toward a healthy environment that it's
concerning that the City would take them down to put in a sidewalk. While it would be nice to have one there, having
lived without a sidewalk on Ottawa Ave. for years, I don't think it's worth cutting down any trees.
Just my two cents.
Thank you for all you do to improve our City. I know being a council member takes a lot of time and effort, so thank you
for representing us residents.
2720 Ottawa Ave. S.
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 114
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Tuesday, January 18, 2022 6:59 AM
To:Margaret Rog; Aaron Wiesen
Subject:sidewalk on Ottawa Ave.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Margaret and Aaron– this is I came to the open house last week to speak against a sidewalk on the
east side of Ottawa Ave. So. I hope you had a good MLD holiday.
The proposed side walk is will cause more problems than it would help. I’m legally blind and I have trouble maneuvering
sidewalks in the winter time. They often have ice on them, which I cannot see and oftentimes slip on ice. I have slipped
on the ice on a sidewalk before and separated my shoulder. Also, I have witnessed another woman slip and break her
hip while on a sidewalk. The fact is that sidewalks are more dangerous than the street in the Winter time.
Not all residents will shovel their sidewalk. It is rare that I can walk an entire block without encountering one resident
who has not shoveled their snow. These houses where the snow is not shoveled creates ice on the side walk and a major
hazard.
Plowing the sidewalk as you proposed will only make things worse. I have seen the sidewalks plowed on Minnetonka
Blvd. and 28th street and this makes an expectation that people use the side walk, But really they’re not easily
walkable. The plow does an uneven job and often leaves ice patches and compacted snow. Being legally blind these are
all easy to trip on.
Also, sidewalks create an expectation by car drivers that we use the sidewalks, even when they are not safe. Car drivers
will drive closer to you on 29th st. On several occasions, I am only a foot or two away a fast moving car on that part of
the block if I’m on the street. That pushes me into an unsafe position of position of having to risk getting hit by a car
(which has happened before on my street), or risking hurting myself by slipping on a sidewalk.
I am not the only one in this position. The bulk of persons will not use the sidewalks if you put them in. It will only be a
cosmetic change. As you know we live in an a neighborhood where there are many Orthodox Jews and persons who go
walking at night time. As you know, many of these persons walk in the street anyway, even if there are side walks. It
only will create more tension between the persons walking on the street and the car drivers.
Finally, I have a tree in my front yard. It is an old growth tree, probably 70 or 80 years old. It is an Elm tree, which are
rare these days, after Dutch Elm disease took many of the trees that St. Louu9is Park first planted to create a cathedral
effect on the streets. I would not want to see that tree taken down. I am unlikely to have the sidewalk go around my
tree because it would leave only a very small front yard.
2821 Ottawa Ave. So.
St. Louis Park, 55416
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 115
1
Aaron Wiesen
Subject:RE: Traffic management in Fern Hill on Ottawa Ave S
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From:
Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 2:47 PM
To: Tom Leonhardt <tleonhardt@stlouispark.org>
Subject: Traffic management in Fern Hill on Ottawa Ave S
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Aaron and Thomas,
I live at 2830 Ottawa Ave South. Thank you for having a feedback period so that neighbors can provide their perspective.
I have two topics of feedback to provide to you.
First, regarding the proposed roundabouts. I walk the neighborhood almost daily. I observed when the temporary
roundabouts were present, there was a clear lack of attention to pedestrians by automobile drivers. As a pedestrian, I
felt nowhere near as safe as I do with stop signs. When stop signs are present, drivers look to both the right and left
side. However, when the roundabouts were present, drivers tended to look to the right only, so pedestrians had to to
really be cautious and beware of drivers.
Also, I drive a suburban. There were times that if I had to go 3/4 of the way around, I would have to stop and back‐up in
order to make the turn because the circle was so small. My concern then changes to neighborhood safety when large
vehicles have to navigate our neighborhood with the roundabouts. The roundabouts would reduce safety in our
neighborhood when vehicles like: ambulances, fire trucks, or big Centerpoint trucks (I.e. like last March when there was
a gas line burst under Ottawa and Centerpoint needed to bring the large trucks with trailers and excavators in tow).
Those vehicles would never be able to navigate the roundabouts, which would dramatically reduce neighborhood safety.
Second, regarding sidewalks on Ottawa Avenue South between West 28th and West 29th streets. My understanding is
that sidewalks proposed to be on both sides of the road and would remove ~15 trees. The tree canopy over the road
provide a lot of shade and character to this neighborhood in the summer. So, I am in favor of sidewalks on one side only
and the side that would remove the least amount of mature trees. The side that seems logical for sidewalks would then
be the east‐side of Ottawa. On the west‐side, seven of eight trees are mature; whereas on the east‐side four of seven
trees are mature. So, putting a sidewalk on the east‐side would remove fewer mature trees than from the west‐side.
I hope you think this feedback is helpful and provides a logical framework. I wish you all the best in making these
decisions.
Thanks
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 116
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Friday, August 16, 2019 10:32 AM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Cc:Anita Kolman
Subject:Project No. 4021-1000
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Aaron,
Thank you for your August 8 letter regarding the 2021 street project in the Fern Hill neighborhood (Project No. 4021‐
1000). My major concern about the street project and I assume simultaneous sidewalk project is the possible loss of
boulevard trees in the 28xx block of Ottawa Avenue South. While new trees could be planted, they would not really
replace the mature trees that currently shade this block. I hope the planning process will include minimal loss of foliage
as a major criterion. A possible mitigation, for example, would be only installing a sidewalk on one side of the street.
Regards,
2855 Ottawa Avenue South
St. Louis Park MN 55416
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 117
1
Aaron Wiesen
Subject:RE: Fern Hill Pavement Project
From:
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2021 8:29 PM
To: Margaret Rog <mrog@stlouispark.org>
Subject: Fern Hill Pavement Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Margaret,
Thank you for your monthly email updates. I appreciate receiving them and staying up‐to‐date on issues in
our community.
I'd like to pass on some thoughts as the Fern Hill Pavement Project begins to take shape and public meetings
are planned.
I am very interested in this topic as I live on the segment of Ottawa Ave. between 29th and 28th Streets that
would be impacted by the addition of sidewalks.
At the city council meeting in June of 2013 the council chamber was packed full of SLP citizens opposed to
more sidewalks for the sake of having more sidewalks; the large attendance that night included only 2 or 3
people who expressed support for the project. There were several people from Ottawa Ave. who attended as
well who were not in favor of them, including myself.
As discussions move forward, I will be asking:
What is the financial cost of putting sidewalks down on Ottawa Ave? I am interested to know the cost
of this project in order to understand if this is a wise use of the money. Without transparency
regarding the cost, it's impossible to understand if this is a wise use of taxpayer money out of the
capital budget.
I will also ask how many of the existing trees will have to be taken down to accommodate the
sidewalks. The beautiful canopy of trees is what makes Ottawa Ave. pretty today.
I will ask if alternatives to slabs of concrete have been considered that are aesthetically pleasing and
environmentally‐friendly, such as permeable pavers.
Thank you, Margaret, for considering these items and perhaps passing them along to the engineers
responsible for this project. I will also fill out the project survey that was included with your email.
Thank you for your work representing us.
Best regards,
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 118
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Tuesday, November 9, 2021 11:35 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Sidewalks during project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hi,
I’m wondering what the plan is for Ottawa repaving and sidewalk being added on Ottawa between 28 and 29. My kids
and I, bike and walk often on these blocks and that’s the 1 segment that currently doesn’t have a sidewalk between our
home and fern hill park. Cars drive fast on this block and it has become a safety hazard at times.
Thank you so much for all you do for SLP! We love living in such a great and safe neighborhood!
SLP resident‐ on Ottawa between 29th and Minnetonka
‐‐
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 119
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 120
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 121
Sidewalk # 20 & 21
2800 Block of Monterey Parkway
Page 122 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
1
Aaron Wiesen
Subject:RE: Sidewalks on Monterey Parkway
From:
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 4:45 PM
To: Margaret Rog <mrog@stlouispark.org>
Subject: Sidewalks on Monterey Parkway
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Councilwoman Rog,
In October, we along with several of our neighbors, attended the open house regarding the repaving of streets
in Fern Hill. Many of us were surprised to see that, per the request of a resident, sidewalks were being
proposed for Monterey Parkway. This was surprising as we have been following the city plans and it seems as
if sidewalks were never part of the original plan.
We canvased our neighbors and found that 8 out of 10 households were opposed to the addition of
sidewalks. The reasons for their disapproval included:
Monterey Parkway has a low level of traffic that does not seem to warrant sidewalks.
Sidewalks + boulevard would require significant changes to landscaping.
High grade hills on the north and south ends of the street would pass significant and difficult snow
removal costs to the homeowners.
The addition of sidewalks and boulevard (up to 10 feet in width) does not allow sufficient set back
of homes.
A fundamental change to the aesthetics and feel of a low traffic street which would convert a
unique neighborhood into something more akin to a paved and gridded urban residential area.
We have attached a copy of our petition – which we have also sent to Aaron Wiesen. In addition, we plan to
attend the January open house in the hope of understanding why sidewalks are being proposed (other than by
a request from a resident). We will attend the February 7 meeting of the Council to voice our concerns.
Do you have suggestions of other things we can do to ensure that our voices are heard? We respect the
opinion and privacy of the resident who requested the addition of sidewalks, however, is there any way we
can understand why sidewalks were requested – especially in light of the NOT including them in the long‐term
plan?
Thanks for your consideration,
January 3, 2022
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 123
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Wednesday, January 12, 2022 11:07 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Sidewalk proposal for St Louis Park
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Aaron,
I just looked at the proposed sidewalk map and am very concerned that Monterey Pkwy is the only street that won’t be
having a sidewalk on either side.
This is a safety hazard and I’m very concerned about this.
Please advise me if there are any steps I can take to challenge this.
Thank you!
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 124
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 125
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 126
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 127
Sidewalk # 22
28th Street
Page 128 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Friday, October 22, 2021 9:22 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:clarification of a plan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Good evening
We missed the Oct 14 meeting, and we are looking at the postcard we received in the mail with information about the
temporary traffic management modification plan. Yes, we live with the reality of seeing people flying through the 28th
& Salem stop signs year round. But noticeably worse when Benilde gets out of school in mid afternoon. It's
maddening.
But we are shocked, and can't imagine how we missed a plan to put a sidewalk right in front of our home at 28th &
Salem (5200 W. 28th & Salem)??? This is beyond shocking to us since 28th Street is fortunate to have good sidewalk all
the way from Toledo to France on the south side. Why is there a plan or proposal to put one in front of our
house?? As we had understood it, SLP was working on some plans to connect sidewalks where they randomly
stop. Near us, that means ‐ for instance ‐ the 2900 block of Salem has sidewalks and then the next 3 blocks going
toward the north don't. But why would a sidewalk go in on a street like 28th which already has a great sidewalk all the
way?
Thank you for any information you can give us.
SLP. 55416.
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 129
Attachment #5
Resident feedback – proposed street width changes
Page 130 Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:31 AM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:West Fern Hill Pavement Management.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I was unable to attend the open house but do have serious concerns about the project.
The proposal to narrow the streets between Minnetonka and 26th street may be politically correct but in reality would
be a disaster.
Have you driven the streets that you have proposed narrowing specifically mid to late afternoon?? Cars are continually
having to stop and one car can barely get by. The traffic from Benilde makes this proposal totally unsafe.
That does not even consider winter where the streets are narrower.
Unless you restrict parking this is a totally dangerous proposal that does not make sense. I doubt the proposal
developer has experienced the traffic problems on these streets. I doubt there would be compliance with any parking
restrictions.
I hope you reconsider this proposal because whoever implements this will have blood on their hands as it is totally
unsafe and has no basis on the reality of the situation.
2516 Princeton Court
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)Page 131
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Tuesday, November 9, 2021 11:55 AM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:Sidewalks and narrowing streets
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hi,
I know the city is working on changes in St. Louis Park to create a safer neighborhood. I think sidewalks would be a huge
help at keeping kids safe. There are nearby schools where teens drive really quickly down Quentin, Raleigh, and Salem,
and there are so many young children in these homes playing outside. Sidewalks would help keep kids out of the streets.
I also feel very strongly that the streets should absolutely NOT be narrowed. Cars park on both sides of the street and it
is already hard for 2 cars coming in opposite directions to safely pass. They recently narrowed streets on my side of
town, Inglewood and 26th street area and it is so difficult to get down streets. Cars are constantly coming at each other
head on. Turning is dangerous if becuase cars are parked close to the end of the block and you literally cannot see if cars
are coming at you. This is in nice weather, the winter makes it even more dangerous. A solution for the already
narrowed streets would be allowing parking on only one side of the block, but for streets that haven't been narrowed
they need to be left as is! It is truly a safety hazard to make less room for Cars to pass especially in the winter with snow
and ice!
Thank you for taking the time to read my email,
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)Page 132
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Sunday, October 24, 2021 8:51 AM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Subject:2022 Pavement Management Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Aaron,
We were out of town for the meeting on 10/14 but I received the postcard in the mail about the project. I am able to
access some of the information by scanning the code on the postcard with my phone but I would like to look at things on
a bigger computer screen and I am having trouble accessing the project on the SLP city website. When I search the cities
website for “2022 Pavement Management Project” it brings up info for the 2020 pavement improvement project. Can
you send me a link to access it from my computer? The “bit.ly2022SLPpm” didn’t work. As you can probably tell I am not
the worlds most tech savvy person to say the least.
From looking at the project on my phone I have 2 questions:
1.What is the purpose of the curb extensions?
2.I am concerned about the narrowing of the streets by 2 feet. I have already felt that parking should be limited to
one side of the street, especially in the winter. Is limiting parking part of the plan? I would be very concerned
that emergency vehicles, fire trucks in particular, would have a hard time getting through if the streets are 2 feet
narrower and then there are snow banks narrowing the streets even more, and then cars are parked on both
sides of the street.
2600 Joppa Ave S
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)Page 133
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:
Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:04 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen; Margaret Rog
Subject:Pavement Management Project West Fern Hill Neighborhood
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
I live on the 2600 block of Raleigh Ave and my response to the project design in brief is:
NO reduction in road width from 30 ft to 28 ft. Vehicles are getting larger not shrinking in size
The street is a busy one with traffic to and from Highway 100 and Benilde St Margaret School.
As it is, when snow/ice add their mess to this mix, the street is narrowed even further.
NO traffic circles/roundabouts. The experiment showed that the residential intersections are too small
to handle the 4 wheel traffic well let alone the 18 wheelers that come through. Also, with Stop signs
gone, traffic will not yield to pedestrians. Personal experiences.
NO bumpouts at street intersections. That is a further narrowing of the street with all the above
exacerbated.
Thank you
2657 Raleigh Ave
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)Page 134
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)Page 135
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)Page 136
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)Page 137
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)Page 138
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)Page 139
Study session meeting of January 24, 2022 (Item No. 5)
Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project Update – Fern Hill (4021-1000)Page 140