HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC WORKSESSION PACKET 01292019If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City Clerk at 612-782-3313
or email city@savmn.com. People who are deaf or hard of hearing can contact us by using 711 Relay.
Work Session Agenda
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
7:30 p.m.
1. Missing Link. Carrie Christensen, Senior Planner, Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board
presenting
2. Adjournment
City of St. Anthony
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
City Council Chambers
Minutes
December 3, 2018
Present:
Mayor & Council. Jerry Faust, Mayor; Hal Gray, Councilmember; Jan Jenson, Councilmember; Randy Stille,
Councilmember, and Thomas Randle, Councilmember.
Absent:
None
Staff:
Mark Casey, City Manager and Shelly Rueckert, Finance Director
Guests:
John M. Baker, Greene Espel and Jay Lindgren, Dorsey
Call to Order:
Meeting called to order by Mayor Faust at 4:30 p.m.
The Village, LLC Litigation:
A motion was made by Faust and seconded by Gray that the meeting be closed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Section 13D.05, subdivision 3(b) to discuss attorney‐client privileged matters regarding Bradley A Hoyt and The
Village, LLC, vs. The City of St. Anthony Village, Mark Casey, Jerry Faust, Breanne Rothstein, WSB & Associates, Inc.,
Stacie Kvilvang, Jay R. Lindgren, and Ehlers & Associates, Inc. A motion was made by Faust and seconded by Stille
to open the meeting.
Planning and Parks Commission Interviews:
Planning:
The following were interviewed by the mayor and council and were given the following cumulative scores.
Dan Payne – 35
Marcey Westrick – 35
Brian Rude – 31
Mark Kalar – 28
Corey Erickson – 17
Garrett Larson – 15
John Hageman – 14
Jedd Larson – 11
By consensus of the mayor and council, staff was directed to draft a resolution appointing Dan Payne, Marcey,
Westrick and Brian Rude to a three year term plus designate Dominic Papatola as Chair and Marcey Westrick as
vice chair.
Parks Commission:
The following were interviewed by the mayor and council and were given the following cumulative scores.
Therese Bellinger ‐ 15
Jessica Rengstorf – 14
Lona Doolan – 11
Scott Daby – 7
By consensus of the mayor and council, staff was directed to draft a resolution appointing Therese Bellinger and
Jessica Rengstorf to a three year term plus designate Erin Jordahl Redlin as Chair and Therese Bellinger as vice
chair.
Both resolutions will be on the December 11, 2018 City Council agenda.
Adjourn:
The meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Mark Casey, City Manager.
City of St. Anthony
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Local 49 – 2829 Anthony Lane S, St. Anthony
Minutes
January 10, 2019
Present:
Mayor & Council. Jerry Faust, Mayor; Hal Gray, Councilmember; Randy Stille, Councilmember; Thomas
Randle, Councilmember and Jan Jenson, Councilmember.
Absent:
None
Staff:
Mark Casey, City Manager; Jay Hartman, Public Works Director; Mike Larson, Liquor Operations
Manager; Jon Mangseth, Police Chief; Shelly Rueckert, Finance Director; Mark Sitarz, Fire Chief; Nicole
Miller, City Clerk; Charlie Yunker, Assistant to the City Manager; Jeremy Gumke, Public Works
Superintendent; Kevin Morelli, Assistant L.O.M.; Chris Fuller, Assistant Fire Chief; Jeff Spiess, Police
Captain and Ka Vue, Accountant
Consultants:
Todd Hubmer, WSB & Assoc. (City Engineer); Justin Messner, WSB & Assoc. (A.C. Engineer); Molly Just,
WSB & Assoc. (City Planner); Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers & Associates (Financial); Jay Lindgren, Dorsey &
Whitney (Legal) and Minette Saulog, GreenCorp Member.
Commission:
Dominic Papatola, Planning Commission Chair and Erin Jordahl Redlin, Parks Commission Chair
Guests:
Liam Biever, LMCIT; Adriana Temali‐Smith; LMC, Kimberly Ciarrocchi; Metro Cities; John Tingley, City
Administrator, City of Tonka Bay; Bruce Miles, Big River Group; Carolyn Marinan, Hennepin County and
Jamie Zwilling, Hennepin County.
At 9:00 a.m. Miles provided an opening & Introductions. Faust provided a welcome. Faust, Miles &
Casey provided expectations & guidelines. Miles reviewed the 2018 Strategic Plan. Faust and Casey
presented the 2018 Goals Accomplishments PowerPoint presentation.
At 11:00 a.m. Miles facilitated the group through an opportunities brainstorming session with a variety
of input provided by the participants.
At Noon we broke for lunch.
At 1:00 p.m. Marinan & Zwilling presented a PowerPoint on communication.
At 2:00 p.m. we took a break
At 2:15 p.m. Miles facilitated the group through St. Anthony’s long term vision/priorities brainstorming
session with a variety of input provided by the participants.
At 4:00 p.m. there were the following staff reports from: Administration, Liquor, Finance/HR, Police, Fire
and Public Works.
At 4:45 p.m. there were the following consultant’s reports from: Engineer, Planning, Financial and Legal.
The session concluded at 5:30 pm and all were invited to meet at the Village Pub for a social gathering.
Respectfully submitted by Mark Casey, City Manager.
City of St. Anthony
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Local 49 – 2829 Anthony Lane S, St. Anthony
Minutes
January 11, 2019
Present:
Mayor & Council. Jerry Faust, Mayor; Hal Gray, Councilmember; Randy Stille, Councilmember; Thomas
Randle, Councilmember and Jan Jenson, Councilmember.
Absent:
None
Staff:
Mark Casey, City Manager; Jay Hartman, Public Works Director; Mike Larson, Liquor Operations
Manager; Jon Mangseth, Police Chief; Shelly Rueckert, Finance Director; Mark Sitarz, Fire Chief; Charlie
Yunker, Assistant to the City Manager and Nicole Miller, City Clerk
Consultants:
Todd Hubmer, WSB & Assoc. (City Engineer)
Guests:
Bruce Miles, Big River Group
At 9:00 a.m. Miles provided a recap from Thursday’s session.
At 9:15 a.m. Miles facilitated the group through building the 2019 Pyramid by establishing the mission,
vision, strategic initiatives, goals and action steps based on input from Thursday, January 10, 2019
session.
At Noon we broke for lunch.
The session concluded at 1:00 pm
Respectfully submitted by Mark Casey, City Manager.
GRAND ROUNDS MISSING LINKPLANNING PROCESSсϭϬϬƐŽĨǀŽŝĐĞƐĞŶŐĂŐĞĚ
Staff from each of these agencies has been onboarded to the process, given input on the draft route, and will be asked to provide comment on the preferred concept. MPRB staff has met with all of these agencies at least once, and in some cases, up to six times over the past year. •Metro Transit Planning•Met Council Parks•UofM Planning•City of Minneapolis Long Range Planning•City of Minneapolis Health Department•City of Minneapolis Public Works Transportation Planning•Hennepin County•City of St. Paul Parks and Bike/Ped staff•MnDOT•City of St Anthony;^ƚĂĨĨŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐ͕ƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶƚŽWĂƌŬƐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͕ŶĞǁƐĂŶĚǁĞďƐŝƚĞŽƵƚƌĞĂĐŚ͕dĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶͿ•Minneapolis Public Schools•Mississippi Watershed Management Organization•EAST OF THE RIVER REGIONAL TRAIL WORKGROUPENGAGEMENT13City of St Anthony;^ƚĂĨĨŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐ͕ƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶƚŽWĂƌŬƐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͕ŶĞǁƐĂŶĚǁĞďƐŝƚĞŽƵƚƌĞĂĐŚ͕dĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶͿ•Feasible•A vision founded on interagency coordination•MPRB Parkway typology whenever possible•Increase park space and regional trail access in underserved areas of Minneapolis•Connect the river to St. Anthony Parkway•Consider importance of industry to the city •Mitigate environmental justice challenges in industrial areas and corridors near freeways•Be an asset to the neighborhoods though which it passes•SafetyGRAND ROUNDS MISSING LINK/BRIDAL VEIL REGIONAL TRAIL CONSIDERATIONS
•^sŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůƌĞǀŝĞǁ•ŶLJĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĞŶŐĂŐĞŵĞŶƚǁŝƚŚ^s•ŽŵƉŝůĞĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĨƌŽŵƉƵďůŝĐĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ•WƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŽDWZŽĂƌĚŽĨŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌƐĨŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǀĂů•^ƵďŵŝƚƚŽDĞƚŽƵŶĐŝůĨŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƚŽďĞĐŽŵĞĞůŝŐŝďůĞĨŽƌƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůƚƌĂŝůĨƵŶĚŝŶŐ•ZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌƌĞƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵ^sƉƌŝŽƌƚŽŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶE yd^d W^St. Anthony 2040 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2: Vision & Goals8Key Themes: What we heard from the community The following summarizes some of the common themes heard during the public engagement and visioning phase of comprehensive plan development. What people love xThe schools are great and an attraction to people and thecommunity is great for children.xProximity is to the Twin Cities is one of the city’s biggest assets.xThe city has a reputation for being a sustainability leader.xPeople love St. Anthony in general, and believe it is a greatplace to live.xIt’s peaceful, quiet, and has a small-town feel.Opportunities for change xPeople want more physical connectivity through bicycle andpedestrian infrastructure.xThere should be options for long-time residents to stay, as wellas accommodate new people.xSustainable initiatives are underway yet will continue to beimportant to the community.xHousing affordability is an increasing challenge as rents andproperty values go up.xPeople support new housing options on underutilized property(including some density).xSilver Lake Road is a main thorough-fare and is dangerous tocross.People want more physical connectivity through bicycle andpedestrian infrastructure.
St. Anthony 2040 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6: Transportation ൪ൣ FIGURE 6-12: EXISTING AND PROPOSED LOCAL BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORKSt. Anthony 2040 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6: Transportation ൪ Planned Local Non-Motorized Transportation Network Because the City’s existing non-motorized transportation network is well-established, the planned network focuses on filling gaps that exist and improving safety conditions and the comfort or convenience of non-motorized facilities through intersection design, streetscape improvements, and other design considerations. When the network is complete, it will provide safe, convenient linkages between residential areas and commercial, institutional, and recreational areas within the City. The network will improve options for people to walk and bicycle for transportation within the City, and facilitate regional connections (described in greater detail in the following section). The existing and proposed local bicycle and pedestrian network is shown in FIGURE 6-12. The identified non-motorized gaps in this network include the following locations: x St. Anthony Boulevard between Ridgway Parkway and Stinson Boulevard (bicycle) x New Brighton Boulevard/Old Highway 8 between St. Anthony Boulevard and 33rd Avenue NE (bicycle/pedestrian) x 29th Avenue between Stinson Boulevard and St. Anthony Village-Roseville border (bicycle and pedestrian west of New Brighton Boulevard) x Stinson Boulevard between St. Anthony Boulevard and 37th Avenue (bicycle/pedestrian) x Maplewood Drive/Chelmsford Road between Skycroft Drive and 37th Avenue (pedestrian) x Private road/driveway south of Silver Lane within Silver Lake Village Shopping Center (pedestrian) x Silver Lake Road between Silver Lane and Silverwood Park (bicycle) Planned Regional Non-Motorized Transportation Network The Metropolitan Council 2040 TPP encourages the use of bicycles as a mode of transportation and establishes a Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN) to establish an integrated network of on-street bikeways and off-road trails that complement each other to improve conditions for bicycle transportation at the regional level. The RBTN identifies Tier 1 and Tier 2 alignments where existing regional or other trails exist or where a specific alignment has been identified. The RBTN also identifies Tier 1 and Tier 2 corridors where specific alignments have not yet been defined. Within St. Anthony Village, the RBTN identifies three Tier 1 RBTN alignments and three Tier 1 RBTN corridors. SEE FIGURE 6-13. The alignments include the existing Northeast Diagonal Trail, Stinson Parkway between Kenzie Terrace and St. Anthony Boulevard, and St. Anthony Boulevard between Stinson Parkway and the Northeast Diagonal Trail. The Northeast Diagonal Trail and Stinson Parkway alignments are also designated as regional trails. The RBTN corridors all extend St. Anthony Boulevard between Ridgway Parkway and Stinson BoulevardParkway a(bicycle)
St. Anthony 2040 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6: Transportation ൪ from the southwest corner of the City, and include one corridor running north-south on the western edge of the City (centered on Stinson Boulevard north of St. Anthony Boulevard), and one running in a southwest/northeast direction (centered on Silver Lake Road, 29th Avenue, and Old Highway 8). There is also a corridor running to the east from St. Anthony Village centered on the existing Northeast Diagonal Trail; however, because that trail already exists, an alignment does not need to be identified for the segment within the St. Anthony Village. The RBTN alignment identified along St. Anthony Boulevard, along with the remaining portion of St. Anthony Boulevard south of the Northeast Diagonal Trail, is also identified in the Hennepin County 2040 Bicycle Transportation Plan as part of the planned off-street bikeway system. The Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board has also identified this corridor for a regional trail as part of the Grand Rounds Missing Link project, a project to develop connections to the existing Grand Rounds trail system. The City of St. Anthony Village has passed a resolution opposing an off-street bike facility along St. Anthony Boulevard between Stinson Boulevard and New Brighton Boulevard. The Hennepin County plan also identifies Stinson Boulevard as part of the planned on-street bikeway system. Hennepin County has a planned reconstruction project on 29th Avenue which will add sidewalk to CSAH 94 (29th Avenue) between CSAH 88 and the county line. This project also includes participation from the City and Ramsey County. The Ramsey County-Wide Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan identifies a Connected Ramsey Communities Network, with a series of corridors that represent long-distance bikeways crossing the county. Within St. Anthony Village, there are three of these corridors: County Road D (37th Avenue), Stinson (Stinson Boulevard), and Silver Lake Road. County Road E (45th Avenue) is shown as a planned Local Corridor, while Silver Lane is identified as a Local Corridor with an identified need. The City proposes the following alignments for the RBTN corridors identified within the City: x Along Stinson Boulevard between St. Anthony Boulevard and 37th Avenue (coordination with City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County needed). x Along New Brighton Boulevard (CSAH 88) and Old Highway 8. The existing and proposed regional network is shown in FIGURE 6-13. The Minneapolis Park & Recreation poBoard has also identified this corridor for a regional trail as part of the Grandl trail Rounds Missing Link project, a project to develop connections to the existingop connGrand Rounds trail system. The City of St. Anthony Village has passed a resolutionny Village haopposing an off-street bike facility along St. Anthony Boulevard between StinsonAnthoevardBoulevard and New Brighton Boulevard. The Hennepin County plan also identifiesThe Hety planStinson Boulevard as part of the planned ond on-street bikewbikeay system. em. St. Anthony 2040 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6: Transportation ൪൦ Intersection Improvements for Bicycling and Walking A number of intersections have been identified for improvements based on safety issues related to skew or operations for motor vehicles; however, improvements at many of these same intersections would also benefit pedestrians and bicyclists by slowing vehicles, shortening crossing distances, providing pedestrian refuges, and/or adding improved pavement markings or signals. Intersections include: x Kenzie Terrace/Silver Lake Road and St. Anthony Boulevard x CSAH 88 and St. Anthony Boulevard x 29th Avenue and CSAH 88 x 33rd Avenue and Highway 8/Highcrest Road x 29th Avenue and Silver Lake Road x 37th Avenue and Silver Lake Road xKenzie Terrace/Silver Lake Road and St. Anthony BoulevardxCSAH 88 and St. Anthony Boulevard
ALTERNATIVE ROUTE 1: ELEVATED CROSSINGPREFERRED ROUTE: ELEVATED CROSSINGALTERNATIVE ROUTE 2: ELEVATED CROSSINGEXISTING GREAT NORTHERN GREENWAYOTHER'ƌĂŶĚZŽƵŶĚƐDŝƐƐŝŶŐ>ŝŶŬϮϬϭϴhƉĚĂƚĞʹ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶƐMPRB PROPERTYGREEN LINE LRT & STATIONSON STREET ROUTE SEGMENTGRANARY CORRIDORSECTIONEXISTING EXISTING GRAND ROUNDS ROUTEEXISTING BIKE ROUTE (OTHER)ALTERNATIVE ROUTESZ&dPREFERRED ROUTERAILROAD CROSSINGSUB-OPTIONALTERNATE ROUTE 2:BIKE + PEDESTRIAN + AUTOMOBILE ACCESSBIKE + PEDESTRIAN + AUTOMOBILE ACCESSBIKE + PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ONLYBIKE + PEDESTRIAN + AUTOMOBILE ACCESSBIKE + PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ONLYABEFGHIJKLMNOCDE^ d/KE<͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůůǀĚE ĂŶĚ^ŽĨƌŽĂĚǁĂLJ^ƚE ;ϭϬϬ͛ džŝƐƟŶŐZKtͿΎEŽƚĞ͗KƉƟŽŶƌĞƚĂŝŶƐĞdžŝƐƟŶŐŵĞĚŝĂŶǁŝĚƚŚĂŶĚůĂŶĞǁŝĚƚŚ͘>ŽĐĂƟŽŶŵĂLJĐŚĂŶŐĞĂƐZKtŝƐĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĚĞĮŶĞĚ͘ΎEŽƚĞ͗WĂƌŬŝŶŐĐŽƵůĚďĞĂĚĚĞĚďLJŶĂƌƌŽǁŝŶŐŵĞĚŝĂŶ͕ďƵƚĂůƐŽƌƵŶƐƌŝƐŬĨŽƌƐĞŵŝͲƚƌƵĐŬƐƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌůŽŶŐƉĞƌŝŽĚƐĚƵĞƚŽůŽĐĂƟŽŶ͘^> ͗ϭͬϴ͟сϭ͛Ϭϴ͛ϲ͛Ϯ͛ ϰ͛ϲ͛ϲ͛ϲ͛ϴ͛ϲ͛ϲ͛ϯϬ͛ϯϬ͛Ϯϲ͛ϰ͛Kh> ͲsZKh> ͲsZKh> ͲsZD /EͬdhZE>E D /EͬdhZE>E D /EͬdhZE>E Kh> ͲsZ^/ t><^/ t><^/ t><WZKWK^ WZKWK^ y/^d/E'ϭϮ͛ϭϰ͛ϭϮ͛ϭϯ͛ ϭϯ͛ϭϯ͛ ϭϯ͛ϭϮ͛ϭϮ͛ϭϰ͛ϭϰ͛ϭϮ͛dZ/>dZ/>>E >E >E >E >E >E >E >E >E >E
^ d/KE>͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůůǀĚE ĂŶĚEŽĨƌŽĂĚǁĂLJ^ƚE ;ϭϬϬ͛ZKtͿ^> ͗ϭͬϴ͟сϭ͛Ϭϴ͛ϲ͛Ϯ͛ ϰ͛ϲ͛ϯ͛ϭϮ͛Kh> ͲsZKh> sZ Kh> sZD /E^/ t><dZ/>WZKWK^ y/^d/E'ϭϮ͛ϭϮ͛ ϭϮ͛ϭϭ͛ϭϮ͛ϭϮ͛ϮϬ͛ϲ͛ϭϰ͛ϭϰ͛ ϭϰ͛>E >E >E dhZE>E dhZE>E >E >E >E ^ d/KED͗^ƚ͘ŶƚŚŽŶLJWĂƌŬǁĂLJĂƚ'ƌŽƐƐ'ŽůĨŽƵƌƐĞ;tĞƐƚŽĨdƌĂŝůƌŽƐƐŝŶŐͿ;ϭϬϬ͛ džŝƐƟŶŐZKtͿ^> ͗ϭͬϴ͟сϭ͛Ϭϴ͛ϲ͛Ϯ͛ ϰ͛ϭϬ͛ϭϬ͛ϲ͛ϲ͛Kh> sZKh> sZKh> sZKh> sZ Kh> sZdZ/>Kh> sZKh> sZ^/ t><^/ t><^/ t><^/ t><WZKWK^ y/^d/E'ϭϮ͛ϭϲ͛ϭϮ͛ϭϲ͛ϭϬ͛ϭϮ͛ϭϴ͛ϭϬ͛ ϭϬ͛ϭϰ͛ϲ͛ϲ͛>E >E >E >E
/'ZDE͗/Ed Z^ d/KEW>E͗^ƚ͘ͲŶƚŚŽŶLJŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚĂŶĚ<ĞŶnjŝĞdĞƌƌĂĐĞ;KīͲ^ƚƌĞĞƚƚŽKŶͲ^ƚƌĞĞƚdƌĂŝůͿ^ d/KEK͗^ƚ͘ŶƚŚŽŶLJWĂƌŬǁĂLJďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ƟŶƐŽŶŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚĂŶĚ^ŝůǀĞƌ>ĂŬĞZŽĂĚ;ϭϬϬ͛ džŝƐƟŶŐZKtͿ^> ͗ϭͬϴ͟сϭ͛Ϭϴ͛ϲ͛Ϯ͛ ϰ͛ϱ͛ϱ͛ϱ͛ϱ͛ϲ͛ϲ͛Kh> sZKh> sZKh> sZh&&h&&h&&/< dZ/>/< dZ/>WZ<WZ<Kh> sZKh> sZh&&Kh> sZ^/ t><^/ t><^/ t><^/ t><^/ t><^/ t><WZKWK^ KEͲ^dZ d/< >E ^WZ</E'KE ^/ K&^dZ d yd E^ϳϮ͛K&ZKtWZKWK^ ϭϬ͛dZ/>ͲKWd/KEϭWZ</E'KE ^/ K&^dZ d yd E^ϳϮ͛K&ZKtWZKWK^ ϭϬ͛dZ/>ͲKWd/KEϮWZ</E'Kd,^/ ^K&^dZ d yd E^&h>>ϭϬϬ͛K&ZKtϭϭ͛ϭϭ͛ϰ͛ϭϭ͛ϭϭ͛ϭϭ͛ϴ͛ϴ͛ϭϭ͛ϳ͛ϭϬ͛ϭϰ͛ϰ͛ϰ͛ϰ͛ϲ͛ϭϬ͛ϲ͛ϭϬ͛ϴ͛ϴ͛ϭϬ͛ϴ͛ϯ͛ϭϰ͛>E >E h&&>E >E >E WZ<WZ<>E
^ d/KEK͗^ƚ͘ŶƚŚŽŶLJWĂƌŬǁĂLJďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ƟŶƐŽŶŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚĂŶĚ^ŝůǀĞƌ>ĂŬĞZŽĂĚ;ϭϬϬ͛ džŝƐƟŶŐZKtͿ^> ͗ϭͬϴ͟сϭ͛Ϭϴ͛ϲ͛Ϯ͛ ϰ͛ y/^d/E' yd E^ϳϮ͛K&ZKtϲ͛ϲ͛Kh> sZKh> sZ^/ t><^/ t><ϭϮ͛ϭϮ͛ϴ͛ϭϰ͛ϭϰ͛>E >E WZ<QUESTIONS?Carrie ChristensenSenior Planner, MPRBcchristensen@minneapolisparks.orgwww.minneapolisparks.org/eastoftheriver
INTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATIONPLANNING PROCESS
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
PLANNING PROCESS
2
21
INTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATIONPLANNING PROCESS
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The East of the River Park Master Plan is the result of more
than 1 ½ years of planning and design by MPRB staff, the
community, and hired technical consultants. More than
90 community engagement events were held and several
different stages of input garnered thousands of individual
comments on park plans, guiding principles, and the planning
process itself. The backbone of community engagement
was the 19-member Community Advisory Committee
(CAC), a group of community members appointed by MPRB
Commissioners, City Council Members, and Neighborhood
Organizations. The CAC met 12 times as a group. CAC
members also created a working group to address the
Regional Trail system and Grand Rounds Missing Link. The
workgroup delved in more deeply into their topic area and
reported back to the full CAC along with a recommendation
on the final route for the Grand Rounds Missing Link. Many
CAC members also connected directly with their networks and
neighbors to bring valuable insight to the planning process.
Throughout the process, MPRB staff expended significant
efforts to reach out to community members often left out
of planning processes, namely people of youth, seniors, and
people of color. Staff and design team members attended
numerous community events, both in and outside of parks,
door knocked, and often simply visited parks on busy days
to talk with users. Southeast Minneapolis is home to the
University of Minnesota, and reaching out to the student,
staff, and faculty population was also a core strategy for
outreach which included appointing a student to the CAC,
presenting on the plan in courses, and even organizing a
walking tour for a student club of neighborhood parks. Four
other efforts were specifically envisioned to involve more East
of the River in the process and to make the design process
itself more transparent: the Youth Design Team, the Data Jam,
Design Week, and the Plan Van pop-up park engagement tour.
The Youth Design Team (YDT) employed high school students
to participate in the planning of neighborhood parks in NE and
SE Minneapolis. During the year-long process, these youth
worked with MPRB planning staff, design consultants, local
artists, and community members to help bring important
youth perspectives and creative ideas to the process and
park plans. Youth Design Team participants went through a
competitive application process, were 15-19 years old, live
or attend school in Northeast or Southeast Minneapolis, and
are interested in parks, design, and/or policy making. The
YDT worked on all stages of the plan including site inventory
and analysis, community data collection, data analysis, and
park planning and design. The YDT had hands-on experience
learning concepts, building skills, and gaining professional
experience, all while helping to impact the future of parks in
their communities.
All the gathered input was incorporated into the Data Jam (see
appendix B) and provided to park designers. The Youth Design
Team was the first of its kind at MPRB and is unique in the
public sector, but did build off the success of other youth job
Image 11 | Youth Design Team talks to community members. Source: MPRB
22
INTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATIONPLANNING PROCESS
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
initiatives at MRPB including the Green Team
program.
At CAC meeting #5, the CAC and general
public participated in MPRB’s first ever Data
Jam. In an effort to involve the community
in not just the gathering of data, but in
the interpretation of that data, meeting
participants were asked to sift through
collected community engagement and
demographic data. They developed major
topics for both the service area as a whole,
and for each individual park. They worked
both individually and collectively, having
excellent arguments about what the “public”
was actually saying.
The results of the Data Jam fed directly into
the initial designs of the parks themselves,
which were also prepared in a new and
different way. In order to diversify the pool
of designers involved in the park designs
and to open the process to the CAC and
public, over twelve designers, planners, and
park staff came together for one week and
helped generate initial park designs. These
multi-disciplinary design teams represented
gender and race diversity. They worked
during an intense 4 ½ days that involved site
visits, a charette-style working environment,
and public events. Design week began with
CAC #6, at which CAC members presented
guidance from the Data Jam and working
groups, then sat at tables with the designers
and began thinking about park amenities
and arrangement. Two days later, MPRB
opened the design studio doors for a public
walk-through, where community members
could see the designers’ early ideas and
chat again with them about park designs.
Design week resulted in two concepts for
each park and triangle in the service area
that were a combination of the hopes of the
community, innovations in park design, and
policy direction. Each park concept balanced
being data driven and a creative vision for the
community.
Following design week, two concepts of each
park were shared out with the general public
for feedback. The planning team hosted
four events during this period in addition to
the online survey that was open for almost
two months, to facilitate robust community
dialogue about the concepts for each park.
The events included a BBQ with a DJ at a park,
a happy hour at a local brewery, a bus tour of
all the parks, and a pop-up engagement series
in the parks across the service area, called
the Plan Van. The Plan Van, hosted by the
Youth Design Team and MPRB staff, included
a mobile display of all the park concepts, free
popsicles, and many opportunities for users
of parks to spontaneously provide feedback
on the park designs. The Plan Van took the
planning process directly into the parks and
made it possible for people with a deep
understanding of the parks, the users, to
weigh in on the designs without having to go
online or attend a meeting.
Image 12 | Community designed service area map. Source: MPRB
23
INTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATIONPLANNING PROCESS
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
The high amount of community engagement events, the Youth
Design Team, the Data Jam, Design Week, and the Plan Van
were all done in an effort to ensure that the planning process
was open and equitable, and to perform work in the spirit
of a racial equity lens. Community engagement unfolded in
three main phases, in concert with the gradual evolution of
park plans over 19 months (for a detailed list of engagement
events, see Appendix A). While there is always room for
improvement, and we always learn how to improve our work
with every planning process, we can confidently say that the
extensive engagement associated with the East of the River
Park Master Plan garnered input and dialog from a broad
cross-section of the community. The planning team worked
hard to reach the broader community in the effort and was
supported by local media in getting the word out through
evening news coverage and almost monthly articles in local
and neighborhood papers. The ERPMP is the result of input
that spans ranges of age, gender, economic status, race and
ethnicity, and historic involvement with park planning.
Most important, the planning process and park designs
changed over the course of the project in response to the
community’s voice. The ERPMP process unfolded slowly and
deliberately over more than a year and a half, repeatedly
asking the community to weigh in at each stage: at the initial
visioning, on the community engagement data themselves,
on early hand-sketched designs, at the stage of design
refinement, and even on this very document, which will
doubtlessly change between this draft and the final adopted
version.
Though a park planning process cannot solve the deeply
entrenched institutional bias that exists throughout
government systems, it can recognize that such bias does
exist. It can do its part to make decisions that set the stage
for eliminating that bias in areas where MPRB has jurisdiction.
MPRB recognizes the importance of the commitment to the
ERPMP process many community members have made—
especially at a time of heightened tension and dialog around
race—and the agency is indebted for that service.
The ERPMP is a significant step forward in ensuring that racial
and other bias is eliminated. It envisions a neighborhood park
system that meets the needs of the changing community. It
aligns park plans with community needs and invests in areas
where those needs are greatest. It does not assume the parks
will be remade just as they are now. It remakes the parks in
the image of the new present and future Minneapolis.
Image 13 | Toole Design Group presents at Community Advisory Committee meeting on design for accessibility. Source: MPRB
24
INTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATIONPLANNING PROCESS
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
PROJECT TIME LINE
The ERPMP process unfolded in six distinct stages. The
following is a brief stage-by-stage overview of the project.
1: EARLY CONNECTIONS AND THE CAC
At the inception of the project, MPRB staff met with multiple
community organizations and neighborhood organizations
in the Northeast and Southeast Service Area. The purpose
of these meetings was to build awareness of the planning
process and to also ask for help in broadening the applicant
pool for the CAC. In addition, MPRB staff attended park
events during this start-up phase, to gather input and
encourage CAC applications.
MPRB staff worked closely with appointments on the CAC
composition, to ensure broad representation. It must be
noted here that, as with any CAC, attendance was never
perfect. MPRB recognizes that the multiple evening meetings
demanded by the current CAC process can disproportionately
affect members of color and those with lower incomes. MPRB
will continue to work on improving access to CAC meetings,
including continued consideration of altered meeting, always
providing food during dinner-time meetings, providing
children’s activities, and bringing individual CAC members up
to speed after the fact when they cannot attend meetings.
2: INVENTORY, ANALYSIS, AND DATA
Somewhat outside the CAC and community engagement
process, MPRB and its consultant team prepared an inventory
and analysis of park assets, with descriptions of condition and
quality, and also a demographic analysis of the service area.
These documents were presented during CAC #4 and were
included in the Data Jam.
FIGURE 3 | PROJECT TIMELINE
VISION AN
D
D
I
S
C
O
V
E
R
Y
PARK PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
MASTER
P
L
A
N
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
CONCEPT
ALTERNATIVES
PREFERRED CONCEPT
WIDE
RANGE
OF
DESIRES
AND
NEEDS FINAL PLAN
1
2 3 4EQUITY
PUBLIC PROCESS
CULTURAL DIVERSITY
ADOPTION
REVIEW + APPROVAL
25
INTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATIONPLANNING PROCESS
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
3: PHASE 1 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
MPRB staff, consultants, community connectors, and CAC
members attended nearly 90 events that summer, both in
the parks and elsewhere. There were also maps of each park
and a description of the plan on display in each rec center for
several months where park users could make notes. No park
designs were presented. Rather, the engagement activities
were designed to get people thinking generally about what
the park system as a whole should be and what they would
like to change or preserve in their local park. And finally,
since much of this stage of engagement fell during winter
months, when there are fewer community events to attend to
get input, the design team developed a series of Park Design
Sessions. The Park Design Sessions were hosted in almost
every neighborhood in NE and SE Minneapolis and were
open to the public. They were designed as hour long creative
sessions focused on the parks and triangles in each of the
neighborhoods. An average of 20 people attended each of the
80 of design sessions. As a result of these engagements, the
design team produced summaries of responses associated
with each park and parks in general in the service area. This
information was included in the Data Jam and provided
critical insight as the design team began drawing the first
initial park plans. Also during this phase, MPRB planning staff
and consultants met with each recreation center leader as
well as with an MPRB team from across the organization. The
general input and summaries of the data from this phase are
in Appendix B (DATA JAM PACKETS).
Image 14 | TOP : Community member participating in early park visioning. Source: MPRB
Image 15 | BOTTOM LEFT : Perkins + Will staff talks to young park users on early park design concepts. Source: MPRB
Image 16 | BOTTOM RIGHT : Park user reviews concept plans. Source: MPRB 26
INTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATIONPLANNING PROCESS
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
FIGURE 4 | PHASE 1 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
DATA SUMMARY : COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
METHOD 1: ACTIVITY SELECTION
ATTENDED : 50 + COMMUNITY EVENTS SINCE AUGUST 2017
1200 + ENGAGEMENT MATERIALS
METHOD 2: DREAM PARK CARDS METHOD 3: DESIGN SESSIONS METHOD 4: SURVEY METHOD 5: CANVASSING
COUNT : TBDIN PROCESSCOUNT : 260COUNT : 289 COUNT : 582 COUNT : 80+
++++
27
INTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATIONPLANNING PROCESS
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
FIGURE 5 | SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FROM INITIAL CONCEPT REVIEW DURING SUMMER 2018.
28
INTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATIONPLANNING PROCESS
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
4: INITIAL PARK CONCEPTS AND PHASE 2
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Based on the extensive phase 1 input and the Data Jam in
CAC #5, the expanded design team prepared the initial park
concepts. During Design Week, the design team reviewed
all the community engagement to date and hand-sketched
one or two different concept ideas for each park. The team
refined these sketches over the course of several weeks and
then brought them back out to the community. The designs
were intended to spur community discussion, test different
ideas, and then be significantly revised in a later stage.
The initial concepts were brought out to the community in
several open houses scattered throughout the service area.
The open house set-up was such that community members
could gather around the different designs and discuss them
with neighbors, at times even drawing new solutions right on
the initial sketches. MPRB also met with some stakeholder
groups during this process and initial concepts were available
online with an accompanying survey.
MPRB staff were also asked to weigh in on the concepts
through two “in-houses” where the draft concepts were
displayed for staff feedback from across the agency. Over
forty staff attended each open house to provide comments
and insights on the plans from a variety of perspectives
including maintenance, aquatics, events, ecological
management, and recreation. Technical advisors from other
agencies were also invited to the open houses and for one-on-
one conversations about the process as needed. The technical
advisors included:
• Metro Transit Planning
• Met Council Parks
• UofM Planning
• City of Minneapolis Long Range Planning
• City of Minneapolis Health Department
• City of Minneapolis Public Works Transportation Planning
• Hennepin County
• City of St. Paul Parks and Bike/Ped staff
• MnDOT
• City of St Anthony
• Minneapolis Public Schools
• Mississippi Watershed Management Organization
All input—on-line, open house, stakeholder, MPRB staff,
technical advisor etc.—was entered into MPRB’s on-line survey
system to generate detailed summaries for each park and ideas
for the service area as a whole. The general input themes are
included in the park packet for each park, in Chapter 4.
5: PREFERRED CONCEPTS AND PHASE 3
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Based on input about the initial concepts, the design team met
again in a workshop to discuss revision of the designs. Each
park was considered individually and in the context of the
service area as a whole, with the draft guiding principles (see
Chapter 3) also driving decision-making. The team produced a
single “preferred concept” for each park. The service area-
wide maps and charts were updated to reflect the preferred
concepts.
In CAC #7, members heard from MPRB staff about Operations
and Maintenance at MPRB. This session was designed to
provide the CAC with more detailed understanding of the
maintenance needs and possibilities for the proposed park
improvements.
LOGAN PARK
Concept A 7-1-2018 East of the River Park Master PlanNORTHBROADWAY STREETPLAYGROUND
WADING POOL
DIAMOND
NEW NATURAL AREA
UPDATED MULTIUSE FIELD
NEW PICNIC AREA
RECREATION CENTER
NEW TERRACE SEATING AND EVENT SPACE
TENNIS/PICKLE BALL STRIPING
UPDATED BASKETBALL
NEW PLAZA AND PERFORMANCE SPACE
FRUIT TREES
WALKING TRAILS
IMPROVED SEATING
BOULDER SEATING AREA
JEFFERSON STREET
MONROE STREET
29
INTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATIONPLANNING PROCESS
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
After a year of extensive community engagement with a wide
range of people and groups that know and love their parks,
community engagement around the preferred concepts
centered on the CAC. The preferred concepts were discussed
in meetings 10, 11, 12—meetings that regularly attracted
between 20 and 30 members of the general public in addition
to the CAC members. CAC meeting #10 featured a process of
sorting the parks into those that the CAC felt were in the realm
of consensus toward recommendation and those that required
further discussion. The general public had an opportunity
to speak about each park in turn as it was raised to the floor
(see Appendix 3 for CAC meeting notes showing the details of
the discussion). CAC #11 began the discussion of the “non-
consensus” parks. CAC #12 was the final meeting, with the
CAC recommending the overall guiding principles, guiding
principles for the Grand Rounds Missing Link, and the designs
of all parks to the MPRB Commissioners. The CAC did request
further exploration of the Caleb Dorr triangle concept with the
technical advisory committee and the neighborhood during the
public comment period.
6: PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ERPMP DOCUMENT
AND FINAL APPROVAL
At the conclusion of the CAC process, MPRB staff and
consultants prepared the draft ERPMP document and provided
it to the community for formal public comment. The document
was made available on line and in print at all service area
recreation centers. Surveys were made available online or
printed in all recreation centers.
As the conclusion of the 45-day comment period, MPRB staff
will tabulate the comments, make necessary changes to the
document to reflect that input, and bring the Final ERPMP
before the Board of Commissioners for approval with a public
hearing.
30
THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
One regional trail system was included in the ERPMP planning
process. The Grand Rounds Missing Link (GRML) Master
Plan from 2009 needs an update and to be approved by
the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council has
identified the Grand Rounds Missing Link as a Regional Trail
Search Corridor in the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan. The
GRML is inextricably intertwined with the neighborhood
facilities in the ERPMP project area as well as other current
and planned regional trail connections.
The other regional parks in the area (Ridgway Parkway,
Saint Anthony Parkway, Central Riverfront, and Above the
Falls/Riverfirst) already have adopted master plans. The
Metropolitan Council requires a specific format for regional
park and trail master plans, including information on
operations, public safety, environment, and other factors. The
Metropolitan Council submission may include a preferred and
alternate route options. Not all of these sections are included
in this draft document. However, a detailed description of the
development proposal for the GRML is included, and roughly
parallels what is included for neighborhood parks. This should
provide adequate information for the public to comment
on the intent of the park designs and to offer suggestions or
corrections. The additional sections will be completed prior to
final approval by the MPRB commissioners, and the public will
have an opportunity to review them and provide comments
at a public hearing prior to adoption. After adoption of the
ERPMP document, MPRB staff will compile information on the
regional trail section, separate it from this overall document,
and submit it to the Metropolitan Council for approval.
Council approval is necessary prior to any expenditure of
state or regional funds on the regional trails.
REGIONAL TRAIL: THE GRAND ROUNDS MISSING LINK
REGIONAL TRAIL CONNECTIONSFIGURE 18 | REGIONAL TRAIL CONNECTIONS
254
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
TRAIL PLANNING PROCESS
In addition to being integrated into the park planning
processes for ERPMP, the Grand Rounds Missing Link has
received additional input through a Regional Trails Workgroup
as well as the Technical Advisory Committee. Building off
the 2009 plan, MPRB has focused on strong interagency
coordination and community engagement as part of this
process.
The Regional Trail Work Group formed out of the East of the
River Park Master Plan Community Advisory Committee.
They met four times since March 2018, and all meetings were
open to the public. The workgroup was largely composed
of residents from neighborhoods along the Grand Rounds
Missing Link potential route. The workgroup has offered
ongoing insight and received staff updates on the process of
the Grand Rounds Missing Link interagency coordination.
The workgroup focused discussions around GRML route
options and a set of trail planning considerations were
developed out of the meetings that were approved by the East
of the River Community Advisory Committee in October, 2018.
The trail planning considerations will guide the route and
design of the Grand Rounds Missing Link.
The GRML Route Considerations are:
The workgroup and CAC also recommend that as it is
completed, the regional trail should be called Bridal Veil
Regional Trail as it will no longer be a missing link of the Grand
Rounds.
• Feasible
• A vision founded on interagency coordination
• MPRB Parkway typology whenever possible
• Increase park space and regional trail access
in underserved areas of Minneapolis
• Connect the river to St. Anthony Parkway
• Consider importance of industry to the city
STINSON PARKWAY
Although outside of the scope of the neighborhood parks
and the Grand Rounds Missing Link, Stinson Parkway is a
key connection between Ridgway and St. Anthony Parkway.
It has several garden areas maintained by the Stinson
Parkway Conservancy which offer visual interest and small
opportunities for gathering along the route. There is interest
by the community in pursuing improved bike facilities along
the parkway. On-street bike lanes are one option that the
community has expressed some interest in but also with the
acknowledgement that increasing development and density in
St. Anthony may bring higher traffic volumes to the parkway.
A bike trail was considered in the median, but the initial
potential for bike/auto conflict is high.
• Mitigate environmental justice challenges in
industrial areas and corridors near freeways
• Be an asset to the neighborhoods though which it passes
• Be a safe route for all users*
*This consideration was a staff addition to the route
considerations after the final CAC approval.
MAP LEGEND
Alternative Route 1: Elevated Crossing
Preferred Route: Elevated Crossing
Alternative Route 2: Elevated Crossing
ALTERNATIVE ROUTESPREFERRED ROUTE
Railroad Crossing
Sub-Option
ALTERNATE ROUTE 2:
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Bike + Pedestrian Access Only
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Bike + Pedestrian Access Only
Hennepin
Uni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
35-W
Como IndustrialS
t
.
An
th
on
y
P
a
r
kw
a
y
Parkway to the River
At Grade Crossing
Raised Crossing
Trail Crosses River
Downtown Minneapolis
Gross GolfCourse
FIGURE 19 | PREFERRED AND ALTERNATIVE
GRML ROUTES
255
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
PICNIC AREAS
TRAIL SPECIFIC WAYFINDING ART ART AS INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEM WIDE WAYFINDING
STORMWATER GARDENS POCKET PARKS
TRAILSIDE AMENITY EXAMPLES
256
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
The Grand Rounds is the nation’s largest urban scenic byway
stretching 50 miles and circling three fourths of Minneapolis.
The Grand Rounds contains a park-like road, biking and
walking trails, and green open spaces. The Missing Link is
between St. Anthony Parkway in Northeast Minneapolis and
East River Parkway along the Mississippi River in Southeast
Minneapolis.
In 1883, H. W. S. Cleveland went before the newly formed
Minneapolis Board of Park Commissioners to propose a
series of parks and connecting parkways that would surround
downtown Minneapolis. William Watts Folwell, the head of
a special committee formed in 1891 to study park expansion
to the north and east, first dubbed the parkway system the
“Grand Rounds.” As Minneapolis Superintendent of Parks,
Theodore Wirth took the components of Cleveland’s plan,
the suggestions of the special committee, and the work of
his predecessor William M. Berry, to further the creation
of the Grand Rounds. Wirth envisioned a parkway system
encircling Minneapolis that would connect parks, lakes, rivers,
creeks, and neighborhoods. Through the vision and hard
work of Cleveland, Wirth, and countless others, the Grand
Rounds now includes East River Parkway, West River Parkway,
Minnehaha Parkway, the Chain of Lakes, Wirth Parkway,
Victory Memorial Parkway, and St. Anthony Parkway.
The Missing Link is the one uncompleted section of the Grand
Rounds Parkway System. Plans for completing the Missing
Link were prepared in 1910, 1918, 1930, 1939, and 2009.
Early construction of the Grand Rounds followed the key
scenic areas of the Mississippi River, Minnehaha Creek, and
LOCATION AND HISTORY
the Chain of Lakes. The presence of wetlands in the Missing
Link area deterred construction. A large and profitable gravel
mine located south of what is now Gross Golf Course was also
an obstacle to parkway development during the 1930s and
1940s. When gravel mining ceased in the 1950s, the area was
developed with industrial uses. Active railroad lines and a
major rail yard north of the University of Minnesota were also
impediments.
In the MPRB 2007 Comprehensive Plan, a major initiative is
to complete the Missing Link. Completion of the parkway
will fulfill the vision of having a “grand parkway” and green
“necklace” encircling the city and will provide Minneapolis
and adjoining communities access to parks, trails, paths, and
green space.
The GRML route planning process has been working in parallel
with a City street improvement and protected bikeway
improvement initiative along Industrial Boulevard, and as a
result of this project, part of the future Grand Rounds Missing
Link has been implemented during the planning process.
This brings an exciting momentum to the master plan vision,
and sets a precedent for how the regional trail will integrate
into the existing street network, including operations and
maintenance.
The Industrial Boulevard trail is a result of the City of
Minneapolis and Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) entering into an agreement in 2018 to construct
a shared-use trail segment on MnDOT right of way along
Industrial Boulevard in the City of Minneapolis, and MPRB was
invited to participate in the trail improvement project.
The Park Board agrees to maintain the trail segment as part of
the Park Board’s Grand Rounds. The Park Board maintenance
will include routine and seasonal maintenance including
plowing, mowing and sweeping as needed to maintain the
daily operation of the trail. As owner of the infrastructure, the
City, will be responsible for maintaining the asset condition
of the Trail Segment at its own discretion, including crack
sealing, patching, resurfacing, and reconstruction. The Park
Board will not be responsible for maintenance or operations
of the pedestrian sidewalks on Industrial Blvd. Maintenance
of the sidewalks on Industrial Boulevard will be performed in
accordance with Minneapolis City Ordinances.
There are plans to continue the trail to Broadway Street on
Industrial Boulevard in 2019, contingent upon GRML master
plan approval.
On the southern segment of the route, in the Towerside
District, MPRB has developed two Memorandums of
Understanding with developers working on realizing the vision
of the mixed use district. With significant park dedication fees
in place and ample community support for new parkland in
the emerging district, there are also immediate opportunities
for implementation of the regional trail, contingent on master
plan approval by MPRB and the Metropolitan Council.
257
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
Minneapolis barely extended beyond St. Anthony Falls when
Cleveland proposed the first park system. The Minneapolis
area has greatly changed and grown. Today the study area is
developed with a mix of residential, commercial, industrial,
public, and institutional uses. Industrial uses are located
south of I- 35W and along railroad lines. Commercial and
high density residential buildings are near the river and along
major roadways, and the University of Minnesota is located in
the southern portion of the study area.
The terrain varies from flat urban streetscapes to the scenic
Mississippi River gorge. Much of the housing was built from
1900 to the 1940’s. Industrial development occurred later
in the 1950-1970’s. Gross Golf Course, the Mississippi River,
Ridgeway Park, Deming Park, Columbia Golf Course and
Hillside Cemetery are the primary green spaces within the
study area. Bridal Veil Creek used to be a prominent feature
with the creek moving through many wetlands, ponds and
finally over the Bridal Veil Falls into the Mississippi River.
Today the creek is almost completely underground in pipes
and has pollution and water quality issues.
There is a shortage of trails and parks east of the river in
Minneapolis and the adjoining communities in the search
corridor for the Grand Rounds Missing Link. Due to the close
proximity to the University of Minnesota, this area has a high
volume of bike commuters.
Truck access and movement are important elements of
industrial areas, including Mid City Industrial. Most parkways
restrict truck access. Unlike the early Grand Rounds
development that occurred in a relatively undeveloped
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Minneapolis, there is a well established City and County road
network in the area provide a framework east of the river
along much of the preferred parkway route. The Burlington
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad line and the BNSF railroad
yard run through the east central part of the study area.
An inventory and analysis of existing land cover for the
Missing Link alignment was done using the Minnesota Land
Cover Classification system developed by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources and the Metro Geographic
Information System. The result of the inventory shows, for
the most part, that the area is highly developed with industry,
commercial and residential uses. Open or ‘green’ space along
the route can be considered at Gross Golf Course and Sunset/
Hillside Cemetery. While these areas are open and provide for
a high percentage of pervious surfaces, they are not natural
or native landscapes; rather they are highly manicured and
maintained, constructed landscape systems. Along the route,
there are no known or identified natural, unique or sensitive
land cover types.
258
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
The construction of the Missing Link will fulfill a 120-year civic
vision of creating a grand loop of green space and parkway
through Minneapolis and the adjoining communities. The
Missing Link will connect the east side of Minneapolis to the
Mississippi River, Wirth Park, the Chain of Lakes, Minnehaha
Park, and other amenities. It will bring needed connections
and parkland east of the river, and the adjoining communities.
Portions of southeast Minneapolis lack access to parks, and
the regional trail is a great opportunity to bring more parklike
spaces to the service area. MPRB’s goal is to provide parks
within a 6-10 block distance from residents, and according
to the Trust for Public Land Park Score, 97% of Minneapolis
residents benefit from parks near their homes. Southeast
Como and Mid City Industrial are two neighborhoods that are
underserved. The addition of the final parkway would add
parks, in the form of a regional trail and trailside amenities
along the route, to those areas which have been underserved.
In essence, much of the Missing Link work will involve
“greening” existing roads and right-of-way. In some cases,
the Missing Link may only include a regional trail system if the
final route passes through areas that do not have an existing
street grid, like along 33rd Avenue and through the Towerside
District.
Although trucks and freight are not allowed on most
parkways, since the Missing Link route will go through an
existing industrial area the truck access policy will need to be
examined on a site specific basis to decide if and where truck
use of the parkway is appropriate or necessary.
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT (AND COSTS)
FIGURE 20 |LOCATION OF GRAND ROUNDS MISSING LINK
MAP LEGEND
Existing Grand Rounds
Minneapolis City Boundary
Northeast Minneapolis Study Area
Location of Grand Rounds Missing Link
I-35WMississippi RiverMississippi RiverI-94
I-94
I-35W Hi
aw
a
th
a
A
v
e
I-394
Downtown
Minneapolis
Northeast
Minneapolis
259
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
FIGURE 21 |PREFERRED GRML ROUTE FIGURE 22 |ALTERNATIVE GRML ROUTES
MAP LEGEND
Alternative Route 1: Elevated Crossing
Preferred Route: Elevated Crossing
Alternative Route 2: Elevated Crossing
ALTERNATIVE ROUTESPREFERRED ROUTE
EXISTING OTHER
Railroad Crossing
Sub-Option
ALTERNATE ROUTE 2:
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Bike + Pedestrian Access Only
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Existing Grand Rounds Route
Existing Bike Route (Other)
MPRB Property
Green Line LRT and Stations
Bike + Pedestrian Access Only
On Street Route Segment
Granary Corridor
Hennepin
Uni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
35-W
Como IndustrialS
t
.
An
tho
n
y
P
a
r
kw
a
y
Hennepin
Uni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
35-W
35-W
Como IndustrialS
t
.
An
tho
n
y
P
a
r
kw
a
y
At Grade Crossing At Grade Crossing
Raised Crossing Raised Crossing
Trail Crosses River Trail Crosses River
Downtown Minneapolis Downtown Minneapolis
Gross GolfCourse
Gross GolfCourse
Parkway to the RiverParkway to the River
260
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
MAP LEGEND
Alternative Route 1: Elevated Crossing
Preferred Route: Elevated Crossing
Alternative Route 2: Elevated Crossing
ALTERNATIVE ROUTESPREFERRED ROUTE
Railroad Crossing
Sub-Option
ALTERNATE ROUTE 2:
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Bike + Pedestrian Access Only
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Bike + Pedestrian Access Only
There is a preferred route and alternate routes for the GRML.
These were both supported by the ERPMP CAC to open for
public comment. The Preferred Route was the recommended
route of the Regional Trail Workgroup who worked closely
with staff over the course of several months on the route
possibilities. The CAC made a recommendation of the route
and considerations to provide a framework for MPRB in
the development of the GRML with the understanding that
MPRB cannot go at this alone, and that ongoing coordination
with the local neighborhoods, business owners, the City of
Minneapolis, the City of Saint Anthony, Hennepin County,
the UofM and other stakeholders is the only way forward to
realize the Grand Rounds vision.
BOUNDARY AND ACQUISITION
Each route concept passes through a wide variety of landuse
types and through and along other public agency right of
way and numerous privately owned properties. The City of
Minneapolis, the County and BNSF Railroad own almost all
the right of way. The University of Minnesota is a major land
holder along the route as well as the owner and operator of
the University of MN Transitway.
FIGURE 23 |ZONING ALONG PROPOSED GRML
ROUTES
FIGURE 24 |OWNERSHIP ALONG GRML ROUTES
ZONING OWNERSHIP
Railroad PropertiesB4-B4S
City of MinneapolisC1-C2
University of MinnesotaC3A-C3S
Minneapolis Park BoardC4
Commercial / ResidentialI1-I3
OR1-OR3
R1-R2B
R3-R6
Hennepin
Uni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
35-W
35-W
Como IndustrialS
t
.
An
tho
n
y
P
a
r
kw
a
y
Hennepin
Uni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
35-W
35-W
Como IndustrialS
t
.
An
tho
n
y
P
a
r
kw
a
y
At Grade Crossing At Grade Crossing
Raised Crossing Raised Crossing
Trail Crosses River Trail Crosses River
Downtown Minneapolis Downtown Minneapolis
Gross GolfCourse
Gross GolfCourse
Parkway to the RiverParkway to the River
261
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
Easement
Acquistion
MAP LEGEND
Alternative Route 1: Elevated Crossing
Preferred Route: Elevated Crossing
Alternative Route 2: Elevated Crossing
ALTERNATIVE ROUTESPREFERRED ROUTE
EXISTING OTHER
Railroad Crossing
Sub-Option
ALTERNATE ROUTE 2:
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Bike + Pedestrian Access Only
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Existing Grand Rounds Route
Existing Bike Route (Other)
MPRB Property
Green Line LRT and Stations
Bike + Pedestrian Access Only
On Street Route Segment
Granary Corridor
FIGURE 25 |PREFERRED GRML ROUTE:
EASEMENTS & ACQUISITIONS
FIGURE 26 |ALTERNATIVE GRML ROUTES:
EASEMENTS & ACQUISITIONS
Hennepin
Uni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
35-W
Como IndustrialS
t
.
An
th
on
y
P
a
r
kw
a
y
Hennepin
Uni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
35-W
Como IndustrialS
t
.
An
th
on
y
P
a
r
kw
a
y
At Grade Crossing At Grade Crossing
Raised Crossing Raised Crossing
Trail Crosses River Trail Crosses River
Downtown Minneapolis Downtown Minneapolis
Gross GolfCourse
Gross GolfCourse
Parkway to the RiverParkway to the River
262
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
MAP LEGEND
Alternative Route 1: Elevated Crossing
Preferred Route: Elevated Crossing
Alternative Route 2: Elevated Crossing
ALTERNATIVE ROUTESPREFERRED ROUTE
EXISTING OTHER
Railroad Crossing
Sub-Option
ALTERNATE ROUTE 2:
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Bike + Pedestrian Access Only
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Existing Grand Rounds Route
Existing Bike Route (Other)
MPRB Property
Green Line LRT and Stations
Bike + Pedestrian Access Only
On Street Route Segment
Granary Corridor
Section Guide
A A
B B
E
F G
H I
JJ
K K
L
MM
L
C C
D D
E
FIGURE 27 |PREFERRED GRML ROUTE - SECTION
GUIDE
FIGURE 28 |ALTERNATIVE GRML ROUTES -
SECTION GUIDE
Hennepin
Uni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
35-W
Como IndustrialS
t
.
A
n
thon
y
P
a
r
kw
a
y
Hennepin
Uni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
35-W
Como IndustrialS
t
.
A
n
thon
y
P
a
r
kw
a
y
At Grade Crossing At Grade Crossing
Raised Crossing Raised Crossing
Trail Crosses River Trail Crosses River
Downtown Minneapolis Downtown Minneapolis
Gross GolfCourse
Gross GolfCourse
Parkway to the RiverParkway to the River
263
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
RIVER TO GREEN 4TH:
In both the preferred and the alternate concepts, the
regional trail crosses from East River Road and takes 27th
Ave SE up toward University Avenue. This route passes by the
proposed Luxton Park addition which would be an important
connection to the neighborhood park network along the new
route (Section A.) The route crosses University Avenue and
proceeds to Green 4th, a newly improved street that includes
ecological and traffic calming features (Section B.)
PROPOSED
EXISTING
SECTION A: 27th Ave SE and Luxton Park (60’ Existing ROW)
6’
5’5’5’5’
8’
8’12’12’
10’10’5’10’4’6’
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARDSIDEWALK SIDEWALKLANE
LANE LANE
PARKING LANE TRAIL
BIKE BIKE
CL
CL
SIDEWALK SIDEWALKPARKINGPARKING
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
SECTION A: 27TH AVE SE AND LUXTON PARK (60’ EXISTING ROW)
PROPOSED
EXISTING
SECTION KEY
A
27TH AVE SEUNI
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
S
E
264
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
INTERSECTION CONSIDERATIONS ALONG
THE ROUTE SEGMENT:
27th Avenue Southeast and East River Parkway:
MPRB, along with agency partners, considers the
intersection at 27th Avenue SE, East River Parkway, and
Franklin Avenue a crucial confluence of the parkway
and regional trail system. While Franklin Ave is owned
by the City of Minneapolis east of the Franklin Bridge,
27th Avenue Southeast is a Hennepin County road
(CSAH 5), and East River Road and Caleb Dorr Triangle
by MPRB, the intersection is a complex web of property
ownership and multimodal movement. The County
completed a study in 2010 that highlighted several
opportunities for improvements to the intersection that
MPRB is in support of exploring in collaboration with
the County and City. MPRB is open to a wide variety of
intersection improvements, that balance all modes of
transportation, including but not limited to:
• A one-lane round about that prioritizes
bike and pedestrian safety
• Raised crossings for bikes and pedestrians
• Realignment of streets at the intersection to create
a four way intersection to replace the five way
intersection that may include the integration of
MPRB owned land or ROW into the solution
• Solutions yet to be determined
PROPOSED
EXISTING
SECTION B: 27th Ave SE, South of SE 4th St, North of University (80’ Existing ROW)
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
8’6’
6’6’6’6’
8’
8’8’
8’10’
12’12’
10’14’6’6’4’
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARDSIDEWALK
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
SIDEWALKLANE
LANE LANE
PARKING
PARKING PARKING
PARKINGLANE TRAIL
CL
CL
PROPOSED
EXISTING
SECTION B: 27th Ave SE, South of SE 4th St, North of University (80’ Existing ROW)
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
8’6’
6’6’6’6’
8’
8’8’
8’10’
12’12’
10’14’6’6’4’
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARDSIDEWALK
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
SIDEWALKLANE
LANE LANE
PARKING
PARKING PARKING
PARKINGLANE TRAIL
CL
CL
SECTION B: 27TH AVE SE, SOUTH OF SE 4TH ST, NORTH OF UNIVERSITY (80’ EXISTING ROW)
PROPOSED
EXISTING
SECTION KEY
B SE 4
T
H
S
T
UNI
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
S
E
265
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
TOWERSIDE DISTRICT
In the preferred concept, trail users can remain on 4th over to
Malcolm (Section C and Section D) where they will head north
to a bridge over the railyard. All modes can use this route,
including bikes, pedestrians, and automobiles. A secondary
route for the regional trail facility is to move it through the
Towerside District. Additional coordination is needed with
MetroTransit and the UofM to determine the preferred
crossing for the LRT tracks and the UofM Transitway. In order
to maximize the trail presence in the emerging Towerside
District north of the Transitway, MPRB is committed to
a study of crossing the transitway at 27th Avenue SE and
29th Avenue SE that would include potential traffic control
devices to regulate trail user access across the transitway
and to prioritize UofM Transitway buses. MPRB supports
the relocation of the Transitway as long term solution for
improved trail and parkway connections across the district,
and would be interested in exploring a repurposing of the
transitway as a parkway and regional trail if the opportunity
arises. Finding a way to move the regional trail through the
heart of the district will provide a backbone of parkland that
will be a foundation for innovation in line with the Towerside
vision. The UofM has expressed support for crossing the
Transitway at 27th Avenue SE, but this would require a
crossing of the LRT tracks, which the 29th Avenue SE crossing
would not entail.
SECTION C: SE 4th St and Malcolm Ave SE (Use New Construction; On-Street Bike Lanes)
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
PROPOSED
EXISTING
6’
6’
6’
6’
6’
6’
5’
5’
8’
8’
8’
8’
8’
8’
7’
7’
10’
10’
10’
10’
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALK
LANE
LANE
BIKE
BIKE
BIKE
BIKE
PARKING
PARKING
PARKING
PARKING
LANE
LANE
CL
CL
SECTION C: SE 4TH ST AND MALCOLM AVE SE (USE NEW CONSTRUCTION; ON-STREET BIKE LANES)
PROPOSED
EXISTING
SECTION KEY
C
SE 4
T
H
S
T
UNI
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
S
E
266
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
SECTION C: SE 4th St and Malcolm Ave SE (Use New Construction; On-Street Bike Lanes)
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
PROPOSED
EXISTING
6’
6’
6’
6’
6’
6’
5’
5’
8’
8’
8’
8’
8’
8’
7’
7’
10’
10’
10’
10’
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALK
LANE
LANE
BIKE
BIKE
BIKE
BIKE
PARKING
PARKING
PARKING
PARKING
LANE
LANE
CL
CL
SECTION D: Malcolm Ave SE, South of Railroad Crossing (60’ Existing ROW)
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
PROPOSED
EXISTING
6’
4’
6’4’
5’6’5’
5’8’
8’8’
10’11’
12’12’
10’
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARDSIDEWALK
SIDE-
WALK
SIDE-
WALK
SIDEWALKTRAILPARKING
PARKING PARKING
LANE
LANE LANE
LANE
CL
CL
SECTION D: Malcolm Ave SE, South of Railroad Crossing (60’ Existing ROW)
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
PROPOSED
EXISTING
6’
4’
6’4’
5’6’5’
5’8’
8’8’
10’11’
12’12’
10’
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARDSIDEWALK
SIDE-
WALK
SIDE-
WALK
SIDEWALKTRAILPARKING
PARKING PARKING
LANE
LANE LANE
LANE
CL
CL
SECTION D: MALCOLM AVE SE, SOUTH OF RAILROAD CROSSING (60’ EXISTING ROW)
PROPOSED
EXISTING
SECTION KEY
D
Image 17 | Green on 4th, an apartment complex along Green
Fourth Street developed by Minneapolis-based Prospect
Park Properties & Bloomington-based Timberland Partners
(Renderings by Tushie Montgomery Architects, January 2018,
Source: https://finance-commerce.com/2018/01/just-sold-work-
starts-on-green-on-4th-rentals-in-prospect-park/)
Image 18 | Green on 4th Apartment Complex Development
(Renderings by Tushie Montgomery Architects, January 2018,
Source: greenonfourth.com)
SE 4
T
H
S
T
MALCOLM AVE SE267
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
RAILYARD:
There are two proposed railyard crossings in the plan. Both
would include multi-modal bridges, with the preferred
crossing happening from Malcolm or the Towerside District
to Kasota on the northside of the railyard (Section E.)
Extensive coordination with other public agencies and the
railroad are needed to assess the best route forward for
moving pedestrians, cyclists, cars, freight across the rails.
This railyard crossing is the most complex infrastructural
component of the GRML, and will require multi-agency
consensus, fundraising, and effort to accomplish. Trailside
amenities such as benches, lighting and wayfinding would be
included to instill a sense of parkway character on the bridge.
25TH AVE SE
A crossing of the railyard at 25th Avenue SE is an alternative
route that MPRB will continue to explore. This option
bypasses the Towerside District, but it does offer an existing,
signalized, on-street crossing of the Transitway and LRT
tracks, which are both barriers to the Towerside District
Route. The UofM has expressed support for this alternative.
SECTION E: Typical Bridge Crossing (52’ Wide)
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
PROPOSED
EXISTING N/A
10’14’14’14’
SIDEWALKTRAILLANELANE
CL
SECTION E: TYPICAL BRIDGE CROSSING (52’ WIDE)
PROPOSED
SECTION KEY
E
E
K
A
SO
T
A
A
V
E
S
E24TH AVE SE268
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
33RD AVE SE
This route will provide access to Bridal Veil Wetland, Bridal
Veil Creek, and enhance access to the Mississippi River. The
proposed regional trail would restore historic natural features
such as wetlands and ponds in parks and green spaces to
this area that requires additional environmental analysis
to assess a necessary mitigation efforts. This route would
involve several acquisitions or easements along the 33rd Ave
SE corridor south of Como Ave. SE [See GRML Easements &
Acquistions, Figures 25 and 26]. The segment south of Como
Avenue could be regional trail only, rather than a route for all
modes. Cars and freight could take alternate routes including
Kasota and reconnect to the GRML at Como Avenue and 33rd
Ave SE.
SECTION F: 33rd Ave SE (between Como Ave SE and Weeks Ave SE) (60’ Existing ROW)
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
6’6’4’5’8’10’11’10’
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARDSIDEWALK SIDEWALKTRAILPARKINGLANELANEPROPOSED
EXISTING
8’8’11’11’11’11’
SIDEWALK SIDEWALKLANELANELANELANE
CL
CL
SECTION F: 33rd Ave SE (between Como Ave SE and Weeks Ave SE) (60’ Existing ROW)
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
6’6’4’5’8’10’11’10’
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARDSIDEWALK SIDEWALKTRAILPARKINGLANELANEPROPOSED
EXISTING
8’8’11’11’11’11’
SIDEWALK SIDEWALKLANELANELANELANE
CL
CL
SECTION F: 33RD AVE SE (BETWEEN COMO AVE SE AND WEEKS AVE SE) (60’ EXISTING ROW)
PROPOSED
EXISTING
SECTION KEY
F F
K
A
SO
T
A
A
V
E
S
E 33RD AVE SE269
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
29TH AVE SE
One alternate route takes trail users up Kasota from the
railyard to cross over another set of tracks, then jobs down
to 29th Ave SE (Section I.) On 29th Ave SE, the trail would
include a simple shared use facility on the east side of the
road. This concept does not remove parking from the street.
SECTION I: 29th Ave SE, South of E Hennepin Ave
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
6’
6’6’
4’
8’6’
6’34’
34’
10’
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARDSIDEWALK
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
LANES + PARKING
LANES + PARKING
TRAILPROPOSED
EXISTING
SECTION I: 29th Ave SE, South of E Hennepin Ave
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
6’
6’6’
4’
8’6’
6’34’
34’
10’
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARDSIDEWALK
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
LANES + PARKING
LANES + PARKING
TRAILPROPOSED
EXISTING
SECTION I: 29TH AVE SE, SOUTH OF EAST HENNEPIN AVE
PROPOSED
EXISTING
SECTION KEY
I
33RD AVE SESE HENNEPIN AVE
27TH AVE SE270
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
SECTION G: 27th Ave SE, South of Como Ave SE (115’ Existing ROW)
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
6’
6’
6’
6’
6’4’6’5’
4’5’25’
8’
8’8’8’8’
8’8’8’10’
10’
10’
10’
11’
13’
11’
13’
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARDBOULEVARD
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALKPARKING
PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING
PARKING PARKING PARKINGLANE
LANE
LANE
LANE
LANE
LANE
LANE
LANE
PROPOSED
27th Ave SE
27th Ave SE
28th Ave SE
28th Ave SE
EXISTING
CL CL
CL CL
14’
TRAIL
SECTION G: 27th Ave SE, South of Como Ave SE (115’ Existing ROW)
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
6’
6’
6’
6’
6’4’6’5’
4’5’25’
8’
8’8’8’8’
8’8’8’10’
10’
10’
10’
11’
13’
11’
13’
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARDBOULEVARD
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALKPARKING
PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING
PARKING PARKING PARKINGLANE
LANE
LANE
LANE
LANE
LANE
LANE
LANE
PROPOSED
27th Ave SE
27th Ave SE
28th Ave SE
28th Ave SE
EXISTING
CL CL
CL CL
14’
TRAIL
SECTION G: 27TH AVE SE, SOUTH OF COMO AVE SE (115’ EXISTING ROW)
EXISTING
PROPOSED
SECTION KEY
G
33RD AVE SESE HENNEPIN AVE
27TH AVE SE29TH AVE SE271
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
SECTION H: 27th Ave SE, North of Como Ave SE (60’ Existing ROW)
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
6’
6’6’
4’
6’6’
4’5’5’
8’8’
8’8’10’10’
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
PEDBIKE
TRAIL: SEPARATE USE PATH
BIKESIDEWALK
SIDEWALK SIDEWALKPARKINGPARKING
PARKING PARKINGLANELANEPROPOSED
EXISTING
12’12’
LANE LANE
CL
CL
SECTION H: 27th Ave SE, North of Como Ave SE (60’ Existing ROW)
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
6’
6’6’
4’
6’6’
4’5’5’
8’8’
8’8’10’10’
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
PEDBIKE
TRAIL: SEPARATE USE PATH
BIKESIDEWALK
SIDEWALK SIDEWALKPARKINGPARKING
PARKING PARKINGLANELANEPROPOSED
EXISTING
12’12’
LANE LANE
CL
CL
SECTION H: 27TH AVE SE, NORTH OF COMO AVE SE (60’ EXISTING ROW)
PROPOSED
EXISTING
27TH AVE SE
Another alternate route takes trail users from the railyard
crossing at 25th Avenue SE up to 24th Avenue SE north of the
tracks and then over to 27th Avenue SE. This route takes trail
users up the median of 27th/28th Avenue SE south of Como
Avenue, and then stays on the west side of the street on a
shared use trail (Section G and Section H.) This concept does
not remove parking from the street.
Crossing of the tracks for both alternate route concepts would
require additional study to ensure the safety of all modes. If
an at grade crossing is pursued, the most direct crossing is at
Paul Place which maximizes keeping the trail on the existing
street grid, but require an easement or acquisition of a parcel
[See GRML Easements & Acquistions, Figure 26 and 27].
SECTION KEY
H
33RD AVE SESE HENNEPIN AVE
27TH AVE SE29TH AVE SE272
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
FIGURE 29 |PREFERRED AND ALTERNATIVE
GRML ROUTES
A
B
E
E
G
H I
J
K
L
C
D
Hennepin
Uni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
35-W
Como IndustrialS
t
.
An
th
on
y
P
a
r
kw
a
y
F
INTERSECTION CONSIDERATIONS ALONG THE
ROUTE SEGMENT:
The proposed routes continue along East Hennepin Ave to the
intersection of Industrial Boulevard NE and East Hennepin
Avenue. MPRB would like to explore alternatives for a shared
use trail along the southern edge of East Hennepin Avenue for
this segment coming from the east or the west, depending on
the southern route. Trail users will move along Hennepin to
Industrial Boulevard for a safe, signalized crossing. This option
would not entail adding a signal on Hennepin, and could
therefore maintain its level of service. A potential for rail spur
connection from 33rd Avenue will be explored that would
allow the trail to bypass busy Hennepin, but still make use of
the signalized crossing at Industrial Boulevard and Hennepin
Avenue.
SAINT ANTHONY PARKWAY:
In the preferred and alternate route concepts, the GRML
moves from Industrial Boulevard across 35W to Saint Anthony
Parkway. In 2018, a shared use trail was installed on the
west side of Industrial Boulevard connecting across 35W to
Ridgway Parkway. The GRML proposed routes call for the
shared use path to continue up the west side of the parkway
north of 35W until the driveway to Gross Golf Course where
trail users will cross over the parkway to the east side of the
street to continue on a regional trail that will take them north
(Section L). The intersection at Saint Anthony Parkway and
New Brighton should be improved to accommodate for safer
bike and pedestrian crossings. Diagram M shows the crossing
suggestions. North of Saint Anthony’s Trillium Park, the trail
will move to an on-street bike lane configuration with the
potential for an off street facility in the future.
MAP LEGEND
Alternative Route 1: Elevated Crossing
Preferred Route: Elevated Crossing
Alternative Route 2: Elevated Crossing
ALTERNATIVE ROUTESPREFERRED ROUTE
EXISTING OTHER
Railroad Crossing
Sub-Option
ALTERNATE ROUTE 2:
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Bike + Pedestrian Access Only
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Existing Grand Rounds Route
Existing Bike Route (Other)
MPRB Property
Green Line LRT and Stations
Bike + Pedestrian Access Only
On Street Route Segment
Granary Corridor
Section Guide
INTERSECTION CONSIDERATIONS ALONG THE
ROUTE SEGMENT:
The trail will continue on the north side of St. Anthony
Boulevard and New Brighton Boulevard and switch from
off-street to on-street at the intersection of St. Anthony
Boulevard and Kenzie Terrace with the addition of a 2-Stage
Bike Box, and continue on-street. If needed, there is the
opportunity to reduce lane widths to accomodate a trail,
especially if needed east of New Brighton. Also recommended
is the removal of free right turns and tighten radii, although
there could exist right turn lanes that T into the intersection if
traffic volumes warrent them.
INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD:
In both the preferred concept and the alternate route
concepts, the GRML is proposed along Industrial Boulevard
starting at Hennepin Avenue (Section J and Section K.) In
this concept, a shared use trail would connect users from
Como Avenue across I-35W on the west side of the street. To
maximize the parkway character and safety on the corridor,
boulevard trees, parkway lighting, sidewalks, and, in some
cases, reduced traffic lanes are all included in the plan.
Gross GolfCourse
Parkway to the River
M
273
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
SECTION K: Industrial Blvd NE and S of Broadway St NE (100’ Existing ROW)
*Note: Option
retains existing
median width and
lane width. Location
may change as ROW
is further defined.
*Note: Parking
could be added by
narrowing median,
but also runs risk
for semi-trucks
parking there for
long periods due to
location.
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
6’
6’6’8’6’6’
30’
30’
26’
4’
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
MEDIAN / TURN LANE
MEDIAN / TURN LANE
MEDIAN / TURN LANE
BOULE-
VARD
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
SIDEWALKPROPOSED
PROPOSED
EXISTING
12’
14’
12’
13’13’13’13’
12’12’
14’14’
12’
TRAIL
TRAIL
LANE
LANE LANE LANE LANE
LANE LANE
LANELANE
LANE
SECTION K: Industrial Blvd NE and S of Broadway St NE (100’ Existing ROW)
*Note: Option
retains existing
median width and
lane width. Location
may change as ROW
is further defined.
*Note: Parking
could be added by
narrowing median,
but also runs risk
for semi-trucks
parking there for
long periods due to
location.
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
6’
6’6’8’6’6’
30’
30’
26’
4’
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
MEDIAN / TURN LANE
MEDIAN / TURN LANE
MEDIAN / TURN LANE
BOULE-
VARD
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
SIDEWALKPROPOSED
PROPOSED
EXISTING
12’
14’
12’
13’13’13’13’
12’12’
14’14’
12’
TRAIL
TRAIL
LANE
LANE LANE LANE LANE
LANE LANE
LANELANE
LANE
SECTION K: Industrial Blvd NE and S of Broadway St NE (100’ Existing ROW)
*Note: Option
retains existing
median width and
lane width. Location
may change as ROW
is further defined.
*Note: Parking
could be added by
narrowing median,
but also runs risk
for semi-trucks
parking there for
long periods due to
location.
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
6’
6’6’8’6’6’
30’
30’
26’
4’
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
BOULE-
VARD
MEDIAN / TURN LANE
MEDIAN / TURN LANE
MEDIAN / TURN LANE
BOULE-
VARD
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
SIDEWALKPROPOSED
PROPOSED
EXISTING
12’
14’
12’
13’13’13’13’
12’12’
14’14’
12’
TRAIL
TRAIL
LANE
LANE LANE LANE LANE
LANE LANE
LANELANE
LANE
SECTION J: INDUSTRIAL BLVD NE AND S OF BROADWAY ST NE (100’ EXISTING ROW)
EXISTING
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
SECTION KEY
J
INDUSTRIAL BLVD NEBROADWAY ST NE
274
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
SECTION L: Industrial Blvd NE and N of Broadway St NE (100’ ROW)
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
6’3’12’
BOULE-
VARDBOULEVARDBOULEVARD
MEDIAN
SIDEWALKTRAILPROPOSED
EXISTING
12’
12’12’
11’
12’
12’20’
6’
14’
14’14’
LANE
LANE LANE
TURN LANE
TURN LANE
LANE
LANE LANE
SECTION L: Industrial Blvd NE and N of Broadway St NE (100’ ROW)
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
6’3’12’
BOULE-
VARDBOULEVARDBOULEVARD
MEDIAN
SIDEWALKTRAILPROPOSED
EXISTING
12’
12’12’
11’
12’
12’20’
6’
14’
14’14’
LANE
LANE LANE
TURN LANE
TURN LANE
LANE
LANE LANE
SECTION K: INDUSTRIAL BLVD NE AND N OF BROADWAY ST NE (100’ ROW)
PROPOSED
EXISTING
SECTION KEY
K
INDUSTRIAL BLVD NEBROADWAY ST NE
275
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
SECTION M: St. Anthony Boulevard at Gross Golf Course (West of Trail Crossing) (100’ Existing ROW)
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
10’10’
6’6’
BOULEVARD
BOULEVARD BOULEVARD
BOULEVARD BOULEVARDTRAILBOULEVARD BOULEVARDSIDEWALKSIDEWALK
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
PROPOSED
EXISTING
12’
16’
12’
16’
10’
12’18’
10’10’14’6’6’
LANE
LANE
LANE
LANE
SECTION M: St. Anthony Boulevard at Gross Golf Course (West of Trail Crossing) (100’ Existing ROW)
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
0 8’6’2’4’
10’10’
6’6’
BOULEVARD
BOULEVARD BOULEVARD
BOULEVARD BOULEVARDTRAILBOULEVARD BOULEVARDSIDEWALKSIDEWALK
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
PROPOSED
EXISTING
12’
16’
12’
16’
10’
12’18’
10’10’14’6’6’
LANE
LANE
LANE
LANE
SECTION L: ST. ANTHONY BOULEVARD AT GROSS GOLF COURSE (WEST OF TRAIL CROSSING) (100’ EXISTING ROW)
PROPOSED
EXISTING
SECTION KEY
L
Gross GolfCourseST ANTHONY
BLVD
I-35W
276
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
SECTION L: ST. ANTHONY BOULEVARD AT GROSS GOLF COURSE (WEST OF TRAIL CROSSING) (100’ EXISTING ROW)
INTERSECTION PLAN: St. Anthony Boulevard and Kenzie Terrace (Off-Street to On-Street Trail)
DIAGRAM M: INTERSECTION PLAN OF ST. ANTHONY BOULEVARD AND KENZIE TERRACE (OFF-STREET TO ON-STREET TRAIL)BOULEVARD
DIAGRAM KEY
M
Gross GolfCourseST ANTHONY
BLVD
NEW BRIGHTON BLVDKENZIE TERRACE277
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
TRAILSIDE AMENITIES:
Along the route map, there are potential greenspace
identified that are considered part of the regional trail.
They offer spots along the route for rest, stormwater
capture, gathering, and wayfinding. In some cases, they
may be restored and remediate wetlands, or pocket-park
nodes of greenspace, and in some cases, simply a sign
or bench along the route. The added open space will
provide a much needed element to an area of the city that
is highly developed and without any significant adjacent
or nearby natural resources.
FIGURE 30 |PREFERRED ROUTE: TRAILSIDE
AMENITIES
FIGURE 31 |ALTERNATIVE ROUTES: TRAILSIDE
AMENITIES
MAP LEGEND
Alternative Route 1: Elevated Crossing
Preferred Route: Elevated Crossing
Alternative Route 2: Elevated Crossing
ALTERNATIVE ROUTESPREFERRED ROUTE
EXISTING OTHER
Railroad Crossing
Sub-Option
ALTERNATE ROUTE 2:
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Bike + Pedestrian Access Only
Bike + Pedestrian + Automobile Access
Existing Grand Rounds Route
Existing Bike Route (Other)
MPRB Property
Green Line LRT and Stations
Bike + Pedestrian Access Only
On Street Route Segment
Granary Corridor
Hennepin
Uni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
35-W
Como IndustrialS
t
.
A
n
thon
y
P
a
r
kw
a
y
Hennepin
Uni
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
35-W
Como IndustrialS
t
.
A
n
thon
y
P
a
r
kw
a
y
At Grade Crossing At Grade Crossing
Raised Crossing Raised Crossing
Trail Crosses River Trail Crosses River
Downtown Minneapolis Downtown Minneapolis
Potential Location of Trailside Amenities
Gross GolfCourse
Gross GolfCourse
Parkway to the RiverParkway to the River
278
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
Criteria How it's Evaluated Malcolm/33rd 25th/24th/27th Malcolm/Kasota/25th/27th or
29th
Feasible
Ease of implementation in terms of
cost and property ownership
constraints
Poor Fair Good
Interagency Coordination
Encourages interagency coordination
with property and right of way
owners along the route
Good Good Good
MPRB Parkway Typology Adheres to ideal Grand Rounds
typology whenever possible Good Fair Poor
Increase Park Space and
Regional Trail Access in
Underserved Areas
Improves access to park facilities in
underserved areas Fair Fair Fair
Connect River to St. Anthony
Parkway
Creates a connection between the
river and St. Anthony Parkway Good Good Good
Industry Importance to City
Minimizes impacts to existing industry
including property impacts,
movement of freight, and jobs
creation
Fair Good Good
Mitigate Environmental Justice
Challenges in Industrial Areas
and Corridors Near Freeways
Mitigates air, soil and water pollution
in the area Good Poor Poor
Asset to Neighborhoods it
Passes Through
Benefits the quality of life of residents
along the route Good Good Good
Safety*
Safe and comfortable for users of all
ages and abilities. Reduces conflicts
with motor vehicles, freight, and
other uses at driveway crossings, with
adjacent truck traffic, length of bridge
crossings, and intersection crossings
Good Fair Poor
*Criteria added by MPRB staff
Route
FIGURE 32 |GRAND ROUNDS EVALUATION MATRIX
279
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
Cost Share - Draft for Discussion Purposes
Description Unit Unit Price Est Quantity Est Expenditure MPRB City of Mpls
Parkway/Pedestrian Scale Lighting 285,000.00$ 285,000.00$ 0
Sawing Pavement Lin Ft 7.80$ 11,850 92,500.00$ 92,500.00$
Remove Curb and Gutter Lin Ft 3.90$ 12,950 50,600.00$ 50,600.00$
Remove Pavement (13')Sq Yd 13.50$ 4,916 66,400.00$ 33,200.00$ 33,200.00$
Remove Driveway Pavement Sq Yd 13.50$ 1,300 17,600.00$ 17,600.00$ 0
Remove Catchbasins Each 390.00$ 7 2,800.00$ 2,800.00$
Concrete Base Repair (1' Wide)Sq Yd 55.10$ 112 6,200.00$ 6,200.00$
4" Asphalt Patch Tons 130.00$ 29 3,800.00$ 3,800.00$
Granular Borrow Cu Yd 20.70$ 7,863 162,800.00$ 162,800.00$
Common Excavation Cu Yd 29.50$ 8,006 236,200.00$ 236,200.00$
Asphalt Paving SF 8.50$ 214,500 1,823,300.00$ 1,823,300.00$
Aggregate Base Cu Yd 45.05$ 3,967 178,800.00$ 178,800.00$
Move Hydrant Each 16,500.00$ 3 49,500.00$ 24,750.00$ 24,750.00$
6" Concrete Walk Sq Ft 6.20$ 137,100 850,100.00$ 850,100.00$
Drainage Structure Each 2,175.00$ 0 -$ -$
12" RC Pipe Sewer Lin Ft 110.00$ 0 -$ -$
8" Driveway Pavement Sq Yd 82.80$ 2,070 171,400.00$ 171,400.00$
Concrete C & G B624 Lin Ft 20.75$ 15,750 326,900.00$ 326,900.00$
Signal Modifications Each 25,000.00$ 1 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$
4" Painted Stripe Lin Ft 0.75$ 2,600 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
Sodding Type Lawn Sq Yd 23.30$ 3,090 72,000.00$ 72,000.00$
Easement Each 311,336.00$ 1 311,400.00$
Bridge Each 14,025,000.00$ 1 14,025,000.00$ 14,025,000.00$
RR Crossing Each 250,000.00$ 1 250,000.00$
Construction Subtotal 19,010,000.00$ 17,708,750.00$ 739,150.00$
Traffic Control (10%)`1,901,000.00$ 1,901,000.00$
Subtotal 20,911,000.00$ 17,708,750.00$ 2,640,150.00$
Contigency (25%)5,228,000.00$ 2,614,000.00$ 2,614,000.00$
Subtotal 26,139,000.00$ 20,322,750.00$ 5,254,150.00$
Inflation (5%)1,307,000.00$ 653,500.00$ 653,500.00$
Subtotal 22,218,000.00$ 20,976,250.00$ 5,907,650.00$
Engineering (15%)3,333,000.00$ 1,666,500.00$ 1,666,500.00$
Subtotal 25,551,000.00$ 22,642,750.00$ 7,574,150.00$
General Fund Overhead (5%)1,278,000.00$ 0 1,278,000.00$
Project Total 26,829,000.00$ 22,642,750.00$ 8,852,150.00$
COST ESTIMATE OF PREFERRED ROUTE (RED):
DRAFT 0% DESIGN / Broadway To Nb 35W Ramp
*Expenditures would be met through cost share with
other public agencies.
280
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
Cost Share - Draft for Discussion Purposes
Description Unit Unit Price Est Quantity Est Expenditure MPRB City of Mpls
Parkway/Pedestrian Scale Lighting 245,000.00$ 245,000.00$ 0
Sawing Pavement Lin Ft 7.80$ 11,600 90,500.00$ 90,500.00$
Remove Curb and Gutter Lin Ft 3.90$ 11,640 45,400.00$ 45,400.00$
Remove Pavement (13')Sq Yd 13.50$ 4,698 63,500.00$ 31,750.00$ 31,750.00$
Remove Driveway Pavement Sq Yd 13.50$ 1,360 18,400.00$ 18,400.00$ 0
Remove Catchbasins Each 390.00$ 5 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
Concrete Base Repair (1' Wide)Sq Yd 55.10$ 98 5,400.00$ 5,400.00$
4" Asphalt Patch Tons 130.00$ 21 2,800.00$ 2,800.00$
Granular Borrow Cu Yd 20.70$ 7,350 152,200.00$ 152,200.00$
Common Excavation Cu Yd 29.50$ 7,515 221,700.00$ 221,700.00$
Asphalt Paving SF 8.50$ 212,000 1,802,000.00$ 1,802,000.00$
Aggregate Base Cu Yd 45.05$ 3,925 176,900.00$ 176,900.00$
Move Hydrant Each 16,500.00$ 3 49,500.00$ 24,750.00$ 24,750.00$
6" Concrete Walk Sq Ft 6.20$ 160,100 992,700.00$ 992,700.00$
Drainage Structure Each 2,175.00$ 0 -$ -$
12" RC Pipe Sewer Lin Ft 110.00$ 0 -$ -$
8" Driveway Pavement Sq Yd 82.80$ 1,475 122,200.00$ 122,200.00$
Concrete C & G B624 Lin Ft 20.75$ 14,800 307,100.00$ 307,100.00$
Signal Modifications Each 25,000.00$ 1 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$
4" Painted Stripe Lin Ft 0.75$ 2,180 1,700.00$ 1,700.00$
Sodding Type Lawn Sq Yd 23.30$ 3,140 73,200.00$ 73,200.00$
Easement Each 56,402.00$ 1 56,500.00$
Bridge Each 14,025,000.00$ 1 14,025,000.00$ 14,025,000.00$
RR Crossing Each 250,000.00$ 1 250,000.00$
Construction Subtotal 18,729,000.00$ 17,763,600.00$ 658,600.00$
Traffic Control (10%)`1,873,000.00$ 1,873,000.00$
Subtotal 20,602,000.00$ 17,763,600.00$ 2,531,600.00$
Contigency (25%)5,151,000.00$ 2,575,500.00$ 2,575,500.00$
Subtotal 25,753,000.00$ 20,339,100.00$ 5,107,100.00$
Inflation (5%)1,288,000.00$ 644,000.00$ 644,000.00$
Subtotal 21,890,000.00$ 20,983,100.00$ 5,751,100.00$
Engineering (15%)3,284,000.00$ 1,642,000.00$ 1,642,000.00$
Subtotal 25,174,000.00$ 22,625,100.00$ 7,393,100.00$
General Fund Overhead (5%)1,259,000.00$ 0 1,259,000.00$
Project Total 26,433,000.00$ 22,625,100.00$ 8,652,100.00$
COST ESTIMATE OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE (YELLOW):
DRAFT 0% DESIGN / Broadway To Nb 35W Ramp
*Expenditures would be met through cost share with
other public agencies.
281
PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION SERVICE AREA VISION PARK PLANS IMPLEMENTATION
EAST OF THE RIVER PARK MASTER PLAN
OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
COST ESTIMATE OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE (PURPLE):
DRAFT 0% DESIGN / Broadway To Nb 35W Ramp
Description Unit Unit Price Est Quantity Est Expenditure MPRB City of Mpls
Parkway/Pedestrian Scale Lighting 230,000.00$ 230,000.00$ 0
Sawing Pavement Lin Ft 7.80$ 12,200 95,200.00$ 95,200.00$
Remove Curb and Gutter Lin Ft 3.90$ 13,840 54,000.00$ 54,000.00$
Remove Pavement (13')Sq Yd 13.50$ 5,956 80,500.00$ 40,250.00$ 40,250.00$
Remove Driveway Pavement Sq Yd 13.50$ 3,900 52,700.00$ 52,700.00$ 0
Remove Catchbasins Each 390.00$ 7 2,800.00$ 2,800.00$
Concrete Base Repair (1' Wide)Sq Yd 55.10$ 124 6,900.00$ 6,900.00$
4" Asphalt Patch Tons 130.00$ 25 3,200.00$ 3,200.00$
Granular Borrow Cu Yd 20.70$ 7,950 164,600.00$ 164,600.00$
Common Excavation Cu Yd 29.50$ 8,270 244,000.00$ 244,000.00$
Asphalt Paving SF 8.50$ 242,400 2,060,400.00$ 2,060,400.00$
Aggregate Base Cu Yd 45.05$ 4,490 202,300.00$ 202,300.00$
Move Hydrant Each 16,500.00$ 3 49,500.00$ 24,750.00$ 24,750.00$
6" Concrete Walk Sq Ft 6.20$ 119,900 743,400.00$ 743,400.00$
Drainage Structure Each 2,175.00$ 0 -$ -$
12" RC Pipe Sewer Lin Ft 110.00$ 0 -$ -$
8" Driveway Pavement Sq Yd 82.80$ 1,590 131,700.00$ 131,700.00$
Concrete C & G B624 Lin Ft 20.75$ 11,800 244,900.00$ 244,900.00$
Signal Modifications Each 25,000.00$ 1 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$
4" Painted Stripe Lin Ft 0.75$ 2,750 2,100.00$ 2,100.00$
Sodding Type Lawn Sq Yd 23.30$ 2,950 68,800.00$ 68,800.00$
Easement Each 45,839.00$ 1 45,900.00$
Bridge Each 14,025,000.00$ 1 14,025,000.00$ 14,025,000.00$
RR Crossing Each 250,000.00$ 1 250,000.00$
Construction Subtotal 18,783,000.00$ 17,856,200.00$ 630,800.00$
Traffic Control (10%)`1,879,000.00$ 1,879,000.00$
Subtotal 20,662,000.00$ 17,856,200.00$ 2,509,800.00$
Contigency (25%)5,166,000.00$ 2,583,000.00$ 2,583,000.00$
Subtotal 25,828,000.00$ 20,439,200.00$ 5,092,800.00$
Inflation (5%)1,292,000.00$ 646,000.00$ 646,000.00$
Subtotal 21,954,000.00$ 21,085,200.00$ 5,738,800.00$
Engineering (15%)3,294,000.00$ 1,647,000.00$ 1,647,000.00$
Subtotal 25,248,000.00$ 22,732,200.00$ 7,385,800.00$
General Fund Overhead (5%)1,263,000.00$ 0 1,263,000.00$
Project Total 26,511,000.00$ 22,732,200.00$ 8,648,800.00$
Project Total 27,774,000.00$ 22,732,200.00$ 9,911,800.00$
*Expenditures would be met through cost share with
other public agencies.
282
THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ALTERNATIVE ROUTE 1: ELEVATED CROSSINGPREFERRED ROUTE: ELEVATED CROSSINGALTERNATIVE ROUTE 2: ELEVATED CROSSINGEXISTING GREAT NORTHERN GREENWAYOTHER'ƌĂŶĚZŽƵŶĚƐDŝƐƐŝŶŐ>ŝŶŬϮϬϭϴhƉĚĂƚĞʹ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶƐMPRB PROPERTYGREEN LINE LRT & STATIONSON STREET ROUTE SEGMENTGRANARY CORRIDORSECTIONEXISTING EXISTING GRAND ROUNDS ROUTEEXISTING BIKE ROUTE (OTHER)ALTERNATIVE ROUTESZ&dPREFERRED ROUTERAILROAD CROSSINGSUB-OPTIONALTERNATE ROUTE 2:BIKE + PEDESTRIAN + AUTOMOBILE ACCESSBIKE + PEDESTRIAN + AUTOMOBILE ACCESSBIKE + PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ONLYBIKE + PEDESTRIAN + AUTOMOBILE ACCESSBIKE + PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ONLYABEFGHIJKLMNOCDE
^ d/KE<͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůůǀĚE ĂŶĚ^ŽĨƌŽĂĚǁĂLJ^ƚE ;ϭϬϬ͛ džŝƐƟŶŐZKtͿΎEŽƚĞ͗KƉƟŽŶƌĞƚĂŝŶƐĞdžŝƐƟŶŐmedian width and ůĂŶĞǁŝĚƚŚ͘>ŽĐĂƟŽŶŵĂLJĐŚĂŶŐĞĂƐZKtŝƐĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĚĞĮŶĞĚ͘ΎEŽƚĞ͗WĂƌŬŝŶŐcould be added by ŶĂƌƌŽǁŝŶŐŵĞĚŝĂŶ͕but also runs risk for semi-trucks ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌůŽŶŐƉĞƌŝŽĚƐĚƵĞƚŽůŽĐĂƟŽŶ͘SCALE: 1/8”=1’08’6’2’ 4’6’6’6’8’6’6’30’30’26’4’BOULE-VARDBOULE-VARDBOULE-VARDMEDIAN / TURN LANEMEDIAN / TURN LANEMEDIAN / TURN LANEBOULE-VARD^/ t><^/ t><^/ t><PROPOSEDPROPOSEDEXISTING12’14’12’13’ 13’13’ 13’12’12’14’14’12’TRAILTRAILLANELANE LANELANE LANELANELANELANELANELANE
^ d/KE>͗/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůůǀĚE ĂŶĚEŽĨƌŽĂĚǁĂLJ^ƚE ;ϭϬϬ͛ZKtͿSCALE: 1/8”=1’08’6’2’ 4’6’3’12’BOULE-VARDBOULEVARD BOULEVARDMEDIAN^/ t><TRAILPROPOSEDEXISTING12’12’ 12’11’12’12’20’6’14’14’ 14’LANELANE LANETURN LANETURN LANELANELANE LANE
^ d/KED͗^ƚ͘ŶƚŚŽŶLJWĂƌŬǁĂLJĂƚ'ƌŽƐƐ'ŽůĨŽƵƌƐĞ;tĞƐƚŽĨdƌĂŝůƌŽƐƐŝŶŐͿ;ϭϬϬ͛ džŝƐƟŶŐZKtͿSCALE: 1/8”=1’08’6’2’ 4’10’10’6’6’BOULEVARDBOULEVARDBOULEVARDBOULEVARD BOULEVARDTRAILBOULEVARDBOULEVARD^/ t><^/ t><^/ t><^/ t><PROPOSEDEXISTING12’16’12’16’10’12’18’10’ 10’14’6’6’LANELANELANELANE
/'ZDE͗/Ed Z^ d/KEW>E͗^ƚ͘ͲŶƚŚŽŶLJŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚĂŶĚ<ĞŶnjŝĞdĞƌƌĂĐĞ;KīͲ^ƚƌĞĞƚƚŽKŶͲ^ƚƌĞĞƚdƌĂŝůͿ
^ d/KEK͗^ƚ͘ŶƚŚŽŶLJWĂƌŬǁĂLJďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ƟŶƐŽŶŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚĂŶĚ^ŝůǀĞƌ>ĂŬĞZŽĂĚ;ϭϬϬ͛ džŝƐƟŶŐZKtͿSCALE: 1/8”=1’08’6’2’ 4’5’5’5’5’6’6’BOULEVARDBOULEVARDBOULEVARDBUFFBUFFBUFF/< TRAIL/< TRAILWZ<WZ<BOULEVARDBOULEVARDBUFFBOULEVARD^/ t><^/ t><^/ t><^/ t><^/ t><^/ t><PROPOSEDKEͲ^dZ d/< >E ^WZ</E'KE ^/ K&^dZ d yd E^ϳϮ͛K&ZKtPROPOSED10’ TRAIL - OPTION 1 WZ</E'KE ^/ K&^dZ d yd E^ϳϮ͛K&ZKtPROPOSED10’ TRAIL - OPTION 2 WZ</E'Kd,^/ ^K&^dZ d yd E^&h>>ϭϬϬ͛K&ZKt11’11’4’11’11’11’8’8’11’7’10’14’4’4’4’6’10’6’10’8’8’10’8’3’14’LANELANEBUFFLANELANELANEWZ<WZ<LANE
^ d/KEK͗^ƚ͘ŶƚŚŽŶLJWĂƌŬǁĂLJďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ƟŶƐŽŶŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚĂŶĚ^ŝůǀĞƌ>ĂŬĞZŽĂĚ;ϭϬϬ͛ džŝƐƟŶŐZKtͿSCALE: 1/8”=1’08’6’2’ 4’EXISTING yd E^ϳϮ͛K&ZKt6’6’BOULEVARDBOULEVARD^/ t><^/ t><12’12’8’14’14’LANELANEWZ<