welcome [] · steve dziedzic nancy hylden jeff haberer steve smela tony anastasia jan morlack...
TRANSCRIPT
Welcome
Completing the Grand Rounds
Missing Link Parkway Study and Design
OPEN HOUSE January 2008
The Missing
Link
Three mile gap in the
50 mile Grand
Rounds Parkway
Study Team and Process
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB)
Draft Parkway, Park and Trail Plan
Final Parkway, Park and Trail Plan
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB)
Funding and Implementation Actions
Stakeholders
Public
Consultant Team
Citizen
Advisory
Committee
Technical
Advisory
Committee
Advisory Groups
John Erwin George Puzak
Larry Lamb Suzanne Pepin
Steve Dziedzic Nancy Hylden
Jeff Haberer Steve Smela
Tony Anastasia Jan Morlack
Dorothy Bridges Jim Felicetta
Michael Rainville Kathy Schwie
Connie Sullivan Gavin Watt
John Akre Andy Mickel
Dr. Charles Jorgensen
Jacqueline Dekker-Travis
Pastor Craig Pederson
Clay Lambert and Mia Lambert
Community Advisory Committee
(CAC)
Representatives from:
City of Minneapolis Public Works
City of Minneapolis Community
Planning & Economic Development
Hennepin County Housing, Transit
& Community Works
University of Minnesota
Metropolitan Council
Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC)
Grand Rounds
History
• 1883 Plan for Minneapolis Park System.
• Parks and parkways first called the “Grand Rounds” in 1891.
• 1888-1920s Land for parks and parkways acquired and constructed except for a gap in NE Minneapolis.
• 1998 Grand Rounds is designated a National Scenic Byway.
• 2007 Missing Link Parkway planning renewed.
Missing Link Parkway Goals
Downtown
Minneapolis
Northeast
Minneapolis
University of
Minnesota
Mis
sis
sip
piR
iver
• Provide parkway system
continuity.
• Enhance recreational
opportunities.
• Enhance and protect the
environment.
• Improve mobility.
• Create economic benefits.
• Be feasible and compatible.
Southeast
Minneapolis
Parkway
Route
Segments
Considered
Parkway
Route
Options
Sept. - Oct. Meetings
Preferred Parkway Route Alternatives
Northern section –St. Anthony Parkway, Stinson Blvd. and Industrial Blvd.
Key considerations:
Residential character through
St. Anthony and on Stinson.
Existing parkway-like character
north of I-35W.
Industrial Blvd. has wide road
space between I-35W and
Hennepin.
Existing commercial-industrial
land use and truck traffic
between I-35W and Hennepin.
Central section – Route A 29th, Elm, 24thKey considerations:
Existing industrial land use and
truck traffic.
Housing west of 29th.
Proposed tunnel and bridge
crossing of railroads.
Westerly bridge location.
Route through SEMI
redevelopment area.
Utilize a portion of future
Granary Road.
Connections to St. Paul Grand
Rounds at Como and Granary.
Central section – Route B & B2 29th or 33rd
Key considerations:
Existing industrial land use
and truck traffic.
Housing west of 29th.
Proposed tunnel and bridge
crossing of railroads.
Easterly bridge location.
Utilize a portion of future
Granary Road.
Connections to St. Paul
Grand Rounds at Como
and Granary.
B2 Option:
A separate easterly
parkway route near 33rd.
B2 does not follow
existing roads. Property
acquisition for parkway
route.
Truck traffic to use 29th.
Southern section – 27th Avenue
Key considerations:
Route through SEMI redevelopment
area, south of railroad.
Industrial and commercial land use
north of Essex St.
Primarily residential land use - Essex
to River Road.
(Granary to River Road)
Potential Parkway Examples
Park and Recreation Options
Park and recreation
opportunity areas:
1. Ridgeway Overlook
Park
2. SE Como Community
Park
3. Bridal Veil Green
Space
4. Kasota Ponds Green
Space
5. SEMI North Corridor
Green Space
6. Granary Park
7. Bridal Veil Creek
Linear Park
SE Como Community Park Concept Plan Options
SE Como Community Park Concept Plan Options
SE Como Community Park Concept Plan Options
SE Como Community Park Concept Plan Options
Granary Park Concept Plan Options
Granary Park Concept Plan Options
Trails and
Bikeways
Existing – solid lines
Planned – dashed lines
Tonight – Public Input and Ideas
Your input is needed on:
• Preferred parkway routes
• Parks and recreation options
• Trails and bikeways
Input methods:
• Fill out the questionnaire
• Talk with staff, CAC and TAC members
• Review connections on trail map
Next Steps
• CAC/TAC selects preferred route and amenities.
• MPRB review.
• Develop preferred parkway design.
• Prepare park, recreation and trail plans.
• Prepare implementation and funding plan.
• CAC/TAC review.
• Submit report and parkway plan for MPRB
review and adoption (March, 2008).
Questions and Answers