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