Council rubber-stamps Campus Connector Trail plan without Chinook Drive option
Date:
REGIONAL NEWS & INVESTIGATIONS
PO BOX 161702, Duluth MN 55816
Email contact@duluthmonitor.com
Phone (218) 391 - 8791
Links
Follow Us
Free Newsletter
- All rights reserved.
The argument for being on Chinook Drive instead of through the woods seems to be the same as the original opposition to the trail. That is, the residents, having lost the battle to have a trail of any kind are hoping to at least keep the people using the trail in front of them on the street instead of in the woods where they can’t be as easily seen. They seem to think that their ability to afford luxury homes in an exclusive area means they are a kingdom all to themselves. Not the case. Their fears are totally irrational.
Putting the trail on Chinook has its costs that you have ignored. If it is on the road as is it is not a trail. If it is a protected bike lane it is close to a trail. If its a sidewalk then it’s a sidewalk. As I summarized in comments on your last piece, the cost would not be the $60K for the spur. The whole reason to build a dedicated trail is to get more users to use the system. Find the comments at https://duluthmonitor.com/2019/10/18/bristolwood-resident-suggests-campus-connector-trail-alternative/
The safer the alignment is the more varying user abilities and age groups will use it. Let’s revisit the neighbors a year or so after it is built and see what they say. Investigate more, John, contact those pesky bike and nature-loving folks and ask them some questions.
Thank you. At this stage of any project, all estimates are suspect, and probably much too low. There would certainly be a cost associated with putting the bike trail on Chinook. However, there is no doubt that it would be cheaper to do that than to build a brand-new trail through woods and wetlands. Moreover, a route on Chinook could be done much more quickly. At some meetings, I have heard city staff say it could take 8 years to finish the Campus Connector. Striping a few lines up Chinook—and, yes, that is all I think would be necessary—could be done in a flash. I see no reason to ignore a solution that provides almost exactly the same benefits at a vastly cheaper cost. In fact, I consider pointing such things out to be my job.
As for nature-loving folks, I have never understood why they are so keen to build roads and trails into every available square foot of greenspace in the city. There is a value to leaving woodlands whole and uninterrupted, but that particular value has no advocates. Everybody wants to build something, even when sensible alternatives exist.
The following information was sent to the City Council members, Emily Larson, James Filby Williams and Jim Shoberg the morning of the City Council meeting where the so-called rubber stamp of the Campus Connector Trail occurred. A person could only conclude that the information provided to John Ramos was not accurate, based on the petition noted below sent to Joel Sipress and his fellow City Council members. The City Administration was also copied on the petition dated October 28, 2019, that included the most recent survey of the residents of Bristolwood development where there were 11 responses indicating that all but one resident wanted Chinook Drive to be used as the Campus Connector Trail in lieu of the trail going behind the Chinook Drive homes. This survey was conducted after the Campus Connector Trail Mini-Master Plan was written and was available for the Bristolwood Development residents to read. The City’s survey of the residents was conducted April 2019, prior to the plan being written. The residents, being taxpayers, provided the following reasons for their recommendation:
“By considering and acting on our petition the City will develop infrastructure that is in balance with the surrounding built and natural environments while: impacting fewer wetlands, reducing carbon footprint, conserving woodland areas, reducing maintenance costs, meeting the requirements of ¼ and ½ mile distances from origin to destination (mid campus CSS) distance, increasing safety and security of Bristolwood Development residents and trail users and reducing the Segment 1 cost to the tax payers by $937,000.”
The Bristolwood Development residents requested that the City Administration and Joel Sipress be transparent and fair with the development when siting Segment 1 of the Campus Connector Trail. Our request was made after Bristolwood Development residents were approached in their driveways and told by the trail stakeholder group members that the trail was a done deal and would be placed behind our homes. This was done after the stakeholders’ first meeting held April 1, 2019. This was upsetting for most of the residents because it was the first time they heard about the trail and we were not represented on the stakeholder group that proposed the trail siting behind our homes. Mr. Ramos’ article is all about being transparent, but not totally true based on his sources. I would expect his sources were the City Administration, City Council Members and bike trail advocates.
Thank you. The discrepancy may be attributed to the lag that exists between researching an article and publishing an article. I collected most of the information in this article prior to the Oct. 28 Council meeting. According to Mr. Roseth, the Bristolwood residents sent their petition to the Council on Oct. 28. I did not become aware of this petition until Nov. 11; thus, it is not mentioned in the article.
The survey to which Planner Gittemeier referred in the article was the April survey, and that is the survey upon which I based my analysis. Mr. Roseth’s comments and the latest Bristolwood petition verify that my speculation in the article was correct: When given a choice between having a bike trail in the woods or on Chinook, residents now greatly prefer the idea of having it on Chinook.
Thank you for your remarks John.
After the first public meeting on held on April 23, 2019, our first petition was sent to the City Administration, which included Emily Larson and James Filby Williams. City Councilor Joel Sipress was copied on the petition. At the April 23 public meeting, the COGGS and MIC representatives suggested that the Bristolwood Development residents look at how the Twin Cities area trails were built and inquire how these trails impact the community residential developments. We acted on their recommendation and provided the City Administration and Joel Sipress our studies of two trails that are located in the Minneapolis area. We described how the trails impacted residential areas and how we could use the collected information to design the right trail based on lessons learned by the Minneapolis trail stakeholders.
We also provided two studies on when a trail abuts to the backyard property lines and the trails impact on property sale values. The studies indicated that Chinook Drive residents’ property sale values would decrease by 6.8%. That would range from $40,000 to $60,000 in loss during the sale of homes where the trail is within 100 feet of the home. The Administration, Parks and Recreation Commissioners, MIC Commissioners and Joel Sipress discounted the two studies. They could not provide a study which looked at trails abutting the backyards of properties and their impact on property sale values. They provided studies indicating property sale values would increase when the trails where placed within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of property owners backyard property lines. Distance does matter when siting a trail in relation to the property’s backyard and side yard property line.
Another reason to have the trail through the woods is that that whole area is tax-forfeit land, and it is foolish to think that won’t be developed into housing. If the trail is on Chinook, it limits access to it for all of those future residents and the trail in the woods would maintain access to green space. The wetlands would need to be dealt with at the time of residential development, and the trail would easily preserve those wetlands – it is easier to engineer a trail through wetlands than have to mitigate them when you develop housing. We’re doing a disservice to the community by not thinking about future land use, not to mention by building a less desirable trail to appease fewer than a dozen people who will not be living there forever.
John, Some have no clue why we build such big roads through areas as well. Are you an investigative reporter or an advocate? The process would welcome your input into the projects when it is being developed. Join in the effort to help the process be better and advocate for whatever it is you advocate for.
Mike, I find it ironic that you call out people with your thinly veiled comments asking them to be more transparent with their position while you don’t identify the group you are affiliated with while posting your comments. As a resident of Bristolwood Development we welcome people into our community for various reasons, being that Chinook and Sockeye Drives are public streets.
People from outside our community have requested access through our properties for public land use since the start of the Development. Various hunters who participate in the inner city deer hunt have approached the residents in our Development to get access to the hunt zones to the East and South of our homes. Mike and Mr. Ramos, we would welcome you to come to our development during the spring, summer and fall. If you choose to take our invite, you will observe Duluth citizens from other neighborhoods walking our streets and bicycling through our development.
The City Engineer platted Bristolwood Development over 20 years ago using City codes and standards for a pedestrian and bike trail spur to be sited at the cul-de-sac of Chinook Drive. Bristolwood Development’s October 28 petition extended our hospitality to the City Administrators and bike trail advocates to use Chinook Drive after they build the spur trail as originally platted and designed in lieu of placing the trail abutting our backyard property lines.
I would expect the people who are taxpayers would agree with our petition where we question the stakeholders and City Administrators why would they build a redundant trail system that ends at the same point of Segment 1 at the taxpayer’s expense of $937,000. I expect these taxpayers will tell Mr. Ramos if asked that the City Administration would be a misusing public funds if they built the redundant trails. You suggest that Mr. Ramos contact those pesky bike and nature-loving folks and ask them some questions. The Residents of Bristolwood Development did exactly that.
During the first community meeting on April 28 the residents of Bristolwood Development met with the bike trail advocates. We took the advice of the pesky bike riders and nature-loving people and studied the design of bike trails built in the Minneapolis area. The information we collected was shared with the City Administrators for their use and others to view.
I am assuming you or Mr. Ramos have not read the first Bristolwood Development petition or viewed the PPT presentations provided to the City Administrators after the April 28 community meeting. The following is the introduction of the petition, which shows our expectations of a collaborative process defined by the Campus Connector Trail Mini-master plan dated October 2019.
Bristolwood Development Petition, May 2019
City of Duluth – Parks and Recreation Proposed Campus Connector Paved Trail – Residential Stakeholder Concerns and Recommendations (Bristolwood Development)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The residents of the Bristolwood Development are challenging developers, designers, and others who proposed the foot/bike trails named the Campus Connector Trail, to think in a sensible manner about how the trails they are proposing will interface with residential areas. We understand that there is no universal solution to every problem and that each location is unique, so what works in one place may not work in another. Therefore, it is important that the many professional designers, stakeholders and homeowners work closely together and pay close attention to the principles of further developing a community area. This collaboration will require a review of existing guidelines for community design; related details of known standards, best practices, and studies that describe how trails should interface with cul-de-sacs and other residential areas.
We intend that those who read this document will be inspired to use our suggestions in order to deliver the high quality and safe foot/bike trails design, construction, maintenance and security that we all wish to see and from which we can all benefit. Our concerns and recommendations are offered to encourage greater attention to the principles of crime prevention and to the attributes of a safer foot/bike trails, therefore we intend it as a starting point and acknowledge that as best practices evolve and local conditions change, planners will develop new solutions.
Safety and security are essential to successful, sustainable communities. Not only are such places well-designed, attractive environments in which to live, work, for recreation, and also are places where residents do not have fear of crime; therefore improving the quality of life. Studies have shown that too little attention has been paid to crime issues by planners and designers, resulting in far too many examples of poor quality development that has resulted in a costly and long-lasting heritage of the wrong kind. By highlighting the need to consider crime prevention as part of the design, construction, maintenance, and security activities of the foot/bike trails, safer places will be provided by the City of Duluth to benefit of the citizens, businesses, residential areas and tourist.
2.0 Recommendation
Introduction
The recommendations of the residents of Bristolwood Development are based upon the contribution which good quality design allows for creating places where people want to live, work, and enjoy themselves through recreation with the knowledge that they can do so safely. Whether it is through new development or the regeneration of an existing area, the thorough consideration of design principles can help improve an area’s security — for both people and property — while also enhancing the quality of the local environment. It need not cost more either, and proper planning and investment in the design of a development brings numerous social and economic benefits over its lifetime.
We are asking the Duluth City Council to fulfill its mission in developing effective public policy, rooted in citizen involvement, that results in excellent municipal services and creates a thriving community prepared for the challenges of the future.
We have to believe Mayor Emily Larson supports the City Council’s mission, when two years ago she proclaimed, in her first State of the City Address, that she promised to build a more inclusive, collaborative, fair and transparent city. She stated in her address that her goals remain that Duluth is a healthy – prosperous – sustainable – fair – and inclusive community for all neighbors and across all neighborhoods.
==========================================
At time of submitting this petition, more than a month after the first stakeholder meeting and public meeting, the residents of Bristolwood Development were not considered to be a stakeholder. Other public meetings and student meetings occurred prior to the City Administrators inviting a resident of Bristolwood Development to join the stakeholder group. The stakeholders were required to attend the public meeting to be an advocate for the trails that were designed in the April 1 meeting.
The residents of Bristolwood development were hoping that Emily Larson would hold her Administration accountable for her vision of Duluth. She stated in her first City address that her goals remain that Duluth is a healthy – prosperous – sustainable – fair – and inclusive community for all neighbors and across all neighborhoods. One could conclude that that City Administrators and the trail stakeholder group failed at meeting Emily Larson’s vision of Duluth. The lack of participation of Bristolwood Development residents by design was not a collaborative and fair process.
Mike, come up and visit us in Bristolwood Development. We will treat you with the upmost respect and as a guest in our neighborhood. We would also extend an invite to the stakeholder group members who surveyed the trail behind Chinook Drive homes a week after the first stakeholder meeting held April 1. The conclusion of stakeholders group was right when they approached Bristolwood Development residents in their yards after their April 1 meeting. After the stakeholder group conducted their walk through and survey of the land abutting the Resident’s back yard property lines they stating that the trail was a done deal. It was amazing how they predicted the outcome of the City Council meeting held October 28 where the City Councilors rubberstamped the plan they designed during their April 1 meeting.