Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Feedback topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge caution on parking loss, sidewalk burden and timing during Edina Presidents A & B hearing
Summary
At a Dec. 9 public hearing, residents praised utility repairs but pressed the council on loss of on‑street parking near Alden Park, maintenance responsibility for new sidewalks/paths and construction timing; council asked staff for more data on peak parking and to include weekend comments in the Dec. 17 packet.
Dozens of residents who spoke at the Dec. 9 Edina City Council public hearing voiced support for utility upgrades but expressed strong reservations about proposed sidewalks/shared‑use paths, narrowed street widths and loss of on‑street parking near Alden Park.
Aaron Hill of 323 Monroe said the neighborhood survey and resident feedback show substantial opposition to sidewalk additions and that removing parking around Alden Park would shift game‑day parking several blocks away, creating pedestrian‑safety and convenience problems. Several other speakers raised similar concerns, describing frequent peak‑period parking near parks and asking staff to analyze how reduced on‑street parking would affect those events.
Residents also asked for alternatives to the standard sod restoration, citing water use and seed‑mix options. A councilmember requested clearer notification language; staff said construction kickoff communications will describe that sod is the standard but that alternative restoration options, including a clover mix, can be considered if residents request them.
Timing and construction impacts drew specific pleas: Marissa Esterly of 321 Washington, who is due in mid‑April, said a May construction start would coincide with her maternity leave and limit her ability to use outdoor space; staff responded that construction is phased in sections (typical street work 8–12 weeks) and that temporary above‑ground water service lines are used during water‑main replacement so homes retain service. Staff also said they work with residents on short‑term access needs and try to schedule sensitive work to minimize disruptions when feasible.
Residents worried about trees, fences, private irrigation systems and nonstandard driveways being affected by right‑of‑way work; staff said they will coordinate individually with impacted property owners during design and that restoration includes topsoil, sod (or alternatives), and repair of pet‑containment and irrigation systems where impacted.
On maintenance, staff said most new sidewalks and shared‑use paths in the project area would be maintained by adjacent property owners (the city would maintain park‑adjacent segments and state‑aid streets), a point that alarmed some residents who asked the council to consider city maintenance because of high traffic and semi‑truck use on Washington Avenue. Councilmembers asked staff to quantify how much of the new facilities would fall to residents versus the city and to return with options and cost implications.
The council closed the in‑person comment period but left online testimony open and asked staff to compile additional public input for the Dec. 17 packet before deciding on the project.
