Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-07-19 Meeting PacketAGENDA CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS July 19, 2012 6:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting of June 21, 2012 B. Special Meeting of July 9, 2012 V. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment," the Transportation Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues • or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VI. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS /. Traffic Safety Committee Report of July 11, 2012 France Avenue Pedestrian and Bike Crossings Feasibility Study C. Updates V/'i. Student Member V i. Bike Edina Task Force —June 14, 2012 Minutes iii. Living Streets Working Group ✓a. Draft Policy Presentation iv. Transportation Options Working Group rV/a. Street Car Presentation VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Agenda / Edina Transportation Commission May 17, 2012 Page 2 VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS A. 2013 Work Plan IX. STAFF COMMENTS X. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. if you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS/DATES/EVENTS Tuesday July 17 Transportation Options Working Group 5:00 PM SHERWOOD ROOM, SENIOR CENTER Thursday July 19 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS Tuesday Aug 16 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday Aug 21 Transportation Options Working Group 5:00 PM SHERWOOD ROOM, SENIOR CENTER Tuesday Sept 18 Transportation Options Working Group 5:00 PM SHERWOOD ROOM, SENIOR CENT10 Thursday Sept 20 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROO Thursday Oct 18 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday Nov 15 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS 0 MINUTES OF CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMUNITY ROOM JUNE 21, 2012 6:00 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering roll call was Members Bass, Braden, Franzen, Iyer, Janovy, LaForce, Nelson, Schweiger, Thompson, and Whited. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF May 17.2012 The minutes was amended as follows: oaee 3. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS. First sentence 'Member Janovy .... because it did not include...' Second sentence 'use of an advisory communication might...' It was noted that the attendance sheet did not include the work session meeting that took place in April. Motion was made by member Braden and seconded by member Thompson to approve the amended minutes. All voted ave. Motion carried. COMMUNITY COMMENT — None. REPORT/RECOMMENDATIONS Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) Report of June 6, 2012 Assistant city engineer Chad Millner noted that the Temporary Speed Table Policy Process was revised to say 'The City Engineer will determine where the temporary speed table will be installed." He said also that staff is reviewing all traffic policies and will eliminate any that is inconsistent with Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. S Page 3, Section B — Member Whited inquired about Section B. She said the report does not reflect that the speed limit is 25 mph and asked if the percentile should be changed. Member Janovy said the area keeps coming up and is not being resolved. Member Janovy said the Temporary Speed Table Policy needs further discussion because one was placed in her neighborhood but not for the reasons listed in the policy. She said she did not see the connection why road reconstruction would increase speed on another street and not volume and is not sure how the policy will be used in practical terms. She is also concerned that the speed hump purchased previously was paid for by special assessment to a neighborhood but it has use in multiple neighborhoods. Discussion ensued and included: what specifically is speed tables used for; some things noted at last meeting was not included in the policy revision; discussion to possibly buy two more speed tables; only in place for a season; assigned on a first come first serve basis; likes that neighbors making request was taken out because it creates conflict with NTMP; policy is a good first step; everything cannot be spelled out, staff must have some discretion; do see cut through traffic that tend to go faster; and obvious use is for deterring traffic. Policy revision discussion included the following: Purpose: The purpose of a Temporary Speed Table is to provide a temporary traffic calming method for local street. thatare Process: • The City Engineer may initiate the installation of a temporary speed table. • The traffic Safety Coordinator will gather the pertinent facts to help define the problem and seek a solution. • The City Engineer will determine where the temporary speed table will be installed. • Contact the Traffic Safety Coordinator. Oolicy Delete items 2 and 5 and instead refer to engineering judgment. Chair Nelson said these changes do not address the concern of how they are paid for but from last discussion, he said it appeared the city engineer was going to find resources other than special assessment for the new purchases. How do you define significant increase? Would like to include opportunity for fire department to review and be informed where they are being placed. Fire will never approve speed table. Focus more on the process to indicate duration and if based on speed, determine the speed. Would like to see another draft. Motion was made by Member Janovy and seconded by member Iver to forward the TSC report to the City Council with the exception of the Temporary Speed Table Policy with a request that staff revise the policy to include the ETC's comments and brine it back to them for review. All voted ave. Motion carried. Updates Student Member - No update. Bike Edina Task Force — Minutes of May 10, 2012 Member Janovy said the BETF discussed riding bikes on sidewalk, which is not allowed in Edina, and she is recommending a code change to provide a basis for safety education and building in requirements for safe riding. She handed out a memo outlining the situation, background, analysis and recommendation and requested that the ETC review it and provides feedback at the next meeting. Whether or not the police enforce this rule is not clear; however, Oome in the community are aware that biking is not allowed on the sidewalk. BETF has discussed becoming a working group of the ETC and she forwarded the bylaws to them. There is a free application from the Met Council called Cycle Tracks that cyclists can sign up for at Google Play Store or Apple's iTunes Store. Member La Force said since being a member of the ETC, he has learned that there are anti -bike sentiments in the community and some feel that the ETC only care about bikers. Member Janovy said the TLC Bike Blvd was approved recently but France Avenue is pedestrian -focused. Member Whited said she has learned that the same sentiment exist for sidewalks. Member Bass said Blue Cross Blue Shield has done focus groups testing on key messages around Complete Streets and the same sentiment is strong across the country. She said it is important to start with the idea that the City has a responsibility to create the infrastructure that moves all residents, including about 1/3 of people who do not drive. Member Bass said there were strong sentiments against bike lanes on W. 701h and asked if residents could be surveyed to see how they feel now. Motion was made by Member Bass and seconded by Member Iver to draft an ETC advisory communication to field a survey of resident in the W. 70th area to get a post construction survey. All voted ave. Motion carried. Nine Mile Creek Trail received grant funding of $5.51VI for the Tracy to France portion. Grandview Small Area Study .Chair Nelson said to date there was nothing new to report. Living Streets Working Group Update Member Thompson said the group met on June 14 and the consultants shared a report that mirrored LA's Living Streets 4olicy. He said the working group will be reviewing the report and giving feedback and the rest of the ETC can also rovide feedback. The consultants will be presenting their findings and recommendation at the July ETC meeting. This will be followed by presentations to other groups to get their input. Member Janovy said there was a Living Streets related item was on the City Council agenda recently, vacation of easement in the Morningside area, and the City Council did not approve it. She said this is consistent with the Living Streets draft policy. She said further that there are right-of-ways or undeveloped land, like the vacation that was not granted, that could be used as short-cut walkways for pedestrians and they should be inventoried. She asked if they were already inventoried and staff said no. Transportation Options Working Group Member Whited said the working group is starting over by reviewing their charge and then they will create a checklist of Community needs. She said member Brown has been working on an Edina street car option that could move people around the shopping areas that he would like to present to the ETC. She said he has spoken with the Chamber of Commerce, Southdale Hospital, and is in talks with Target for possible funding. This would be modeled after one in Oregon. France Avenue Pedestrian and Bike Crossings Member La Force gave an update on Stakeholder 1 meeting. He said they were asked to create a grand vision, which they did, only to be reminded in the end that they only had a small amount of money for three intersections. He said he was not sure why they took this approach. Member Iyer expressed the same feelings considering the financial constraints. Member Janovy said she felt the same way and that they did not provide concrete information on certain design aspects. Regarding the grand vision, she said there is money in the CIP for studying the whole area and they 0ould like whatever is done now, to be based on the grand vision. She said the urban design portion was not presented in a context based on this project. Member Bass said she appreciates the opportunity to think longer term than they have funding for and the approach may have been to let the Hennepin County staff that was in attendance see what the City's grand vision is for France Avenue. The next stakeholder meeting is scheduled for June 26. Member Iyer suggested making the agenda clearer for the next meeting, including the desired outcome. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS — None CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS Member Janovy handed out a memo on the ETC policy and the NTMP for future discussion or an advisory communication with a recommendation to eliminate them. Chair Nelson said he spoke with city engineer Houle and he suggested waiting until the Complete Streets policy is done because other policies will become obsolete at that time. Member Janovy said waiting to do everything at once could complicate things. Motion was made by Member Janovy and seconded by Member Iver to recommend an advisory communication to the City Council recommending elimination of the ETC policy and the NTMP, which is part of the ETC policy. All voted ave. Motion carried. Member Bass said the Edina Community Education received a grant funding from Blue Cross Foundation to do a social connectedness project and they are focusing on the Parklawn Neighborhood to do a series of 'meet on the sidewalk' to to know the neighbors. The first meeting was last Tuesday and it was attended by the Police and Park and ,get Recreation Departments, as well as Community Education. She said Community Education and Park and Recreation reported that this neighborhood does not use City services as much as other parts of the community so it was a good 3 opportunity to present the services available. It was also attended by Do.Town staff who talked about the goals of the project to create a healthier community. The high density apartment complexes do not have a structured playground �nd the nearest park is Cornelia with no safe route to get there. At the last City Council meeting, Councilmember prague, who was in attendance at the `meet on the sidewalk,' motioned to have a feasibility study done to construct a playground and create a safe route to Cornelia Park. Member Whited said she formed a task force that will offer assistance or refer people to where they can help within their community instead of having to go outside of the community since Hennepin County is closing their service hub in Minneapolis and she would like to discuss this further with the ETC. Additionally, she was asked to present on alternative transportation design for Carver County and asked when was the last time Edina did a similar thing. Member Bass said past member Schold Davis did a presentation last year but it was not strictly focused on this topic. Regarding W. 56th, Member Whited said the shrubs were trimmed but the traffic is getting worst at Pizza Lola. Chair Nelson said his neighborhood had a Neighborhood Open House organized by the Do.Town staff. Approximately 15- 20 residents were in attendance and the discussion included Living Streets, bump outs, place making, benches, places to meet, etc. Member Bass said it is called a Supper Club and the idea is to do more residents engagement and the Do.Town staff is willing to assist with organizing around any topic. STAFF COMMENTS Preview of 2013 Neighborhood Reconstruction Proiects Assistant city engineer Millner presented the 2013 projects. He said an open house was held last fall and one is scheduled for this July. Draft feasibility studies are expected to be presented to the ETC in September with public hearings in December. The sidewalk and bike plans were reviewed and there are none planned for any of these neighborhoods. Agbnraft Sidewalk Proiects Feasibility Studies 'qwAssistant city engineer Millner presented the draft sidewalk projects feasibility studies that were done for City Council and they are in draft form until the City Council finds a funding source for these projects. An informational meeting was held for the Xerxes Ave sidewalk and three residents attended and he's received emails from approximately 10 others and most are not in favor of the sidewalk. He said one resident in favor uses a scooter and she would no longer have to ride in the street. Regarding the W. 601h sidewalk, member Laforce asked about an area that is already being used a cut-thru that seem like it would be a natural path instead of the proposed location. Assistant city engineer Millner said they would be putting pedestrians in traffic. This will be discussed further when the official feasibility study is presented. TLC Bike Boulevard Update Assistant city engineer Millner said this project is going through the approval process at the Federal Highways. Construction is still planned for this summer. 1-494 Update Start date for this project is July 23. 2012 Human Services Task Force This task force is looking for a member from the ETC. Member Braden volunteered. ADJOURNMENT .Meeting adjourned. ATTACHMENT Attendance Spreadsheet 4 c O .7 0 0 (A m M 4) CO) V.. 0 CO) ........ r - . . O A T) 0 . . ........ O 0 m U. ....... a ... ... m ........ ........ ...... ........ Z, lq- 'IT c1r) Lr) U') CY) CY) LO .. . C) . .... 04 C) C) 04 C) C) C) N C) 04 a) -0 C) C) a) -0 0 LU 04 N 04 CN CN N N 04 N....... cn . . ....... ........ m 0 LU > CU >, m 0 2 C: m E a) M N 0 0 C0 cm 0 cn O - -6 z (n cn (D -a m N c m 7 0 c 0 U- 0 -D -r- E o a) r- < () 0 U) a) cl) 0 (n -r < > m 0 0 0 MINUTES OF CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA SPECIAL MEETING OF TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION EDINA PUBLIC WORKS & PARK MAINTENANCE FACILITY JULY 9, 2012 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering roll call was Members Bass, Braden, Janovy, LaForce, Nelson, and Whited. APPROVE OF MEETING AGENDA Motion was made by member Janovy and seconded by member Braden to approve the agenda. Member LaForce asked if the meeting format would be the same as last time. Motion was made by member Janovy and seconded by member LaForce to go straight to discussion. All voted aye. Motion carried. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS France Avenue Intersection Enhancements Member Janovy asked how the project went from $2m to $10.3m. Consultant Chuck Rickart of WSB & Associates, said option 3 was assumed in the cost in the feasibility report which requires minimal right-of-way (ROW), bike boulevard, etc. He said option 1, the most expensive, includes significant intersection work and twice the amount of ROW which tripled the cost. Mr. Rickart described option 1 has having an off-street bike lane from W. 76th to Crosstown, with the exception of the Macy's and Byerly's location that will have a share -the -road until future redevelopment happens, separated by landscaped boulevard, a 2 foot buffer and a 7 foot walkway. Discussion: Member Janovy asked where the bike plan came from. Mr. Rickart said it was part of the rescoping and city engineer Houle said based on feedback from the first meeting, it sounded like people liked it. He said it would also be a natural connection the planned trail. Is there a funding source? Mr. Houle said there is the Centennial Lakes TIF funding. He said city manager Neal mentioned setting up a special funding district which would be special assessment but the earliest that a public hearing could be scheduled would be September. Member LaForce said he did not feel comfortable forwarding option 1 to the City Council if there wasn't a definite funding source. Member Janovy said there are many who are interested in the TIF funds and she cannot advocate for an extra $7m. Mr. Rickart said the direction from last meeting was option 1. Member Braden said they did not know the cost then and asked if they should scale back. Mr. Houle they should scale back. Mr. Rickart said he did not have all the cost ready for the other options. Chair Nelson said the original scope includes sidewalk on the eastside, improving access to transit, and getting people across safely. Member Janovy said she does not recall a dedicated bike lane in the original scope. She said in her research, she has found some items (cycle track, left turn and colored lanes) that are being proposed are recommended by a group for further evaluation and she asked if this was a concern. Mr. Rickart said while they need approval from MnDOT, he is not concerned because these treatments are currently being used in other communities. Member Janovy said Councilmember Sprague wanted to know what makes this specific design better for pedestrians. Mr. Rickart said the crossings are shorter and if needed, there is a refuge. 1 The cycle track does not go all the way through on the west side because it is cost prohibitive (only at the intersections). 0r. Houle said other intersections would be completed at a later date (Hazelton, Gallagher, etc.). Member La Force asked if they are deciding the future of these other intersections now and Mr. Houle said yes. Mr. Houle said the proposed design is to have trees closer to traffic, then bikers, and a planter between bikers and pedestrians and this cannot be changed very much based on feedback from Hennepin County. Landscape architect Craig Churchward, said he may want the planter to be 5' high because this is better for plantings. Member Janovy asked if the County has given any feedback yet and Mr. Houle said no. Mr. Houle said they may want to consider a different option and change the schedule so that they go to City Council for approval in August instead of July 17. Mr. Houle was asked about bike parking options at bus stops and Nice Ride. He said they did not discuss parking with Metro Transit and regarding bus shelters, Metro Transit will install them if they have 25 boarding passengers per day. He said Nice Ride identified 50th & France as a location but they are currently out of funding. The commission was asked if they would like to move the curb over another 5 foot and eliminate the bike lane. Member La Force said this is incomplete but there is no funding for option 1. Mr. Houle said option 3 has bike lanes only at the intersections and they could reserve space for a future bike boulevard. Member Janovy asked if the sidewalk could be made wider to accommodate bikers also. She said she thinks the City Council was asking for sidewalk, benches, pedestrian lights, and planters. Chair Nelson asked if the intent was to have a north/south connection to the Promenade. Mr. Rickart said W. 66th and W. 70th are the City's Comp Plan bike crossings. Chair Nelson asked if the goal was crossing safely. Mr. Churchward said he thought the bigger goal was to not have the orientation towards cars on the corridor. Chair Nelson said he liked option 1, if they had the money, but he does not want to change the design and then do a redo later. Mr. Churchward said if the north/south movement is no longer the desire and east/west is, then they can relook at the design. Chair Nelson said there is a bike lane on W. 70th that ends at the last roundabout and suggested continuing this to France Ave to connect with the Promenade. Mr. Rickart said whatever is done needs to accommodate crossings at W. 66th and all other primary bike routes. Mr. Churchward said he feels responsible for creating the grand vision. He said he had Grand Ave, St. Paul, in mind but instead the bikers will remain secondary, while cars are primary on the corridor if his understanding is correct. Member La Force said France Ave is not the same as Grand Ave because Southdale is set further back. It likely will be residents and employees who will be on France Ave so it should be made enjoyable and safe for them. Member Bass said this could be a catalyst for rezoning. She said option 1 is bold and she liked it. She said they do not have a shared vision for France Ave and that there also isn't a community vision. Member Whited asked if the businesses have been told that they are to get closer to France Ave and Mr. Houle said no. Mr. Churchward said ideally, they would bring the sidewalk closer to the businesses and this would be part of a vision of having a tree -lined boulevard. This would be done during redevelopments. Mr. Houle said Southdale is willing work on a sidewalk around their perimeter. Member Janovy said there is a vision for France Ave in the Living Streets Policy and for other streets. She believes, however, that there will be resistance to spending $10.3m and this will make it difficult to get other bike lanes approved. Member La Force said they need to reach a consensus on elements and he would like to see finished connections or connection to something that already exist (unlike the one block of sidewalk on Interlachen Blvd). Member Bass said the system is not perfect but it has to be built out bit by bit. Member La Force said there is no plan for future connection. ember Bass asked what they could do that could set them up for a five year plan. Member Janovy asked how they could reduce speed limit on France and if a speed study could be included. Mr. Rickart said they could request a speed study from the County but it would add additional cost. Continuing with his elements, member La Force suggested a sidewalk on the eastside that would be done correctly to avoid a redo later on, wide boulevard, refuge, free right turns, etc. Chair Nelson liked the idea of a sidewalk becoming a bike lane in the future. Mr. Rickart said 8 foot is the federal required width for a 2 -way, multi -use path. Mr. Churchward said this is the right size for three people. He said any wider would look like a lot of concrete based on today's usage. He said if they can reduce speed it will help, otherwise trees will help. He said he prefers 10 foot of soil area between the curb and sidewalk because of less maintenance to tree roots. He said 66th & Lyndale in Richfield does have large trees in smaller areas so it can be done but it would require good soil, sprinkler, etc. Member Janovy asked if there are innovate ways to use runoff water to feed the trees and he said yes. Member Janovy asked about brand identify and how do you know what is right. Mr. Churchward said they need to know what the roadway is going to be for the next 30 years. Mr. Houle suggested leaving space for the monuments and creating a task force to work on branding. Chair Nelson said they should make crossings safe and easier, add sidewalk and make it as wide as possible and plant boulevard trees. He said even this is going to be more than $2m and the bridge was estimated at $6-8m so it was known that additional funding would be needed. Member Whited suggested talking to businesses about sponsoring benches along the corridor. Member Janovy asked if •the special assessment district would only be for beautification and Mr. Houle said he did not know the details but whatever is done has to show benefit to the properties. Member Braden suggested improving the three intersections, east/west crossings and continuing the W. 70th bike lane from the roundabout to France. Member La Force asked if people would stroll on France Ave. Member Bass said maybe not now but hopes that the City will pursue zoning that brings building closer to the street. She said this would encourage strolling. She said also that land use and transportation are inextricably intertwined. Member La Force asked Mr. Houle to repeat to them what he had heard. Mr. Houle said the elements are finish the connections for the sidewalks and bikeways, design the 8 -foot sidewalks so they do not need to be reconstructed in the future, put in as much boulevard as possible, provide pedestrian level lighting, provide safe cross -walk markings, remove free rights from the travel lanes, enlarge the medians to provide refuge areas, , , and provide space for monuments. Member Janovy asked about pedestrian level lighting and Mr. Rickart said they will need to look into this. Regarding the monuments, Mr. Churchward said they need to be dramatic and look like a destination. Member Bass said there is one at Cahill and. W. 701h that is a good example. She said it should also signal to drivers immediately that they have entered a different space. Mr. Churchward mentioned Fairview as a gateway playing of off this for the rest of the corridor. Member Braden asked Mr. Houle who much more he is comfortable spending and he said between $1-2M. He said there may be State Aid money available for ROW acquisitions. 0 Motion was made by member Janovy and seconded by member Bass to not recommend forwarding the current feasibility study to Council and to incorporate an alternative design for consideration at their August 6 meeting. All oroted aye. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. • C 4 f • Xo lGll`1� ..v V . \CORFOP �9 ]888 REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Edina Transportation Commission Agenda Item Item No: IV.A From: Byron Theis Traffic Safety Coordinator ® Action F-1 Discussion 11 Information Date: July 19, 2012 Subject: Traffic Safety Committee Report of July 11, 2012. ACTION REQUESTED: Review and recommend Traffic Safety Committee Report of Wednesday July 11, 2012, be forwarded to City Council for approval. BACKGROUND: It is not anticipated that residents will be in attendance at the meeting regarding any of the attached issues. An overview of the comments from the Edina Transportation Commission will be included in the staff report provided to Council for their August 6, 2012 meeting. Staff would like to direct your attention to Section A.1, which is a proposed Temporary Speed Table policy. ATTACHMENTS: Traffic Safety Review for July 11, 2012. G:\Engineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\Traffic Safety Committee\Staff Review Summaries\12 TSAC & Min\07-13-12.doc 14 • TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT Wednesday, July 11, 2012 The Committee review of traffic safety matters occurred on July 11, 2012. The Committee is comprised of staff members including the City Engineer, City Planner, Police Traffic Supervisor, and Traffic Safety Coordinator. From that review, the recommendations below are provided. On each of the items, persons involved have been contacted and the staff recommendation has been discussed with them. They were also informed that if they disagree with the recommendation or have additional facts to present, they can be included on the July 19, 2012, Edina Transportation Commission and then the August 6, 2012 City Council Agenda. SECTION A: Requests on which the Committee recommends approval of request: 1. Staff reviewed changes to the Temporary Speed Table Policy. Staff reviewed changes made based on the recommendations of the ETC. These recommendations were made during the June 21, 2012 meeting. Staff recommends approval of the attached Temporary Speed Table Policy. 2. Request for the Construction Management Plan be reviewed. This request was brought to the TSAC to review recommendations by the ETC. The specific paragraph under review was paragraph 5 which states: "Street parking is allowed as long as a minimum of a twelve -foot (12') wide area is open for the traveled portion of the road, unless otherwise authorized by the city engineer. The contractor shall encourage off-street and off-site parking to workers on site. " After discussion, the paragraph was revised. The new paragraph states: Street parking is allowed on Local Streets as long as a minimum of a twelve -foot (12') wide area is open for the traveled portion of the road, unless otherwise authorized by the city engineer. On streets Collector or Arterial Roadways, a minimum of twenty-two feet (22) must be open for • the traveled portion of the road. The Contractor shall encourage off- street and off-site parking to workers on site. Traffic Safety Committee Report Page 1 of 4 July 11, 2012 Staff recommends approval of the changes to the Construction Management Plan. SECTION B: Requests on which the Committee recommends denial of request: 1. Request for a stop sign at the intersection of Kellogg Avenue and 61St Street West. The requestor lives near the intersection of Kellogg Avenue and 61St Street West. The requestor has stated that vehicles are speeding through intersection and ignoring the Yield signs that are in place currently. Requestor also feels that the traffic speeds are too high for the area. 61" Street West and Kellogg Avenue are both classified as local streets. There are no recorded crashes at the intersection from 2001 to 2010. However, the resident states that there was recently a crash at the intersection which prompted the request. The City of Edina policy regarding residential stop sign requires at least 1000 vehicles per day on each of the intersecting streets. Stop signs could also be considered if the 85th percentile speed is more than five Miles Per Hour over the posted speed limit. Stop signs are not installed in an attempt to control speed or volume of vehicles. Traffic counts were conducted in the area. Vehicle volumes entering the intersection from each leg were observed to determine compliance with the stop sign policy. Kellogg Avenue has an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 275 vehicles north of 61St Street West; and 352 vehicles south of 61St Street West. The 85th percentile speed is 28.5 and 25.0 MPH, respectively. 61St Street West has an ADT of 125 vehicles east of Kellogg Avenue and 177 vehicles west of Kellogg Avenue. The 85th speed is 22.7 and 23.2 MPH, respectively. This is below the suggested amount of volume to warrant a stop sign. Staff recommends denial of stop signs at the intersection of Kellogg Avenue and 61St Street West. • SECTION C: Traffic Safety Committee Report Page 2 of 4 July 11, 2012 • Requests that are deferred to a later date or referred to others. 0 • At this time, there are no requests that are deferred. SECTION D: Other traffic safety issues handled. 1. Request for speeds to be monitored in the area of Harrison Avenue and Belmore Lane. Resident lives on the street and has stated that vehicles are going, "too fast" in the area. Harrison Avenue is a local street with an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 252 vehicles and an 85th percentile speed of 30.6 MPH. Speed information was forwarded to Edina Police Department. 2. Request for speeds to be monitored in the area of 62nd Street West and Halifax Avenue. Resident lives on the street and has stated that vehicles are going, "too fast" in the area. 62nd Street West has an ADT of 2332 vehicles with an 85th of 31.9 MPH. Speed information was forwarded to Edina Police Department. 3. Request for the intersection of TH 100 and Vernon Avenue to be looked at for traffic not yielding. Resident could not be contacted back for further information. 4. Call from a resident with, "Concerns" with the pedestrian crosswalk on Hazelton Road. Resident could not be contacted for further information. 5. Call from a resident wondering why a traffic counter was placed on her street. Resident was told that the Edina Police Department uses the traffic counters to monitor areas for speed as well as traffic volumes. 6. Call from resident requesting an all -way stop at the intersection of 48th Street West and France Avenue. Request was forwarded to Hennepin County. 7. Call from resident requesting a "Disabled Child" sign removed from the street. Resident purchased house with intent to resell and feels that the sign is depreciating the property value. Resident was informed that the resident who requested the sign can contact the City of Edina to have the sign removed. Traffic Safety Committee Report Page 3 of 4 July 11, 2012 • 8. Call from a resident concerning traffic advisory signs placed in street on Rutledge Avenue. Resident was concerned that these signs would cause a traffic hazard if left in the street. After investigating the area, it was determined that these signs were placed by residents. Section 460.03, Subd. 3 of the City Code states that no sign shall be placed in the right-of- way or within the clear zone. Letters were sent out to residents in the area to remove their signs. • 9. Call from a resident concerning a parking lane on Xerxes Avenue north of TH 62. Resident was concerned that traffic travelling south would use the parking lane as a travel lane, causing safety issues with pedestrians. Resident was referred to Hennepin County. Traffic Safety Committee Report Page 4 of 4 July 11, 2012 0 0 REGULAR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO: Edina Transportation Commission From: Wayne D. Houle, PE Director of Engineering Date: July 19, 2012 Subject: France Avenue Pedestrian and Bike Crossings Feasibility Study Agenda Item No.: VI.B. ACTION: ® Recommendation/Motion ® Discussion ❑ Information Recommendation/Motion: Review and recommend that the City Council approve the recommended design as described in the attached Revised Feasibility Study. Info/Background: The Edina Transportation Commission reviewed the original feasibility study at the July 9, 2012 Special ETC meeting. The ETC made recommendations to modify Option 3 and re- present the project at the next ETC meeting; see attached Revised Feasibility Study. The costs for the project still exceed the rescoping application that was submitted to the Met Council. Staff is exploring how to fund the additional costs, which could be funded from the Centennial Tiff Fund, or through Special Assessments, or from our appropriated Municipal State Aid funds. Staff will finalize the funding sources prior to Public Hearing with the City Council on August 6. Attachments: • France Avenue Intersection Enhancements — Revised Feasibility Study dated July 12, 2012 G:\Engineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\TRANSP COMM\Agendas\2012 R&R\20120719\201207'9 Item VI B France Avenue Pedestrian and Bike Crossings Feasibility Study.docx • 40 y FEASIBILITY STUDY FRANCE AVENUNE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS IMPROVEMENT NO. BA 404 Revised July 12, 2012 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA I hereby certify that this feasibility study was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 26082 07/12/12 Charles Rickarrt, PE Reg. No. Date / Approved Wayne D. Houle, PE Date City Engineer • :7 0 t�'91�\rte 0 a � � FEASIBILITY STUDY - BA 404 �o (Revised July 12, 2012) • 4�gw�a. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS 76th Street, 70th Street and 661h Street Federal Transportation Enhancement Project — S.P. 120-020-37 Revised July 12, 2012 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Edina was successful in securing Federal Transportation Enhancement funding and a subsequent Scope Change and Sunset Date extension for the construction of Pedestrian / Intersection Enhancements at 76th Street, 70th Street and 66th Street. In addition the project will provide missing sidewalk connection on the east side of France Avenue insuring that all areas on both sides of France Avenue have an opportunity to access one of the planned crossing locations. The primary goal of the project is to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing crossings of France Avenue for pedestrian and bicycles. In order to achieve these goals, direction was provided by; previous studies for the France Avenue/Southdale area; Federal and State design guidelines; the City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan; two Stakeholders meetings, and; input from the Edina Transportation Commission. Based on the review of the existing conditions and the project goals, three (3) intersection design concepts were developed, reviewed and analyzed. The options included: Option 1 — Separated Bike/Pedestrian Lanes with Boulevard Option 2 — Separated Bike/Pedestrian Lanes with no Boulevard Option 3 — Sidewalk with Boulevard Each option was evaluated and included specific corridor, pedestrian, bike, transit, intersection and traffic signals elements. Based on the evaluation of these options and input from the Stakeholders, Option 1 was selected as the initial preferred concept. However, following preparation of the project cost estimates and input from the Edina Transportation Commission, Option 3 — Sidewalk with boulevard (on -street bike lanes, side streets only), was the concept recommended to bring forward for further review and approval by the City Council. The estimated permanent right of way needed for Option 3 is 44,700sf compared to 82,000sf for Option 1. The estimated cost included with approved Scope Change and Sunset Date extension was $2,045,000, which included no right of way cost and minimal landscaping (urban design) and lighting costs. The comparible cost for Opition 3 is $2,309,600 and $3,624,000 for Option 3. The total estimated cost including right of way and urban design elements for Option 3 is $5,799,100 compared with $9,145,500 for Option 1. Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS :, 2. LOCATION The intersection improvements are located along France Avenue at 76th Street, 70th Street and 66th Street as shown in Figure 1 below. y-. r. + ti r 1 IM 2- i . '� J E - Yat�Arenue S. LEGE Proposed Inters+ Proposed Intersection Improvements By Thee Rivers Park District Figure 1. Project Location Map 0 3. INITIATION & ISSUES Background / History The City of Edina was successful in 2007 in securing Federal Transportation Enhancement funding for the 72nd Street Pedestrian Bridge over France Avenue. As a result of several studies, change in policy direction and new leadership at the City the concept of a bridge over France Avenue was deemed no longer practical. The City then requested and was granted a Scope Change and a one year Sunset Date extension from the Metropolitan Council for the project. A copy of the approved Scope Change and Sunset Date extension request is included in the Appendix. The re -scoped project will accomplish the same goals, safely and efficiently for less overall cost, in partnership with the other agencies and with greater community support. The vision for the re -scoped project stems from the County's "France Avenue Corridor Study" completed in 2009. Intersection enhancements such as; median refuge islands, accessible pedestrian signals, pedestrian warning signs, enhanced pedestrian corner treatments, etc, will be provided at three primary intersections. Wh Street: This proposed crossing would provide access to; medical • buildings, Southdale Mall, Aquatic Center, Rosland Park, TLC Bike Boulevard, and access to transit. Page 2 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS i70th Street: This proposed crossing would continue the complete street project recently constructed west of France Avenue. It would serve primarily single family neighborhood, The Galleria, Target, Promenade, Southdale Library, Hennepin County Government Center, and access to transit. 76th Street: This proposed crossing would serve primarily multi -family housing and connect to Centennial Lakes Park, Promenade, Three Rivers Park District Nine mile trail in Richfield, Edinborough Park, medical facilities, and access to transit. Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) is also planning improvements to Gallagher Drive. Although this intersection will be improved by TRPD the proposed crossing will serve the future planned regional trail, Promenade, multi -family housing, and access to transit. In addition to the intersection enhancements the proposed project will provide missing sidewalk connections insuring that all areas on both sides of France Avenue have an opportunity to access one of the planned crossing locations. The City has worked with several agencies during the preliminary studies, concept development and the proposed re -scoping of the project since the original TE application was submitted and approved. These agencies have included: • Hennepin County Community Works • Hennepin County Transportation • Three Rivers Park District • Transit for Livable Communities • Metro Transit • Minnesota Department of Transportation Project Goals / Objectives / Direction The proposed improvements are anticipated to provide a catalyst for France Avenue that will: • Encourage pedestrians to use enhanced intersections by creating inviting passages from surrounding areas, development along France Avenue, and buildings at the enhanced intersections. • Create inviting and comfortable parallel corridors leading to enhanced intersections with patterns and details that reflect the France Avenue corridor. • Orient buildings with primary entrances at corners to encourage pedestrian activity. • Discourage crossings at locations other than enhanced intersections. • Create inviting and safe waiting spaces at enhanced intersections. • • Ensure safe and comfortable space is available at medians in the event a pedestrian cannot cross the entire street. Page 3 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS • Establish continuity in design among enhanced intersections • Create, to the degree possible, designs oriented to pedestrians within the street crossing zones that are related to, but still distinct from, the waiting spaces. • Improve transit accessibility City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan The proposed project is consistent with the direction outlined in the City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Land Use and Community Design Chapter 4 of the plan addresses the relationship between Land Use and the function of roadway corridors. As shown below in Figure 2 France Avenue is identified as a primary thoroughfare where as 66th Street, 70th Street and 76th Street are residential and/or business thoroughfares. The Comprehensive Plan outlines that the residential and business thoroughfares should provide for non -motorized connections. Roadway Corridors Primary Tho—ofaro RRsid—fial Thoroughfare Business Thoroughfare Transit Shuttle rrrrr Nigh. Ys o .otentiY eway Gat Loutiona baa,*i hgroaed Regional Trail M T 144a°`"5 Figure 2. Community Design Roadway Corridors Sidewalk / Bicycle Facilities Chapter 7 of the plan addresses locations of proposed sidewalk and bicycle facilities and funding options within the City. Figures 7.10, Sidewalk Facilities and 7.11, Bicycle Facilities from the Comprehensive Plan are included in the Appendix. Both indicate a need for additional facilities along France Avenue and the primary cross streets. Figure 3, below shows the relationship and need to provide improved safe and efficient connections between the residential land uses west of France and the commercial land uses east of France Avenue. Page 4 of 36 • L • 0 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Figure 3. Existing Pedestrian / Bike Network Stakeholder Meeting Input In order to insure that all interests in the area were addressed a Stakeholders group was established. The Stakeholders included: • Edina Transportation Commission • Edina Planning Commission • Hennepin County Public Works • Hennepin County Housing, Community Works and Transit • MnDOT • Three Rivers Park District • Metro Transit • Bike Edina Task Force • Transit for Livable Communities • Local Businesses • Local Residents This group has had two meetings. The first meeting was held at the City of Edina Public Works Facility on May 31 st, 2012 at 7:00 PM. There were approximately 18 people in attendance, including city staff, project consultant team members, and representatives from various agencies and organizations, including the Edina Transportation Commission, Bike Edina Task Force, do.town, Hennepin County, Three Rivers Park District, and the City of Bloomington. A presentation was given by the project consultant team, and discussion was encouraged. Several major themes emerged from the discussion. All stakeholders agreed that the existing France Avenue design could be improved for cyclists and pedestrians. Stakeholders proposed several ideas and themes for improvement, including the need for France Avenue to be a Gateway to Edina, a need to improve transit access, a need to improve conditions for corridor residents, the importance of encouraging • vibrant street life, and the importance of improving pedestrian and cyclist safety. Page 5 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Several specific strategies were discussed, including a "Dutch style" bicycle • and pedestrian intersection design strategy, the importance of vertical elements in the design, and the importance of providing varying textures and colors to provide visual cues. The meeting was concluded with direction to staff and the consultant team to further develop and evaluate several concepts. The second stakeholders meeting were held at the City of Edina Public Works Facility on June 26th, 2012 at 7:00 PM. There were approximately 21 people in attendance, including city staff, project consultant team members, and representatives from various agencies and organizations, including the Edina Transportation Commission, Edina Planning Commission, Edina City Council, Hennepin County, Three Rivers Park District, the City of Bloomington, and several persons active in the local business community. A presentation was given by the project consultant team, and discussion was encouraged. The consultant team presented three conceptual alternatives for the identified intersections and requested feedback from the stakeholders. The three options included two variants of the "Dutch style" intersection design and one option with traditional bike lanes. The stakeholders discussed the strengths and weaknesses of each option, and the group agreed that Option 1 was the preferred option because it provided the greatest degree of separation between motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. Further discussion reinforced the need for strong vertical elements in the design to ensure a top- quality experience for pedestrians as well as cyclists. The meeting was concluded with direction to staff and the consultant team to focus on Option 1, while enhancing the design with additional vertical elements. Minutes from each meeting is included in the Appendix. Edina Transportation Commission Review A special Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) meeting was held on July gtn 2012 to discuss the proposed improvements and Option 1 as the recommended alternative. Based on the high cost of Option 1 and a rethinking of the need for bike facilities on France Avenue, the consensus at the meeting was to move forward with a modified Option 3 that would include an 8 foot sidewalk with an 8 to 10 foot boulevard between the roadway and the sidewalk. A copy of the draft meeting minutes is included in the Appendix. Agency Meetings/Comments Hennepin County The project development team met with Hennepin County Staff on June 25tH 2012 to discuss the proposed improvements and options for France Avenue. Their primary concerns/comments included: Raised planters/curbs along the median curb or in the boulevard. Due to a potential safety problem for vehicles leaving the roadway. They wanted to ensure appropriate truck turning movements were maintained at the corners. They have had some issues at intersections with tight radii where large vehicles track on the sidewalk where pedestrians may be standing. Page 6 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS • Narrowing of lanes is fine, but during final design we will need to be cognizant of the joints and especially the crown lines. • They were less enthused about a pedestrian push button station in the median. They would like the signal timing to allow pedestrians to cross in one cycle. • They would like to see a detail plan once a concept is selected. • A concern raised was the use of the average PM peak hour as the analysis period vs. a holiday peak. Metropolitan Council Informal comments were received from Metropolitan Council staff via email following the first Stakeholders meeting. The comments and responses to those comments are included in the Appendix. Metro Transit The project design team met with Kristin Thompson, Brad Smith and Cindy Harper of Metro Transit on July 5`", 2012. We discussed the project and shared the proposed improvements. The members of Metro Transit were supportive of the proposed improvements including removing cyclists from the travel portion of the roadway, and did not foresee any issues with the existing bus routes and stops, and agreed that the improvements would be a major upgrade for Metro Transit. We discussed the desire to possibly add bus shelters. They provided details on their standard bus shelters and the standard concrete pad. They informed the design team that bus shelters are added only if there are 25 boarding's at the bus stop. If the ridership numbers were not up to the set amount, they would not maintain or construct the shelter. However, the City could put up a shelter of their choosing at the City's cost. It was not anticipated that any of the bus stop locations or routes would change in the future. Given the current northbound condition near Hazelton and 72nd Street, where the bus stop is at a location without a sidewalk, they would consider relocating these to a location that has more room, possibly on Hazelton Avenue. It is proposed to add a sidewalk in this location, but a problem with snow removal still exists given the proximity to the existing retaining wall. One option to provide additional space for the bus stop would be removing the dedicated right turn lane. They do not like to place bus stops adjacent to right turn lanes given the difficulty of entering back into traffic. 4. EXISTING CONDITIONS France Ave Corridor France Avenue is a north / Minor Arterial roadway. In (Crosstown) an 1-494, it is a left and right turn lanes at posted on the roadway. • south Hennepin County Road (CSAH 17), "A" general, in the area south between TH 62 6 lane (3 lanes in each direction) roadway with the primary intersections. A 40 mph speed is Page 7 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Sidewalks Sidewalks are currently provided on the west side of France Avenue the entire length from 66th Street to 76th Street. The width is approximately 6', for most of the sidewalks, with no boulevard. The only exception is near 66th Street where the sidewalk is 5' with a 5' boulevard. On the east side a 5' sidewalk is provided from 76th Street to Parklawn Avenue (on private property) with a boulevard that varies in width. Mid -block between Parklawn and Gallagher (430' N. of Parklawn) a 6' sidewalk is provided. A 5' sidewalk is also provided on the east side from 175' south of 66th Street to the north. Transit Transit service is provided along France Avenue with 5 primary routes each is discussed below and summarized in Table 1. The location of the existing transit stops are shown in Figures 4a — 4c. Route 6 provides local bus service throughout the Edina Southdale Area and parts of Minneapolis. The route provides local stops along France Avenue between Minnesota Drive and Hazleton Road before accessing the Southdale Transit Center. Route 578 provides express bus service throughout several Edina neighborhoods including the Southdale area with downtown Minneapolis. This route travels along France Avenue between 691h and 70th Street before accessing the Southdale Transit Center and downtown Minneapolis via TH- 62 and I -35W. Route 579 provides express bus service between the Southdale Transit Center and the University of Minnesota. The route uses 66th Street, 69th Street, France Avenue, and York Avenue to access the Southdale Transit Center before using TH-62 and 1-35W to access the University. Route 587 provides express bus service between the Edina Southdale area and downtown Minneapolis. This route travels along France Avenue between 691h Street and Gallagher Drive. It also serves Valley View Drive and Normandale Road before accessing downtown Minneapolis via TH-100 and 1- 394. Route 684 provides express bus service between Eden Prairie, the Southdale Transit Center, and downtown Minneapolis. The route passes through Edina on TH-62, and using Valley View Drive, 66th Street and 69th Street, and York Avenue to access the Southdale Transit Center before continuing to downtown Minneapolis. Operated by Southwest Transit. • Page 8 of 36 is • • Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Route Project Area Service Destinations Frequency Headway Rush Hour Midday Evening Saturday Sunday/Holiday UofM Di n kytow n 76th Street, as well SE Minneapolis as France Avenue Downtown Minneapolis 6 between Minnesota Hennepin Avenue S 4.10 10-15 15 15 15 Drive and Hazleton Uptown Transit Station Road France Avenue S Xerxes Avenue S Southdale Transit Center Edina Industrial Park 70th Street Tracy Avenue 7Street,Benton Avenue 77th Street 578 Bush Lake Road 30 Express between 69th Street Highwood Drive and 70th Street France Avenue Southdale Transit Center York Avenue Downtown Minneapolis 66th Street, 69th Street, as well as 579 France Avenue Southdale Transit Center 60 -- -- -- Express p U of M __ between 66th Street and 69th Street 69th Street, as well France Avenue 587as France Avenue Valley View Road Express between 69th Street Normandale Road 30-40 30-40 and Gallagher Drive Downtown Minneapolis 684 66th Street, 69th Eden Prairie (various) Express Street Southdale Transit Center 30 -- Downtown Minneapolis Table 1. Existing Transit Route Summary to - i Watt t Y v t %pal 14 ,�`Norts 'L x k Figure 4a. France Ave Existing Transit Stop Locations Page 9 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS fi rw Mai a Figure 4b. France Ave Existing Transit Stop Locations � s b1 • �z.a Figure 4c. France Ave Existing Transit Stop Locations France Ave at 76th Street 76th Street is an east / west city street providing access between the commercial / residential areas east and west of France Avenue. It was identified in the City's Comprehensive plan as a component of the east / west reliever roadway to 1-494. 76th Street is classified as an "A" Minor Arterial with a posted speed of 30 mph. Figure 5 below shows the existing roadway typical sections at France Avenue and 76th Street. C Page 10 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Y S1 TM S f1T '..5' T t' Y3 .S Ttn ltrr v t. A1111111111111111- AWL Pf Tun Tarr. ^+i.ver Tl.v ta.�.w iTn_tra wn tans Nal. tNru ivr Tn:u Laro Existing France Avenue Section (North Leg of Intersection) lTru `$sir Y^n faro Natl. LTu^tasr )Tr,�Jnf Thru Larr lhv fuer P, Tun Ona ,111111111111111111o, AWOL _t -27i f'"'_"1 _...... al_ Existing 76th Street Section (West Leg of Intersection) Figure 5. France Ave at 76th Street Typical Sections France Ave at 70th Street 70th Street is an east / west city street providing access between the residential areas west of France Avenue and the commercial areas to the east of France Avenue. In 2010 70th Street was reconstructed east of France Avenue to include three single lane roundabouts. West of France Avenue, 70th Street was reconstructed in 2011 as a "complete street" including a single lane in each direction, bike lanes, parking lanes, a roundabout and a • traffic signal system to help control speed. 70th Street is classified as a Collector Roadway in the City's Comprehensive Plan a posted speed of 30 mph east of France Avenue and 25 mph west of France Avenue. Figure 6 below shows the existing roadway typical sections at France Avenue and 701h Street. _.� 11.3• ftt Turn ta^a Tlr� taro �y'a,v L• Tum gar-ro MW. Fnnf Lyn "hry Izs THS spa —._.. Existing France Avenue Section (North Leg of Intersection) t ti' �a• tis ,as, is �•_ tare Thu'aro Nm _i T,,. tra lhu taro Rt 1— Lana Allow rAoft, `ID ---ems �_I Existing 70th Street Section (EAST Leg of Intersection) Figure 6. France Ave at 70th Street Typical Sections Page 11 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS France Ave at 66th Street • 66th Street is an east / west city street west of France Avenue and a Hennepin County Road (CSAH 53) east of France Avenue. This roadway provides access between the residential areas west of France Avenue and the Commercial areas to the east of France Avenue primarily Southdale Center. 66th Street is classified as an "A" Minor Arterial with a posted speed of 30 mph. Figure 7 below shows the existing roadway typical sections at France Avenue and 66th Street. r ns +zs +r •+s es ,,s ,r ,r z TMJ /RTLT— L— TMu WM Lt Tum SSM AMtl. 7mu LeN T`Mu Lane 71vu leM W T Existing France Avenue Section (North Leg of Intersection) + 7 1Y 'r 1 ,r .2 ,r 15 'U'2 r R1 TLm LJre Tnru Sane TMu Lena LI Tw LWe U Tum lane Mea. Thu Saw T— ExistingExisting 66th Street Section • (East Leg of Intersection) Figure 7. France Ave at 66th Street Typical Sections 5. CORRIDOR ANALYSIS Traffic Analysis Traffic volume data was collected for France Avenue and the adjacent side streets in comparing the past two counting years (2009 and 2011) traffic has actually decreased slightly on France Avenue below is a summary of the traffic volume data used in for the analysis. France Avenue 2009 Count — 26,000 vpd to 28,500 vpd 2011 Count — 24,300 vpd to 27,800 vpd th 76 Street 2009 Count — 8,000 vpd to 9,100 vpd th 70 Street 2009 Count — 9,300 vpd to 10,600 vpd th 66 Street 2009 Count — 10,000 vpd to 16,100 vpd • Page 12 of 36 • • • Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Traffic operations were evaluated for the France Avenue Corridor in order to evaluate lane configuration alternatives using 2009 traffic volume data. This section describes the methodology used to assess the operations and provides a summary of traffic operations. Analysis Methodology The traffic operations analysis is derived from established methodologies documented the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM). The HCM provides a series of analysis techniques that are used to evaluate traffic operations. Intersections are given a Level of Service (LOS) grade from "A" to "F" to describe the average amount of control delay per vehicle as defined in the HCM. The LOS is primarily a function of peak traffic hour turning movement volumes, intersection lane configuration, and the traffic controls at the intersection. LOS A is the best traffic operating condition, and drivers experience minimal delay at an intersection operating at that level. LOS E represents the condition where the intersection is at capacity, and some drivers may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through an intersection controlled by traffic signals. LOS F represents a condition where there is more traffic than can be handled by the intersection, and many vehicle operators may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through the intersection. At a stop sign -controlled intersection, LOS F would be characterized by exceptionally long vehicle queues on each approach at an all -way stop, or long queues and/or great difficulty in finding an acceptable gap for drivers on the minor legs at a through -street intersection. The LOS ranges for both signalized and un -signalized intersections are shown in Table 2. The threshold LOS values for un -signalized intersections are slightly less than for signalized intersections. This variance was instituted because drivers' expectations at intersections differ with the type of traffic control. A given LOS can be altered by increasing (or decreasing) the number of lanes, changing traffic control arrangements, adjusting the timing at signalized intersections, or other lesser geometric improvements. LOS also changes as traffic volumes increase or decrease. Source: HCM Table 2 - Intersection Level of Service Ranges Page 13 of 36 Control Delay (Seconds) Signalized Un -Signalized A <_ 10 <_ 10 B 10-20 10-15 C 20-35 15-25 D 35-55 25— 35 E 55-80 35-50 F >80 >50 Source: HCM Table 2 - Intersection Level of Service Ranges Page 13 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs • (sometimes referred to as "approaches") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LOS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low-volume legs by converting a two-way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways and intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. Funding availability might also lead to acceptance of intersection or roadway designs with a lower LOS. LOS D is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas. LOS C is often considered to be the desirable minimum leve[ for rural areas. LOS D or E may be acceptable for limited durations or distances, or for very low-volume legs of some intersections. The LOS analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic: Synchro, a software package that implements Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies, was used to build each signalized • intersection and provide an input database for turning -movement volumes, lane geometrics, and signal design and timing characteristics. In addition, Synchro was used to optimize signal timing parameters for future conditions. Output from Synchro is transferred to SimTraffic, the traffic simulation model. SimTraffic is a micro -simulation computer modeling software that simulates each individual vehicle's characteristics and driver behavior in response to traffic volumes, intersection configuration, and signal operations. The model simulates drivers' behaviors and responses to surrounding traffic flow as well as different vehicle types and speeds. It outputs estimated vehicle delay and queue lengths at each intersection being analyzed. Corridor Analysis The traffic operations analysis was completed for several lane configuration alternatives along France Avenue. The PM peak hour traffic conditions from 2009 was used for the analysis. Each alternative including the results of the analysis is discussed below. A summary table of each analysis alternative is included in the Appendix. Existing Lane Configuration — This analysis provided the base line condition that was used to compare the results of the other lane configuration alternatives. The results of the existing analysis found that several movements are at Level of Service (LOS) E or F. In . addition some of the existing max vehicle queues exceed the available turn lane storage. Page 14 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS is 2. Removing Free Right Turn Lanes — By removing the free right turn lanes it was found that there was very little impact to the overall operations and that there would be a minimal increase in vehicle delays. 3. Removing One Through Lane on France Avenue — Removing one of the through lanes increased the number of intersection movements that are at LOS E or F. Average vehicle delays increased by 10 to 20 sec per vehicle at the intersections. 4. Removing Additional Left Turn Lanes — This alternative removed one left turn lane at locations were there were dual left turn lanes. The results of the analysis found that at every location were the lane was removed the left turn queues exceed the available storage. In addition, the overall intersection average intersection delays increased by an additional 5 to 10 secs per vehicle. One concern that was raised by Hennepin County was the use of the average PM peak hour as the analysis period. The concern is that even though we don't typically design for a holiday peak, this area of France Avenue with Southdale and the other retail uses, tend to have a more extended holiday timeframe and that the level of traffic on France Avenue is actually higher on an average. Based on the traffic operations analysis results it was determined that the final concepts would be developed based on only eliminating the free right turn lanes and no other lane reductions. Crash Analysis A crash investigation of the past 5 years (2007 — 2011) was completed for the corridor. The results indicate that there were 258 crashes in the corridor from 66th Street to 76th Street with 95 of those crashes at the intersections proposed to be improved with this project. The results also conclude that the overall crash rate and severity rate in the corridor is below the state wide average for the same type of roadways. The investigation found that there were 4 pedestrian or bicycle crashes in the corridor. Three of the four were with vehicles turning right failing to yield to bicycles. These crashes are listed below. • 66th Street — Northbound right -turn vehicle failed to yield to bike (2011) • 69th Street — Southbound right turn vehicles struck bike (2011) • 69th Street — Northbound through vehicle struck pedestrian (2011) • Gallagher Drive — Westbound right turn vehicle failed to yield to bike (2011) A table showing the results of the intersection analysis is included in the Appendix. Page 15 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS 6. IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Urban Design Context Any improvements to selected intersections along France Avenue must be made in the context of the City's other plans for the corridor, including its Comprehensive Plan, transportation plans, and plans for economic development. In general these plans have suggested a gradual transformation of France Avenue from a vehicular -oriented street to one that offers a "living street" experience for not only people in motorized vehicles but also to pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. Such a reorientation will affect not only the design of France Avenue and the streets that intersect it, but also the private property adjacent to France Avenue. The City, County, and the owners of private property will need to work together to achieve this goal. The concept is to fully connect the public domain of the street with the private domain of buildings. This will create a realm for social interaction, a place that provides an opportunity for people to meet and congregate, purposefully or serendipitously, or simply move between locations. To achieve this goal, several distinct features will be added to France Avenue including new and additional street, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit elements, as discussed below. • A generalized concept of one of the proposed intersections as envisioned under Option 1 illustrating a novel approach to moving bicyclists through the intersection by superimposing what is essentially a roundabout for bicycles over a standard vehicular intersection. Note that existing free -right turning movements have been eliminated and the median enhanced to improve pedestrian safety by decreasing crossing distance. This is true of all alternative options. Similarly all of the proposed options would .significantly improve pedestrian comfort and enhance the identity of the corridor by increasing the number of trees providing an overstory canopy along streets, sidewalks, and in the median. Although it would be preferred to have new structures abut the street, particularly at corners, some existing buildings will remain removed from the street, requiring that sidewalks be extended from the street to those more distant structures. This concept for locating new buildings near sidewalks or improving the sidewalk connection for existing • buildings would be applied in all alternative options. Page 16 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS 0 Corridor Elements It is the stated goal of the City of Edina to transform France Avenue between TH 62 Crosstown and 1-494 into an attractive and distinct corridor with its own distinguishing identity that not only differentiates it from other corridors but also from other segments of France Avenue. To do this, the primary change will be the relationship between buildings and the street. In general, buildings will move closer to the street. At intersections, buildings will be adjacent to both France Avenue and the intersecting street. In locations where streets and existing buildings will remain distant, connecting plazas and generous sidewalks will encourage better pedestrian connectivity. Eventually intervening parking lots will be eliminated or at least become less common; a landscaped buffer will separate the street from pedestrians; doorways to buildings will open to intersections or sidewalks parallel to the street. The cross section of the corridor would also change. Lane width would be reduced to 11 feet with opposing traffic separated by a substantial planted median of 10 or more feet. For Option 1, bicycles would be accommodated on France Avenue with a 6 foot bike lane in each direction. In that option, planters or a 20 -foot planted buffer would separate France Avenue from the sidewalk. For Option 2 the bike lane would be separated only by a curb. For Option 3, bicycles would simply share the road with traffic. Sharrows for assisting the turning movements of bicyclists, would be included at certain cross streets in some options. Inexperienced bicyclists may prefer to ride on the sidewalk but that is contrary to the city's existing public policy although it may be allowed under state standards if the sidewalk's layout meets state criteria. The sidewalk would be a least seven feet wide under the first two options, running parallel to the street. For Option 3, the walk would be 8 feet wide. Under all options the sidewalk placed adjacent to buildings may actually be wider to accommodate outdoor civic or commercial activities. The roadway median (between opposing lanes of traffic) and the sidewalk median (between the sidewalk and the street) would be slightly bermed to reduce headlight glare and planted with, as appropriate, flowers, shrubs, and trees. Plantings would be unique and contribute to creating a unique identity to the corridor. Street and pedestrian lighting will be installed along the roadways and sidewalks. The roadway lighting will be standardized yet unique to the corridor. The pedestrian lighting will be identical to the pedestrian lighting with an "E" emblem as used recently elsewhere in the City. Both street and pedestrian lighting will be placed uniformly along the edge of the roadway or sidewalk to emphasize the linearity of the corridor. It is anticipated that street lights may become necessary as trees mature and ambient light shining on the roadway is reduced. The lighting of the roadway will not be immediately installed as part of the currently proposed improvements to intersections and sidewalks, although conduit for future installation may be included. However, some intersection and pedestrian level lighting is included with the project. Lighting of buildings, signs, and places of outdoor gathering will be coordinated to establish an overarching architectural identity for the corridor. Page 17 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Gateway monuments would demarcate the entrances to this segment of • France Avenue, announcing its distinct identify as a uniquely designed and managed destination. Similar, although less pronounced identifying markers would occur where cross streets intersect France Avenue. Wayfinding for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists will need to be installed to facilitate active -transportation. For motorists, this may include active messages, particularly for events, seasonal information, and directions to and the availability of parking facilities. For bicyclists, it may be providing direction to major nearby destinations and for pedestrians, kiosk bulletin boards providing room for announcements of public events. Distinctive gateway monuments not only define the entrances to a corridor but presage the character of the whole district, inviting participation and providing an identity to an iconic street in a vibrant . community. Such monuments can be destinations themselves, provide community and historical information, and must be attractive throughout the day and year. Pedestrian Elements The primary attribute of the pedestrian realm will be the sidewalk itself. The walk will be concrete with a scoring pattern unique to the corridor. The preference will be to have buildings abut the sidewalk. It will be a standard seven to eight foot width depending on the option selected with an additional 18 -inch shy distance next to buildings to allow for facade projections and fenestrations. The walk may be widened to accommodate future commercial uses, such as restaurant patios and sidewalk cafes, or even developed into small plazas or pocket parks in coordination with future private development. The concept is to create opportunities for people to interact. Additional pedestrian amenities, such as benches, tables, arbors, or drinking fountains may be included. Some of these amenities may be installed in coordination with private development that is anticipated to occur along the corridor in the upcoming years and decades. The boulevard buffer between the sidewalk and the street is critical for developing the pedestrian realm. The buffer will provide an area for trees, shrubs, and flowers. At a minimum, there will be an 8 foot bio-swale boulevard buffer planted with trees between the sidewalk and street. Flowers will be planted near cross streets to emphasize the intersections. For Option 1, planter boxes filled with shrubs and flowers will provide separation between bicyclists and pedestrians. Page 18 of 36 • 0 J Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS The scale of the plantings will be massive and perfuse to visually complement the width of the street, the height of adjacent buildings, and the vibrancy of activity. In particular, large distinctive street trees, primarily deciduous, will enclose the sidewalk and street while providing a pedestrian scale space and detailing beneath the canopy, creating a safe enclosure for people moving through the corridor on foot. Shrubs and flowers will provide interesting details to pedestrians. By working with private developers, the pedestrian realm can become a place for social interaction. Providing amenities that make it comfortable for people to walk and congregate is essential. Explicitely marking where pedestrians are located and providing a wayfinding system increases pedestrian safety and encourages people to walk. Bike Elements For Option 1, bicycles will be accommodated along France Avenue with two dedicated lanes on the street moving in the same direction as motorized traffic. The preferred width is six feet. At intersections, a specially adopted layout, essentially a roundabout for moving bicyclists safely through traffic will be accommodated. Left turns will be accommodated through the roundabout rather than crossing traffic over to a left turn lane. Bike lanes will be separated from lanes for motorized traffic by a wide curb. At intersections, bike lanes will be color -coded. For Option 2, bicycles will be accommodated on the France Avenue but separated from traffic by a curb. For Option 3, bike lanes will only be provided on selected cross streets. No dedicated bike lanes will be placed on France Avenue for Option 3. Page 19 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Accommodating bicycle parking will be critical in the corridor. Parking by building entrances, outdoor public gathering spots, and at transit nodes will need to be coordinated with private development. In addition, "on -street" bicycle rental vending may become an option in the area and will need to be accommodated off of France Avenue and other intersecting streets. It will be critical that the location of bicycle lanes, parking, and rental not interfere with pedestrian movement. Coordination with private developers to accommodate bicycle parking, including the possibility of having bicycle lockers, may be necessary. Edina has designated Frnace Avenue as a secondary bike route. Although, given various alternative routes, it will probably be usedonly by more experienced riders. Under Option 1, the introduction of the bicycle roundabout superimposed over a standard intersection provides a safe way for bicyclists to negotiate the intersection. Signal detection methods for bicyclists will be imporved under all options. Transit Elements Coordination with transit providers will be essential for transforming France Avenue into a complete street. Linking the sidewalk's pedestrian system with the streets' transit system will require site-specific coordination. Providing a corridor -specific transit shelter at all transit stops will encourage use of the transit system. Coordinating vending machines for newspapers or at a minimum defining their locations will benefit the appearance of the corridor. The placement of transit shelters must not interfere with pedestrian or bicycle movement. Providing bicycle storage lockers at transit stops will encourage residential neighbors to use transit and provide an opportunity to reinforce France Avenue as a destination. Page 20 of 36 0 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS i The location and design of transit shelters can provide an iconic element for the corridor. It is anticipated that a uniquely designed bus shelter that will be coordinated with other design elements in this corridor will reinforce the street's distinctiveness. Intersection Elements Crosswalks will be marked with the proven safety improvement, a traditional zebra -striped crosswalk with stop bars will provide the best safety measures for pedestrians. A wide center median, at least 10 feet, will create a pedestrian refuge in the center of France Avenue. The median should extend beyond the crosswalk into the intersection to provide an additional buffer for stranded pedestrians. City and County standards will be applied to curb cut locations and design. Traffic Signal Elements The appearance of traffic signals, poles, and masts will be coordinated with lighting fixtures and standards. It is anticipated that the color of traffic semaphores will be bronze. American with Disabilities (ADA) standards will be applied to all traffic signal elements. Video detection or other detection methods will be used to identify if a pedestrian or bicyclist is approaching or in a crossing and the cycle times adjusted to allow sufficient time for crossing and turning movements. Turning movements for cars will be delayed if the presence of a pedestrian or bicyclist is detected. A manual override system will be provided for both pedestrians and bicyclists. Page 21 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS The design of the functional aspects of intersection and traffic signal elements will reinforce the aesthetic and urban design characteristics of the corridor by providing safety and comfort to pedestrians and bicyclists. 7. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES Three primary intersection options were prepared and evaluated, taking into consideration of the design elements discussed in the previous section and input from the Stakeholders and Edina Transportation Commission. Each option is discussed below with their advantages and disadvantages, Intersection Option 1 - Separated Bike/Pedestrian Lanes with Blvd This option provides a one-way off-road bike lane separated by a boulevard and an elevated pedestrian sidewalk also separated from the bike lane. At the intersections the bikes would be separated in their own crossing using a modification of the "Dutch" design. Figures 8a — 8c shows Option 1 at each intersection. Advantages: • Aesthetically pleasing with more opportunity's to provide landscaping • Provides buffer to pedestrians and bikes • Biscuits allow for better sight distance for bikes and vehicles • Widened Median allows for refuge island for pedestrians • Increased buffer in corners for pedestrians • Biscuits allow for signal pole placement • Decreased distance for pedestrians and bikes to cross • Safer crossing for pedestrian and bicyclists. Disadvantages • Requires significant R/W • High Cost • Pedestrians need to wait further back behind bike lane • Additional maintenance for snow removal Page 22 of 36 • i� U � 0 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS : Figure 8a. France Ave at 76th Street Option 1 11 Page 23 of 36 I Figure 8b. France Ave at 70th Street Option 1 r i t/ W Iff Figure 8c. France Ave at 66th Street Option 1 Page 23 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Intersection Option 2 — Separated Bike/Pedestrian Lanes with no Blvd This option provides an off-road bike lane with no boulevard and an elevated pedestrian sidewalk separated from the bike lane. At the intersections the bikes would be separated in their own crossing using a modification of the "Dutch" design. Figures 9a — 9c shows Option 2 at each intersection. Advantages • Provides some opportunity to provide landscaping • Provides buffer for pedestrians and bikes • Biscuits allow for better sight distance for bikes and vehicles • Widened median allows for refuge island for pedestrians • Increased buffer at corners for pedestrians • Biscuits allow for signal pole placement • Decreased distance for pedestrians and bikes to cross • Less R/W required than Option 1 Disadvantages • Requires more R/W than Option 3 • Higher Cost than Option 3 • Pedestrians need to wait further back behind bike lane • Additional maintenance for snow removal • Barrier curbs are susceptible to damage from vehicles and snow plows Figure 9a. France Ave at 76th Street Option 2 Page 24 of 36 • • • a+ 4 Figure 9a. France Ave at 76th Street Option 2 Page 24 of 36 • • • ,. Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS � 0 � t Ie Figure 9b. France Ave at 701h Street ODtion 2 41 Figure 9c. France Ave at 66 th Street Option 2 Intersection Option 3—Sidewalk with Blvd (On -Street Bike Lanes, Side Streets On]*) This option provides standard on -road bike lane onk/onthe cross streets at 70m Street, 7Um m ' Street and 00 Street. No on -rood or separated bike lanes would be provided on Fnsnoa Avenue. A sidewalk would be provided with e boulevard between the rnodvvoy and sidewalk. At the intersections the bikes and pedestrians would use the same crosswalk facility. Figures 10a — 10c shows Option 3ateach intersection. This option also provides for the possible future expansion to a project that vvnu|d provide separated bike and pedestrian facilities (similar to Option 1). This would however require purchasing additional right of way or negotiations with adjacent property owner oathe properties would develop. Page 25 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Advantages: • • Provides some opportunity to provide landscaping • Provides buffer for pedestrians • Widened median allows for refuge island for pedestrians • Would require minimal to no additional R/W • Lower cost than any other option • Is the accepted way to handle bike lanes at intersections • Expandable to separated Bike/Ped facilities in the future. Disadvantages • Increases the width to cross for pedestrians from options 1 and 2 • Pedestrians close to traffic in corners (not as much buffer as options 1 or 2) • Signal Pole placement will require longer mast arm poles • Would require widening along entire France corridor for future expansion of a bike lane g � m — — c; Figure 10a. France Ave at 76th Street Option 3 Page 26 of 36 0 � ^1? W Figure 10c. France Ave at 66th Street Opi:ion 3 Other Intersection Design Options Considered Other intersection design options were also considered but were determine to be not feasible because they would physically fit the France Avenue situation or would create a significant impact to adjacent property. These options included: • Continuous flow intersection • Michigan left turns • Grade separated cross street U..� Page 27 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Corridor / Sidewalk Connection Options Three sidewalk connection options were considered for completing the gaps in the sidewalks on the east side of France Avenue including: • Continuing the preferred alternative the entire length with curb adjustments. • Continuing the preferred alternative the entire length with curb adjustments except at locations where there were impacts to property other than just right of way. • Making only sidewalk connections without any significant right of way impacts or curb impacts. 8. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Based on the evaluation of these options and input from the Stakeholders, Option 1 was selected as the initial preferred concept, however following preparation of the project cost estimates and input from the Edina Transportation Commission, Option 3 — Sidewalk with Boulevard (On -Street Bike Lanes on Side Streets Only), is the preferred and recommended concept. Figures 11 a — 11 c shows the recommended improvements for the entire corridor. Figure 11a. France Ave Preferred Alternative t�. • Figure 11 b. France Ave Preferred Alternative • Page 28 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Figure 11 c. France Ave Preferred Alternative The proposed typical section is shown in Figure 12 and includes the following: • Reducing the vehicle lanes to the minimum State Aid requirements • Widening the center median to a 10' width • 8 foot landscaped boulevard on France Avenue • 8 foot sidewalk on France Avenue • 6 foot landscaped boulevard on the side streets • 6 foot sidewalk on the side streets • 5 foot on -street bike lane on side streets in both directions R_ Ftm saswatk taro ­6 tn,u tar itw ta+e >'+uu tem � ; Medan t It ` i,ru pare -. ttw i.me iNv talo , Rn r ianticea,p S+oewa+ Ex. wvr EX RW Ant Proposed France Avenue Section *Existing RNV Varies MY +' Q C 5 ]t' „ IQ td /0 •, 1' S' 1Q .t. R edr Ttv tw a r Meaw toto uRe I,- t.�e a- RTL ' ._ rw EX.. ww EX iLW Proposed Side Street Section Figure 12. France Ave Option 3 Typical Section 0 Page 29 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS he area from Gallagher Drive to north of Hazelton Road will require slight . modifications from the typical section. From Gallagher Drive to Hazelton Road, adjacent to the Macy's and Byerly's property, it is proposed to construct the sidewalk with a railing, on top of the existing retaining wall. The area between the roadway and existing retaining wall will be a landscaped boulevard. This will require slight modifications to the existing parking lots. The area north of Hazelton Road will include a slightly narrower (4 to 6 foot) boulevard to avoid significant impacts to the existing parking lot. Figure 13 shows a detail of this area. .w w wV .�. -mow.. V -w 1. Figure 13. France Ave — Gallagher Dr to Hazelton Rd A detail of a typical intersection corner showing the location of the interaction of the pedestrian, the location of the ADA ramps and location of areas where • additional landscaping could occur is shown in Figure 14. Figure 14. France Ave Concept 3 Intersection Detail Page 30 of 36 • 0 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Several urban design refinements are included as part of Option 3 based on Stakeholder input and discussions with Edina's Transportation Commission. The refinements include a focus on sidewalks with a row of trees along the median and sidewalks to enhance the pedestrian experience. The cross section and plan view figures below for Option 3 illustrates several unique urban design elements including gateway monuments, boulevard and median tree plantings, pedestrian lighting, and paving patterns that together provide an identity and create a composition unique for France Avenue. Figures 15a — 15f capture these suggested refinements for the corridor and a typical intersection. !4 Figure 15a. France Ave Corridor Urban Design Concept �11-- 0'00�- 1. Am, ` W rr I' f'j iGNMm. Em Figure 15b. France Ave Intersection Urban Design Concept Page 31 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Figure 15c. France Ave Intersection Urban Design Concept 0 Figure 15d. France Ave Urban Design Concept Corner Detail v Page 32 of 36 • • U Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Figure 15e. France Ave Urban Design Concept Corner Detail Figure 15f. France Ave Urban Design Concept Corner Detail Page 33 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS 9. RIGHT-OF-WAY & EASEMENTS 10. PROJECT COSTS The estimated permanent right of way and temporary easements needed for Options 1 and 3 are outlined below. These areas represent the estimated worst case and best case for right of way needs. Option 1 76th Street: Perm R/W = 18,OOOsf T/E = 15,OOOsf 70th Street: Perm R/W = 8,500sf T/E = 7,300sf 66th Street: Perm RNV = 8,500sf T/E = 7,600sf Sidewalk Connection Areas Perm R/W = 47,OOOsf T/E = 35,200sf Total Option 1: Perm RNV = 82,OOOsf T/E = 65,100sf Option 3 76th Street: Perm R/W = 7,100sf T/E = 1,850sf 70th Street: Perm R/W = 3,800sf T/E = 3,800sf 66th Street: Perm R/W = 1,800sf T/E = 2,600sf Sidewalk Connection Areas Perm R/W = 32,OOOsf T/E = 22,OOOsf Total Option 3: Perm R/W = 44,700sf T/E = 30,250sf Right of way acquisition will need to follow the Federal Right of Way Acquisition process. This is one of the critical elements in meeting the project sunset date timeline of March 31St, 2013. In order to meet this timeline the process will need to begin by September 1St, 2012. This process would also include potential condemnation if required. As part of the Scope Change and Sunset Date extension request the estimated project cost was $2,045.000. This included minimal landscaping ($50,000) and minimal lighting ($80,000). The cost also did not include any additional right of way. Estimated costs were developed for Option 1 and Option 3. These costs include estimated right of way, urban design elements and construction for each intersection as well as the sidewalk connection improvements. The estimated costs do not include indirect costs such as engineering, legal and administration, etc. The costs are based on preliminary estimated quantities and current average bid prices per item. The right of way costs assume $35/sf for permanent and $20/sf for temporary easements, based on recent acquisition data from the City. Page 34 of 36 .7 0 • 0 • Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS A summary of the preliminary estimated cost is shown below. The detailed preliminary cost breakdown is included in the Appendix. Option 1 76th Street: RNV = $1,005,000 Construction = $755,000 Urban design = $213,000 70th Street: RNV = $480,000 Construction = $711,000 Urban design = $201,000 66th Street: RNV = $487,500 Construction = $730,000 Urban design = $207,000 Total Intersection: RNV = $1,972,500 Construction = $2,196,000 Urban design = $621,000 Sidewalk Connections: RNV = $2,525,000 Construction = $1,428,000 Urban design = $403,000 Total Cost: RNV = $4,497,500 Construction = $3,624,000 Urban design = $1,024,000 Total Project Cost = $9,145,500 Option 3 76th Street: R/W = $285,500 Construction = $577,000 Urban design = $367,000 70th Street: RNV = $209,000 Construction = $550,000 Urban design = $367,000 66th Street: RNV = $115,000 Construction = $556,000 Urban design = $367,000 Total Intersection: RNV = $609,500 Construction = $1,683,000 Urban design = $1,101,000 Sidewalk Connections: RNV = $1,560,000 Construction = $626,600 Urban design = $219,000 Total Cost: RNV = $2,169,500 Construction = $2,309,600 Urban design = $1,320,000 Total Project Cost = $5,799,100 The comparable cost to the Scope Change and Sunset Date extension estimated cost of $2,045,000 is $3,624,000 for Option 1 and $2,309,600 for Option 3. It should be noted that the estimated cost of Option 1 does not include the bike lane and right of way acquisition adjacent to the Macy's/Byerly's site. The addition of these costs would increase the total cost to $10,308,000. The estimated costs for Option 3 does include the additional right of way and sidewalk connections adjacent to Macy's/Byerly's site. In addition the urban design cost does include additional urban design features such as monuments, additional landscaping, assuming the larger boulevard area, additional pedestrian level lighting and the additional boulevard area on the side streets. Page 35 of 36 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS 11. FUNDING 0 12. FEASIBILTY As indicated in the approved Metropolation Council Scope Change request, the estimated project cost is $2,045,000. Funding for the project is currently allocated using the following funding sources. • $1.0 million in Federal TE funding • $1.0+ million in matching Southdale Area TIF funding Should the project be approved the remaining funding could be provided using additional Southdale Area TIF funding, State Aid funding or other local funding sources. The proposed improvements as outlined in this study are found to be necessary, cost effective, and feasible from an engineering standpoint. 13. PROJECT SCHEDULE APPENDIX The project is on a very aggressive schedule to meet the sunset extension date of March 31St, 2013.The following general schedule is anticipated. A detail schedule is included in the Appendix. UDcomina Meetinas Edina Transportation Commission (Special Meeting) July 9th, 2012 Edina Transportation Commission July 19th, 2012 Edina City Council August 7th„ 2012 MnDOT Federal Project Process Project Development April — December 2012 Project Memorandum October 2012 Right of Way Begin Appraisals September 1, 2012 Offer letters November 1, 2012 Begin condemnation (if needed) December 1, 2012 Title and position March 2013 Detail Design August 2012 — March 2013 Final Approval (City, County, MnDOT) March 2013 Begin Construction Summer 2013 Scope Change and Sunset Date Extension request Edina Comprehensive Plan Figure 7-10 Sidewalk Facilities Edina Comprehensive Plan Figure 7-11 Bike Facilities Stakeholders Meeting #1 minutes Stakeholders Meeting #2 minutes ETC Draft Meeting Minutes Met Council comment Summary Level of Service summary Tables Crash investigation Summary Table Estimated Cost Summary Detail Project Schedule Page 36 of 36 SUNSET DATE EXTENSION and SCOPE CHANGE REQUEST S.P. 120-020-037 France Avenue / 72nd Street Pedestrian Bridge Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND A. Proiect Name: 72° Street Pedestrian Bridge over France Avenue in the City of Edina B. Location Map A location map is attached as Exhibit 1. C. Sponsoring Agency: City of Edina 4801 W. 50d` Street Edina, MN 55424 D. Other Participating Agencies: Hennepin County and MNDOT have been or will be involved in the review and/or approval of the project. No financial participation is anticipated from these agencies. E. Proiect Description: The current project includes the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over France Avenue in the vicinity of 72nd Street South. The bridge would provide a connection between the commercial, retail and offices located east of France Avenue and the residential neighborhoods west of France Avenue. The City is requesting a change in scope to provide more logical and efficient connections to these areas. Section 4 of this request outlines the proposed scope change. F. Funding Category: The project is funded with Federal Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds. G. Federal Funds Allocated: Federal funds in the amount of $1,000,000 have been secured. H. Local Share and Source: The City has included this project in their 2010 — 2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 2012 using Southdale Area Tax Increment Financing funds and Municipal State Aid funds for the local funding match. I. Fiscal Year Program: The current project is programmed for Fiscal Year 2012. 0 2. PROJECT PROGRESS • A. Proiect Schedule: A revised project schedule is attached as Exhibit 2. The current progress on the project is attached as Exhibit 3. B. Right -of -Way Acquisition: The adjacent property owners to the 72nd Street are aware of the project and preliminary discussions on potential right of way needs were completed. C. Permits: The following table is a list of anticipated permitting agencies and the status of their reviews: Agency Permit Status MPCA NPDES Not yet submitted, Scope Change Request February 2012 with Final Plans Nine Mile Watershed District Wetlands (if required) Not yet submitted, Not yet submitted, July 2012 Hennepin County with Final Plans D. Approvals: The following is a list of agencies with approval authority and the status of each approval: Agency Approval Required Status Met Council Sunset Date Extension February 2012 Scope Change Request February 2012 MnDOT Project Memorandum Not yet submitted, April 2012 Final Plan Approval Not yet submitted, July 2012 Hennepin County Preliminary Plan Not yet submitted, March 2012 Final Plan Approval Not yet submitted, July 2012 City of Edina Transportation Commission Preliminary Plan February 2012 City Council Preliminary Plan March 2012 Final Plan Approval June 2012 E. Identified Funds Spent to Date on Proiect: To date, local City funds, grant monies and funding by other agencies in excess of $100,000 have been spent on the preparation of studies in the area, preliminary concept plans and alternatives for the proposed improvements. 2 • C 0 3. JUSTIFICATION FOR EXTENSION A. What is unique about this uroiect that requires an extension of the Sunset? A sunset extension request has become necessary primarily due to: 1. New Transportation Studies/Projects impacting the project area. Several transportation studies and improvements have been initiated and completed in the project area during the time since the original TE application was approved for funding. Since the project was selected a number of things have developed that warrant consideration of an alternative to a pedestrian bridge as the best solution for improved pedestrian and bicycle access to and within the Greater Southdale/Centennial Lakes area. These projects included: Hennepin County/Edina - France Avenue Corridor Study — 2009 Hennepin County together with the City of Edina completed the France Avenue Corridor Study which shows enhanced pedestrian/bike friendly intersections. The proposed re -scoped project would be consistent with the County's plan. Included in Appendix A is a copy of the study. • Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) - Regional Trail Alignment process — 2010. This trail will provide an east -west connection to the TRPD regional trail system. Exhibit 4 illustrates the proposed Nine Mile Regional trail corridor. Metro Transit - Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections to Transit infrastructure Study — 2009. This study identifies a high priority corridor project Edina "G" project) north/south along France Avenue from 70 Street to Minnesota Drive. The study recommends ADA Pads, curb cuts, crosswalk (paint) streetlights, benches, bike lockers, shelters and trash receptacles. It also notes that there are many locations along France Avenue that have deficient lighting near bus stops. Pedestrian level lighting near the bus stops would improve pedestrian safety. These improvements will enhance use of alternative modes of transportation. Edina - W. 70t<' Street Corridor Study and Improvements — Initiated 2007, completed 2011. The completion of the 70th Street project between Highway 100 and France Avenue includes sidewalks, bike lanes and reflects complete streets/ living streets design. An improved intersection at France and 70th street would provide a link from this recently completed project to the 70th Street sidewalk on the eastside of France Avenue. This would also provide connections to the Promenade pedestrian corridor east of France Avenue. Transit for Livable Communities (TLC) - Bike Boulevard project— Initiated roject—Initiated 2009, anticipated completion 2012. The City has been awarded TLC funding for the construction of a bike lane that would connect from 586' Street south via Wooddale Avenue to 70a' Street, this project helps build Edina's bicycle network which is consistent with the adopted Edina bike plan. • Edina — Southdale Area Pedestrian Study — 2009. This study analyzed pedestrian movements in the Promenade/Centennial Lake corridor. 2. Transportation Commission and Bike Edina Task Force review of the proposal. The Edina City Council established the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) to help guide the City in implementing its vision for an integrated, multi -modal local transportation system as stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The system will provide safe and efficient transportation options for all users (motorists, transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities) in a way that promotes the economic, environmental, social, and personal vitality of the City and its residents. The Commission shall: A. Advise the City Council on the operation of the local transportation system (all modes, users, and abilities). B. Develop strategies, plans and recommendations to implement the City's multi -modal transportation vision. C. Review neighborhood street capital investment projects for adherence to adopted City policies and planning documents. D. Review and comment on large development proposals, such as those requiring an Alternative Urban Areawide Review, Environmental Assessment, or Small Area Plan. E. Discuss regional transportation improvements by outside agencies that may affect the local transportation system. F. Promote the City's transportation vision through education and open forums. G. Review and comment on citizen transportation concerns, traffic complaint reports, and data. H. Review and recommend transportation -related funding. I. Advise the City Council on additional matters when directed by the City Council. The Bike Edina Task Force was established prior to the City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. This task force studied the City's bicycle system and prepared a detailed report recommending improvements to the City's bicycle system. This document was included as part of the approved Comprehensive Plan. • 4 Both the ETC and the Bike Edina Task Force have reviewed the current Pedestrian Bridge proposal and have raised questions on the location and efficiency of the overpass at 72°d Street. The primary question is, will people use the overpass with the land use attractions and pedestrian facilities spread out on both sides of France Avenue from 65th Street to 78th Street? And, is the 72nd Street overpass the most appropriate solution for pedestrians and bicyclists? Exhibit 5 shows the Pedestrian and Bicycle Framework on both sides of France Avenue. 3. Concern over the need and effectiveness of a Pedestrian Bridge in this location. As indicated, both the ETC and Bike Edina Task Force has raised a concern with location and effectiveness of the pedestrian bridge at the 72nd Street location. With a north/south pedestrian corridor (the Promenade) located east of France Avenue and several residential communities and businesses located west of France Avenue, concentrating the primary crossing at 72nd Street has been questioned. The concern is that pedestrian and bicyclists will use the existing signalized intersections to cross France Avenue even with the overpass at 72°d Street in place. Providing multiple enhanced crossings of France Avenue appears to be a more logical solution that would be used by more pedestrians and bicyclists. Exhibit 5 shows the Pedestrian and Bicycle Framework on both sides of France Avenue. Hennepin County together with the City of Edina prepared a study in 2009 that evaluated and recommended improvements to enhance safety, vitality, identity, cohesiveness and visual quality of the France Avenue corridor. Based on that study, enhancing multiple crossing along France Avenue would create a more useable pedestrian and bicycle network than with the proposed overpass. A copy of the study is attached in Appendix A. The City Council with recommendation from the ETC has initiated further study to review and determine what the appropriate locations and crossing enhancements should include with the proposed at -grade crossing alternatives. Section 4 of this request outlines the alternatives and locations being considered. 4. New policies related to transportation and active living. The City of Edina, Hennepin County and MnDOT have all adopted new policies guiding transportation related to pedestrian and bicycle projects in the time sense the initial application. The primary focus of the policies is an emphasis that streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. These policies include: • Edina Comprehensive Plan Update — 2008 • Edina Comprehensive Bicycle Plan — 2008 • Hennepin County Active Living Resolution — 2007 5 • Hennepin County Complete Streets Resolution — 2009 • • MnDOT Complete Streets - 2009 • Edina support for a Statewide Complete Streets Policy — 2010 • Edina authorization to pursue Living Streets Policy — 2011 • Edina, Richfield and Bloomington Do.Town Campaign — 2011 S. City Leadership Transitions The City of Edina hired a new City Manager in November of 2010 and a new Assistant City Manager in July of 2011. This new staff leadership together with new members on the City Council and Transportation Commission has established a new vision for the City's pedestrian and bicycle system. 6 Identification of a new source for the Local Matching funds The matching funds for the project were originally programmed using City property taxes and State Aid funds. In 2011 the City Council identified Centennial Lakes Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district funds as an alternative source for matching funds and programmed the project accordingly in the 2012 — 2016 CIP. The above delayed direct action on the project as each study, public process and new policy provided more information to be considered. In May 2011 the Edina City Council formally referred the matter to the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC). The ETC reviewed the referenced studies and policies and recommended that the City not pursue the proposed pedestrian bridge, but pursue several enhanced at grade crossings as an alternative. In November 2011 the City Council reviewed the ETC's recommendation and voted to direct staff to prepare a sunset date extension and scope change request. B. What are the financial imuacts if this oroiect does not meet its sunset date? The City and other agencies have invested significant time and funding in excess of $100,000 in exploring solutions to improving the pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and flow across France Avenue and in the Southdale/Centennial Lakes area. C. How does this project implement regional policies? The proposed Sunset Date Extension and re -scoping the project from a bridge at a single location to three redesigned enhanced intersections is consistent with the Metropolitan Council's Transportation Policy Plan's philosophy of developing higher benefit/lower cost projects. The Met Council Transportation Policy Plan includes the following primary policy for pedestrian and bicycle travel: Policy 18: Providing Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel Systems: The Council, state, and local units of government will support efforts to increase the share of trips made by bicycling and walking and develop and maintain efficient, safe and appealing pedestrian and bicycle transportation systems. • 3 The project meets the following strategies associated with this policy: • • Strategy 18a. - Bicycle and Pedestrian Regional Investment Priorities • Strategy 18b. - Connectivity to Transit • Strategy 18c. - Local Planning for Bicycling and Walking • Strategy 18d. — Inter -Jurisdictional Coordination • Strategy 18e. - Complete Streets D. What are the implications if the project does not obtain the requested extension? An extension of the sunset date is critical to allow time for the successful implementation of one of the City's primary Pedestrian/ Bicycle objectives to "Create pedestrian and bicycle interconnections among major generators with continuity across major roadway and other barriers". If the extension were not granted the City would forfeit the TE funding on the project and postpone the project until funding can be obtained. Postponing the project until an unknown future date would seriously complicate political approval processes, render useless some of the work done to date, and be very inefficient. Furthermore, postponing leaves a significant gap in the Cities trail and bike system. E. What actions will the agency take to resolve the problem facing the project in the next three to six months? City has identified potential solutions to the providing a more efficient and user friendly project. Exhibit 2 describes the schedule that the City is committed to, to bring this project to a successful conclusion. This schedule will allow the City to complete the right-of-way acquisition and Project Memorandum early enough in 2012 to allow construction to begin in early 2013. J 7 4. SCOPE CHANGE REQUEST A. Project Description The following is the proposed scope change project description. The primary changes from the original description are shown as italicized. The France Avenue Pedestrian Crossing project would complete a missing link by overcoming the France Avenue barrier (ADT 28,700) for the pedestrian and bicycle circulation system in this part of Edina. The pedestrian and bicycle amenities will include a significant emphasis on aesthetics and special amenities such as public art, water fountains at a similar caliber to the Centennial Lakes pedestrian circulation network. Intersection enhancements such as; median refuge island, accessible pedestrian signals, pedestrian warning signs, enhanced pedestrian corner treatments, etc, will be provided at 66th Street, 7e Street and 76th Street. This intersection together with the Gallagher Drive intersection being improve by Three Rivers Park District will result in the provision of safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle facilities connecting a significant activity centers east of France Avenue with established neighborhoods to the west. The Promenade and Centennial Lakes trail systems serve high density residential areas, medical offices, movie theatres, Centennial Lakes Park, Edinborough Park, the YMCA, Hennepin County Regional Library and Service Center and a multitude of retail shops including Target, the Galleria and Southdale Shopping Center. The Promenade trail also includes an east -west leg which connects to the City of Richfield and the future Nine mile regional trail. The total project cost is estimated to be approximately $2,045,000. The re -scoped project will accomplish the same goals, safely and efficiently, for less overall cost, in partnership with the other agencies and with greater community support. The vision for the re -scoped project stems from the County's "France Avenue Corridor Study" completed in 2009. Attached in Appendix A is a copy of the study. B. Location Map A location map is attached as Exhibit 1. C. Project Layout The proposed project will provide improvements at three primary intersections. 66th Street. This proposed crossing would provide access to; medical buildings, Southdale Mall, Aquatic Center, Rosland Park, TLC Bike Boulevard, and access to transit. 70th Street: This proposed crossing would continue the complete street project recently constructed west of France Avenue. It would serve primarily single family neighborhood, The Galleria, Target, Promenade, Southdale Library, Hennepin County Government Center, and access to transit. • 76th Street: This proposed crossing would serve primarily multi -family • housing and connect to Centennial Lakes Park, Promenade, Three Rivers Park District Nine mile trail in Richfield, Edinborough Park, medical facilities, and access to transit. Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) is also planning improvements to Gallagher Drive. Although this intersection will be improved by TRPD the proposed crossing will serve the future planned regional trail, Promenade, multi -family housing, and access to transit. Prior to TRPD choosing the Gallagher Drive trail alignment, the hope was that the 72nd Street bridge project would directly serve the trail. Once the public process was competed and the alignment was chosen, it was known that the bridge would not directly serve the trail. Making a connection between the bridge and trail would involve property redevelopment, land acquisition and/or easements at an increased cost. In addition to the intersection enhancements the proposed project will provide missing sidewalk connections insuring that all areas on both sides of France Avenue have an opportunity to access one of the planned crossing locations. Several alternative intersection enhancements have been consider, Appendix B outlines the enhancements being considered and their potential benefit to the France Avenue corridor. A map showing the proposed intersection improvements and locations of the improvements in relationship to the existing pedestrian and bicycle system is included as Exhibits 6. As illustrated on the map providing multiple crossing locations will greatly reduce the distance pedestrians will need to travel to get to a safe crossing, thereby increasing the number of users for the system. D. Work to be completed With approval of the Sunset Date extension and Scope Change request, the City will complete the Project Memorandum, Construction Plans and Right of Way acquisition. Exhibit 2 shows the proposed project schedule. E. A2ency Coordination The City has worked with several agencies during the preliminary studies, concept development and the proposed re -scoping of the project since the original TE application was submitted and approved. These agencies have included: • Hennepin County Community Works • Hennepin County Transportation • Three Rivers Park District • Transit for Livable Communities • Metro Transit Support letters from some of these agencies (Hennepin County and Three Rivers Park District) are included in Appendix C. IN F. Revised cost estimate The original estimated construction cost of $2,090,000 was based on 2007 • dollars. Today's costs for the same project would be close to $2,250,000. This does not take into account City Council direction that the bridge would need to have extensive aesthetic treatments and would need to look like a "piece of sculpture". This would also add to the original cost estimate for this single crossing of France Avenue. Base on the proposed change in scope the following estimated cost has been developed accommodating improvements to three (3) crossings of France Avenue. It is assumed that the Gallagher Drive intersection improvements would be completed by TRPD. These costs are based on preliminary concept plans and will be refined during final design. Revised project cost estimate: Intersection improvements $ 1,005,000 Revised signal system $ 600,000 Signing and Striping $ 36,000 Trail / Sidewalk $ 54,000 Retaining walls $ 150,000 Guard rail $ 50,000 Lighting $ 80,000 Traffic Control $ 20,000 Landscaping $ 50,000 Total Cost $ 2,045,000 is G. Key Criteria rescorin2 The following outlines each prioritizing criteria with the changes in the previous responses show as italicized. The original score is also included. 1. Urgency (250 points). Discuss if/how the project proposes or addresses each of the following: (Original Score = 205) • Takes advantage of a time -sensitive opportunity, e.g., a willing landowner, cost savings, affiliation with another project, competing development opportunities RESPONSE: The City of Edina completed an area study examining the potential to provide attractive trail and sidewalk connections from the north end of Centennial Lakes towards Southdale Shopping Center and beyond. The pedestrian and bicycle amenities will include a significant emphasis on aesthetics and special amenities such as public art, water fountains at a similar caliber to the Centennial Lakes pedestrian circulation network. The City has constructed the trail network east of France Avenue. The France Avenue Pedestrian Crossing plan would complete a missing link by overcoming the France Avenue barrier for the pedestrian and bicycle circulation system in this part of Edina. The proposed plan will provide multiple crossings at a lower cost than the original plan. 10 • Significantly addresses a strong un -met need or area of concern/problem • associated with the development of an integrated bicycle or pedestrian transportation network or providing a safe bicycle or pedestrian route • RESPONSE: As a part of the pedestrian circulation study public meetings many residents of the Cornelia neighborhood west of France Avenue have expressed a strong desire to be able to access the wide variety of shops, businesses and recreational amenities east of France Avenue without having to drive to them. The neighborhood proximity to the Centennial Lakes area is within walking distance; however, residents are discouraged from walking due to the France Avenue barrier to pedestrians and cyclists. The proposed plan will improve access to transit, not only by providing crossings of France Avenue, but also by providing missing sidewalk connections and the opportunity to improve transit stops. 2. Impact (250 points). Discuss how the project addresses each element below (respond as appropriate to A. or B., not both): (Original Score = 207) A. Bike/Ped Infrastructure (QA #1, and QA #8): • Fills gaps, overcomes barriers, and/or connects system segments in pedestrian/bicycle network. The applicant should provide a map showing the location of the project within the context of an existing and planned bicycle or pedestrian network. If the project is removing a barrier, the applicant should demonstrate the magnitude of the barrier (number of lanes, average daily traffic, posted speed, etc.) and how the proposed project will improve travel across that barrier. RESPONSE: The proposed project is intended to overcome a significant barrier between residential neighborhoods west of France Avenue and the commercial and recreational amenities east of France Avenue. France Avenue currently carries 28,700 vehicles per day and is generally 8-10 lanes wide at intersections making crossing very intimidating for most people. The east side of France Avenue does not have adequate provisions for pedestrian and bicycle traffic also limiting the attractiveness of crossing the street. Conversely, the Centennial Lakes area and Promenade located approximately 500 feet east of and parallel to France Avenue provide a high quality pedestrian environment that connects commercial businesses, retail, recreation, and civic amenities situated among the landscaped gardens, ponds and open spaces. The France Avenue Pedestrian Crossing project will provide enhancements to the existing signalized intersections thus allowing residents to easily move between their neighborhoods to the vibrant Centennial Lakes area without the need to get in cars. The project will provide more efficient and usable crossings at up to four locations rather than one. 11 • Project provides a high -demand facility or program. Relative levels of demand will be determined using population density and connections to significant travel attractors. Metropolitan Council staff will determine population density using 2000 residential population within one mile of the project. The applicant should also list below significant destinations that are near the facility or that the facility provides close connections to. Destinations can be recreation areas such as parks, beaches, rivers, lakes, etc; or commercial or mixed-use districts, major employment areas or other major cultural destinations. RESPONSE: The number and variety of destinations for pedestrians and cyclists using the France Avenue Pedestrian Crossings is expansive. The France Avenue Pedestrian Crossings and trail systems will connect to the Edina Promenade and Centennial Lakes trail networks which provide pedestrian access to virtually a small city within Edina. The proposed project will also connect to the future Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. The following is a sampling of some of these destinations: o Centennial Lakes Park o Edinborough Indoor Park o Southdale YMCA o Hennepin County Library o Hundreds of retail shops between 66th and 1-494 including Southdale Shopping Center, Galleria Shopping Center, Yorktown Mall, Target o Fairview South dale Medical Center o Medical and other offices in and throughout Centennial Lakes Business Park o Restaurants ranging from fast food to white table cloth o Skateboard Park o Westin and Residence Inn Hotel's o City Parks including: Aquatic center, Frisbee golf course, Fred Richardson golf course o LA Fitness Health Club • Addresses safety concerns. The applicant should describe how the project addresses an identified safety problem. RESPONSE: Existing pedestrian and bicycle access across France Avenue is provided at signalized intersections between 1-494 and 66th Street. Although these intersections provide pedestrian indications, the sheer width of the roadway and volume of traffic create an imposing barrier for pedestrians, especially elderly, handicapped and children. The proposed France Avenue Crossing plan would provide intersection enhancements by narrowing roadway lane widths, providing a secure median island refuge and improvements to the pedestrian refuge areas in each corner of the intersection, all to provide safe efficient and comfortable alternatives for residents west of France to cross the roadway and connect with the beautiful pedestrian environments created with Centennial Lakes and the Promenade. • 12 • Provides more than a local benefit. An example of such a project is a bicycle trail that is part of a county, regional or state trail system, or one that links different trail systems together. RESPONSE: The France Avenue Pedestrian Crossing plan is part of a larger trail regional tail network which runs generally east - west across Edina connecting with many activity centers and north south trails along the way. The future Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail extends east into Richfield and is planned to extend west through the City of Edina. 3. Relationship between Categories (100 points). Projects will score higher if they provide multiple benefits toward the purpose of the Transportation Enhancements program. Applicants should review the respective category criteria to determine the extent to which the project relates to the other two categories: (Original Score = 35) • What is the relationship to the Scenic and Environmental group? For example, how does the bike/ped project provide a natural resource enhancement? RESPONSE: The France Avenue Pedestrian Crossing plan will connect people with the Centennial Lakes trail network and Promenade trails. Both of these trail corridors provide users the ability to interact with the natural environments including a variety gardens and manicured landscapes, open spaces, water features as well as attractive design elements within the public realm and adjacent private properties. Centennial Lakes and The Promenade both display very high design aesthetic which gives pedestrians and cyclists a pleasurable experience as they travel through. The design aesthetic of the intersection enhancements will be developed in conjunction with public involvement and will result in an attractive streetscape which will enhance civic pride. • What is the relationship to the Historic and Archaeological group? For example, how does the bike/ped project take advantage of or enhance historic and cultural resources or provide orientation/interpretation to users? RESPONSE: The France Avenue Pedestrian Crossing plan will connect residents with current cultural activities which occur on regular basis at Centennial Lakes Park, Edinborough Park and Southdale as well as civic amenities such as libraries. 4. Relationship to Intermodal/Multimodal Transportation System (100 points). Discuss how the project will function as a component and/or enhancement of the transportation system: (Original Score = 79) • How will the bicycle or pedestrian facility benefit the experience of users • of the transportation system? 13 RESPONSE: The improved safety through intersection enhancements will • allow residents west of France Avenue to make many short trips to the Centennial Lakes/Southdale area by walking or biking in lieu of using automobiles. By providing several convenient and efficient alternatives to driving rather than just one crossing will encourage more people to walk or bike and result in healthier people and more interesting travel experiences. • How will the project benefit multiple modes of transportation? An example of a project that would do this would be a bicycle facility that connects to a transit center or a mixed-use pedestrian -oriented district, or a pedestrian project that is a component of a transit -oriented development. RESPONSE: The Promenade and Centennial Lakes trail corridors are anchored at the north (Southdale Shopping Center) and south (Edinborough) ends by Transit Centers offering connections to Metro Transit buses. Residents living west of France Avenue will have a convenient and attractive trail to connect them with regional transit options without using automobiles. The Promenade and Centennial Lakes corridors are located in one of the best regional examples of a vibrant pedestrian district. Providing convenient access to this district and the transit hubs by means of the enhanced pedestrian crossings of France Avenue and providing the missing sidewalk connections along France Avenue will entice residents to access these amenities without getting into automobiles. • How does the facility serve trips that could otherwise be made by motor vehicles? RESPONSE: The Promenade and Centennial Lakes corridors are located in one of the best regional examples of a vibrant pedestrian district. Providing convenient access to this district and the transit hubs by means of the new enhanced crossings of France Avenue and providing the missing sidewalk connections along France Avenue will entice residents to access these amenities without getting into automobiles. 5. General/Integrative Criteria — Development Framework Implementation (150 points). (Original Score = 125) There would not be any change for this criterion. 6. General/Integrative Criteria — Maturity of Project Concept (150 points). (Original Score = 83) See Exhibit 3 for updated Appendix K Schedule. • 14 • 0 Sunset Date Extension / Scope Change Request Lxninit is Locanon ill 41 r'� ALL r _ i a a 1 W 70th Sheet tnRoad , W72ndStreet --"-CUMr� .Prcjact'J.oC (b� _. to r X .w Parklawn Avenue ` W 76th Street j d— ".. a W77tlt ' :77 —_ Minnesota Dr w a - France Avenue 172nd Street Pedestrian Bridge sunset crate Extension r Scope Change Request m City of Edina, Minnesota Project Location Map 15 Sunset Date Extension / Scope Change Request Exhibit 2: Revised Project Schedule Proposed Revised Project Schedule Richt of Wav Acquisition • Title Research...................................................................................................... April 2012 • Initial Parcel Work and Landowner Notification ................................................ April 2012 • Construction Limits Determined......................................................................... April 2012 • Acquisition..........................................................................................May to October 2012 • Title and Possession.................................................................................... November 2012 • R/W Certificate#1....................................................................................... December 2012 Project Development and Documentation • Draft PM Submittal............................................................................................. April 2012 • Final PM Submittal (pending Mn/DOT review time) ...........................................June 2012 • PM Approval (pending Mn/DOT review time) ........ ........................ ............. August 2012 Final Design and Construction • Layout Submittal to County for Approval. • Final Design Preparation ■ 60% Plan Submittal ....................... ■ 95% Mn/DOT Plan Submittal ...... ■ Mn/DOT State Aid Plan Approval • Permits ...................................................... • Bidding .................................................... April 2012 ......................................................June 2012 ................................................. August 2012 ................................................ October 2012 .................................................................... • Construction............................................................. ................................. November 2012 ........... December 2012/January 2013 ....................................... Spring 2013 • • 0 Sunset Date Extension / Scope Change Request Exhibit 3: Progress Schedule for Sunset Extensions PROGRESS SCHEDULE FOR SUNSET EXTENSIONS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION DEA X Project Memorandum ❑ Completed/Approved Date of Approval X Not Complete Anticipated Date of Completion — Submittal to MnDOT April 2012, MnDOT approval August 2012. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC HEARING (not necessary for Project Memorandum) ❑ Completed Date of Approval ❑Not Complete Anticipated Date of Completion FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Not required for Project Memorandum) ❑Completed/FONSI Approved Date of Approval ❑Not Complete Anticipated Date of Completion STUDY REPORT (required for Environmental Assessment Only) ❑Completed Date of Approval []Not Complete Anticipated Date of Completion CONSTRUCTION PLANS ❑Completed (Includes signature of District State Aid Engineer) Date X Not Complete Anticipated Date of Completion — Submittal to MnDOT 60% June 2012, MnDOT approval October 2012. RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION El Completed (Includes approval of right-of-way Cert. #1 or #1A) Date of Approval X Not Complete Anticipated Date of Completion — December 2012 LETTING Anticipated Letting Date — January 2013 • 17 Sunset Date Extension / Scope Change Request Exhibit 4: Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail ow �_ � • z �aog� ,• aqa ��im =�•• p3-Eg w a c { • U '' c n � c m • • �¢e� - cula U a • '$ 3 u C my •• • w ,aEs$$ U � a ua n r � o o . N U. on 0YMe uo�Y•Yax $" M � 0 � � � 41EA Jt o• C R °' • v, c at 0 Z2 ]i • ry, • • s � PI s t • • • • • • _ H M O • it {� •� 0 • Y _ C • Cl = �� m x Vce0 Ao e 0 • i V oa od = J a ~ L •• W c v p • L m 0 co +•. > ° U m •+• :° y m a � 0 t: � 0 Sunset Date Extension / Scope Change Request Exhibit 5: France Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Framework 9 , Y + . z. - rr m r 0 �x ` 72nd Street Pedestrian Bridge City of Edina. Minnesota j Legend Existing Sidewalk Existing Trail Primary Bike Route or Priority Regional Traa tas shown in City Comp. Bicycle Trans. Phan) City Boundary Traffic signal Sunset Date Extension 1 Scope Change Request Pedestrian and Bicycle Framework 19 Sunset Date Extension / Scope Change Request Exhibit 6: Proposed Improvements F 20 • • 3 15! 62 17 J 21 31 0 • r: 3� 15 62 494 17 21 31 • • 0 France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements S.P. 120-020-037 Stakeholder Meeting #1 Meeting Minutes 5/31/2012 City of Edina Public Works Building In attendance: Surya Iyer....................................Edina Transportation Commission Tom LaForce................................Edina Transportation Commission Katherine Bass.............................Edina Transportation Commission Jennifer Janovy............................Edina Transportation Commission Marty Mathis ..................................................Bike Edina Task Force Alice Hulbert ...................................................Bike Edina Task Force Sara Maaske.........................................................................do.town Karen Nikolai......................................................... Hennepin County Cary Teague................................................................... City of Edina Gene Persha.......................................•..••.•..•....•........ Edina Resident • Tom Johnson. . Hennepin County Jonathan Vlaming ......................................Three Rivers Park District Robyn Anderson ................................................ City of Bloomington Reuben Collins ..................................................... WSB & Associates Chuck Rickart........................................................ WSB & Associates Andrew Plowman ................................................. WSB & Associates Craig Churchward ........................................................................ LHB Wayne Houle................................................................. City of Edina Meeting Start Time 7:00 PM I. INTRODUCTIONS Houle led group introductions. II. PRESENTATION Houle Provided Background information, History, and Project Foundation Discussion: Mathis noted that Bike Edina Task Force should be included in the list of project stakeholders. • Churchward presented information about project goals, objectives and direction. France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Stakeholder Meeting #1 Minutes SP 120-020-037 Page 1 • Rickart presented information about traffic volumes, crash data, and background data. Discussion: LaForce asked a question about where the traffic volumes were collected. Rickart noted that County has specific locations where they place counters on regular intervals. Bass asked if the lower crash rates observed at the intersections was a reflection of people not wanting to cross France Avenue. Rickart clarified that the data represented vehicle crash rates and that we do not have good data regarding the number of bikes or pedestrians traveling along the corridor. Rickart presented information regarding the roadway typical sections. Churchward presented information about urban design elements such as parking, corner radius, bollards, ped ramps, landscaping, medians, etc. He mentioned the important distinction between horizontal and vertical elements. Discussion: Mathis commented about the poor visibility of salmon colored crosswalks and the higher visibility associated with zebra stripe crosswalks. • Johnson noted that Hennepin County re -stripes most roadways annually, but that often the County asks Cities to maintain crosswalks. Churchward presented information about the impact of sidewalk width on pedestrian comfort, potential crosswalk improvements, and the impact of design elements on placemaking. He mentioned the importance of details such as pedestrian scale lighting, natural foliage and creating barriers between motorists and pedestrians. VIDEO: Dutch Bike Lane Corner Enhancements Churchward invited meeting attendees to share ideas. Discussion: LaForce asked what the speed limit was and if we know what typical speeds are. Johnson responded that the speed limit is 40 mph, and noted that the frequent signals along the corridor may keep drivers from reaching higher top speeds. Others indicated that they felt speeds were often higher than 40 mph. Hulbert mentioned the need for gateways at either end of the corridor and a need to limit sight lines along the corridor to encourage drivers to slow down. Persha commented about the poor state of the bus stops at Gallagher. There are • poor pedestrian connections to the stops. Peds often get splashed by water from France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements SP 120-020-037 Stakeholder Meeting #1 Minutes Page 2 • puddles in the road as they wait for buses. The shelters are in poor condition and unsightly. He noted that smaller street widths would really enhance the corridor. Bass commented that it is important to remember and convey the message that people live on France Avenue. It is an existing neighborhood. More residential development is anticipated. It's not just a commercial corridor. She mentioned that SWLRT will skip Edina and that other communities will benefit from the investment. Edina needs to work hard to give people a reason to continue coming to Edina if it is to compete. Churchward commented on the need to create street life, the need to provide for a pedestrian "experience", the need to create the ability for people to "park once" Janovy asked what the available space was for sidewalks along the corridor, and how we will deal with grade issues along the east side of the corridor. Teague responded that the existing ROW varies along the corridor, and that opportunities to develop sidewalks and obtain ROW occur as parcels redevelop. Bass asked if the city has any ordinances or codes that require buildings to architecturally engage the street. Teague responded that the city has some tools they can use to persuade developers, but the tools are not very strong and the city can not require it at this time. Vlaming mentioned a need to understand where motorists are coming from and going, and thought that many of them are trying to avoid TH-100. He noted that 50th & France works well because it is a small geographic area. France Avenue is a much longer corridor, so he recommended that this study focus heavily on developing "nodes". The existing landscape is dominated by parking lots, but it has great potential. He noted that Three Rivers Park District has a very strong interest in enhancing the Gallagher Drive intersection and hoped there would be a way to include it in the study. Persha noted that France Avenue is an unpleasant pedestrian environment and that strolling along the corridor is not a realistic objective. We should focus on moving people across France rather than along France. He reiterated a need for gateways and for a "naming" strategy for the area. Vlaming noted that Bloomington has had success naming areas (such as South Loop) Hulbert noted that 50th & France has been a successful commercial node because a conscious decision was made to narrow the roadways to create a pleasant pedestrian feeling. France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements SP 120-020-037 Stakeholder Meeting #1 Minutes Page 3 • Vlaming mentioned the need to find commercial businesses that cater to the needs of the local residents rather than meeting regional needs. Hulbert asked if MnDOT would be open to lane width reductions. Johnson responded that the county was open to the idea, but that there are challenges relating to concrete joints that will need to be addressed. Rickart presented information regarding design constraints, LOS expectations, design standards, funding limitations, and schedule constraints that must be considered. Discussion: Mathis asked how much funding was available. Houle responded that about $2 million is available for the project including the federal funding and the local match. Persha mentioned the need to engage more citizens in the process now or else they will be reactive later. He noted a need to train drivers to be more sensitive to pedestrians, and noted that California has done a good job with this and with marking crosswalks. He has never observed a parent with children trying to cross the roadway because it is not safe. Jenovy reiterate that the TE funding source is for specific intersection improvements. She asked about the potential for bike lanes along France Avenue. Rickart responded that they are not included in the study, but there is a need to ensure that the outcome of this study does not preclude them later. Houle pointed out that France is not on the County bike plan, but there is still potential for cyclists to use France to feed other routes. Johnson reiterated that the grant funding will only pay for certain items and stated the importance of communicating to the public exactly what items are eligible for inclusion in the project. Jenovy mentioned that the City may have access to additional funding sources, and mentioned the Centennial Lakes TIF district. Rickart mentioned the importance of sticking to the project schedule, which will also limit the realistic possibilities. Churchward agreed that this project and study should be viewed as a catalyst for many rounds of potential future improvements. Hulbert mentioned a desire for planter boxes to create a physical separation from vehicles. Jenovy stated the need for an "Edina Brand". France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Stakeholder Meeting #1 Minutes SP 120-020-037 Page 4 0 Nikolai mentioned the importance of placemaking and the need to include land -use planning in this study process. • Meeting Concluded at 9:00 PM. France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Stakeholder Meeting #1 Minutes SP 120-020-037 Page 5 France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements S.P. 120-020-037 Stakeholder Meeting #2 Meeting Minutes 6/26/2012 City of Edina Public Works Building In attendance: Ann Braden .................................Edina Transportation Commission Courtney Whited .........................Edina Transportation Commission Tom La Force................................Edina Transportation Commission Jennifer Janovy............................Edina Transportation Commission Arlene Forrest ....................................... Edina Planning Commission Mike Fischer ................................ Edina Planning Commission / LHB Joni Bennett..........................................................Edina City Council Karen Nikolai......................................................... Hennepin County Tom Johnson......................................................... Hennepin County Amy Gurski................................................Three Rivers Park District Gene Persha.............................................................. Edina Resident Sherry Hastings ................................................Business Community Laurie VanDalen ...............................................Business Community Robyn Anderson ................................................ City of Bloomington Reuben Collins ..................................................... WSB & Associates Chuck Rickart ........................................................ WSB & Associates Andrew Plowman ................................................. WSB & Associates Craig Churchward........................................................................ LHB Wayne Houle................................................................. City of Edina Cary Teague................................................................... City of Edina Steve Sletten................................................................. City of Edina Meeting Start Time 7:00 PM I. INTRODUCTIONS Houle led group introductions. 11. PRESENTATION Houle presented a recap of the last stakeholder meeting and presented an overview of . the agenda for further discussion. France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Stakeholder Meeting #2 Minutes SP 120-020-037 Page 1 0 Houle played the Dutch Intersection Design video. Rickart and Churchward presented information establishing project objectives and context. Rickart presented information related to the design process, project expectations, and traffic operations. He presented information about the traffic analysis completed for several options, including removing free -right -turns, eliminating a lane on France Ave, and removing dual -left -turns on side streets. Discussion: Braden asked if the options considered were evaluated as independent options, or as incremental options. Rickart indicated that all scenarios assumed that free -right -turns would be removed, but that the other options were considered independently. Johnson indicated that Hennepin County has established LOS D as the standard, and that this project would be evaluated relative to that standard. Rickart presented graphics and explanations about Option 1. 0 Discussion: Nikolai asked a question about where the stop bar will be located relative to the crosswalk and the bike lane. She stressed the importance of having the stop bar located away from the crosswalk to enhance safety. Rickart responded that there would likely be 1' separation between the crosswalk and the stop line, and that the stop line is typically 2' wide for a total separation of 3'. Anderson asked for clarification about the scope of the project and whether the proposed bike lanes were intersection treatments only or for the whole France Ave corridor. Rickart confirmed that the proposed improvements are for intersections only. Houle indicated that this project is viewed as a catalyst project setting the stage for future improvements along the corridor. Fischer asked if we knew how much ROW we were gaining by implementing narrower lanes, and if that gain eliminated the need for substantial ROW takings. Rickart responded that we were gaining a few feet by using narrower lanes, but we are also proposing wider medians, so the proposed wider bike lanes and sidewalks will require additional ROW. Anderson asked whether right -turn -on -red would be permitted at this location. Rickart responded that the design team is still looking at this and a decision has not • been made. France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Stakeholder Meeting #2 Minutes SP 120-020-037 Page 2 Persha asked about how bus stops would be handled at these intersections. Rickart stated that there aren't any bus stops at any of the intersections that would be impacted, however, enhancements are planned for some of the bus stops along the east side of France with the construction of the sidewalk. Churchward presented conceptual renderings of the proposed improvements and provided information about the importance of vertical elements and textures for bike/ped facilities. Discussion: Hastings commented that she liked the renderings, and stated that alternate textures are important for motorists as well to signal that they are entering a different type of space. VanDalen asked for clarification about the cost of the project and the anticipated funding source. Houle Responded that the total project cost is about $2 million. $1 million will be provided by the federal government, and $1 million will come from the TIF district. Rickart presented information about Options 2 and 3 and pointed out operations characteristics of each. 0 Discussion: Hastings asked if the median was wide enough to be a safe haven for pedestrians. Rickart responded that the median was designed to be 10' wide and about 13' long, which should provide a comfortable space for pedestrians. VanDalen commented on the time and disruption the current work Hennepin County has been doing on France Avenue and asked if this project was going to have to replace some of the work they are doing now. Houle responded that the work Hennepin County is doing is routine maintenance, and that some of these intersection improvements would replace areas they are working on now. Sletten asked if the medians would have a different look or texture than the rest of the crosswalk area. Churchward responded that this decision has not been made yet, but that medians with different texture might enhance the feeling of safety for pedestrians. Nikoli asked for clarification on whether the sidewalks along the east side of France were included in this project. Rickart replied that they would be included in this project. • France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Stakeholder Meeting #2 Minutes SP 120-020-037 Page 3 • Houle stated that maintenance of the sidewalks and trails, including snow removal, would be a city responsibility. The city already maintains the sidewalks here and has the equipment necessary to do so. Persha commented that the two traffic signals between 66th and 69th are dangerous. There are no crosswalks, but people dart across anyway. Anderson commented that the proposed improvements would help establish a gateway effect to help people recognize pedestrians. Rickart presented information relating to the upcoming steps in the process, including MnDOTs functional group reviews and scheduling. Houle invited any additional questions. Discussion: Whited asked if there was concern about drivers choosing to use York Avenue instead if the proposed improvements resulted in slower operating speeds. Houle responded that the City has been trying to encourage people to choose York Avenue for several years because it is viewed as being underutilized, so if this project displaces traffic, it could be a benefit. Whited asked if the city was reaching out to existing businesses to help encourage things like providing bike racks. Teague responded that the city has ordinances in place that requires any new construction to provide a minimum number of bike parking spaces, but that there are no tools to make existing businesses provide bike parking. Fischer commented that it was extremely important for the City to establish a firm vision for the corridor so that the City can negotiate with property owners as they want to redevelop. He commented that developers are typically very willing to provide streetscape elements when there is an established vision. Houle stated that one outcome of the stakeholder meeting was to receive direction from the stakeholders about any preferences that stakeholders had for any of the options. Hastings noted that she preferred Option 1 because it provided the greatest level of separation between the roadway, bike lanes, and the sidewalk. Fischer agreed that the separation between the modes is an attractive element of Option 1. Anderson asked if there were concerns about the visibility of cyclists if a planted strip was between motorists and cyclists. Churchward responded that plantings • would either be very low, or else tree trunks are only momentary disruptions. France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements SP 120-020-037 Stakeholder Meeting #2 Minutes Page 4 Braden asked if this solution had been implemented anywhere else in the Metro area where it could be viewed. Houle answered that this solution is new and has not been implemented elsewhere in the Metro. Bennett commented that it seemed like the proposed options are all trying to squeeze bike facilities along a roadway that cyclists don't often use, and questioned whether the space would be better used for pedestrians. She expressed concern that the proposed sidewalks were not wide enough or substantial enough to provide a top pedestrian experience, and questioned whether the bike facilities are a good use of funds in this location. She expressed an interest in seeing additional vertical elements to separate pedestrians from motorists, and referenced her experiences in New York and Santa Barbara. Houle responded that the design process is ongoing, and that additional vertical elements will be considered in the future. Janovy asked if the proposed sidewalk width was known and whether there would be a boulevard. Rickart responded that the desired width is 8' and that a boulevard will be provided every place where possible. Forrest asked if there were known bike/ped counts along France Avenue. Anderson commented that the do.town initiative will be doing bike/ped counts. Nikoli responded that planning journals have reported that once cities have implemented high-quality facilities, the bike/ped counts have increased dramatically. Bennett reiterated her previous comment and clarified that she is very supportive of bicycle facilities. However, she noted that if accomplishing the objective of providing bike lanes along France Avenue results in suboptimal pedestrian space, she would prefer to see the bike facilities removed to better accommodate pedestrians. Houle summarized the meeting by asking for confirmation that the consensus of the group was that Option 1 is the preferred alternative moving forward, with special attention to ensure that appropriate vertical elements are used to provide a top -tier pedestrian experience. The group confirmed his summary. Meeting Concluded at 9:00 PM. France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Stakeholder Meeting #2 Minutes SP 120-020-037 Page 5 MINUTES OF • CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA SPECIAL MEETING OF TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION EDINA PUBLIC WORKS & PARK MAINTENANCE FACILITY JULY 9, 2012 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering roll call was Members Bass, Braden, Janovy, LaForce, Nelson, and Whited. APPROVE OF MEETING AGENDA Motion was made by member Janovy and seconded by member Braden to approve the agenda. Member LaForce asked if the meeting format would be the same as last time. Motion was: made by member Janovy and seconded by member LaForce to go straight to discussion. All voted aye. Motid6,tarrie4.' , REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS France Avenue Intersection Enhancements Member Janovy asked how the project went from $2m to $10.3m. Consultant Chuck'Ackart of WSB & Associates, said option 3 was assumed in the cost in the feasibility report which requires' in right-of-way (ROW), bike boulevard, etc. He said option 1, the most expensive, includes significant intersection work and twice the amount of ROW which tripled the cost. Mr. Rickart described option 1 has <having an off-street bike lane from W. 76th to Crosstown, with the exception of the Macy's and Byerly's location that will have a share -the -road until future redevelopment happens, separated by landscaped boulevard, a 2 foot buffer and a 7 foot walkway.' Discussion: Member Janovy asked where the bike plan came from. Mr. Rickart said it was part of the rescoping and city engineer Houle said based on feedback from the first meeting, it sounded like people liked it. He said it would also be a natural connection the planned trail. Is there a funding source? Mr. Houle said there is the Centennial Lakes TIF funding. He said city manager Neal mentioned setting up a special funding district which would be special assessment but the earliest that a public hearing could be scheduled would be September. Member LaForce said he did not feel comfortable forwarding option 1 to the City Council if there wasn't a definite funding source. Member Janovy said there are many who are interested in the TIF funds and she cannot advocate for an extra $7m. Mr. Rickart said the direction from last meeting was option 1. Member Braden said they did not know the cost then and asked if they should scale back. Mr. Houle they should scale back. Mr. Rickart said he did not have all the cost ready for the other options. Chair Nelson said the original scope includes sidewalk on the eastside, improving access to transit, and getting people across safely. Member Janovy said she does not recall a dedicated bike lane in the original scope. She said in her research, she has found some items (cycle track, left turn and colored lanes) that are being proposed are recommended by a group for further evaluation and she asked if this was a concern. Mr. Rickart said while they need approval from MnDOT, he is not concerned because these treatments are currently being used in other communities. Member Janovy said councilmember Sprague wanted to know what makes this specific design better for pedestrians. Is Mr. Rickart said the crossings are shorter and if needed, there is a refuge. The cycle track does not go all the way through on the west side because it is cost prohibitive (only at the intersections). Mr. Houle said other intersections would be completed at a later date (Hazelton, Gallagher, etc.). Member LaForce asked if they are deciding the future of these other intersections now and Mr. Houle said yes. Mr. Houle said the proposed design is to have trees closer to traffic, then bikers, and a planter between bikers and pedestrians and this cannot be changed very much based on feedback from Hennepin County. Landscape architect Craig Churchward, said he may want the planter to be 5' high because this is better for plantings. Member Janovy asked if the County has given any feedback yet and Mr. Houle said no. Mr. Houle said they may want to consider a different option and change the schedule so that they go to City Council for approval in August instead of July 17. Mr. Houle was asked about bike parking options at bus stops and Nice (tide. He said they did not discuss parking with Metro Transit and regarding bus shelters, Metro Transit will install`" 0'm if they, have 25 boarding passengers per day. He said Nice Ride identified 50th & France as a location but they are'currently out"offunding. The commission was asked if they would like to move the' rb over another 5 foot and eliminate the bike lane. Member LaForce said this is incomplete but there is no funding for option 1. Mr. Houle said option,3 has bike lanes only at the intersections and they could reserve space for a future bike boulevard. Member Janovy asked if the sidewalk could be made wider to accommodate bikers also. She said she thinks the City Council was asking for sidewalk, benches, pedestrian lights, and planters. Chair Nelson asked if the intent was to,have a north/south connection to the Promenade. Mr. Rickart said W. 66th and W. 70th are the City's Comp Plan, bike crossings. Chair Nelson asked if the goal was crossing safely. Mr. Churchward said he thought the bigger goal was to not have ;the orientation towards cars on the corridor. Chair Nelson said he liked option 1, if they had the money, but he does not want to change the design and then do a redo later. Mr. Churchward said if the north/south movement is no longer the desire and east/west is, then they can relook at the design. Chair Nelson said thereis a bike lane on W. 701h that ends at the last roundabout and suggested continuing this to France Ave to connect with the Promenade. 'Mr. Rickart said whatever is done needs to accommodate crossings at W. 66th and all other primary bike routes, Mr. Churchward said he feels responsible for creating the grand vision. He said he had Grand Ave, St. Paul, in mind but instead the bikers will remain secondary, while cars are primary on the corridor if his understanding is correct. Member LaForce said France Ave is not the same as Grand Ave because Southdale is set further back. It likely will be residents and employees who will be on France Ave so it should be made enjoyable and safe for them. Member Bass said this could be a catalyst for rezoning. She said option 1 is bold and she liked it. She said they do not have a shared vision for France Ave and that there also isn't a community vision. Member Whited asked if the businesses have been told that they are to get closer to France Ave and Mr. Houle said no. Mr. Churchward said ideally, they would bring the sidewalk closer to the businesses and this would be part of a vision of having a tree -lined boulevard. This would be done during redevelopments. Mr. Houle said Southdale is willing work on a sidewalk around their perimeter. Member Janovy said there is a vision for France Ave in the Living Streets Policy and for other streets. She believes, however, that there will be resistance to spending $10.3m and this will make it difficult to get other bike lanes approved. 0 Member LaForce said they need to reach a consensus on elements and he would like to see finished connections or connection to something that already exist (unlike the one block of sidewalk on Interlachen Blvd). Member Bass said the system is not perfect but it has to be built out bit by bit. Member LaForce said there is no plan for future connection. Member Bass asked what they could do that could set them up for a five year plan. Member Janovy asked how they could reduce speed limit on France and if a speed study could be included. Mr. Rickart said they could request a speed study from the County but it would add additional cost. Continuing with his elements, member LaForce suggested a sidewalk on the eastside that would be done correctly to avoid a redo later on, wide boulevard, refuge, free right turns, etc. Chair Nelson liked the idea of a sidewalk becoming a bike lane in the future. Mr. Rickart said 8 foot is the federal required width for a 2 -way, multi -use path. Mr. Churchward said this is the right size for three people. He said any wider would look like a lot of concrete based on today's usage. He said if they can reduce speed it will help, otherwise trees will help. He said he; prefers 10 foot of soil area between the curb and sidewalk because of less maintenance to tree roots. He said 660".&"tyndale in Richfield does have large trees in smaller areas so it can be done but it would require good soil, sprinkler�,et'G._Member Janovy asked if there are innovate ways to use runoff water to feed the trees and he said yes. Member Janovy asked about brand identify and how do you knoW what is right.' I r:,,Churchward said they need to know what the roadway is going to be for the next 30 years: :Mr. Houle suggested leavi`r&,space for the monuments and creating a task force to work on branding. Chair Nelson said they should make crossings safe and easier, add:.sidewalk and make it as "wide as possible and plant boulevard trees. He said even this is going to be more than $2m and th.e bridge was estimated at $6-8m so it was known that additional funding would be needed. Member Whited suggested talking to businesses about sponsoring benches along the corridor. Member Janovy asked if the special assessment district would 'only, be for beautification:and,Mr. , Houle said he did not know the details but whatever is done has to show benefit to the properties. Member Braden suggested improving,:the three intersections, east/west crossings and continuing the W. 70th bike lane from the roundabout to France. Member LaForce asked if people would stroll on France Ave. Member Bass said maybe not now but hopes that the City will pursue zoning that brings building closer `to the street. She said this would encourage strolling. She said also that land use and transportation are inextricably intertwined. Member LaForce asked Mr. Houle to repeat to them what he had heard. Mr. Houle said the elements are finish the connections for the sidewalks and bikeways, design the 8 -foot sidewalks so they do not need to be reconstructed in the future, put in as much boulevard"as-,possible,provide pedestrian level lighting, provide safe cross -walk markings, remove free rights from the travel lanes, enlarge the medians to provide refuge areas, , , and provide space for monuments. Member Janovy asked about pedestrian level lighting and Mr. Rickart said they will need to look into this. Regarding the monuments, Mr. Churchward said they need to be dramatic and look like a destination. Member Bass said there is one at Cahill and. W. 70th that is a good example. She said it should also signal to drivers immediately that they have entered a different space. Mr. Churchward mentioned Fairview as a gateway playing of off this for the rest of the corridor. Member Braden asked Mr. Houle who much more he is comfortable spending and he said between $1-2M. He said there may be State Aid money available for ROW acquisitions. Motion was made by member lanovy and seconded by member Bass to not recommend forwarding the current •feasibility study to Council and to incorporate an alternative design for consideration at their August 6 meeting. All voted aye. Motion carried. • Meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. 4 .7 m o 2 > N C O) N o Q aci Y a) Q Nm v c n C o E>U«py cnto cm o _ cn. Co a) U"O EL°ma a)mc� m CL'Ec EpawN a U crNrn La0 F' O mmmy~� m a) O ism c a C 7 C E03� QL=0 0E a) N N U) N N L U-0 m Y L Y `� a) 3 U L N N E t Y — C N oam tm�_N0)i 3 �2 Q24)co 3'Ca)L���0 N > m .V N a N a c N d v c d m F- 3 a N y a= O y m V > u? > m o a) a) a o, O 4) C L s 0 N m N m m r c o m� w w 3 _ ui v N O Q N O U. - ` I... L E moa a) m m c a) c C r L a) N c a) m a a) m a 3 Q O Q "' s m O C o N can) N 'y C O N a E E rn d rn f6 m c 3 �' i a) > N N C N .� « N L a O Q C Q N N m a) 3 0 o N m i w CL c m y' QY m m N M'g t m O N m > a s a �+.a) y 3 m w= m>> ?i TD > C Q am`) a>i > > m L.5 L O o m L_ N N_ N O N O N r O N O m N N N (O co .B C p _ NQ NCO OC4) v3) :.mO06 � C a��.o c cO'Ea U o wK NoO TW aOiE -p '06 C a U C O 'p b QM a•NO 7 LL ca . O 6 NE Qu)) -E- () c w�cu ) EOO)Na CEQ Na ad `pO Ocm U O)aU fn aC Nm ON cu � y ZErc:cC�0E-0m�a Y Q Yac) 0 a)V p U p 'OQNC W O 0)W - E T c E xN QOO E ` N c mO C2)E wE O C pLCpc > '3 '3 _ .� a)c > LU Q) N > N O a) O (n ua)i m C C N E C m .L-.� a O Q- 'O O N (6 6) In o CL O N m m .O O C p N (n (z p c a) O '0 C ... C C .� 0 U O .> a) >yN > a) Tf a ON 0. 6 fl �•F•' N CU (3) C > Nc CU CMOj 0O .C LNO O a - +a••) N .-. Q a) N—O i C O a) OOOpoC (n w w O Ns -0 O O N C C U a a)OS aN OOQ)Cp C -0 (n -SL - c N m U N E U O C 1) E o m IL 0-0 m C C c o ' m a m a mm Q ° r L N LL N w U) C C C � c 77 U U 7 U d o E c d Q W a � a3i y E a) m -mi to Q • • 0 O ^ N M O O N O N M E c � o O 7 3 Q O N M V (00 W ul O N In co n ao d 7 d G) V 1G (o N 3 d Ono G0D O N 0 N 91 O N N N co m m � N O M M N m N M 0 O O 0 O 0 M ol N 0 N GOO O N N N M V M 001 N O M (Mf1 � 3 O E L O (0 T u1 Im O O 0 O rn, O V O (f1 N 0 O 0 M N O 0 M O N 0 (�1 N p n n (O N Of M p 0 Go O V E Q Q1 0 n n n O A N m0 O N M 0 N M O O O O O 0 O 0 O N O N O O O N O W O (O O CD O u) O O (Cl 0 (n V 0 N O O O O (A O O N O (0 V O O N O N O O V O N O O N d C (n j f N � 7 n N N O 0 N O M 0 CO m (n N 0 O N O v m N n t71 N u7 stO n n N M M u) (0 O O GD N N 0 N V N o W h n _ 0 m O V N M 0 W a d d J G) O j 0 tD 0 M 0 m u1 n 0o 0 N 0 GD N M 0 n O GO 0 O ao O 0 0 M 0 N 0 V cD W n CA O Lo u) M GO O O GD f0 V n n Of Q d N a Z 3 w W Z m m 0 m W m Z m m H m W m Z m m N m W m Z m 3,1 m co m W m Z m 3 m y m W m 2 m 3 m N m W m Z m ?� m M m W 3 3 3 >, C L p U U U In Q U U U N O T O C N N N N n N M t O U 0 0 0 m U 0 m U U O m U m 0 Q m Q U U U U D U U U O U D U m N O O06 Q' fA Q "" (a e M N N M N N M V (0 (0 N (O N N V O N m M n N O V Go t0 N 0 M 0 aD 0 M n N M V N O a 0 N GO N V N O N N N N Q Q m Q Q Q Q m m U U U Q m Q m Q m Q Q Q m m m m Q Q m Q Q m Q jo d a, E w> 1. U a m in m U m 0 0 0 m o Q 0 Q Q Q Q U o U o U o U U o U o o m � d J U O U 0 C' .. 0 O D J « LL' V M 0 N a0 (O N N N . V 0 V (a V N n ([1 O GD (0 N d g/ E Z V N N O V (n r GD V (O O W N N n (O n r GD M M N V V N r V 0 M V O V O (O N V N N O V (D N u1 V w N N (A w N V N V 0 7 O O h .... J (MO co 7 (O m (00 (NO (D M n m -n v (00 W 0 v m u) m m N W (n0 N (� (n0 (MO 'n m N o co M m I� Iz 0 V 01 V O (n N pqj n O M co m O u) co 0 V V N N V N n N GD 0 h N 01 M CD V V n N n O M M M N n O N N M O p O M N 0 N N V nl Q7 V O 01 coGo u1 n V m V n O F- O m M O 7 O 01 N 0 N 0 u) u'1 0 O N 0 V (n W 0 u) N Q1 0 n M N N W N n O N M 0 0 n u) u) 0 u) n N N u) Q1 N (0 O V N M 0 M M F 0 GOD m m mm coM 9 M p V n n n N p M N 0 O M 0 V N N O m N M v O N O O a M V N ao T n V r n 0 0 GO V V n Ql O ao M LL J m N N N N m N n v M N N m (o (D (n a N M ro 01 N r-- n n w m (00 m O n N a O Mm m m in m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m a Z ?� y W Z 3 N W Z 3 N W Z 3 N W Z 3 N W Z 3 N W Z 3 N W Z ?: df W d 3 > > 3 c m m � c d > > > a m a > > a R c c O Q C LL C LL C LL LL atj C i C LL @ LL LL Nf etS G6 ad > C C J a1 b m m u) O Ol c m p N u) M M C t W R (p t N S d R ? n c (O 01 104u03 pan1euBig pazlieuBig pezileals paziIeuBig pazlieuBis pezileuBig pazileuB!S pazpeu6ig • Ll d O o N M Lo M In N N C d co co V M m n O NLo r r O a0 C � d d N Q 7 co V V V n Cl) O M M N _ O N n 7 d � d V L X 7 l6� j N fC 00 f0 io f� f0 r V O 01 N M w M N O M N M O 00 O O M (00 N O O to N O w O C2 M V' N M M n In W f� O <O N N N (O N N N N N N N co N N M M N N M M N N N ► 7 H d N r N O Cl) f` N N co V n O N O CA ^ n O N n O O Op N O O O M M h N OD fD N OD n N 00 N O aD t0 M O O N a 7 � X d tm to to O O O O O O O O O O O O O to to O O O O O O O O O O 12 O N co N M O M O N (o Lo N N N O N u1 W N O to O O N V N N M O W O N (O V O N N O V O N d C N d F d In M n f0 N fD tr N V M O M N N 00 a0 cD OD cD O O t0 N OD M O O O N OV O N 00 > a 7 N M N CN,� N J d N M n V 00 O O O O OD O OD V I� O M N O cD N I� ap n O a 7 c� a0 ao n M I- h O n O t0 N w I, M V W W N V T = a Z 3 h W Z ?� amA W Z 3 N W Z 3 h W Z 3 W Z ?� H W Z 3 NL.-n Z ?� N W 02' p U U U m Q U U o J« Ay N O M N N ^ N Cl) N fA ��� N O Z V Q O. A fdA a W N co M M N M V f0 �o to N V M N (O M aD N V to Q) N t0 V O W V N O N N N O V N M O V O N m V N N O V M N M V d 'Z m Q Q a m m U U o Q m Q m Q m Q Q Q¢ (..) U U Q a U a a m a d d E aw > U o m o m U m o U o m 0 a 0 a a¢ a U o U o U o U U o U 0 0 a>i a J ol o o o o 0 0 J N O OD V N N7,,.- NO) N (O CD V N (O ONM OV OVNNV O co 1- w I-_ M N d r r N N r V N V V N - N V N (D O h M w In M V O w 00 M O Lo m N to Lo 10 V to M to r W M V O w T V T w OD uo O w �o to a N 00 V h 00 O a0 N co cD W w 00 I- T In M � I- o W OD M N M - to V L to f� M M m M N a0 00 N N V N co M M ao N M w V V I� M N I� O M M M N N N O N M M O O N 00 N f� W V N V O N 00 R O o' OD r O ~ m E 7 O O N O N co N o 00 O N OD O O N N W L, f� M N N O N r O N M O OD N W M N N to T O N (O CD V O N M 00 M � M O co W F (O 0 W V N 'nm V N !O M O N O M N I� O V O M ' O V d 000 M w M O I,- N O N m V N O N M O V T V W V O LL J M io V N O N O O V N n io f0 V I� N N N $ 00 N O �o N M OD O M N OD � V � CI1 n O 00 Of Lo io O O N O V 1� I- d, �o N OD V O O G m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m a Z H W Z ?� N W Z 3 H W Z 3 N W Z 3 N W Z 3 W W Z 3 N W Z 3 N W 7 7 7 d C C d d 7 7 d 7 C d > r_ > a Cd > a > a a V dd Q Q > a a C VV V C d d V d G p C 2 LL C 2 LL C 2 LL i LL ad o ` C 2 C ► LL IL ati ani tdi WS atS aE m ly atj j J d N d O ► cD C Gt Q fA M (A O d R y O O. to a6 C M N x N 00 n loquoo peziIeuBig peziIeuB!g pezileuBig peziIeuBig peziIeuBig pezpeuB!g peziIeuBig 1 peziIeuBig • W Q W V z CrQ LL. z O z O u W U Q w LU z 5 LU z O LU a • z W N I N N M O O M N O N E y 7 ~ L x N l0 O O N N In A N N W a0 O W A M O7 In O d. A OD t` M OD M M N M M �If A N O OD O N O O N C _a d 3 3 Q d � V M O co W w M M N O O V � 3 d d d _O L O N M O A N N M a0 A O 1n A O m co O O A W A M O) O O V' t0 O OD N A (6 !n W N W (O N M m N a O a N r N A a ro V ` a � N N N M N N M M V W V N V M 7 N R N O 3 E F a' 7 S ¢ 7 M K O M W V N A Ln r 0 O O N M O V W N V N (p M A A M to N W 07 M 61 N � M o M N (0 r A n A N Lo r A N C6 A A w V d !n O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1n N O O O O O O O O O O O N N M N M O M O N (O 1n N N N O 1n to O N 1n O 117 O (O N a N N M O C an 61 O N S K O N N O ? 12 O N d d C (' F O) 3 N !b 1n T O M (O tb t0M to O M M O t0 A Ir N M N 6l V N M 1n (D N N O 00 M 1n I� v (0 O O y t/i O Q j M r M r r N N r N r M r M r r O r r r r r r r r J O) a 0 N OD (O O O M V A A O1n O (n O eA- m N f` (O O (0 A N A M O (n v OJ O M M 1n A (n (n W N 0 < d G m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 3 N W Z 3 N W Q Z 3. co W Z ?� N W Z 3 0) W Z �j N W Z 3 N W Z 3 N W Z a .0 Q ❑ U ❑ U ¢ U ❑ U (A OC �% Cl) M N O Cl N Cl) ❑ u t h O ❑ ❑ U❑ U ❑ U D U D ❑ U U U❑ ¢ m ¢ U U U U❑ U ❑ U❑ U D U D m O a m Q N >+ 100 M N 4 N v N M Cl) N M v A A A N v v 10n N N v (�O N 1n �� ❑ m m m¢ a¢ U U ❑ a m m m¢ m¢ a a m U m U¢ m a a m a zd d E 'O ~ ❑❑ m❑ U U U❑ O U❑ m❑¢¢¢¢ v❑ U o❑❑ U o v❑ U 6 6 2 y J J ❑ ❑ ❑ U ❑ In ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ r+ a. N N R to O - 1n N Cn c07 OJ OI OD (0 O M M aD O N O N u7 O N O O A W T = t O1 d d E 1n V C A O V N N O A M O u7 A N O M 7 1n 47 N O 1n O O O O sr M -1 o M ao O M N N N M ��{{ 1 O N >V r O of N r N M V N V N O d N V FOS J OA In cA0 '0' N ow 1n M -n V !O V �p t0 C (MO 1N 100 w N No c00 w0 mw W w (00 y d 49 O 00 M W A A 1n O 1n In c A M M M a rn 6) O n OD (6 N N N A N O O) M OD N W < V A N A O M M M N A O n N M O O M N CD N N A O V O O OD A O !n W v A E 7 O 0 N O N O (n O O N OD to W � u7 O n M NO N N A O N M O OD r to m w to A N N o W O N O M O N M M W M O M (0 61 OI d' N In R M M M N N r A O O d L ~ 00D N (D M O 1V� N pOp O Nov— V' N N O (O N Cl) M 0 O 0 M 601 A V O O V. M LL J 1Mn N N 10n N t0 N f� WIN N N N O N M O O N m r n 00D OAi 1°n OOi O ? N N R O G Q Z 3 (n W Z 3 0 W Z 3 N W Z ?� 0 W Z ?� 0 W Z 3 N W Z 3 N W Z ?� N W d d c d c > c > c > d a' > d > d c > > a a a a a' a a V °; OyO = c LL LL v � i c 2 ` dS o LL IL W J d d b d O rn c d G A — N N NO 2 uD L L L N jD C7 O a L n d c r M N A A c_ N � co A Of 104uOo paz!leu6ig paziIeu6ig paziIeu6ig pezileu6ig paziIeu6ig paziIeu6ig paziIeu6ig pazi�eu6ig L t m v c 3 O H m d c6 O .❑ N W 3 L lD to C 7 O V, v N NN O O M O U') O p O ch O N O O O N C 7 N 1n m m pV, N N r N M O m rn a C N Qc N ¢ 3 O 10 M N V V 0D V t0 c0 (0 M I� V m MID M 00 00 N N N 3 O a 0 c! t m N OD O N 10 N N N O V t� m m 10 N M m 1n m r 10 O N O c0 M W 1n m m M O W N N r m I� N O 00 Cl) V O 00 N M V tp m a0 ` F O a N N M N M N N M M M N N E E aa'' ¢> N m OD M cco 0 r W W r- O O N M N c0 O m m O M d. I� W to M 00 N O l0 M r (0 r M rD r 1n N N m O m m sr a go N 10 1n o O O O O o O O O o o O O In 1n 10 O o o O O O O O O o O N M N M O M O N p N N N to O 10 1!') m N 10 00 10 O m N V N N M O 10 m O N cD V O N N O V 1n O N 0) C � i O > N 3 O O t0 V M 0D N V M t0 N c0 OD M N V tD 00 r V r V r V N n N M n V N O m O1 00 M N 0D m 10 N 1n V M O M N m Q 7 N M N N Q 4 J a d Q d N W 10 M 00 O m cD N r O r N 00 co O c0 r O 0D N N O 00 M m 1� r p m m 1n OD m m m m m r N M V N m = m y W 2 W Z W Z W co W Z w W Z W 2 W Q Z ?� 3 0 3 0 ?, 0 3 vmi 3 3 (a 0 C y O ❑ U U m ¢ U C,U y�y 0 ` V T m d J C N N y V N m N r r N V U N h O c U❑ m U❑ U U U❑ m U m❑¢ m¢ U U U❑❑ U U❑ U❑ U) O > O A a O) M m r V N r 10 0 1n V N N 11i M OD N M V V 00 N p M t0 W N M c0 N M N 10 V 1n M ap M r 10 N m N N U¢ m m¢¢ a m U U U❑¢ m¢ U a m¢¢¢ m m U❑ a a U a a m¢ zd m E `o > ~ 0 c m❑ m U m o U❑ m o¢❑¢¢¢¢ U❑ U a U❑ U U❑ U J y T C L K N m M cD 10 m V N N N M c0 M M N m V V O V N N m 00 N IT m p m N 41 E >V d H c0 N M V f� r N 1n V 1� O N I� h 00 f� M V' N c0 cA r p co V O V O c0 N ? N V N R N N co N cm0 O y O H J M V O cD c0O M c0 O c0 O t0 r M M I, m M O to a0 V c0 u7 V a0 c0 M M I� w N w N cn m 10 I� c0 m f0 ro ow ro OD m p M p r r m N 10 N c0 m N l M m IZ r N V m V O 10 0j m m M M m m m O 10 c0 N N 100 C m N 00 r" N r M M M ^ m N N m M N O O 01 O E F 1� M .M- N N of m f� 7 O m N (0 N c0 to OD O Nr-- OD d. 10 m 10 m N f� M NN m N r m N M rD m r 10 10 O to r M N N 10 m m 10 c0 m m N M aD M to M O M RO V N F O W m O M m M c0 ? 1n M N O Ln r r r N 0mp O M M N M m m M N V N N O c0 N c`�'I M p N O m O> LL J co M V N O N N N p V N r c0 N N N W N c0 VV u7 c0 N M 00 m m n ti W Ori 1m0 m m N O V f� 1n N W O G m Z m ?� m N m W m Z 3 N W 2 m ?� m m m W m Z 3 W W W ?� W Z W Q N Z 3 0) Z 3 N Z y 3 umi d m 0) 7 C d C C C N > 7 C C > a' a Gp LL LL LL LL Wi C � c LL LL � v Ni atj 'O LL aE LL 06 �j O J 41 m rn c c — .5 M b N b O) p r+ A A Q b O) iD bi S N AL a d ^ C cD r c0 M r b R N r ^ G C_ c �o4u0 pazi�eurn pazi�uig pa!leu6ig pazieu6ig pzieusig pazi�euig pazi�U6!S u6ig a! ra s L u M v E a CL o m O :'ML • • • E 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 s€ 8 8 8 8 8 8 M G 8 8 8. 8 8$ 8 8 8Q 8 88q. 8_ 8 8 8 8q 8 0 4 q8q q q8q Q8Q q8q e 9 L 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8q � 8 8 Ryq 8 8q 8 8 8 g g8. Q8Q q Q8Q g8 5 U w C e L O F U Y 8 c 8 0 8 `a � J 0 5 H y g w P� • 0 0 0 o�ogo 0 O b a 0 O R � N Y3 - _ _ 8 s �z W mO OF N y V Z _ 09 z a a _ Q a F G V J p Z 2 R5 K 0 0 o�ogo 0 O b a 0 O R � N Y3 a .♦ FRANCE AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS • S.P. 120-020-037 CITY OF EDINA, MN SCHEDULE Based on a typical Scope of Work and the Federal funding process guidelines, the following schedule would be anticipated: Phase 1— Project Development Notice to Proceed Phase 1............................................................................................ April 3, 2012 Data Collection / Survey................................................................................................. In Progress Submit Agency Review Letters (MnDNR, SHPO, Etc) .................................................. Completed Meeting with Hennepin County.................................................................................... May 7, 2012 Stakeholder Group Meeting#1................................................................................... May 31, 2012 Draft PM / Prel Design Plan to City...............................................................Week of June 4, 2012 City Staff Review Meeting...........................................................................Week of June 11, 2012 Stakeholder Group Meeting #2................................................................................... June 26, 2012 Draft PM / Prel Design Plan to Mn/DOT and County ................................................ June 29, 2012 Mn/DOT / County Review.........................................................................................Up to 6 Weeks Address Mn/DOT and County comments ........................ Weeks of August 6 and August 13, 2012 Final PM / Prel Design Plan to NWDOT and County ........................................... August 17, 2012 Final WDOT and County Approval of PM............................................................Up to 5 Weeks PMApproved............................................................................................................October 2012 Construction Limits Determined................................................................................. June 29, 2012 Right of Way Plan to City and County....................................................................... July 13, 2012 Initial Parcel Work and Landowner Notification .......................................... May / June / July 2012 Parcel Descriptions and Exhibits....................................................................................... July 2012 Right of Way Appraisals...........................................................................August / September 2012 Right of Way Acquisition (Offers)............................................................................. October 2012 Title and Possession................................................................................................. December 2012 R/W Certificate#1................................................................................................ December 2012 Phase 2 — Detail Design / Bidding Notice to Proceed Phase 2..................................................................August 7, 2012 Draft (60%) Final Plan Submittal to City, County and Mn/DOT..................... September 28, 2012 City Staff / County / Mn/DOT Review Meetings .................................... Week of October 8, 2012 Mn/DOT, County and City Review............................................................................Up to 8 weeks Address Comments................................................................................................. December 2012 Final Plan Submittal to Mn/DOT / County and City ......................................... December 21, 2012 Final Mn/DOT Approval of Plans.............................................................................Up to 8 Weeks FinalApproved Plans.................................................................................................March 2013 Advertising for Bids..............................................................................................April / May 2013 BidOpening...................................................................................................................... May 2013 Phase 3 — Construction Administration Notice to Proceed Phase 3......................................................................June 4, 2013 Begin Construction..................................................................................................... June 15, 2013 • Complete Construction................................................................................................October 2013 Scope of Services Page 1 • Bike Edina Task Force: News & Meeting Outcomes June 14, 2012 Purpose: The Bike Edina Task Force (BETF) meets to serve citizens and partner with City staff and elected officials to promote bicycle improvements in Edina for education, encouragement, infrastructure, enforcement, and ongoing assessment. We support implementation of the approved City of Edina Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan that serves all levels of bicyclists, connects key destinations including safe routes to schools, and integrates with the Twin Cities' regional bike network. Our vision is a progressive bicycle -friendly community where citizens can integrate cycling into their daily lives. Time & Location: BETF monthly on the 2nd Thursday of each month at 8 p.m. in the Mayor's Conference Room at Edina City Hall. For questions contact Peter Kelley, Chair. Guests are welcome. Distribution: BETF, guests, City Manager, City Engineer, Edina Police BETF Liaison Sgt. Timothy Olson, SHIP contact Robyn Wiesman, and Mayor & City Council. Also Dianne Plunkett Latham to post for the Edina Energy and Environment Commission and Ned Nelson of the Hennepin County Bicycle Advisory Committee • Present: Ellen Jones, Kirk Johnson, Marty Mathis, Alex Johnson, Jennifer Janovy, Carl Follstad, Rob Erickson, • Absent: Peter Kelley, Sally Dunn, Larry Olson, Brad Schaeppi, Don Eyberg, Alice Hulbert, Carl Gulbronson, Tom Randall • Guests: Kristopher Wilson • Recorded by: Carl Follstad 1. Status of BETF — Group discussed the status of BETF with regard to City of Edina. (i.e. should we be completely independent, part of the Edina Transporation Commission(ETC), or something else.) Jennifer stated that if we are part of ETC, we would be a Working Group but must share a member (Co -Chair) Would have to fall under the City's Bylaws. Jennifer provided an update on direction of ETC in regards to multimodal transportation. Some concern expressed over potential of approval needed of BETF events by an oversight group. Jennifer will send out bylaws for BETF's review and will discuss it next month. 2. Blog — Peter forwarded a request for blog articles for July(for the Bike Edina website. Alex suggested a roundabout video. Jennifer suggested the biking on sidewalks issue. Peter will follow up with the two of them. 3. Project Updates a. Nine Mile Creek Trail — Peter forwarded information from Kelly Grissom at Three Rivers park district about the failure to get federal grant money for the trail at this point. Jennifer announced Transportation Advisory Board part of the Met Council is meeting next Wed(June 20) to potentially vote on $5.5M investment to build out 9MCRT east of Tracy Ave. b. Bike racks -- The city is waiting for Transit for Livable communities(TLC) to have its paperwork in order. Wayne still expects to install them this summer. c. Striping of 70th, Cahill, Antrim, and Valleyview —City has developed preliminary plans. There are still a few tweaks to be made, but the schedule is to do the striping after the roads are seal coated in July or August. d. Bike Blvd—Work will start in middle of August. e. Gallagher — City needs to get a state aid variance. Wayne Houle will meet with state officials on June 28. He believes the city will get the variance. • f. Tracy Ave redevelopment — Project to start on June 25, end in mid October. 4. France Avenue Pedestrian and Bike Crossing Improvement Project -- Jennifer and Marty attended initial public stakeholder meeting. The project is still in the planning phase. Project to include improved crossings at intersections, new sidewalks and bike lanes. France Ave is a county road and not a designated bike route. Second stakeholder meeting is scheduled for June 26 at 7:00 at the Edina Public Works building. 5. Sidewalk Riding — The current city ordinance prohibits bike riding on any sidewalks in the city. This is counter to the generally accepted thought that sidewalk riding was allowed except within business districts. BETF discussion included importance of education for safe bicycling on streets, which is statistically much safer than biking on sidewalks. Sidewalk riding is allowed in many other communities, but usually bicyclists must assume the rights and duties of pedestrians, plus yield to pedestrians (see MN statue 169.222). The group discussed accommodations for reasonable rules on biking on sidewalks. Committee members should review Jennifer's eMail memo (PDF) and return comments to her by next Thursday (6/21) with the aim of developing a change to city ordinance. 6. Bike racks at new Southdale apt building — Marty asked what should BETF's involvement be? Should we create a standard or is there one already on the Comprehensive Plan? Jennifer believes there is a bike parking ordinance and will do some research and report back to group. • 7. Franchise Fee — The city may soon vote on implementing a utility Franchise fee, with funds being directed to help subsidize biking infrastructure and staffing in Edina. Look for formal discussion/voting in a future City Council meeting. 8. Bike Award -- We will look at re -applying in 2013 for the League of American Bicyclists, Bicycle Friendly Community, Bronze award. • • 0 • • REGULAR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Edina Transportation Commission From: Wayne D. Houle, PE Director of Engineering Date: July 19, 2012 Subject: 2013 Work Plan Agenda Item No.: VIII.A. ACTION: ❑ Recommendation/Motion ® Discussion ® Information Info/Background: The Edina City Council will be reviewing submitted Boards and Commissions 2013 Work Plans at their September 18, 2012 City Council Workshop. Attached is a template to utilize for the work plan submissions. The Edina City Council is reviewing the status of the 2012 City Council Work Plan at their workshop on Tuesday, July 17; 1 will distribute these updates at the July 19 ETC meeting. Attachments: • Boards and Commissions Work Plan Template and instructions. G:\Engineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\TRANSP COMM\Agendas\2012 R&R\20120719\201207' 9 Item VIII A 2013 Work Plan.docx Purpose Annual work plans ensure that the priorities of the City Council and Board and Commissions are aligned and that the City has the appropriate financial and staff resources to support board and commission work. Timeline and Format Board and commissions should focus on drafting their work plans during the summer months for the following year. The Council meets with Board and Commission Chairs during the month of September to review the proposed work plans. The Council gives final approval for the work plans in November, after additional progress has been made with the City's overall work plan and budget. Work plans go into effect January 1 for the remainder of the calendar year. The work plan has three main sections (Attachment 1): • New Initiatives —This section should be used to outline any new initiatives the board or commission would like to take pursue during the upcoming year. • Ongoing Responsibilities —This section should be used to document the board or commission's ongoing responsibilities. Ongoing responsibilities include items that are repeated on a regular or annual basis, or regulatory functions that are delegated to the board or commission. • Other Work Plan Ideas Considered for Current Year or Future Years — This section should be used as a "parking lot" for ideas that were considered during the work planning process. Ideas that the board and commission wants to hold for consideration for future years should also be included in this section. Some boards and commission have few ongoing responsibilities and most of their work will fall into the initiatives category. Other boards and commissions have significant ongoing responsibilities and may only be able to tackle only one or two new initiatives each year. Council Review and Approval The Council schedules a meeting in September to meet with Board and Commission Chair regarding their proposed work plan. The purpose of the meeting is to review the Board or Commission proposed new initiatives and ongoing responsibilities for the upcoming year. The Council also reviews any ideas discussed by the Board or Commission but not placed on the work plan. In late September and October, the Council has additional discussions about city-wide priorities, the budget and the allotment of staff time. It is possible that the Council will add, delete or re -prioritize items on board or commission work plans based on these discussions. The Council approves and returns work plans to boards and commissions during the month of November. Mid -Year Modifications Work plans can be modified, to add or delete items, one of three ways. First, work plans can be modified by mutual agreement during a joint work session. Second, if immediate approval is important, the board or commission can work with their staff liaison to present a modified work plan for council approval at a council meeting. Lastly, the city council can direct a change to the work plan. 0 Missing a projected target completion date is not a reason to amend the work plan. It is understood that these dates are projections and that occasionally items will be delayed or carried over to a subsequent year. However, Boards and Commissions should make sure that their meeting minutes including updates on the status of work plan items. Attachments: Attachment 1— 2013 Annual Work Plan • • C O -ru C OO 7i C O r ++ 4) 7i! �a ++ cu ++ w ++ 4) �+ 4J 41 L 41 L 4) L L s' c to co o o CC O o CC 3 o C 'C � "C a' "a O• 'a COC wOM w NOD O tw w to W co OC a, CG W CO W CO CC m Cr O C z O CL O CL O CL O Q U a V a U a V a v a 41 4J O 41 QJ L L L L L icr rr 0' rr N cl: O O O O O Q Q CL Q. CL M M M Q M m V1 N N N N c0 m m m ca 0 Vf N CA N C O C OO C C O C O ++ 4) ++ cu ++ w ++ 4) �+ 4J 41 L 41 L 4) L L s' bA 7 to co CC 3 CC O CC 3 CC 3 "a C 'C � "C a' "a O• 'a COC wOM w NOD O tw w to W co OC a, CG W CO W CO CC m Cr C O C OO C C O C O 4a 4J QJ 4a 4J 4a 4J 4J Q Q CL Q CL E to co E E E E U C U U U 'U COC wOM w NOD O tw w to W mma F— 0 a, Hmill cLo I oill cLo m HIII O M a I— 0 co ca co to co C C C !C !C a� a, z z z z z M .. M C O C O O v L L E E O U rr vAo NA O dA 3 "a CL Q a Q. Q u a u a C O C O O v L L E E O U rr vAo NA O dA 3 "a cr Q O, Q. Q N N m OC m m N N C O C O O ' O Q. Q. E E O U O U vAo NA O dA 3 "a cr Q M N M I N m � m OC C O C O O ' O Q. Q. E E O U O U vAo txo 41 OOA N z f0 l6 ISH = Q vAo z z S M N M I N O 00 O C O 0 N w N L O C O L 0 M 4J C O v N O Q O a