Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-26 MinutesCORRECTED MINUTES 1 MINUTES OF THE Regular Meeting of the Edina Transportation Commission Thursday, August 26, 2004 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Community Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Fred Richards, Marie Thorpe, Jean White, Warren Plante, Joni Bennett , Les Wanninger, Dean Dovolis MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Skallerud STAFF PRESENT: Wayne Houle, Steve Lillehaug, Sharon Allison I. Approval of Minutes from July 22, 2004. Corrections to the minutes: Page 3, para. 3, add ‘s’ to arterial. Page 4, para. 1 should read ‘overlooked.’ Note: Handout – Examples of Traffic Calming in Minnesota. 12 of 34 examples listed in the report were collector and arterial roadways. A motion was made by Wanninger and seconded by Bennett to approve the minutes with the amendments as noted above. November’s meeting is scheduled for the third Thursday, November 18, 2004 because of the Thanksgiving Holiday. December’s meeting is still scheduled for the fourth Thursday, December 23, 2004. Bennett’s motion to accept the new date was seconded by White. II. Presentations a. Arterial and Collector Roadways – State Aid Design Standards and Variances from these Standards This discussion was to determine what policies might be developed to calm arterial and collector roadways. Lillehaug explained that the City’s roadways are made up of three primary classifications (arterial, collector and local roadways), each serving different functions. The bold colored roadways on the Functional Classification Map, shows the arterial and collector roadways, these are county state aid roads. County state aid roadways with county jurisdictions are Vernon Avenue, portions of Gleason (from CORRECTED MINUTES 2 crosstown to the north, France Avenue (entire length), York Avenue/Xerxes Avenue (TH 494 to W. 50th), and W. 66th Street (Valley View Road. to Xerxes Avenue). Funding for maintenance of these roadways comes from the state’s gas tax funds. County and State design standards are followed for these roadways. The other colored streets are municipal state aid streets (City jurisdiction) with the same funding mechanism and design standards. Local streets are funded locally by means of assessments to property owners. City design standards, as well as state aid design standards are used. Lillehaug explained that calming measures on arterial and collector streets must be designed according to MN state aid design rules such as the minimum 30 mph speed. Lillehaug said a variance would be needed to lower the speed. The variance would require a resolution from the Council to the Commissioner of Transportation Board and it must justify the safety issues that cannot be met with the road design. A variance would not be required to calm a street down to its design speed, however, it is unlikely that a speed bump or hump variance would be granted on a street such as France Avenue. While calming on arterial and collector streets would promote safety for pedestrians, Lillehaug explained that traffic would be diverted from the street that was designed to carry the most traffic at a certain speed. Calming may also create a substandard design, which would mean no state aid funding. Bennett suggested defining arterial and collector streets more clearly because 44th for example, has homes on both sides while France has businesses. Lillehaug said the two streets function differently but are grouped together for funding purposes only (both receive state aid). White asked if a city could choose not to have a street classified as a state aid street and fund internally. Richards said this is something for the Commission to discuss later but they must keep in mind that approximately $1.2M in state aid funds would no longer be available to the City. Lillehaug recommended against a cookie cutter policy for all streets. He recommended calming some streets but not to the point of reducing speed on all streets. Wanninger stated that some of the issues may be perception only because a sidewalk close to the street creates a feeling of speeding while one further away does not. White suggested conducting studies of local streets in an attempt to reduce the speed limit to 25 mph. Richards said this is an option for discussion once the policy is adopted. Bennett suggested a process that would allow residents living on collector roadway to request a traffic study for their particular street. Lillehaug said a process is already established in the Action Plan with an emphasis on collector and arterial streets. Bennett said residents on collector streets should also be given the opportunity to request studies in the event something is overlooked and the policy, as it is written, excludes them. Lillehaug said in some cases it will be difficult to determine the notification and assessment areas, therefore it is not feasible to allow the option to study CORRECTED MINUTES 3 for every street. He said staff would work to take proactive measures to eliminate unsafe streets like they did with the intersection of Valley Lane and Valley View Road. Richards said if the policy is not clearly defined it should state that all traffic issues should be brought before the Transportation Commission. Staff was directed to change the language to include all residents in spite of which street they live on. Lillehaug reported that there are some calming devices that staff does not believe is relevant on collector and arterial streets, speed bumps for example. Houle explained that changes could be made during the design phase of a roadway that could discourage motorists from going more than 30 mph. b. Traffic Calming Devices – City Staff Comments The departments that reviewed the Traffic Management Devices/Measures report gave negative feedback on a number of the devices. For a detailed list please see the report. Fire and Police were receptive to implementations that did not slow response time. Lillehaug noted that the cost of sweeping, plowing and maintenance would increase. Richards said it might not be necessary to incorporate the comments in the policy, but instead use them as reference points. Bennett said the report was very helpful and asked if it could be made more concise and useful to the public. She also asked what weight would be given to the comments. Richards said it is up to the Commissioners to decide. Bennett recommended keeping the report available for future use and deleting devices with all negative reviews from the list of devices. III. Transportation Commission Policy (DRAFT) Appendix D – Acknowledgements and References Lillehaug stated that after review, staff is recommending against including the sample Petition-to-Study. Staff is recommending using the Petition-to-Study after requests have been reviewed and prioritized. Regarding the Acknowledgements and References list, Bennett is concerned that one may assume everyone listed was consulted in developing the policy. She is also concerned that the Commission, as a body, did not discuss most of the resources listed. Houle stated that at a previous meeting, a resident commented that they might be plagiarizing, so staff decided to list the resources used to develop the policy. Lillehaug stated that he’s used all the listed resources during his research. Miscellaneous Items Staff would like the Commissioners’ help in creating a definition for ‘local traffic.’ Dovolis said it might be best to create a vague/loose definition. Thorpe said there should be two definitions, one for local traffic and one for cut-through traffic. Removal of traffic calming devices: staff recommended majority of votes of benefit area to proceed with plan development and 70% votes to remove. To be discussed further. CORRECTED MINUTES 4 Budget for Commissioner-requested studies: Lillehaug said no, but staff can undertake small studies as time permits. A more in-depth study would require Council approval. IV. Review/Discussion/Recommendations of Transportation Commission Policy (continued from previous meeting) Page 5 Pedestrian/Bicycle, para. 3, insert ‘parks’ to read ‘…including high traffic streets, commercial areas, parks and schools, areas with…’ Funding and Jurisdiction, para 1, Wanninger stated he is not in favor of ‘dedicated’ funding, it may be better stated as ‘supporting public funding for transit.’ Page 8 Introduction, para. 2, insert ‘…traffic onto other streets and/or into other neighborhoods.’ Para 2, sentence beginning with “Solutions may include revisions…,” Bennett would like the Commission to discuss this and decide if it is something they want to recommend because this is a recommended change to the existing Council-approved transportation policy. After discussion the consensus is for the sentence to read ‘Possible solutions…’ Page 10 Preliminary Review and Priority Ranking, para. 4, Bennett said she would like to receive a list of all the issue areas in addition to the top 10. The consensus is to change the language to reflect the Commissioners getting a summary of all studies requested. Page 11 Para 1, sentence beginning with ‘This area is…to include properties within 300 feet…’ Reword as ‘impacted area’ to eliminate the restriction created by footage. Para. 2, ‘The purpose of…study’s area...’ instead of ‘street.’ Para. 3, Bennett is recommending at least 60% for initial study. The consensus is a majority. Last para, insert ‘…City staff will…’ ‘Staff then will…’ Application Process In the application process, Richards stated that the policy is asking the residents to identify a solution for the issue area they’ve identified. Richards is recommending changing this so that the residents do not feel forced into identifying a solution. Dovolis recommended adding ‘suggested’ so they at least think about a possible solution. And if more than one solution is recommended, list in order of priority. CORRECTED MINUTES 5 Page 12 Benefited area: The Commissioners will rely on staff’s recommendation of the benefited area, but Commissioners will make the ultimate decision. Test installation: Bennett said most cities test for 3 months. Houle said 12 months is necessary because of the winter months. Definitions Cut-through Traffic: definition remains the same. Impact Area: ‘Area for a project…speeding, or that may be positively or negatively impacted by proposed traffic calming.’ Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP): ‘Formalized process…’ instead of ‘tool.’ Principal Arterials: ‘The high…system, including all interstate freeways.’ Regarding the toolbox sheets, Bennett asked if they could be streamlined to make them more user friendly to the public. Richards said he’s envisioning creating a brochure for the public. Staff will prepare a final draft for the next meeting. V. Other Governmental Activities Richards reported that Councilmember Jim Hovland is scheduling a meeting with the I494 Commission and the Transportation Commission for September 8th, time still to be determined. Resident in Attendance: Keith Wolf stated he appreciated the opportunity to sit in and listen to the discussion. He said it is important that something is done to improve the livability throughout the city. Meeting adjourned. The next meeting is scheduled for September 23, 2004, 6:00-8:00 p.m. in the Community Room.