Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-24 Minutes 1 MINUTES OF THE Regular Meeting of the Edina Transportation Commission Thursday, June 24, 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 MEMBERS ABSENT: Dean Dovolis, Bill Skallerud STAFF PRESENT: Wayne Houle, Steve Lillehaug, Sharon Allison I. Approval of Minutes from May 27, 2004 A motion was made by Bennett and seconded by Wanninger to approve the minutes of May 27, 2004 as submitted. II. Presentation and Review of Transportation Commission Policy Appendices Before reviewing the Transportation Commission Policy Appendices, Bennett expressed some concerns regarding the draft policy being developed and the timeframe in which it is being done. Bennett stated that over the last month she researched other cities’ transportation plans and found the City of Bloomington’s Plan to be very will organized. She stated that Edina’s Plan resembles Bloomington’s but with fairly significant alterations. Significant differences cited by Bennett are: Bloomington’s Plan is well established (20 years old), yet in 1997 they took a full year to review and revise their policy. The planning process included bi-monthly meetings, tours of traffic calming devices in other cities and simulation with a fire truck, a bus and an emergency response vehicle. She stated that Bloomington’s Commission members received information from staff in ‘bite size chunks’ so that they could absorb and assimilate the information. Staff then prepared the draft of a plan that was finally adopted. Bennett feels that a significant amount of information that is new to her, has been presented without a chance to fully digest, understand and give feedback on such information. She believes some of the information is irrelevant and not functional to the Commission, while important information is missing. Bennett stated further, that in an attempt to fully understand what it is the Commission is trying to address, she sent questions to staff two weeks prior to the regular scheduled monthly meeting, but could not get a response until the time of the scheduled monthly meeting. Bennett stated that it is her hope that Edina would do the same as Bloomington and take a full year to develop its plan. 2 In response to Bennett’s concerns, Richards stated that generally Edina does not compare itself to other communities. He also reminded Bennett that at the first meeting all Commission members agreed that individual Commission members would not go to staff and request information on their own and if information was requested, it would be decided upon by the Commission itself and then shared with the entire Commission. Richards stated further that they also agreed to adopt a game plan and then move forward. As such, the Commission will continue to review the staff prepared draft Transportation Plan and at the end, Commission members will have the opportunity to accept, modify or change the draft as presented. White stated that she concurs with Bennett regarding the amount of information being presented to them with not much time given to comprehend and respond and asked if they would be given a chance to respond. Richards reiterated that Commission members would have the opportunity to review fully the draft as presented or make changes once staff has had a chance to present the draft in its entirety. a. Appendix A – Definitions Lillehaug said staff compiled a summary of available traffic definitions in response to a request from Bennett. The following are responses to other requests. Historic and forecast population figures were taken from the Met Council’s 1998 Regional blueprint according to SRF, the consultant that did the study. Increased traffic around the area of 44th and France Avenue is based on a model that forecasts increases in employment, infill in Edina, Minneapolis and St. Louis Park traffic and redevelopment. In response to the list of definitions, Bennett said Bloomington’s list is very short (only 5 definitions), is user friendly and fits with what the Institute of Transportation Engineers describes. Bennett believes Edina’s definitions could be more clearly defined if they adopt Bloomington’s model. She would like to spend some time discussing some of the definitions that she believes to be in conflict with Bloomington’s and materials presented by Edina. Houle stated that Bloomington spent the year developing a “traffic-calming plan”, whereas Edina has adopted a “Transportation Plan” and under this broad plan is a traffic calming policy for neighborhoods. He also stated that the definitions were taken from the Met Council and other cities’ materials. One definition that requires more discussion, according to Houle, is ‘cut-through traffic.’ Wanninger stated that the definitions serve as a source to better understanding of the materials he’s reading. b. Appendix B – Traffic Management Devices/Measures Lillehaug stated that Appendix B is a list of all reasonable traffic management devices available. He elaborated on four of the devices, (how they affect emergency response, affects speed of traffic, etc.) to give a better understanding of how they work and the different purposes they serve. The four are: Speed Hump, Speed Table (Raised Crosswalk), Raised Intersection and Radar Speed Display Unit. Wanninger asked about cost under the Evaluation Considerations section. Houle stated that there is a budget for traffic management devices and the high/medium/low cost is in reference to what it will cost the neighborhoods in assessments. Thorpe said the words ‘probable’ 3 and ‘possible,’ under Speed Reduction and Traffic Reduction seems non-committal. Lillehaug said they are non-committal because one can never say exactly where the speed/traffic will be reduced. White asked which emergency response team has priority over the policy. Lillehaug said both Police and Fire will look at the policy and all applications will be submitted for their review and if any pose a hazard it will not be implemented. Houle stated he requested money to replace the current speed trailer and to also purchase stationary ones to be installed at areas where most speeding tickets are issued. Wanninger suggested it might be possible for a community to build up a perception as to what the speed limit ought to be based on the traffic calming devices they have. One consideration is the public’s perception of what the community attitude is about speeding. Thorpe said people living near speed humps might not like them because of the noise created when speeding over them. Lillehaug said all the information is being shared so that Commissioners can dialogue and give feedback. White asked if there are any examples around town that they could look at. Houle said yes, and staff could compile a list. Richards said he thought they were going to put together a policy statement that includes all viable options without making any judgments and have them available for use by the Commissioners and neighborhoods. And they would not look at examples of devices until they begin dealing with substantive issues such as a speed bump request for a particular location. Bennett stated she does not think the Commission should have everything without checking to see what works. Thorpe stated that many cities do have all the traffic calming devices but it would be good to do some research and have a list of where there are some in the city for viewing. Plante asked if neighbors will be bringing the issues forward, who will decide the appropriate action to take – would it be staff or the Commission? Richards said the Commission, staff and neighborhoods are going to make recommendations to the Council, the decision-making body. Thorpe stated that the expertise of staff would be relied on when considering recommendations. Bennett stated that the ordinance does say the Commission is to make recommendations. III. Review of Transportation Commission Policy (continued from previous meeting) a. Option B – Scoring for Ranking Lillehaug said staff is recommending removing Ranking #5 because the Petition-to- study step falls after the Ranking and Scoring step. Lillehaug provided two examples of how the Ranking and Scoring would work using fictitious numbers. The first location, Woodland Rd. between Concord Ave. and Wooddale Ave., is a location where a request was made recently for a stop sign. However, Lillehaug said staff did not recommend installing a stop sign but would be a location where a different traffic- calming device may be appropriate. Some factors that led to Woodland receiving a higher scoring are: its proximity to a school and having no sidewalks. The next location, Edinborough Way, between W. 76th St. and Parklawn Ave., with a higher traffic volume, received a lower scoring. This location is a higher density neighborhood, has sidewalks and is adjacent to a commercial area. Lillehaug stated it would appear that Edinborough Way should have a higher scoring because of higher traffic volume and possibly higher speed, but this is not the case according to the 4 scoring. Woodland, being close to a school and having no sidewalks for pedestrian traffic gives it a higher scoring. Bennett asked staff to explain how multiple streets will be handled. Lillehaug said if five petitions are received for a neighborhood they will not be studied individually because the streets traffic volume may be linked together. Bennett believes this would create a conflict and unfairness and suggested a better way would be to study each neighborhood and come up with a plan. Her concern is that Edina’s policy calls for a much lower notice area, whereas Bloomington has a much higher notice area. Lillehaug stated that staff is of the opinion that neighborhoods would not receive priority ahead of single streets, especially when there are no sidewalks. To make it fair, Bennett suggested linking the streets being considered and this becomes the notice area and they would be included in the petition along with others who will be impacted. Houle stated that this is the next step in the process. Wanninger stated he did not understand how fairness would have an effect on the Ranking and Scoring system since it is being established to rank different projects and prioritize them based on their score. Bennett said this is in reference to the petition area that the policy shows as being within 100 feet or one block of the proposed device. She said there should be consistency between what’s defined as the notice area and the area that qualifies for Ranking and Scoring. Staff could not clearly understand Bennett’s objection so Lillehaug suggested they continue the dialogue when they begin discussion on the benefited area. b. Option B – Process and Schedule Lillehaug said the schedule would need to be revised if they are going to include the before data collection of step 2, which is part of the Ranking and Scoring. The initial scoring and screening could be done in February, but data collection has to be done when there is no snow on the ground. Also, to get a good range and effect of the device, it should be installed before July/Aug/Sept. Bennett said Bloomington’s schedule is not as close as Edina’s because their data collection is taking two weeks instead of one month. Richards suggested that if there were numerous petitions the Commission would have to meet more than once a month. He said the Commission would adapt to the circumstance. Bennett said they do not know what the current volume is because they’ve never been presented with them. She said a policy is being designed and it’s not clear for what purpose. She said Bloomington does not require a petition study (this is done during the application phase), which is a time saver instead of time crunch and they use two weeks for traffic to stabilize and then measure data. Lillehaug said it should take only two weeks to gather data. Houle said they did not use Bloomington’s petition process because if a non-traffic person passes around a petition to have something done to a street, this could give a false sense that something is going to happen vs. calling staff and filing an application. Staff can then look to see if it makes sense to begin a petition process. Houle stated that past experience shows that the petitioners may intentionally avoid some neighbors. Lillehaug said this would also give staff some time to determine if the problem is real or perceived. 5 c. Other Policy Discussion, Comments and Recommendations The traffic-calming devices listed on the spreadsheet will be converted to single pages like the examples presented and distributed prior to the next scheduled meeting. Staff will also prepare thresholds for the effects on other neighborhoods of a petitioned area for the potential diversion of traffic. Richards asked if staff is planning to draft a policy statement defining who will be notified when a petition is initiated? Lillehaug said it is listed under the benefited area. Bennett asked why wasn’t a policy drafted for collector streets like Bloomington did. Houle said he is not familiar with Bloomington’s streets, but in Edina all collector streets are State Aid streets and the City would lose funding eligibility if we installed traffic- calming devices on them. Bennett asked who sought the collector street classification for Vernon Ave. Houle indicated he was not sure because it dates back to the 1980’s. Typically, if volume changes on a road, the County could chose to take it out (or add) it to their system, which is what they tried to do with Vernon Ave. However, the Council passed a resolution to not take it back. As development takes place roads are generally reclassified to match the higher volume of traffic. Richards asked Commissioners if there is any other information that they would like staff to add before the revised draft policy is distributed in July. Bennett said the majority of the draft policy concerns neighborhood traffic management and traffic calming and the ordinance is much broader. She said it directs the Commission to consider mass transit opportunities and pedestrian activities and there is not much that address these issues. White and Bennett both prepared some changes for the draft policy and copies were given to Commissioners and staff. Richards asked staff to complete the Transportation Plan draft, including all proposed revisions to date by Commissioners and submit the updated draft to the Commission for its review in July. Richards then addressed the residents in attendance, asking them if they would like to address the Commission. Addressing the Commission were: Timothy Rudnicki, 4224 Lynn Ave. Mr. Rudnicki stated that as a citizen of Edina he is concerned with traffic development. He said he had some difficulty finding the meeting dates and time. He is also concerned about the process and asked if more could be done to involve more citizens. Richards said the Commission is working on creating a policy statement to involve citizens. Mr. Rudnicki asked if there was a statutory issue behind the purposes of the Commission. Richards explained that the Council felt there was a broad transportation issue that needed to be addressed based on the findings of the Traffic Task Force and as a result, the Commission was appointed to address those findings, among other things. The Commission felt it was necessary to create its own policy document before addressing substantive issues. Richards said creation of the policy document should then provide for citizen input on substantive transportation issues. Kristy Anderson: Ms. Anderson asked how is the policy being developed. Richards explained that they are creating the policy with staff’s assistance and then Commissioners will go through and adopt a final policy. Richards explained that the 6 Commission is advisory in nature and as such will be making recommendations to the Council. Jennifer Janovy: Ms Janovy said the website is not up to date and it does not contain accurate information. She suggested adding Commissioners’ contact information because not everyone can attend the meetings. Richards said per state law, the public’s business must be conducted in public. He does not believe discussions should be taking place outside of the regularly scheduled meeting time. He said if individuals cannot attend the meetings, they can send correspondences through the regular mail or email to staff and staff has been directed to share everything with the Commission. IV. Other Governmental Activities Houle stated that MnDOT is planning to remove the W. 78th Street westbound access from the TH494/TH169 interchange and Edina, along with the cities of Bloomington and Eden Prairie are working jointly to stop this from happening. If this access is eliminated the next access would be France and after France, it would be approximately 4-5 miles before another local access is available. Commissioner White said she visited the 494 Corridor’s office to gather some information on parking. She said she’s been studying parking to see if there’s any connection between parking and traffic issues. She suggested possibly looking at how the Transportation Commission could interface with the Planning Commission where parking and traffic issues are concerned if there’s a connection. V. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Next meeting is scheduled for July 22, 2004, 6:00-8:00 p.m. in the Community Room, City Hall.