Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-23 Minutes 1 Approved Minutes MINUTES OF THE Regular Meeting of the Edina Transportation Commission Thursday, September 23, 2004 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Community Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Fred Richards, Marie Thorpe, Jean White, Joni Bennett, Les Wanninger MEMBERS ABSENT: Warren Plante, Dean Dovolis STAFF PRESENT: Wayne Houle, Steve Lillehaug, Sharon Allison Chairperson Richards called the meeting to order. He announced the resignation of William Skallerud from the Commission. He noted that letters were received from residents Julia Silvis, dated Sept. 23rd, and Rob Webb. Keith Wolf, a resident in attendance also presented a letter dated Sept. 23rd. Approve Minutes from August 26, 2004 The first sentence of the minutes should have read ‘Corrections’ instead of ‘Amendments.’ The following is a correction to the July 22nd minutes: page 3, para. 3 - add ‘s’ to arterial. The following are corrections to August 26th minutes: Page 2, last para. the sentence beginning with “Bennett said…” delete “local” and insert “collector.” Page 3, item b., Traffic Calming Devices – the four departments that reviewed the Traffic Management Devices/Measures report gave negative feedback on a number of the devices. For a detail list please see the report. Item b, last sentence should read “…for future use and deleting devices with all negative reviews from the list of devices. Para. 4 – should read “…everyone listed was consulted…” A motion was made by Wanninger to approve the minutes with the corrections as stated above. Seconded by Bennett. 2 Transportation Commission Policy (September 2004 DRAFT) – Consideration for Approval and Recommendation to the City Council Lillehaug noted the following changes to the draft policy: “Collector and arterial” were added to the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan although some procedures within the policy may not be applicable to those streets. Staff is recommending that the petition-to-study be circulated to the benefited areas to first determine if residents are willing to be assessed. If they are not in favor of the assessment there would be no need to move forward. If in favor, the survey-to-test would then be distributed to the impacted area, which would also serve as the notification area. The benefited (assessed) area would be approximately one block, while the impacted area would be significantly larger. Notifications would be done via the website, the Edina Sun as well as the US mail. Bennett said the Edina Sun is not reliable because of ‘spotty’ delivery in some areas. Bennett said she recalled from a previous meeting there was a consensus to keep the impacted area broad. She recalls language changes which states as follow “If significant diversion to other residential streets or limitations of access from other residential areas in Edina are reasonably expected, those area’s residents are included in the study area or impacted area.” She stated that Appendix A-2 would have a corresponding definition and recalls the deletion of the last sentence under the definition of Impacted Area. After discussion, the consensus is to keep the impacted area defined as is. In response to Bennett’s opinion on impacted area, which differs from the rest of the Commissioners, Tim Rudnicki addressed the Commission. He thanked and commended the Commissioners for volunteering. He stated that several months ago he questioned the process being used (a lack of public input) because the Commission does not speak for everyone and hope there will be some changes before the policy goes to Council for approval. Lillehaug concluded his presentation by explaining that before final implementation there would be surveys, open houses and public meetings with the Commission. Wanninger stated that he supports the process being used by the Commission and see it as a starting point so they have a framework with which to work. He stated further that there would always be controversies regardless of the process being used. DRAFT Review: The following are final omissions, additions or other changes that Commissioners made to the draft policy: Wanninger Page 7: Review volume and speed criteria – why is it included? Lillehaug indicated that this criteria has been presented to the Commission as part of the Transportation Plan overview and that the Commission may want to review this again. Page 11, para. 4: After discussion, the consensus is to delete the 3rd sentence. Page 12, para 1: After discussion, the consensus is to delete the last two sentences. Appendix A-5, first line, top of the page: After discussion, the consensus is to delete the word “yet.” 3 Thorpe Page 9, para 1: Thorpe does not believe “collector and arterial” should be in the Neighborhood Traffic Plan, instead it should be mentioned elsewhere. Lillehaug said it would be hard to apply the policy to those streets and typically other cities do not mention them in their neighborhood traffic plan because they do not add traffic calming measures to collector and arterial streets. Richards said they couldn’t exclude collector and arterials because residents on or near those streets will need help also. Bennett suggested that a title change is probably what’s needed so as not to exclude them. Houle said from staff’s perspective, they can list more specifically what would be applicable to local streets vs. collector/arterials. He said residents living on collector and arterial streets often ask for calming measures and/or stop signs because they do not understand the function of their street. Bennett said the Met Council does not mention collector and arterials together, and in fact, collector streets seem to function more as a local street. Thorpe asked what is the process for collector and arterial streets. Houle responded by stating that the process will be determined based on the issues, it may not necessarily follow the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan. Richards said this is where they deal with substantive issues and the rule may be different based on the particular need. Wanninger suggested adding a sentence or paragraph so that residents on collector and arterial streets will know where they fit in the plan. The consensus is to leave “collector and arterial” under the Neighborhood Traffic Plan and add an explanatory paragraph. White Page 4, item #12: Lillehaug said a process is not yet developed. Houle said communications with the Planning Commission is to be facilitated through the liaison that serves on both Commissions. Bennett Page 1, para 3: add ‘and’ after “where appropriate;” Page 2, para 1: should be “supplement” rather than “incorporate.” Para. 2: it is not clear if the Edina Plan is being adopted or incorporated. Page 4, item 12: concerned that issues may arise where there could be a fresh look and solutions proposed but the Commission will not get a chance to weigh-in. Page 5, Pedestrian/Bicycle, item 1: “…including necessary storage facilities (eg., bicycle racks and bicycle lockers)…” Page 6, item 2: “Support research…” Page 8, Long Term, 5th bulleted sentence: “to” does not seem to be the right connector. Page 9: If the title is the problem, instead of Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan suggested Edina Traffic Management Plan. Add ‘Feasibility of solutions’ to list of factors. Page 12: continues to be concerned with the benefited and impacted areas and it is still her recollection that they added limitation of access language to para. 2. Para 3: ‘…study areas residents…’ rather than “study’s area” and change “with” to ‘concerning or regarding.’ Language will need to be developed defining who will be notified. Para 4: Plan Development, “…the City’s Fire, Police, Public Works and Engineering Departments…” 3rd item in the bulleted list: add ‘Determination of’ and delete “Define the” Page 13, para. 1: add ‘ed’’ to impact. Petition-to-study and survey-to-test should be reworded. Item 6, Project Evaluation, reword as “…project, including residential streets or neighborhoods affected by diversion of traffic onto or through them and/or limitation of access.” The consensus of the Commission is to leave the wording as is. Item 7, Survey: add ‘ed’ to impact. Page 17: Renumber; would prefer to keep the function category headings of traffic calming measures. 4 Page 18, Benefited Area, last sentence: add a comma between “...areas, but…” Benefited Area, first bulleted sentence: “…300 feet, between device and/or…” Concerned that Diagonal Road Closure is included because it has four negative reviews and would prefer to see it eliminated. Volume control measures: concerned about this more so than speed. In the past opposition have come from both inside and outside the neighborhoods. Definitions: if there will be a photo inventory of traffic calming devices and measures, the recommendation is to decrease the volume of the document and the length of the list of definitions by defining traffic calming devices and measures where they are depicted and not include them in the list of definitions. This would cut down on the amount of information the public would have to review. Houle stated he would prefer to give more information than less. Richards is concerned that the belief is that the ‘buck stops’ with the Commission as the final decision-making body. He stated that the Council is the final decision-making body and while some people believe they should have had input into the development of the policy, the final decisions rest with the Council. He stated further that when the public gets a chance to review the policy, they may not agree with it and Council’s decision may favor the opinion of the general public. Regarding survey-to-test and petition-to-study, Bennett asked if a specific number was established. Richards said they did not so that Council could make the final decision. Bennett asked how would they know the level of support. Richards said the will of the people would determine the level of support. The consensus is to eliminate the 50% majority. Bennett asked what will the Commission do after getting the prioritized requests from staff. Richards said this is for the Commission to decide. He said the policy is a guide to deal with substantive issues but they will have to decide which area should be worked on first and they currently have six areas that were identified by the Task Force. Bennett asked how will they chose the projects to work on. Richards said some may be chosen based on staff’s recommendation or the Commission’s selection. Bennett asked what procedure will be developed for residents to voice their concerns on the selection process without the petition at the different steps of the process. Wanninger said the petition-to-study process will still be used, but they will not define the criteria by which they will be selecting areas to work on. Houle recommended deleting the first sentence in para. 4, page 12 and joining the 2nd sentence with the 3rd para. Bennett said she understood the concept and likes the idea of direct access to Council but is concerned that the Commission’s plan is very different from that of other cities. Wanninger said there is some virtue in going the path that others have not gone. Page 17, line item #1, Lillehaug asked the Commission to discuss the “70% to remove.” Bennett is concerned that residents who did not support the device’s installation are being asked to pay for its removal. Richards said once the device is in place, it should be made a little more difficult for one person to request the removal. Richards said he is not comfortable with the 70%. Wanninger recommended leaving it out and suggested that the Commission could make recommendations to the Council about removal. He said an argument could be made for the Council footing the bill for removal if they approved an installation when only 20% of the residents were in favor. Houle said any assessment is always brutal. Richards said Mr. Rudnicki and Mr. Webb raised questions regarding public comments and asked the Commission if they believe the policy should be adopted and then forwarded to Council for approval or, do they hold public hearings first. Thorpe’s recommendation is to do one more revision and formally adopt the policy. Richards’ recommendation is to send the policy to Council and hold public hearings before Council adopts it. White’s recommendation is 5 to make changes, do a workshop with Council to get feedback from them and then public hearings. Richards said the same process that is used for Ordinances could be used – first reading followed by comment period and then adopt. Wanninger suggested adding a paragraph that states the Commission’s philosophy so that the public will realize that the Commission is not leaving them out of the process. Richards suggested erring on the side of more participation, broadly defined areas, etc. The consensus was to schedule a workshop or joint meeting with the Council, at their convenience, as soon as possible, so that public hearings can be scheduled. Bennett said she would have preferred public participation earlier in the process. Houle asked if the document is still a draft? Richards said it is the Commission’s approved draft policy. Residents In Attendance Tim Rudnicki – Mr. Rudnicki said that the Council stated that it wants a more open process and he’s disappointed that the Commission chose not to include the public in developing their policy. In response to the letters received from residents, Richards said the discussions by the Commission have addressed the issues raised. Meeting adjourned. The next meeting is scheduled for October 28, 2004, 6:00 – 8:00 p.m., in the Community Room.