Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-06 Minutes 1 MINUTES OF THE Special Meeting Edina Transportation Commission Thursday, January 6, 2005 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Community Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Richards, Marie Thorpe, Jean White, Warren Plante, Joni Kelly Bennett, Les Wanninger, Dean Dovolis MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Wayne Houle, Steve Lillehaug, Sharon Allison I. Chair Richards called the meeting to order. II. New Business a. I-494 Corridor Commission Information Plante reported that he attended the December meeting of the I-494 Commission. He said Representative Ron Erhardt, chair of the Transportation Committee, was also present as an invited guest. Plante said Erhardt reported that transportation is not the priority for the legislatures; K-12 funding is. He reported that the Governor is recommending a $4.5 billion bonding package plus increases in certain fees because he is not in favor of new taxes. Erhardt said he believes there would be enough votes to get a 10 cents gas tax increase. He also noted that consensus is needed amongst the various groups that are developing individual transportation plans to bring the best ideas forward to the legislatures and he’s optimistic that a package could pass. Richards asked that this be placed on the agenda as an action item for further discussion. He also asked that staff contact Erhardt for information regarding increasing the gas tax, so that the Commissioners can discuss how they can help the process. Plante suggested having a Commissioner attend these meetings and recommended asking the Council to draft a proposal to the legislatures and federal representatives implementing the new tax law. Wanninger volunteered to attend the next meeting, which is scheduled for January 12th. III. Old Business a. Public Comments Received to Date Public comments received to date were distributed to the Commissioners prior to this meeting, with the exception of one letter that was sent to White (staff to copy and distribute). Richards said the two primary focuses of the comments are on the benefited area and participation. Richards said there appears to be a misunderstanding or miscommunication in the community that the Commission is working on substantiative issues based on comments received. 2 Richards would like the record to reflect that there has not been any proposal made or talked about by the Commission. Instead, their focus has been on creating a policy that would become a road map to handle substantiative issues. Dovolis expressed similar sentiments. Bennett said this could have been avoided had the Commissioners decided to commence differently and past history in the Country Club Neighborhood has helped to set the current tempo. Thorpe said it is sad that this is being made into a Country Club Neighborhood issue and distracting from what the policy is about. Wanninger said traffic and traffic related problems are real and must be dealt with and neighborhoods fighting against each other where this is concerned is “plain stupid.” He said each Commissioner has the responsibility to communicate accurate information and he is not sure that this has always been the case. Lillehaug announced the following upcoming meetings:  Regular Transportation Commission Meeting – Thursday, Jan. 20th, 7 to 9 p.m. (Please note this date was an error – the meeting will be held at the regular date and time on Thursday, Jan. 27th, 6 to 8 p.m.)  Greater Southdale Study Joint Workshop - Saturday, Jan. 29th, 8 to Noon Lillehaug said of the 170-plus public comments received, including those from the open house, the majority came from the northeast area and a scant amount from outside the City limits (Minneapolis and St. Louis Park). b. Draft Policy Benefited and Impacted Areas – Alternate A and Alternate B Lillehaug said he created two alternate plans for the benefited and impacted areas because many people seem to be dissatisfied with them based on comments received. Alternate A includes the petition-to-study, survey-to-study and the survey for final implementation. In the petition-to-study phase only those properties within the benefited area would be notified because those are the properties that will be assessed. A minimum of 25% of surveys should be returned with a majority agreeing to the issues. All costs would be assessed to the properties including costs associated with performing the feasibility study. The survey-to-test would be the impacted area and notification would be given to all residents within the impacted area. After the test period, residents would be surveyed to see if they would like to proceed with permanent implementation. Alternate B includes notifying everyone within the benefited (assessed) and impacted areas during the petition-to-study. The impacted area would be within 500 feet of the benefited area (keeping in mind that the 500 feet can be changed as needed). The survey-to-test stays the same as well as the survey for permanent implementation. What is listed in the October 2004 draft policy is very similar to Alternate A, except Alternate A requires that a certain percentage of surveys be returned in order to proceed. Bennett noted that Minneapolis uses a higher percentage for the basis of support, while Thorpe cited an example that required a lower percentage. Lillehaug said he is familiar with the support requirements from various cities and the support level that is being recommended was arrived at based on the consensus of the Commissioners. Lillehaug said while these are defined the Commission has the authority to change them as needed. Where assessment is concerned, Lillehaug said all costs will be assessed to the property owners, including traffic studies, if the project is approved. Therefore, property owners should 3 be made aware of this. Lillehaug said Bloomington only assess those property owners who are in favor of the project. c. Draft Policy – Review and Consideration for Recommendation to the City Council Dovolis motioned that staff add language specifying that all costs, including studies done, will be assessed to the benefited area if project is approved. Seconded by White. Ayes: 7 Motion carried. Dovolis motioned that in order for a project to move forward 30% of residents must respond from the benefited area with 65% in favor of the project. If this is not met, a recommendation would be made to Council to not proceed further. Seconded by Plante. Ayes: 4 Nays: 3 Motion carried. Reword the policy such that the Benefited Area and Impacted Area shall be defined by the Commission to include the benefited area guidelines as a minimum. Ayes: 6 Nays: 1 Motion carried. Bennett motioned to have all references to traffic calming for volume control very tightly defined or, at a minimum, a defined definition of impacted area or notice area for a proposal to divert traffic to correspond with the one in the Minneapolis policy. Motion failed for a lack of support. In reference to a citizen’s letter regarding clarity of language in the policy, Bennett asked what is the reason for including the Edina Transportation Plan in this policy. Bennett does not believe it should be combined into this current document because it confuses the public. The consensus is to keep the plan as is. Thorpe motioned to include the approximate number of vehicles that typically travels on local streets. The suggested number in the City’s Comprehensive Plan is 1,000. Seconded by Dovolis. Ayes: 4 Nays: 3 Motion carried. Residents Comments Tim Frederick, 4188 W. 44th Street. Mr. Frederick said as he understood it, this policy was to engage the public and provide information to the elected officials in a way that was better than before and based on good science. He believes there are a lot good things that staff has not included and the Commissioners have been prohibited to make decisions based on what was provided. Kristi Anderson, 4140 W. 44th Street. Ms. Anderson stated that she agreed with Mr. Frederick. She asked Lillehaug how many comments were received and favorability. Lillehaug stated approximately 170 comments were received but he did not break them down according to those for or against the policy. Bennett said of the approximately 170 received 150 were Edina 4 residents, 9 St. Louis Park and 2 Minneapolis; and those opposing the draft far exceeded those supporting it. Jonathan Gross, 4208 Grimes Avenue. Mr. Gross stated that he submitted a letter and his concerns were the changes in definitions in the Edina Plan and the draft policy, in particular cut-through traffic. This is listed in the draft policy as “non local cut-through traffic,” compared to the Federal Highway’s definition of “non citizens.” Another concern is the altering of priorities by linking speed control and volume. Mr. Gross said the introduction of the policy framework on page 2 is very good but after that the focus seemed to shift to traffic calming. Keith Wolf, 4600 Wooddale Avenue. Mr. Wolf said he’s addressing the Commission as a resident of Edina, not of a specific neighborhood. He went on to say that he believes the policy provides a fact base from which decisions can be made and minimizes subjectivity. He said he is supportive of all the neighborhoods and if they work together it can be a win-win situation and if there is a win-lose, then all lose. He said he is an advocate for addressing traffic on 44th Street, but he should not be involved in the decision-making process. His primary concern is the impact outsiders are having on the various neighborhoods. Mr. Wolf stated further that he was able to access the draft policy on the City’s website as early as Nov. 3rd. Dovolis motioned to adopt the policy and forward it to the Council for consideration. Seconded by White. Ayes: 6 Nay: 1 Motion carried. IV. Approval of Minutes a. November 18, 2004 b. December 9, 2004 Plante motioned to approve both minutes with corrections to the December minutes as stated by Bennett. Seconded by Dovolis. Ayes: 6 Nay: 1 Motion carried. Meeting adjourned. The next regular scheduled meeting will be January 27th, 6:00-8:00 p.m. in the Community Room.