The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-10-24 Minutes1 MINUTES OF CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 24, 2013 6:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Answering roll call was members Bass, Boettge, Franzen, Janovy, LaForce, Nelson, Sierks, Spanhake, Van Dyke and Whited. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Motion was made by member Janovy and seconded by member Franzen to approve the meeting agenda. All voted aye. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 – Approved as corrected. Motion was made by member Janovy and seconded by member LaForce to approve the amended minutes of September 19, 2013. All voted aye. Motion carried. COMMUNITY COMMENT – None. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS Safety in the Park Presentation Mr. Thom Miller and Ms. Jamie LaPrey gave the presentation on The St. Louis Park Freight Rail Re-route. Mr. Miller said the group, Safety in the Park, was formed in 2010, because of their deep concern about the proposed re-routing of freight rail traffic in their city. They do not support the re-route for safety and livability reasons; however they enthusiastically support LRT. Their concern is that the MN&S was not built to handle heavy, long cars (also travels through Edina) and its proximity to St. Louis Park’s (SLP) schools. Mr. Miller said “the railroad has publicly and repeatedly stated that unlike the trains that travel on the MN&S today, the re-routed trains WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP if an operator sees a child, car, or obstruction on the tracks due to the length and weight of the trains.” They went through the history of how they came to be where they are today and the different options that were laid out. They explained that Edina would be affected if the Southern Arm is replaced with a “switching wye” “which enables trains to change direction from east/west to north/south and vice versa” (a noisy, difficult, 3-4 hour process) vs a ramp which SLP City Council favors based on economic developments and a LRT stop closer to the hospital. They said their main goal is to stop the re-route and they are concerned with the Southern Arm and modifying for heavy freight that the tracks were not built for. Mr. Miller said this should also concern Edina. 2012 Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Survey – Results Director Houle explained that this was the survey results from the projects completed in 2012. He said this was the third year since they’ve started surveying residents. Member Janovy suggested grouping the survey results by projects so that they could see if there were any patterns. Member LaForce asked what happens to the feedback and how they are applied to future projects. Director Houle said traffic related questions are forwarded to transportation planner Nolan; others are used to for improvements; and areas where repairs were noted were taken care of during the warranty period. Chair Nelson asked how the surveys were distributed and director Houle said electronically through Survey Monkey but those who did not have electronic access could request a paper copy. 2 Draft 2013 Street Reconstruction Survey The following suggestions were made: Questions 1 & 2: Separate these ‘City Meetings and Open Houses’ because people may like one or the other; also ask what their preferred options are, including social media. Question 5: ‘…level of inconvenience…’ is subjective; can we frame a question that measures something that the crew does? Question 7: ‘…weather related delays…’ and ‘…ample notices…’ – not clear what is being asked; ‘…ample notices…’ is subjective, can we give specific timeframe, e.g. 24 hrs? Question 8: Last part of is ambiguous – ‘…any conflicts in dealing with the project’. Question 11: ‘….end result and final design’ probably have different meaning to people so consider separating them. Questions with rating scale: Consider a 4 point rating scale because on a 5 point rating scale, ‘Neither effective or ineffective’ would be a 3 and it probably should not be a 3. The survey was developed by the Engineering and Communications Departments. 2014 Neighborhood Reconstruction Projects – Updates Birchcrest B Community Comment Wayne Lindholm, 5024 Valley View Road, said the survey result showed that residents were in favor of streetlights 50/50 but it is not being recommended as part of the project, while sidewalk results was 27 to 61 and it is being recommended. He opposes the sidewalk which is not shown in the Comp Plan. Arthur Thelemann, 5132 Valley View Road, said he opposes the sidewalk. He said several historic surveys are included and one of them is a an updated pedestrian traffic survey but there is no mention of a concrete sidewalk; the area is noted not as a primary bike route but as a secondary bike route; there are more cyclists than casual riders (like himself); Mayor Hovland and Councilmember Swenson met with neighbors regarding the petition for the sidewalk and did not understand why the sidewalk was going in; and the bike route did not meet the definition because there are no place to recreate. During discussion, director Houle clarified that the sidewalk ends where it does because that is the end of the project limit; the sidewalk will be 5 ft. with a 5 ft. boulevard with some variation on the width; he will check with staff to see why streetlights are not being recommended; traffic volume on Valley View is 1400-1500/day and speed is 35-36 mph. Member Whited read last month’s minutes where she had noted that the survey response was not in favor of sidewalk but staff reported that there was support from residents for the sidewalk, a contrast to tonight. Member LaForce said there are no schools or parks; however, the value of the sidewalk is not necessarily to take users somewhere specific but to be used recreationally by walker. Member Janovy added that two criteria are met – high volume and speed. Motion was made member Bass and seconded by member Janovy to forward the Birchcrest B Neighborhood Reconstruction feasibility study to City Council for approval. All voted aye. Motion carried. Bredesen Park D Motion was made member LaForce and seconded by member Spanhake to forward the Bredesen Park D Neighborhood Reconstruction feasibility study to City Council for approval. All voted aye. Motion carried. 3 Countryside F Motion was made member Janovy and seconded by member Franzen to forward the Countryside F Neighborhood Reconstruction feasibility study to City Council for approval. All voted aye. Motion carried. Morningside B Member Janovy said several emails were received in support of sidewalks on 42nd and continuing west of Grimes. She said staff made some changes since the feasibility study was first submitted and one of them is a recommendation to not build the sidewalk west of Grimes; however, residents want the sidewalk and some did not care which side of the road it was on, while others prefer the south side. She asked if Alden and Scott were part of the recommendation and transportation planner Nolan said yes. Member Janovy said as a resident in the neighborhood, she would not recommend the sidewalks on Alden and Scott and also there was no support for them in the survey and traffic volume is low. Director Houle said now is the time to fill in these missing segments because the opportunity will be lost for many years as experienced in another neighborhood and it is in the Comp Plan. He said staff is not recommending segment two (42nd from Grimes to city limit) because the residents have not been notified; however, they could use Nov/Dec. to notify residents and still have it folded in as part of this project. Staff, up until now was recommending the sidewalk on the north side but Member Janovy said putting the sidewalk on the south side would connect with existing sidewalks, and they can cross at Grimes and 42nd using the new crosswalk. She said further that there are some obstacles at Lynn & Oakdale and if these cannot be worked around it would be better to have the sidewalk from Grimes to Lynn. Member Franzen asked if the south side has been studied and transportation planner Nolan said the north side was studied and there are 28 conflicts compared to 32 on the south side. Some major conflicts on the south side include a driveway retaining wall, possibly a new driveway due to grading with likely impacts to the garage, and a huge tree that would be difficult to meander around. It was noted that the ring path around the park is not being recommended at this time. Motion was made by member Janovy to forward to the City Council for approval the Morningside B Neighborhood Reconstruction feasibility study with the comments in the Oct. 7 memo with the exception of .2 and instead recommend that a sidewalk be constructed between Grimes and the city limits and that it be a 5 ft. sidewalk to match the others. Discussion Chair Nelson asked if the north/south sidewalks (Alden and Scott) were included in the above motion. Member Janovy said it does not matter if they are included or not. Member Bass seconded the motion. Member Franzen said he does not have enough information on segment 2 to recommend it. Member LaForce asked if the motion included the north or south side and member Janovy said the side is to be determined based on further study. Chair Nelson asked for clarification on the north/south sidewalk and member Bass said she assumed they are included especially because they are in the Comp Plan. Member Franzen asked if it was possible to have the feasibility study for segment 2 done before final approval and staff felt that they could make this happen. Member LaForce asked what they are going to learn that they don’t already know and transportation planner Nolan said the impact to the house and tree to the west and director Houle added that they have not followed protocol of notifying residents and getting their input. Member Janovy said more notice is better and historically residents would have been notified because they would be assessed but this is being paid from the PACS fund and wondered if this new funding strategy changes anything. The motion was voted on as following: Aye: Bass, Whited, Nelson, Janovy, Spanhake, Boettge Nay: Laforce, Franzen Motion carried. 4 Strachauer Park B Member Janovy asked if the REUs were changed to show that the park would be assessed 3 REUs instead of 2 and director Houle said it was not changed but will be addressed before going to City Council. Motion was made member LaForce and seconded by member Bass to forward the Strachauer Park B Neighborhood Reconstruction feasibility study to City Council for approval. All voted aye. Motion carried. 54th Street Reconstruction and Arden Park Stormwater Management Plan Director Houle said at this point the plans are approximately 80-90% complete and Mr. Toby Muse with SEH would be presenting the design recommendation. He said the completed plan will come before the ETC in November before going to the City Council December for final approval. Mr. Paul Pasko with SEH was also in attendance. Mr. Muse, project manager, said the project location is W. 54th Street between Wooddale and France Avenues. W. 54th is a state aid roadway with a bridge over Minnehaha Creek. The project has gone through two processes that are unusual for City projects and they are 1) a robust stakeholder engagement process to help shape design decisions and recommendations; and 2) Envision Sustainability Evaluation which is a scoring system that measures the effect project decisions and recommendations have on sustainability. Current roadway conditions are different east and west of the creek. On the east, there are curb and gutter, advisory bicycle lanes, parking on both sides and the roadway with is 40 ft.; on the west there are no curb and gutter, dedicated bicycle lanes and the roadway widths varies from 29-34 ft. The pavement is in poor condition both east and west. At a couple wider than usual intersections turning vehicle speeds are higher than normal and with diminished pedestrian crossing safety. There are seven Metro Transit bus stops, stop signs, driveway entrances that vary from flat to steep, and cobra head streetlights on wooden poles. The average daily traffic count is 2,400; the 85th percentile speeds is from 29.8 to 30.5 mph; there are parking demands on Sundays (based on a parking study) otherwise one lane is sufficient on the east end; and there are 14 private retaining walls/landscaping within the right-of-way. The bridge was built in 1935 and widened in 1948. MnDOT has rated it structurally deficient and the rails as substandard. Stakeholder engagement: the goal was to include everyone to help make decisions in developing alternatives and ultimately a final design. Mr. Muse showed a table that demonstrated how feedback has shaped the draft feasibility study from August to October 2013, for example, eight trees were going to be removed and based on feedback no trees will be removed, etc. More public meetings and online surveys are scheduled. Proposed improvements to the west include curb and gutter, 14 ft. shared vehicle and bicycle lanes in both directions, a 1 ft. concrete boulevard adjacent to a 5 ft. sidewalk on the north side. The east section will have a 14 ft. shared vehicle lane with a 7 ft. parking lane on the south, an 18 ft. shared vehicle and bicycle lanes on the north with parking allowed only on Sundays, and a 1 ft. concrete boulevard adjacent to a 5 ft. sidewalk on the north side. The intersections at Park Place and Minnehaha Blvd will be narrowed but will accommodate turning movements of bigger vehicles. Other proposed improvements include bus stops consolidation to be coordinated with Metro Transit and decorative streetlights (style to be determined). A final design for the bridge has not been determined but a natural looking bridge is preferred; the deck will be raised approximately 3 ft. to accommodate a shelf underneath to mitigate pedestrian crossing for users of the creek; exact railing, lighting and aesthetic treatments are still to be determined. It would have 17 ft. shared vehicle and bicycle lanes, a 1 ft. concrete boulevard adjacent to a 5 ft. sidewalk on the north side, and decorative kneewall and railing for vehicle, pedestrian and bicyclist safety. The project planning began in June and from here, the feasibility study will come back to the ETC in November and then to the City Council in December for final approval. 5 Discussion Member Franzen asked if options were looked at for the power lines. Mr. Muse said they would need to be moved which would cause delays and impacts to trees. He asked if the City looked at burying the lines and director Houle said cost would be approximately $1-2M that State Aid would not cover and would likely be assessed to residents. He said it is most likely that Xcel Energy would pay the relocation cost. Member LaForce asked if the city has any jurisdiction over the creek and Mr. Muse said the City is working with the watershed district but he is not certain about jurisdiction. Director Houle said the watershed district has funding for shoreline improvements and also mainline improvements. Member Whited asked about water quality improvements and Mr. Muse said this will be addressed as they are working with the watershed district and also they need to meet minimum State Aid requirements. Member Janovy said she struggles with the level of engineering detail that is provided in understanding or being able to tell exactly where the road widths changes. She said one concern that people had was speeding. She asked how does 14 ft. lane addresses the concern of speeding and Mr. Muse said 14 ft. is the minimum width for a shared lane and director Houle added that not having the centerline, drivers tend to drive more cautiously, similar to W. 44th. Member Janovy said it looks like W. 44th is functioning but they need data and she’s asked for it twice. Community Comment Mr. Steve Timmer, 54th & Oaklawn, said the following: • As a stakeholder, he’s worked hard to keep the footprint of the project small and prevent urban sprawl; • Distributed a document yesterday that he and neighbors prepared that he would like added to the record; • Last night was the first time he saw the final plan that was presented tonight and noticed 14-ft lanes (last plan had 13.5-ft lanes) and when pressed for a reason the engineering department said it was MnDOT’s rule based on bike facility and certain traffic counts; he said this was a surprise for residents and probably a surprise to staff also; • It is possible to ask for a variance to accommodate the conditions on the street and he asked the ETC to ask the City Council to request a variance based on reasons cited in the document he distributed; • Loves the neighborhood and would like to keep it as is and save the trees. Mark Epple, 5336 Kellogg, said the following: • How are lane widths measured? What was presented is centerline to face of curb but MnDOT measures to edge of gutter which could potentially add another 3-ft; Mr. Muse’s response was that lanes are measured to the face of the curb and MnDOT considers the 14-ft lane to be a wide outside lane because it has bike facility. • There is a lack of detail showing impacts; • Understands not moving the power poles; • Heavily biased to the north side and is concerned about impacts to his two trees and their condition in future years; • Wants to be sure that staff understands what MnDOT expects; • How close can you get to a utility pole when building curb? Mr. Muse said measurement from the pole is from street side face of the pole to the face of the curb for a minimum 2-ft clear zone; • Residents on west side want to keep project centered. Teri Whaley, 5337 Wooddale, said the following: • Became involved because of Wooddale project which was a debacle; • Sidewalks are important and does not mind having it on her side but must consider the width; a 4-ft sidewalk with 1-ft rumble strip falls within guidelines; • Regarding stakeholders, many at the first meeting were not Edina residents which probably caused fear and motivated residents involvement; others should enjoy the creek, etc. but homeowners are who make Edina 6 great; consider them first, not bikers or people at bus stops; no focus on school bus drop-offs but wants landing pads [for Metro Transit]; • Make decisions based on needs of homeowners, not needs of bikers, pedestrians, etc. Jean Colwell, 5401 Oaklawn, said the following: • Thanked staff and consultant for listening; • There are still some issues residents are not happy with but is hopeful they can reach a compromise, i.e. the rumble strip which adds more concrete; • Take into consideration how close to the roadway the houses are built, unlike 44th that 54th keeps being compared to. John Crabtree, 5408 Oaklawn, said the following: • Would like the police to comment on the underpass under the bridge in reference to loitering and intent; • Regarding street widths, some would have liked to see parking but when it was fully understood, no longer supported it; • Living Streets presentation by staff to City Council highlighted the following: street costs, streets run-off (environmental), quality of life survey (speeding and running stop signs); cannot do anything about drivers running stop signs but the others can be controlled by making street as narrow as possible. John Adams, 5336 W. 54th, said the following: • Appreciated that staff is coming around to residents’ feedback; • Concerned with lane widths; • Noted that speed was measured at 30 mph but is concerned with aggregate speeding; • Noted the difference in the ‘feel’ of the roadway east and west of creek; • Wants to support parking for the church but not if it continues to cause speeding; Kevin Green, 5400 Kellogg, said the following: • New to neighborhood and moved here because of safety, character of the neighborhood and opportunity for rising property values; • Hearing more questions about the details than they currently have answers to and asked that they consider additional time to provide more information so they understand the impacts to their property value before moving forward; • Width of street is concerning; do not want to lose trees for bike lanes or parking; going from removing eight trees to zero is a great testament to what has been done over the past several months; • Pleased with progress but is far from being satisfied so please consider additional details and facts with greater clarity so they understand the true impacts. Ed Ross, 4015 W. 54th, said the following: • Supports John Adams’ comments; • Removing parking on one side and creating 18-ft lane does not make sense; • Supports parking on both sides to keep street narrow and provide use; • Church event tonight and vehicles were parked on both sides so parking is needed other than on Sundays; • Providing a lot of resources for bike traffic that is not there; Member Franzen asked if the report included existing and proposed conditions survey. Mr. Houle said this level of detail is not generally provided at this point in the study and if it was to be provided it would increase the study cost. Member Franzen said this was a unique project and he is not able to respond to residents’ concerns without this information. He suggested moving some of the power poles. Member Janovy concurred with member Franzen. 7 Member Janovy said the report included 2012 speed data and one reference to 2013 and asked if they would be provided 2013 data. She said getting bike and pedestrian video data would also be helpful. Member Bass said she appreciated residents sharing their feedback and especially on the engagement process which is new for the City. She said she heard them asking for details and that it is important that what gets designed, gets built. She added that she was pleased to hear Mr. Crabtree’s take away from the Living Streets presentation because a big part of the policy is addressing water quality and traffic calming. She said one piece not mentioned was the acknowledgement that people are moving about in different ways and patterns and transportation will continue to change for current and new residents and they need to consider the needs of all users and balance this with things like roadway widths and facility. Member Janovy asked about placing signs in the 1-ft rumble strip as it relates to ADA requirements and Mr. Houle said they need at least 2-ft for sign placement. He explained that the reason for including the rumble strip was because the sidewalk is directly adjacent to the roadway with a 6” drop-off and though it is not required by ADA, they recommend not putting a sidewalk next to a drop off. Additionally, he said they’ve proposed a 5-ft sidewalk because the equipment that public works staff uses for snow maintenance is 5-ft wide and the next side down is a regular snow blower. Traffic Safety Committee Report of October 8, 2013 A.1. Chair Nelson asked if the school was contacted and transportation planner Nolan said the school was not contacted. A.2 Member Janovy said it looks like there is transit bus stop by the bump-out – this has been corrected. Chair Nelson asked if the ‘no parking’ is going to be only at those locations where the bump-outs are and then 170 ft. north of the crosstown ramps – yes. Member Franzen said the bump-outs could be larger and more aesthetically- pleasing and still have enough parking – this is temporary for the winter said director Houle. B.1. Member Franzen asked how pedestrians are counted and transportation planner Nolan said it is done electronically. Member Janovy said she understands why the crosswalk was denied but believes the NEETS called for crosswalk at Sunnyside and Grimes. Additionally, she said there are two curb cuts that do not align with the intersection and she has almost been hit there and something needs to be done. C. 1. Member Whited said this area is a natural path for crossing that she uses and the number seems low to her. She asked if these types of counts could be done on the weekends and transportation planner Nolan said yes. C.2. Member Bass said she understands where the requestor is coming from because she has almost been hit by bicyclists in the 50th & France area. She said there is a parking issue and they do not want to discourage people from taking other modes. She said there are no facilities for biking. She said they should be careful in the language they use and also ask Council to consider potential remedies for addressing the need for better bicycle facilities in the area. She said this highlights the potential conflicts when there isn’t a good system for all the modes. Member Janovy agreed and said she sent a photo of pavement inset sign to transportation planner Nolan. D.2. Member Janovy asked what the bump-out will look like and was told that it is already built. Motion was made by member Spanhake and seconded by member Franzen to forward the October 8 Traffic Safety Report to City Council. All voted aye. Motion carried. Updates Student Members - None 8 Bike Edina Task Force It was noted that the Sept. 12 minutes was not distributed. Member Janovy reported that they’ve reorganized – passed bylaws, standardized members, formed subcommittees and there are four open spots for new members. She said the subcommittees are infrastructure, bike friendly community, Active Routes to School, and education and outreach and these will be open to anyone who would like to participate. Member Bass asked if the status of the BETF with the City has been clarified and member Janovy said the consensus is that the group is not interested in being a working group of the ETC and since they are seen as a separate organization from the City, they are working to formalize their relationship with the City. Living Streets Working Group Chair Nelson said the group continues to meet. Transportation planner Nolan added that the next meeting is Nov. 6 at which time they will review the results of the workshop exercise and talk about crafting the report. Communications Committee Member LaForce clarified that they do not have any work in progress and that they work on a ‘as needed basis.’ CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS - None CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS In reference to the neighborhood reconstruction that is taking place on his street, Member Franzen said he has been testing the engineering staff to see if he could stump them and was surprised when he emailed them regarding his property marker that was removed to hear that it was already scheduled to be re-installed. He said he was quite impressed that staff had thought of the little details of the project. Chair Nelson said he’s noticed on the Birchcrest B project that the plan is to replace the concrete streets with bituminous and since they have not done much work on concrete streets throughout the City, he asked if this was the plan going forward. Mr. Houle said there are about 50 miles of concrete streets and they do not have replacement plan so they are replacing them as they do neighborhood reconstruction projects, and they are being replaced with bituminous. In reference to the presentation from Safety in the Park, Chair Nelson asked if it would be appropriate for the ETC to ask the City Council to take a position on the Southern Arm that is being proposed. Mr. Houle said this would be up to the ETC and he suggested discussing this at the next meeting. He said staff could not comment on it because they do not have enough information. He said the whistleblowing is a problem and the way to deal with this is for the City to install crossing arms and declare a whistle ban. He said this would be an expensive project. Member Whited said the new roadway design for the entry/exit at Byerly’s on France Ave makes it easier to exit onto France Ave. Secondly, she said she is no longer with PRISM Express as of this week and had to cancel the grant application with the City and the Met Council and she asked how to move forward. Chair Nelson said to add this to the agenda for discussion next month. Member LaForce said there are lane closure signs on France Ave that is not visible until almost time to merge; he asked if they would consider putting the signs on the median so they are more noticeable. Member Bass said the issues and concerns raised by neighbors reminded her that the communications committee had recommended modifying the City’s website to have clear and easy information on right-of-way, sightline, etc. and asked if they were ever considered. Mr. Houle said he would have to check on this and get back to her. STAFF COMMENTS Updates from Mr. Nolan: • Metro Blvd sidewalk is almost complete. Ily submitted, • ison, Secretary • Vernon Ave mill and overlay still does not have bike markings and signage and these may not be done until next spring. • A new traffic safety coordinator will be starting on Nov. 4. • Educational safety campaign was added to the 2014 Work Plan and it was approved for funding; the amount is unknown. • Councilmernber Bennett has invited everyone to attend the City's quasquicentennnial and Founders Day event that is planned for Dec. 12. Updates from Mr. Houle: • France Ave and Hazelton Rd bid openings are scheduled for Nov. 20. • Neighborhood reconstruction projects are wrapping up. • Mark Nolan will be the staff liaison from now on as he is transitioning out of the City to a new assignment and next Thursday will be his last day. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned. ATTENDANCE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE - 2013 NAME TERM J F M A M J J A S 0 N D Work Session # of Mtgs Attendance % Meetings/Work Sessions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 7/16 Bass, Katherine 2/1/2014 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 91% Boettge, Emily 2/1/2014 1 1 1 3 100% Braden, Ann* 2/1/2014 1 1 1 1 1 5 45% Franzen, Nathan 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 73% lyer, Surya 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 73% Janovy, Jennifer 2/1/2014 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 91% LaForce, Tom 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 100% Nelson, Paul 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 100% Schweiger, Steven student 1 1 1 3 27% Sierks, Caroline student 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 73% Spanhake, Dawn 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 67% Van Dyke, Jackson student 1 1 2 100% Whited, Courtney 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 91% 9