Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020-12-17 HRA Regular Meeting Packet
Agenda Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Edina, Minnesota VIRTUAL MEETING Thursday, December 17, 2020 7:30 AM Watch the meeting on cable TV or at EdinaMN.gov/LiveMeetings or Facebook.com/EdinaMN. To participate in Community Comment: Call 800-374-0221. Enter Conference ID 3495689. Give the operator your name, street address and telephone number. Press *1 on your telephone keypad when you would like to get in the queue to speak. A City sta: member will introduce you when it is your turn. I.Call to Order II.Roll Call III.Pledge of Allegiance IV.Approval of Meeting Agenda V.Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the HRA or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on today's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commissioners to respond to their comments today. Instead the Commissioners might refer the matter to sta. for consideration at a future meeting. VI.Adoption of Consent Agenda All agenda items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of such items unless requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda by a Commissioner of the HRA. In such cases the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered immediately following the adoption of the Consent Agenda. (Favorable rollcall vote of majority of Commissioners present to approve.) A.Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting December 1, 2020 VII.Reports/Recommendations: (Favorable vote of majority of Commissioners present to approve except where noted) A.Approve Public Improvements Associated with the Grandview 2 TIF District and Request for Purchase for Consulting Services B.Re-use and Redevelopment of 5146 Eden Avenue VIII.Correspondence A.Correspondence IX.HRA Commissioners' Comments X.Executive Director's Comments XI.Adjournment The Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority wants all participants to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli=cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: December 17, 2020 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:Chair & Commissioners of the Edina HRA Item Type: Minutes From:Liz Olson, Administrative Support Specialist Item Activity: Subject:Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting December 1, 2020 Information Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Established 1974 CITY OF EDINA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the regular minutes of December 1, 2020. INTRODUCTION: See attached meeting minutes of December 1, 2020. ATTACHMENTS: Description Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting December 1, 2020 Page 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DECEMBER 1, 2020 IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Hovland called the meeting to order at 10:54 p.m. He noted the meeting was being held virtually to comply with the Governor’s Stay at Home Order due to the COVID-19 pandemic then explained the processes created for public comment. II. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners Anderson, Brindle, Fischer, Staunton, and Chair Hovland. Absent: None. III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. MEETING AGENDA APPROVED - AS PRESENTED Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Brindle, approving the meeting agenda as presented. Roll call: Ayes: Anderson, Brindle, Fischer, Staunton, and Hovland Motion carried. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD – Affidavits of Notice presented and ordered placed on file. V.A. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-07; ADOPTING THE BUDGET AND SETTING THE TAX LEVY PAYABLE IN 2021 – ADOPTED Finance Director Uram stated the HRA was a separate taxing authority formed by the City Council in 1974. The purpose of the levy was to pay a portion of the administrative expenses and other economic initiatives necessary to operate the HRA. Historically those expenses had been paid using TIF funds and continuing with the plan to reduce reliance on TIF funds, the levy proposed for 2021 showed an increase from $192,000 in 2020 to $230,400. Chair Hovland opened the public hearing. Public Testimony No one appeared. Commissioner Brindle introduced and moved adoption of adopt Resolution No. 2020- 07; adopting the budget and setting the tax levy payable in 2021. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. Roll call: Ayes: Anderson, Brindle, Fischer, Staunton, and Hovland Motion carried. VI. HRA COMMISSIONERS’ COMMENTS – Received VII. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S COMMENTS – Received VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Brindle, to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Minutes/HRA/December 1, 2020 Page 2 Roll call: Ayes: Anderson, Brindle, Fischer, Staunton, and Hovland Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Scott Neal, Executive Director Date: December 17, 2020 Agenda Item #: VII.A. To:Chair & Commissioners of the Edina HRA Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Chad A. Millner, P.E., Director of Engineering Item Activity: Subject:Approve Public Improvements Associated with the Grandview 2 TIF District and Request for Purchase for Consulting Services Action Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Established 1974 CITY OF EDINA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Public Improvements Associated with the Grandview 2 TIF District and Request for Purchase for Consulting Contracts with SEH, BARR Engineering, and Kimley Horn. INTRODUCTION: See attached staff report, preliminary engineering studies, and consulting proposals. ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report Request for Purchase Staff Presentation Slides Eden Avenue Preliminary Engineering - Design Memo Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Lift Station 9: Capacity Evaluation and Preliminary Engineering Grandview District Parking Ramp Study SEH Eden Avenue & Brookside Avenue Final Design Proposal Barr Proposal for City of Edina Lift Station 9 Design Kimley Horn Professional Engineering Services Proposal December 17, 2020 Chair and Commissioners of the Edina HRA Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manager Chad A. Millner, P.E., Director of Engineering Public Improvements Associated with the Grandview 2 TIF District Information / Background: Recall the HRA approved preliminary engineering services with SEH, Barr Engineering, and Kimley-Horn to study potential improvements funded by the Grandview 2 TIF District. The Funds must be committed by June 26, 2021. Based on the study, staff is recommending public improvements that align with previous planning efforts worth approximately $5.3 million dollars. Attached are preliminary engineering reports associated with Eden Avenue and a concept for a roundabout at Arcadia Avenue including moving lift station #9, Grandview Parking Ramp lighting and structural repairs and Grandview Parking Ramp wayfinding. Public Improvements Staff proposes the following improvements to Eden Avenue and Brookside Avenue. 1. Street Reconstruction from Highway 100 to Grandview Square 2. Roundabout at Eden and Arcadia Avenues a. Potential Yancy dedicated sculpture / artwork in roundabout 3. Multi-Use Trail (south side) and Sidewalks (north side) 4. Close SB Highway 100 On-Ramp – Major Safety Issue 5. Move Lift Station #9 6. Complete Watermain, Sanitary Sewer, and Storm Sewer Improvements Staff proposes the following improvements to the Grandview Parking Ramp and Grandview Parking Ramp Wayfinding. 1. New LED Lighting 2. New Security Cameras 3. Wayfinding Signs and Monuments 4. Structural Improvements STAFF REPORT Page 2 Study Summary Eden and Brookside Avenues The project would include the reconstruction of Eden Avenue from Grandview Square to Highway 100 onramp, replacement of existing concrete curb and gutter except adjacent to the Avidor, installation of new concrete curb and gutter, construction of new concrete sidewalks on the north side except adjacent to the Avidor and a shared-use path on the south side. It also includes improvement to the sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer systems. Staff is also proposing closing the SB Highway 100 onramp. Prior to this closing, staff would like to test this idea during spring 2021. Street improvements will also be completed along Brookside Avenue from Eden Avenue to the Grandview Parking Ramp. These include concrete curb and gutter, utility improvements, and consideration of street lighting. Grandview Parking Ramp The project investigated the feasibility of adding vertical circulation ramps between the existing parking ramp floors internal to the structure and over the south alley for Jerry’s Hardware Store loading access. Due to the prestressed concrete structure and the water treatment plant, these two options are not feasible. The vertical ramp along the east wall of the Jerry’s store along Brookside Avenue is still feasible if the need arises. Improvements include new LED lighting and security cameras on both levels of the parking ramp, wayfinding signage and monuments underneath the Jerry’s Store sign on Vernon Avenue, a monument sign at Gus Young Lane, and updated signage on the ramp entrances. Structural improvements will also be completed based on recent inspection records. Estimated Project Costs Item Estimated Cost 1 Grandview 2 TIF Eden & Brookside Avenues Roadway, Roundabout, Sidewalks, Path $2,975,000 Storm Sewer $159,000 Water Main $226,000 Sanitary Sewer including Lift Station #9 $896,500 Subtotal $4,256,500 Grandview Parking Ramp Wayfinding $131,300 Lighting & Cameras $330,000 Structural Repairs $511,000 Subtotal $972,500 Project Total $5,229,000 1. Incudes 15% contingency, engineering, bidding, and construction administration. 2. Project funded with 10-year debt and serviced with the Grandview 2 TIF District. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Request for Purchase Date: December 17, 2020 To: Chair and Commissioners of the Edina HRA From: Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manager Chad A. Millner, PE, Director of Engineering Subject: Request for Purchase: Grandview 2 TIF District, Design, Bidding, and Construction Administration Engineering Services Purchase Subject to: ☐List Quote/Bid ☐State Contract ☒Service Contract The Recommended Bid is: ☒Within Budget ☐Not Within Budget Total Contract Approvals $655,000 Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: Bid or expiration Date: Dec. 10, 2020 Company: Amount of Quote or Bid: SEH Barr Engineering Kimley Horn $497,500 (Design Eden /Brookside Avenues) $49,500 (Design Lift Station) $108,000 (Design Parking Ramp & Wayfinding) Recommended Quote or Bid: SEH Barr Engineering Kimley Horn $497,500 (Design Eden /Brookside Avenues) $49,500 (Design Lift Station) $108,000 (Design Parking Ramp & Wayfinding) Page 2 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Request for Purchase Department Director Authorization: ________________________________________ City Council Authorization Date: __ ___ (for purchases over $20,000 only) Budget Impact This project is funded by Grandview 2 TIF funds to service debt over 10-years. Elhers completed a Grandview TIF Bond Financing Analysis that supports this funding plan. These funds afford us the opportunity to meet some of the goals previously identified before the expiration of the TIF district. Environmental Impact None – Engineering services but will design with a lens towards sustainability. Community Impact These projects can meet many of the seven guiding principles such as enhance the district’s economic viability, design for the present and the future by pursuing logical increments of change using key parcels as stepping stones to a more vibrant, walkable, functional, attractive, and life- filled place, organize parking as an effective resource for the district by linking community parking to public and private destinations while also providing parking that is convenient for businesses and customers, improve movement within and access to the district for people of all ages by facilitating multiple modes of transportation, and preserve future transit opportunities provided by the rail corridor and create an identity and unique sense of place that incorporates natural spaces into a high quality and sustainable development reflecting Edina’s innovative development heritage. Grandview 2 TIF District Proposed Public Improvements Presentation to Edina HRA December 17, 2020 Presented by: Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manager Chad Millner, Director of Engineering •Decision needed regarding funds in Grandview 2 TIF District •Funds must be committed by June 26, 2021. •Staff recommends slate of public improvements using approx. $5.3 million incremental property taxes Summary EdinaMN.gov 2 Eden Avenue / Brookside Avenue 1.Street Reconstruction from Highway 100 to Grandview Square Rd 2.Roundabout at Eden & Arcadia Intersection & Sanitary Lift Station #9 3.Multi-Use Trail (south side) and Sidewalks (north side) 4.Close SB Highway 100 On-Ramp –Major Safety Issue Public Improvements EdinaMN.gov 3 Grandview Parking Ramp 1.Wayfinding Signage and Monument 2.LED Lighting & Cameras 3.Structural Improvements Public Improvements EdinaMN.gov 4 •Roundabout –Traffic Study •Close SB Highway 100 Onramp •OLG and Other Owners •MnDOT ROW •Yancy Dedication in RAB •Sculpture •Landscaping Eden & Arcadia Intersection EdinaMN.gov 5 •Traffic Study •Close SB Highway 100 Ramp •Major Historical Safety Issues •Test Closure Spring 2021 •Options with and without SB Highway 100 Ramp Closure Eden Avenue EdinaMN.gov 6 •Decision Eden Avenue EdinaMN.gov 7 •If SB Highway 100 Ramp test closure fails •OLD LAYOUT •FOR SLIP RAMP GRAPHIC ONLY Eden Avenue EdinaMN.gov 8 •Pedestrian Improvements Eden Avenue EdinaMN.gov 9 •Pedestrian Improvements Eden Avenue EdinaMN.gov 10 •Future work •Aligns with Grandview Transportation Study Eden Avenue EdinaMN.gov 11 FUTURE •Future work •Aligns with Grandview Transportation Study Eden Avenue EdinaMN.gov 12 •No Go Grandview Ramp EdinaMN.gov 13 •No Go Grandview Ramp EdinaMN.gov 14 Grandview Ramp EdinaMN.gov 15 •Pedestrian Crossing to Old PW •NE Corner of Parking Ramp Grandview Ramp EdinaMN.gov 16 •Wayfinding Improvements •Met with Jerry’s leadership Grandview Ramp EdinaMN.gov 17 Grandview Ramp EdinaMN.gov 18 Recommended Public Improvements 19 Scope of Project Est. Costs Street Projects (roundabout, streets, sidewalks, multi-use trail, lighting, retaining walls, wm, sanitary, storm) Eden Av. from Arcadia to Grandview Sq $4.3 M Eden/Arcadia Roundabout Included Brookside Av.Sanitary Sewer Lift Station at Eden/Arcadia Included Capital Improvements Grandview Parking Ramp (lighting, signage, wayfinding, structural improvments) $1.0 M Total = $5.3 M EdinaMN.gov 1.Approve Improvements 2.Approve Request for Purchase with Consultants 1.Final Design, Bidding, and Construction 3.If 1 & 2 Above, Discuss Yancy Dedication in Roundabout Staff Recommendations EdinaMN.gov 20 MEMORANDUM TO: Chad Millner, PE Director of Engineering, City of Edina FROM: William Bauer, PE (Lic. IA, MN, SD) DATE: November 13, 2020 RE: Eden Avenue Preliminary Engineering - Design Memo SEH No. EDINA 156818, 14.00 This memo summarizes the alternatives reviewed, recommendations, and estimated construction cost for the reconstruction of Eden Avenue from Sherwood Road to the TH 100 southbound on ramp as well as Brookside Avenue from Eden Avenue to the north. The overall project area is shown in Figure 1. Major tasks of SEH’s preliminary engineering scope included: • The verification of the Spack Consulting traffic study dated July 3, 2019 that recommended the construction of a single lane roundabout at the Eden Avenue/Arcadia Avenue intersection • An analysis of traffic patterns in the Grandview District if the southbound ramps to TH 100 were closed • Evaluating pedestrian and bicycle facilities along Eden Avenue • Developing a concept of the realignment of the Eden Avenue/Sherwood Road intersection • Developing rehabilitation recommendations for the sanitary sewer and water main Eden Avenue/Arcadia Avenue Intersection SEH’s traffic analysis showed that a roundabout will improve vehicle progression and shorten queue lengths when compared to an all-way stop controlled intersection. It is also expected to accommodate future growth in the area and the planned expansion to Our Lady of Grace School. Therefore, it is recommended to consider the implementation of a single-lane roundabout at the intersection of Eden Avenue and Arcadia Avenue. The roundabout footprint will result in impacts to both public and private infrastructure, including the sanitary sewer lift station, private utilities, and the monument sign for Our Lady of Grace Church. Right of Way acquisition will also be required from both Our Lady of Grace Church (southwest quadrant), Palia LLC (northeast quadrant), and the City’s former Public Works building site (northwest quadrant). Temporary construction easements may also be required. A conceptual layout of the roundabout and its anticipated infrastructure and right of way impacts are shown in Figure 2. Further discussion of the analysis and its results may be found in the SEH memorandum titled: Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis dated November 13, 2020. TH 100 Southbound Ramp Closure If the TH 100 southbound ramp access on Eden Ave is closed, traffic will typically reroute to Vernon Avenue to access the existing southbound TH 100 ramp located there. Based on the peak hour westbound turning movement volumes and daily traffic volumes on Vernon Avenue, it is recommended to provide a dedicated left-turn lane. This may be accomplished in the short term by re-striping the left through lane. In the long-term, if development increases traffic demands on Vernon Avenue to the point where the intersection capacity requires a second westbound through lane, a full roadway reconstruction may be required to widen the roadway width and/or bridge structure to add accommodate three lanes. Arcadia Avenue will also experience increased volume demand and should be monitored as development occurs along the corridor. The closure of the ramp at Eden Avenue was discussed with MnDOT and Hennepin County traffic operations staff on October 30, 2020. Both parties are open to closing the ramp in part due to ramp safety concerns. The City is proposing to close the ramp on a temporary basis in the spring of 2021 to confirm the findings of the traffic analysis before moving forward with a permanent closure. Further discussion of the analysis and its results may be found in the SEH memorandum titled: Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis dated November 13, 2020. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Existing sidewalk is in place on both sides of Eden Avenue with two gaps on the north side: one just west of the Avidor Senior Living apartments and the other between Brookside Avenue and Arcadia Avenue. Eden Avenue was identified in the City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan as a candidate for on-street bike lanes. SEH reviewed the Master Plan for guidance in developing the design recommendations for the proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities on Eden Avenue. Three design alternatives were reviewed relative to the Canadian Pacific Railroad Bridge that crosses over Eden Avenue just east of Brookside Avenue: 1. Eliminate the center turn lane on Eden Avenue to provide on-street bike lanes. Extend sidewalk on the north side between the bridge piers and the Eden Avenue curb line to close the gaps in the existing network. 2. Construct a shared-use path on the south side of Eden Avenue and extend the sidewalk on the north side. Remove slope paving adjacent to the bridge piers to allow the sidewalk and shared- use path to be placed behind the existing bridge piers. 3. Eliminate the center turn lane and narrow Eden Avenue to provide sufficient width to construct a shared-use path between the relocated curb line and the bridge pier. Alternative 2 was selected for the following reasons: • Provides a shared-use path which will accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and comfort levels. All bicyclists may not be comfortable using on-street bike lanes in Alternative 1. • Maintains the greatest flexibility of the Eden Avenue roadway section in the future. It is proposed to maintain the existing center turn lane on Eden Avenue in part due to the traffic volumes that utilize it to access Our Lady of Grace. However, Eden Avenue is of sufficient width that it could be re-striped in the future to eliminate the center turn lane and add on-street bike lanes. This flexibility is lost with the narrowing of the roadway in Alternative 3. • Provides the safest pedestrian and bicyclist experience by maximizing the width of the boulevard between the curb and shared-use path/sidewalk. Alternative 2 will require significant private utility relocations as the shared use path and sidewalk will conflict with an electrical transformers, telecommunications pedestals, and power poles. Retaining walls will also need to be constructed on the back side of the shared-use path and sidewalk to tie into the existing slope paving. Right of Way acquisition and temporary construction easements will be required on both the north and south side of Eden Avenue to complete this work. Figure 3 shows a conceptual plan of the selected alternative for the sidewalk and shared-use path underneath the railroad bridge. Eden Avenue/Sherwood Road Intersection As outlined in the Grandview District Transportation Study dated August 31, 2016, the connection of Eden Avenue to Vernon Avenue is a candidate to be removed in the long-term future to promote commercial redevelopment near the intersection. It is feasible to realign Eden Avenue and Sherwood Road with this project while maintaining the connection to Vernon Avenue in the interim. This condition is illustrated in Figure 4. The configuration would result in minimal impacts to the Eden Avenue pavement when the connection to Vernon Avenue is removed and will provide a seamless transition in the roadway from Eden Avenue to Sherwood Road. This scenario is illustrated in Figure 5. Realigning Eden Avenue will result in impacts to the sign and landscaping at the entrance to Grandview Square. Private and public utilities will also need to be relocated to accommodate the new roadway alignment. Water Main There are two trunk water main pipes present along Eden Avenue and Brookside Avenue of various sizes that are associated with the water treatment facility located underneath the parking ramp at the north end of Brookside Avenue. There are a pair of 16-inch HDPE trunk water main pipes along Brookside Avenue (one for raw water, the other for potable water. These trunk pipes tee into the trunk pipe located in Eden Avenue. West of Brookside Avenue are a 12-inch HDPE potable water main, an 8-inch CIP potable water main, and a 16-inch HDPE raw water main. The 8-inch CIP main continues east of Brookside Avenue while the 16-inch HDPE raw water main reduces to 8-inch. Refer to Figure 1. The raw water mains and the 16” potable water main were installed in 2012 and are assumed to be in good condition. The 8-inch CIP main was installed in 1955. SEH analyzed the City’s water main system model to determine if the 8” CIP main west of Brookside Avenue could be removed so the 12” HDPE would transmit all the flow. It was found that with the water plant operating at full capacity (4 MGD), flow velocity in this main may approach 4.5 - 5.0 feet per second. While this velocity is tolerable, it is on the upper limit of what is preferred. While it would be tolerable to remove the 8-inch main, there would be some loss of functional redundancy. Therefore, it is recommended to keep the 8-inch main in the system. It is also recommended to replace the main with DIP. This will allow for any abandoned services to be removed and will avoid replacing the new pavement to repair or replace the main in the future. The model was also analyzed to review the addition of an 8-inch main to provide a loop in the system between Eden Avenue and W 52nd Street (located just west of Vernon Avenue about 250 feet north of Eden Avenue). Two routes were considered: along Eden Avenue then north along Vernon Avenue and west from the water treatment plant (through the Jerry’s Foods parking lot) then south along Vernon Avenue (refer to Figure 1). From a fire flow perspective, it was found that either route would provide sufficient flow capacity. However, the latter route provides for a redundant discharge route for the water treatment plant. For that purpose, the route through the Jerry’s Foods parking lot is recommended. The construction of this main via a trenchless method is recommended to limit impacts in the parking lot and on Vernon Avenue. A permanent easement will need to be negotiated through the parking lot before the construction of the water main loop could occur. Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer along Eden Avenue consists of 9” VCP while the main along Brookside Avenue is 8” VCP. The system runs to a lift station location in the southwest quadrant of the Eden Avenue/Arcadia Avenue intersection that pumps the flow to the north along Arcadia Avenue. The lift station will need to be relocated due to the footprint of the proposed roundabout. Preliminary design of this relocation is being completed by others. After reviewing CCTV tapes provided by the City, it was found that the sanitary sewer main and manholes along both Eden Avenue and Brookside Avenue are generally in good condition. It is recommended to utilize cured-in-place-pipe liner for approximately 1,400 feet of the main within the project limits and to replace two manholes on Brookside Avenue (Alternative 1). Finally, the replacement of all sanitary sewer manhole castings within the project limits is included. As another alternative, all sanitary sewer trunk pipes within the project limits could be lined (for a total of approximately 2,450 feet) depending on the available project funding (Alternative 2). Bid prices could come in slightly lower if all sanitary sewer pipes are lined because of economies of scale. Estimated costs for both alternatives are provided below. Project Costs and Conclusion A detailed cost breakdown is shown in Table 1 below. These costs do not include overhead costs such as engineering, legal, administrative nor do they include any costs for private property appraisals or land acquisition, should that become necessary. Table 1 - Estimated Construction Costs Description Cost Eden Avenue (Brookside Avenue to TH 100) $2,021,000 Street $1,824,000 Storm Sewer $99,000 Water Main $98,000 Eden Avenue (Sherwood Road to Grandview Square) $515,000 Street $432,000 Storm Sewer $34,000 Water Main $49,000 Eden Avenue (Grandview Square to Brookside Avenue) $536,000 Street $431,000 Storm Sewer $26,000 Water Main $79,000 Brookside Avenue Alternative 1 (Full Reconstruction) $196,000 Brookside Avenue Alternative 2 (Mill & Overlay) $39,000 W 52nd Street Water Main Loop $214,000 Sanitary Sewer Lining (Alternative 1) $91,000 Sanitary Sewer Lining (Alternative 2) $127,000 The project is feasible and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint. Depending on the available project funding, portions of the overall scope of the street and utility work may be selected from the various segments and alternatives listed above. However, it is recommended to prioritize the segment of Eden Avenue from Brookside Avenue to TH 100 to realize the traffic operations and safety benefits of the roundabout, improve the pedestrian facilities underneath the railroad bridge, and fill in the sidewalk gap on the north side of Eden Avenue in this segment. WJB Figures: 1. Project Area Map 2. Eden Avenue/Arcadia Avenue Roundabout Concept 3. Railroad Bridge Shared-Use Path and Sidewalk 4. Eden Avenue/Sherwood Avenue Intersection Realignment Concept (Interim Condition) 5. Eden Avenue/Sherwood Avenue Intersection Realignment Concept (Full Build Condition) c: Erin Jordan, PE – SEH Toby Muse, PE – SEH x:\ae\e\edina\156818\1-genl\14-corr\preliminary design memo.docx X CSSTVPPSSPPSTHHSTHH STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ST>>>>>>>>>>EDEN AVENUEBROOKSIDE AVENUE ARCADIA AVENUE EDEN A VENUE VERNON AVENUE NORMANDALE ROADTH-100 SB TH-100 ENTRANC E R A M P SHERWOOD ROAD EDEN AVENUE GRANDVIEW SQUARE W 52ND STREETHANKERSON AVENUE I I III I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I IIIII IIII I II I I III I I I FILE NO.DATE:PHONE: 952.912.260010901 RED CIRCLE DRIVE,SUITE 300MINNETONKA, MN 55343www.sehinc.com15681811/12/20FIG NO.x:\ae\e\edina\156818\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\10-civil\cad\dwg\exhibit\ed156818_memo graphics_11.05.2020.dwg 11/12/2020 4:08 PMkmontebello0feetscale601206030 EDEN AVENUEPROJECT AREA MAP1SEE FIGURE 2 FORROUNDABOUT BLOWUPSEE FIGURE 3 FORRAILROAD BLOWUPSEE FIGURE 4 & 5 FORSHERWOOD ROADINTERSECTION BLOWUP8" WATER MAIN LOOP(DIRECTIONAL DRILL)ALTERNATIVE 28" WATER MAIN LOOP(DIRECTIONAL DRILL)ALTERNATIVE 1LEGENDCURB AND GUTTERINTERIM GURB AND GUTTERRETAINING WALLASPHALT PAVEMENTROUNDABOUT TRUCK APRONROUNDABOUT GREEN SPACEASPHALT MULTI-USE TRAILCONCRETE SIDEWALKINTERIM CONCRETE SIDEWALKINTERIM ASPHALT PAVEMENTEXISTING 16" HDPEWM (POTABLE)EXISTING 16"HDPE WM (RAW)EXISTING 8" CIPWM (POTABLE)EXISTING 8" CIPWM (POTABLE) X C XCSTHHSTHH STSTSTSTSTSTST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ST>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BROOKSIDE AVENUE ARCADIA AVENUE EDEN A V ENU ENORMANDALE ROADTH-100 SB TH-100 ENTRAN C E R A M P12.5'12.5'11'8'8'8'8'12'12'FILE NO.DATE:PHONE: 952.912.260010901 RED CIRCLE DRIVE,SUITE 300MINNETONKA, MN 55343www.sehinc.com15681811/12/20FIG NO.x:\ae\e\edina\156818\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\10-civil\cad\dwg\exhibit\ed156818_memo graphics_11.05.2020.dwg 11/12/2020 4:08 PMkmontebello0feetscale30603015 EDEN AVENUEROUNDABOUT CONCEPT2EXISTING RIGHT OF WAYSANITARY SEWER LIFT STATIONTO BE RELOCATEDOUR LADY OF GRACESIGN TO BE RELOCATEDPROPOSED RIGHT OF WAYSW CORNER AREA = 8,349 SFPROPOSED RIGHT OF WAYNE CORNER AREA = 1,089 SFCLOSE SB TH-100 ENTRANCE RAMPREMOVE AND REPLACERETAINING WALLPRIVATE UTILITIESTO BE RELOCATEDLEGENDCURB AND GUTTERRETAINING WALLASPHALT PAVEMENTROUNDABOUT TRUCK APRONROUNDABOUT GREEN SPACEASPHALT MULTI-USE TRAILCONCRETE SIDEWALKPERMANENT EASEMENTTEMPORARY EASEMENT XSTHHSTSTSTSTSTSTST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>BRO O K S I D E A V E N U EEDEN AVENUE12.5'12.5'11'12'12'FILE NO.DATE:PHONE: 952.912.260010901 RED CIRCLE DRIVE,SUITE 300MINNETONKA, MN 55343www.sehinc.com15681811/12/20FIG NO.x:\ae\e\edina\156818\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\10-civil\cad\dwg\exhibit\ed156818_memo graphics_11.05.2020.dwg 11/12/2020 4:08 PMkmontebello0feetscale20402010 EDEN AVENUESHARED-USE PATH AND SIDEWALK38' SHARED-USE TRAIL WITH2' CLEAR ZONES EACH SIDEBENEATH RAILROAD BRIDGECONCRETESIDEWALK BENEATHRAILROAD BRIDGEEXISTING RIGHT OF WAYTEMPORARY EASEMENTAREA = 1,480 SFTEMPORARY EASEMENTAREA = 1,048 SFPRIVATE UTILITIESTO BE RELOCATEDPERMANENT EASEMENTAREA = 1,975 SFPERMANENT EASEMENTAREA = 633 SFLEGENDCURB AND GUTTERRETAINING WALLASPHALT PAVEMENTROUNDABOUT TRUCK APRONROUNDABOUT GREEN SPACEASPHALT MULTI-USE TRAILCONCRETE SIDEWALKPERMANENT EASEMENTTEMPORARY EASEMENTPRIVATE UTILITIESTO BE RELOCATED X X X SSTVPPSSPPSTST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>EDEN AVENUEVERNON AVENUESHERWOOD ROADEDEN AVENUE GRANDVIEW SQUARE 12.5'12.5'11'12.5'12.5'11'8'8'FILE NO.DATE:PHONE: 952.912.260010901 RED CIRCLE DRIVE,SUITE 300MINNETONKA, MN 55343www.sehinc.com15681811/12/20FIG NO.x:\ae\e\edina\156818\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\10-civil\cad\dwg\exhibit\ed156818_memo graphics_11.05.2020.dwg 11/12/2020 4:08 PMkmontebello0feetscale20402010 EDEN AVENUE/ SHERWOOD ROADINTERSECTION REALIGNMENTINTERIM CONDITION(CONNECTION TO VERNON AVE MAINTAINED)4LEGENDCURB AND GUTTERINTERIM GURB AND GUTTERASPHALT PAVEMENTASPHALT MULTI-USE TRAILCONCRETE SIDEWALKINTERIM CONCRETE SIDEWALKINTERIM ASPHALT PAVEMENTRELOCATE LIBRARY/SENIOR CENTER SIGNRELOCATEPRIVATE UTILITIES EDEN AVENUEVERNON AVENUESHERWOOD ROAD EDEN AVENUE GRANDVIEW SQUARE 12.5'12.5'11'12.5'12.5'11'8'8'FILE NO.DATE:PHONE: 952.912.260010901 RED CIRCLE DRIVE,SUITE 300MINNETONKA, MN 55343www.sehinc.com15681811/12/20FIG NO.x:\ae\e\edina\156818\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\10-civil\cad\dwg\exhibit\ed156818_memo graphics_11.05.2020.dwg 11/12/2020 4:09 PMkmontebello0feetscale20402010 EDEN AVENUE/ SHERWOOD ROADINTERSECTION REALIGNMENTFULL BUILD CONDITON(CONNECTION TO VERNON AVE REMOVED)5LEGENDCURB AND GUTTERASPHALT PAVEMENTASPHALT MULTI-USE TRAILCONCRETE SIDEWALK Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-3507 SEH is 100% employee-owned | sehinc.com | 651.490.2000 | 800.325.2055 | 888.908.8166 fax MEMORANDUM TO: Chad Millner, PE Director of Engineering, City of Edina FROM: Erin Jordan, PE (Lic. MN, WI) DATE: November 13, 2020 RE: Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis SEH No. 156818 14.00 1. BACKGROUND & PURPOSE This technical memorandum provides findings related to the traffic analysis for the Eden Avenue corridor in the City of Edina, between Vernon Avenue and the TH 100 on-ramps. As a component of the Eden Avenue & Brookside Avenue design project, this analysis will focus on two main study intersections: · Eden Avenue & Arcadia Avenue/Normandale Road · TH 100 West Ramp & Vernon Avenue South/W 50th Street. The primary goals of this analysis include the following: · Utilize previously completed traffic count data, traffic studies, and StreetLight data on the roadway network and at the study intersections to perform the analyses. · Analysis of the TH 100 West Ramp at Vernon Avenue intersection to potentially remove the southbound free right turn movement. · Analysis of the Eden Avenue & Arcadia Avenue/Normandale Road intersection based on its existing all- way stop control and a proposed single-lane roundabout control. · Analysis of traffic patterns for vehicles accessing the Hwy 100 southbound entrance-ramp on Eden Avenue. Using the patterns, trips will be redistributed throughout the roadway network to evaluate the impacts and feasibility of eliminating the Hwy 100 on-ramp on Eden Avenue. · The memo includes a summary of recommendations to consider mitigating any operational issues identified in the study. Analysis was conducted for the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic operations at the following study intersections, shown in Figure 1, where the two primary study intersections are bolded: 1. Vernon Ave & Eden Ave (Signal) 5. Vernon Ave & TH 100 West Ramps (Signal) 9. Eden Ave & TH 100 SB On- Ramp (No control) 2. Vernon Ave & Gus Young Ln (Side Street Stop Control) 6. W 50th St & TH 100 East Ramps (No control) 10. Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave (All Way Stop Control) 3. Vernon Ave & Interlachen Blvd (Signal) 7. W 50th St & Grange Rd (Signal) 11. Eden Ave & Our Lady of Grace (OLG) School Access (Side Street Stop Control) 4. Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd (Side Street Stop Control) 8. Eden Ave & Grange Rd (All- Way Stop Control) 12. Eden Ave & Brookside Ave (Side Street Stop Control) !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(Vernon Ave SGus Young Ln Arcadia AveInterlachen Blvd Eden Ave Grange RdW 50th St Normandale RdBrookside Ave?úA@ ?úA@ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 11 10 Project Location Figure1Eden Ave Traffic StudyCity of Edina Project: EDINA 156818 User Name: ejordanProjection: Hennepin County Coords.Source: ESRI Online Print Date: 10/2/2020 1238 1238 1238 Study Intersection & Intersection IDX Our Lady of Grace Church and Elementary SchoolSchool Access Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 3 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS Eden Avenue Eden Avenue is a west-east Minor Collector roadway designated as a Municipal State Aid (MSA) Route for the City of Edina. It is a 3-lane undivided roadway that connects between Vernon Avenue to the west and W 50th Street to the east with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour (MPH). Sidewalk facilities exist on both sides of the roadway except a short segment with sidewalk only on the south side between Brookside Avenue and Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd. Access to southbound TH 100 is provided from Eden Avenue. Eden Avenue intersects with six study intersections, which are listed below with their control type: · Vernon Avenue S (Traffic Signal) · Brookside Ave (Side Street Stop Control) · Our Lady of Grace School Access (Side Street Stop Control) · Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd (All Way Stop Control) · TH 100 SB On-Ramp (No control) · Grange Rd (Side Street Stop Control) Vernon Avenue S Vernon Avenue S is a west-east A-Minor Arterial roadway designated as a County State Aid Highway 158 (CSAH 158) for Hennepin County. It is a 4-lane divided roadway that serves as a primary regional corridor, connecting drivers to TH 62, TH 100, residential areas, and commercial areas such as the Grandview District. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Sidewalk facilities exist on both sides of Vernon Avenue S within the project limits. Vernon Avenue S transitions into W 50th Street on the east side of TH 100. Access to both directions of TH 100 is provided from Vernon Avenue. Vernon Avenue S intersects with five study intersections, which are listed below with their control type: · Eden Avenue (Traffic Signal) · Gus Young Ln (Side Street Stop Control) · Interlachen Blvd (Traffic Signal) · Arcadia Avenue (Right-In/Right-Out Side Street Stop Control) · TH 100 West Ramps (Yielding Right & Traffic Signal Control) W 50th Street W 50th Street and Vernon Avenue S are a shared facility, with Vernon Avenue S designated to the west of TH 100 and W 50th Street designated to the east of TH 100. Like Vernon Avenue S, W 50th Street is also a west-east A- Minor Arterial roadway within the study area. It is a 4-lane divided roadway that also serves as a regional corridor in the City. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Near the TH 100 overpass, sidewalk facilities exist only on the north side of the roadway; east of Grange Road sidewalks facilities are provided on both sides of the roadway. W 50th Street intersects with one study intersection, which is listed below with its control type: · Grange Road (Traffic Signal) Arcadia Avenue, Normandale Road, and Grange Road Arcadia Avenue, Normandale Road, and Grange Road are three local minor collector roadways included in the study area. All facilities are 2-lane undivided roadways with speed limits of 30 MPH. Due to the proximity to the OLG Elementary School, Normandale Road is also within a 20 MPH school speed zone. Figure 2 summarizes the existing roadway characteristics, existing traffic control, and lane configuration at the study intersections. !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(Vernon Ave SGus Young Ln Arcadia AveInterlachen Blvd Eden Ave Grange RdW 50th St Normandale RdBrookside Ave?úA@ ?úA@ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 11 10 èéEden Ave Vernon Ave1 ³>=³>P>PP>³Gus Young Ln Vernon Ave2 ³>=³P>³O=O=!"$èéVernon Ave Gus Young Ln3 >P P>³POP>>Interlachen BlvdVernon Ave Arcadia Ave4 !"$=³³=³³ 50th St TH 100 East Ramps6 ³³=³³=Eden Ave Willson Rd8 O=>P>PO=Grange Rd!",$Eden Ave TH 100 SB On-Ramp9 ³=³>Eden Ave Normandale Rd10 >P>PArcadia Ave!",$OPOPEden Ave Brookside Ave12 !"$=>P³>èéVernon Ave TH 100 West Ramps5 >=O³³=³OIntersection ID Intersection GeometricsOP X !"$ Signalized Intersectionèé Minor Street Stop Control !",$All Way Stop Control 1238 1238 1238 Existing Roadway Conditions Figure2Eden Ave Traffic StudyCity of Edina Project: EDINA 156818 User Name: ejordanProjection: Hennepin County Coords.Source: ESRI Online Print Date: 10/19/2020 50th St Grange Rd7 =>P³³OèéEden Ave Our Lady Of Grace School Access11 !"$P=>O Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 5 3. TRAFFIC DATA 3.1. Traffic Volumes Neither traffic data nor site observations were collected as part of this study. To perform the analyses, the City provided vehicle turning movement data from recently completed studies within the project area in addition to MnDOT count data and MnDOT ramp detector volume data. Overall, the most recently collected turning movement data (2019) was used when possible at the study intersections to ensure that recent development traffic, such as the Grandview District and the Avidor apartment complex, is included as much as possible in the analysis. Earlier turning movement count data was used when necessary for balancing purposes. Table 1 summarizes the primary data source(s) used for this study, listing the most recent data first. Table 1 – Traffic Data Source Summary Study/Source (Year) Data Information Summary Locations1 MnDOT Ramp Detector Data (2019) Every Tuesday thru Thursday September 2019 – October 2019 (24 hours) TH 100 SB Off-Ramp at Vernon Avenue TH 100 SB On-Ramp at Eden Avenue2 Our Lady of Grace Study (Spack 2019) Thursday, May 30, 2019 – Friday, May 31, 2019 (24 Hours: 12 PM to 12 PM) Vernon Ave & Eden Ave Eden Ave & OLG Access Eden Ave & Arcadia/Normandale Ave Eden Ave & Grange Rd Grandview Transportation Study (Kimley Horn 2018) Unknown3 Vernon Ave S & Gus Young Ln Vernon Ave S & Arcadia Ave Bus Barn Study (Spack 2017) Wednesday, April 12, 2017 – Thursday, April 13 (48 Hours: 12 AM to 12 AM) Eden Ave & Brookside Ave MnDOT Data Collection (2016) Wednesday, February 24, 2016 (13 Hours: 6AM – 7PM) Vernon Ave S & Interlachen Blvd Vernon Ave S & TH 100 West Ramps W 50th St & TH 100 East Ramps W 50th St & Grange Rd Notes: 1Only locations where data was used in this study for volume balancing purposes are listed. 2Turning movements at the ramp locations were determined based on eastbound and westbound distribution percentages at the adjacent Arcadia Avenue intersection. 3 Only the total build development traffic information was provided in the report. Volumes were not used directly, but only to complete the balancing process. Ultimately, the average 2019 MnDOT TH 100 ramp detector volumes were higher than the turning movement counts at the ramps. Therefore, the MnDOT data was used to factor up the turning movement counts and balanced appropriately throughout the network to achieve the balanced volumes for the analysis. Network AM and PM peak hours were determined to be 7:45 AM – 8:45 AM and 4:30 PM – 5:30 PM. Figure 3 shows the existing balanced volumes at the study intersections for the peak hours for the existing roadway conditions. !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(Vernon Ave SGus Young Ln Arcadia AveInterlachen Blvd Eden Ave Grange RdW 50th St Normandale RdBrookside Ave?úA@ ?úA@ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 11 10 èéEden Ave Vernon Ave1 ³>=³>P>PP>³165 / (138)2 / (4)191 / (211)2 / (2)581 / (867)289 / (315)6 / (2)5 / (10)4 / (5)12 / (7)396 / (435)128 / (104)Gus Young Ln Vernon Ave2 ³>=³P>³O=O=!"$ 60 / (64)4 / (12)52 / (72)13 / (9)664 / (940)75 / (58)12 / (12)4 / (12)12 / (12)29 / (27)471 / (462)56 / (55)50th St TH 100 East Ramps6 ³³=³³=580 / (332)745 / (684) 706 / (1269)388 / (306) Intersection ID Intersection GeometricsOP X XX / (XX)AM Peak Hour VolumePM Peak Hour Volume !"$ Signalized Intersectionèé Minor Street Stop Control !",$All Way Stop ControlEden Ave Willson Rd8 O=>P>PO=Grange Rd!",$ 3 / (10)270 / (170)44 / (50)96 / (96)55 / (132)41 / (72)136 / (97)105 / (124)85 / (90)210 / (127)119 / (106)35 / (33)Eden Ave Normandale Rd10 >P>PArcadia Ave!",$OPOP86 / (60)284 / (167)44 / (49)63 / (79)27 / (35)56 / (58)40 / (36)371 / (363)47 / (50)109 / (103)44 / (108)66 / (88)Eden Ave Brookside Ave12 !"$=>P³>3 / (4)354 / (341) 5 / (2)417 / (427)3 / (12)0 / (15)èéVernon Ave Gus Young Ln3 >P P>³POP>>Interlachen Blvd302 / (369)376 / (417)80 / (72)19 / (29)66 / (115)13 / (24)176 / (289)497 / (690)63 / (37)161 / (98)125 / (129)328 / (373)Eden Ave TH 100 SB On-Ramp9 ³=³>414 / (276)162 / (117) 326 / (312)167 / (197) Existing Traffic Volumes Figure3Eden Ave Traffic StudyCity of Edina Project: EDINA 156818 User Name: ejordanProjection: Hennepin County Coords.Source: ESRI Online Print Date: 10/15/2020 Vernon Ave Arcadia Ave4 !"$=³³=³³758 / (858)76 / (165)808 / (1050)31 / (37) èéVernon Ave TH 100 West Ramps5 >=O³³=537 / (507)208 / (177) 670 / (940)214 / (266)221 / (351)61 / (53)357 / (635)³OEden Ave Our Lady Of Grace School Access11 !"$P=> 304 /(331)151 / (17)53 / (12)150 / (18)306 / (427)109 / (15) 50th St Grange Rd7 =>P³èé 1220 / (790)8 / (4)104 / (226)127 / (194)633 / (1197)73 / (72) ³OO Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 7 3.2. StreetLight Traffic Distribution - Eden Avenue & TH 100 SB On-Ramp Hennepin County provided StreetLight data to the City and SEH for an origin-destination analysis for the vehicles accessing the TH 100 southbound entrance ramp on Eden Avenue. The StreetLight data, cell phone and GPS route data, was collected from all days in 2019. The data was used to validate existing trip distributions from the east and west and to achieve realistic assumptions for rerouting traffic throughout the network for the proposed ramp closure analysis. The original Hennepin County StreetLight analysis summary is provided in Appendix A. Hennepin County’s StreetLight analysis was used as a basis for the ramp closure traffic redistribution and analysis. It should be noted that modifications were made to the County’s AM and PM peak hour StreetLight summaries to apply reasonable distributions to the network for the ramp closure analysis. One primary modification was made for eastbound traffic by eliminating the distribution shown on the StreetLight map coming from SB TH 100 and redistributing the percentage to reasonable westbound routes. Traffic from the west (eastbound) is currently dispersed throughout the network, with most of the traffic originating from Interlachen Blvd, Vernon Ave S, and Normandale Road. With the proposed ramp closure, these eastbound trips are assumed to be rerouted to alternative movements along Vernon Avenue S and Arcadia Avenue. It was assumed that the eastbound distribution percentages added between Vernon Avenue and TH 100 originated from the school access, which was not specifically included as an origin location in the StreetLight analysis. Most of the traffic from the east (westbound) originates from W 50th Street, ultimately utilizing Eden Ave to access TH 100. With the proposed ramp closure, most of these westbound trips are assumed to be rerouted on W 50th Street and access TH 100 from the ramp at Vernon Avenue S by making a westbound left-turn movement. 4. PROPOSED CONDITIONS The proposed roadway network changes considered for this study look to improve the TH 100 ramp network from the study area. As mentioned earlier in the memo, the proposed changes to the existing conditions include: · Eliminate the “free right-turn” movement at the TH 100 Southbound Off-Ramp at Vernon Avenue S, providing a right-turn lane at the ramp’s signalized intersection. · Control change at the Eden Avenue & Arcadia Avenue/Normandale Road intersection from an All-Way Stop Control (AWSC) to a Single-Lane Roundabout. · Closure of the TH 100 Southbound On-Ramp access at Eden Avenue. Figure 4 summarizes these proposed changes in the build condition. Figure 5 shows these redistributed volumes at the study intersections with the ramp closure scenario (“Build Scenario”). !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(Vernon Ave SGus Young Ln Arcadia AveInterlachen Blvd Eden Ave Grange RdW 50th St Normandale RdBrookside Ave?úA@ ?úA@ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 11 10 X èéEden Ave Vernon Ave1 ³>=³>P>PP>³Gus Young Ln Vernon Ave2 ³>=³P>³O=O=!"$èéVernon Ave Gus Young Ln3 >P P>³POP>>Interlachen BlvdVernon Ave Arcadia Ave4 !"$=³³=³³ 50th St TH 100 East Ramps6 ³³=³³=50th St Grange Rd7 =>P³³OèéEden Ave Willson Rd8 O=>P>PO=Grange Rd!",$Eden Ave Brookside Ave12 !"$=>P³>Eden Ave Normandale Rd10 Arcadia AveOPOPOPO PEden Ave 9 ³³ X èéVernon Ave TH 100 West Ramps5 >=O³³=³O1238 1238 1238 Proposed Build Conditions Figure4Eden Ave Traffic StudyCity of Edina Project: EDINA 156818 User Name: ejordanProjection: Hennepin County Coords.Source: ESRI Online Print Date: 10/15/2020 Intersection ID Intersection GeometricsOP X !"$ Signalized Intersectionèé Minor Street Stop Control !",$All Way Stop Control Proposed Roundabout Control Proposed Intersection GeometryOPXProposed Ramp Closure Eden Ave Our Lady Of Grace School Access11 !"$P³ =>> !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(Vernon Ave SGus Young Ln Arcadia AveInterlachen Blvd Eden Ave Grange RdW 50th St Normandale RdBrookside Ave?úA@ ?úA@ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 11 10 èéEden Ave Vernon Ave1 ³>=³>P>PP>³165 / (138)2 / (4)191 / (211)2 / (2)614 / (886)256 / (294)6 / (2)5 / (10)4 / (5)12 / (7)396 / (435)120 / (94)Gus Young Ln Vernon Ave2 ³>=³P>³O=O=!"$ 60 / (64)4 / (12)52 / (72)13 / (9)697 / (960)75 / (58)12 / (12)4 / (12)12 / (12)29 / (27)463 / (452)56 / (55)Vernon Ave Arcadia Ave4 !"$=³³=³³758 / (858)157 / (179)894 / (1138)31 / (37) 50th St TH 100 East Ramps6 ³³=³³=580 / (332)907 / (801) 664 / (1216)363 / (293) Eden Ave Willson Rd8 O=>P>PO=Grange Rd!",$ 3 / (10)140 / (76)44 / (50)81 / (84)71 / (144)41 / (72)136 / (97)105 / (124)85 / (90)194 / (115)119 / (106)35 / (33)Eden Ave Normandale Rd10 Arcadia Ave86 / (60)284 / (167)44 / (49)63 / (79)68 / (74)15 / (19)65 / (85)304 / (283)47 / (50)109 / (103)44 / (108)8 / (10)Eden Ave Our Lady Of Grace School Access11 !"$P³ =>>304 /(331)151 / (17)53 / (12)150 / (18)265 / (396)109 / (15) Eden Ave Brookside Ave12 !"$=>P³>3 / (4)354 / (341) 5 / (2)375 / (397)3 / (12)0 / (15)èéVernon Ave Gus Young Ln3 >P P>³POP>>Interlachen Blvd302 / (369)376 / (417)80 / (72)19 / (29)66 / (115)13 / (24)176 / (289)539 / (720)63 / (37)161 / (98)80 / (71)373 / (433)èéVernon Ave TH 100 West Ramps5 >O³³=537 / (507)370 / (294) 382 / (445)221 / (351)61 / (53)357 / (635)³OEden Ave 9 414 / (276) 326 / (312) 50th St Grange Rd7 =>P³èé 1350 / (884)8 / (4)137 / (249)127 / (194)595 / (1147)69 / (69) ³O³³Build Conditions Traffic Volumes Figure5Eden Ave Traffic StudyCity of Edina Project: EDINA 156818 User Name: ejordanProjection: Hennepin County Coords.Source: ESRI Online Print Date: 10/15/2020 OPOPOPO PX X =Intersection ID Intersection GeometricsOP X !"$ Signalized Intersectionèé Minor Street Stop Control !",$All Way Stop Control Proposed Roundabout Control Proposed Intersection GeometryOPXProposed Ramp Closure 670 / (874) Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 10 5. FORECASTED TRAFFIC Table 2 summarizes the 2016 daily traffic volumes and 2040 forecasted daily traffic volumes provided in the City of Edina’s Comprehensive Plan (adopted August 2020) for the study area. Table 2 – 2016 & 2040 Forecasted Daily Traffic Volumes, City of Edina Comprehensive Plan Roadway Segment 2016 Daily Traffic 2040 (Adjusted) Forecast Daily Traffic Annual Growth Rate Vernon Ave (West of Interlachen Blvd) 13,300 15,000 0.53% Vernon Ave (Interlachen Blvd to TH 100) 18,700 20,000 0.29% Vernon Ave (East of TH 100) 22,500 24,000 0.28% Eden Ave (West of Arcadia Ave) 6,300 6,600 0.20% Eden Ave (Arcadia Ave to Grange Rd) 8,500 8,900 0.20% Average Linear Annual Growth Rate 0.30% Based on these 2040 forecasted daily traffic volumes provided in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, an average growth rate of approximately 0.30% each year is anticipated for the study area. As a more conservative approach, the average 0.30% linear annual growth rate was applied to all turning movement volumes in the study network to estimate the 2040 forecast peak hour volumes (20-year projection). Figure 6 shows the 2040 forecasted turning movement volumes for the existing roadway conditions. Figure 7 shows the 2040 forecasted turning movement volumes at the study intersections with the ramp closure scenario (“Build Scenario”). !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(Vernon Ave SGus Young Ln Arcadia AveInterlachen Blvd Eden Ave Grange RdW 50th St Normandale RdBrookside Ave?úA@ ?úA@ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 11 10 Intersection ID Intersection GeometricsOP X XX / (XX)AM Peak Hour VolumePM Peak Hour Volume !"$ Signalized Intersectionèé Minor Street Stop Control !",$All Way Stop Control 2040 No Build Volumes Figure6Eden Ave Traffic StudyCity of Edina Project: EDINA 156818 User Name: ljohnsonProjection: Hennepin County Coords.Source: ESRI Online Print Date: 11/12/2020 Vernon Ave Arcadia Ave4 !"$=³³=³³803 / (909)81 / (77)857 / (1113)32 / (41) èéVernon Ave TH 100 West Ramps5 >=O³³=570 / (538)220 / (187) 710 / (927)226 / (263)234 / (372)65 / (57)379 / (673)³OEden Ave Our Lady Of Grace School Access11 !"$P=> 322 /(351)160 / (17)56/ (12)160 / (18)324 / (452)116 / (15) 50th St Grange Rd7 =>P³èé 1293 / (837)8 / (4)111 / (239)134 / (206)631 / (1216)73 / (73) ³OOèéEden Ave Vernon Ave1 ³>=³>P>PP>³175 / (145)2 / (4)203 / (224)2 / (2)615 / (920)306 / (334)6 / (2)5 / (10)4 / (5)12 / (7)420 / (461)136 / (110)Gus Young Ln Vernon Ave2 ³>=³P>³O=O=!"$ 64 / (68)4 / (12)56 / (76)13 / (9)703 / (996)79 / (62)12 / (12)4 / (12)12 / (12)30 / (27)500 / (490)30 / (59)èéVernon Ave Gus Young Ln>P P>³POP>>Interlachen Blvd320 / (391)399 / (442)84 / (76)19 / (30)70 / (122)13 / (25)186 / (306)526 / (730)67 / (40)171 / (104)133 / (137)348 / (396)50th St TH 100 East Ramps6 ³³=³³=616 / (352)789 / (725) 704 / (1288)385 / (311) Eden Ave Willson Rd8 O=>P>PO=Grange Rd!",$ 3 / (10)286 / (180)47 / (53)103 / (101)59 / (140)43 / (76)144 / (103)112 / (132)93 / (95)222 / (135)126 / (113)37 / (35)Eden Ave TH 100 SB On-Ramp9 ³=³>439 / (293)172 / (124) 346 / (331)177 / (209) Eden Ave Normandale Rd10 >P>PArcadia Ave!",$OPOP91 / (64)301 / (177)50 / (52)67 / (85)27 / (37)60 / (62)43 / (39)393 / (384)50 / (53)116 / (109)47 / (114)70 / (94)Eden Ave Brookside Ave12 !"$=>P³>3 / (4)375 / (361) 5 / (2)442 / (452)3 / (12)0 / (15)3 !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(Vernon Ave SGus Young Ln Arcadia AveInterlachen Blvd Eden Ave Grange RdW 50th St Normandale RdBrookside Ave?úA@ ?úA@ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 11 10 èéEden Ave Vernon Ave1 ³>=³>P>PP>³175 / (145)2 / (4)1203/ (224)2 / (2)651 / (939)272 / (311)6 / (2)5 / (10)4 / (5)12 / (7)420 / (461)128 / (100)Vernon Ave Arcadia Ave4 !"$=³³=³³803 / (909)167 / (190)948 / (1206)32 / (41) 50th St TH 100 East Ramps6 ³³=³³=616 / (352)962 / (848) 704 / (1288)385 / (311) Eden Ave Willson Rd8 O=>P>PO=Grange Rd!",$ 3 / (10)149 / (80)47 / (53)85 / (90)76 / (151)43 / (76)144 / (103)112 / (132)91 / (95)206 / (123)126 / (113)37 / (35)Eden Ave Normandale Rd10 Arcadia Ave91 / (64)301 / (177)47 / (52)67 / (85)75 / (78)16 / (19)69 / (89)322 / (301)50 / (53)116 / (109)47 / (114)8 / (10)Eden Ave Our Lady Of Grace School Access11 !"$P³ =>>322 /(351)160 / (17)56 / (12)160 / (18)282 / (423)116 / (15) Eden Ave Brookside Ave12 !"$=>P³>3 / (4)375 / (361) 5 / (2)397 / (421)3 / (12)0 / (15)èéVernon Ave Gus Young Ln3 >P P>³POP>>Interlachen Blvd320 / (391)399 / (442)84 / (76)19 / (30)70 / (122)13 / (25)186 / (306)572 / (763)67 / (40)171 / (104)84 / (75)395 / (459)èéVernon Ave TH 100 West Ramps5 >O³³=570 / (538)393 / (310) 404 / (472)234 / (372)65 / (57)379 / (673)³OEden Ave 9 439 / (293) 346 / (331) 50th St Grange Rd7 =>P³èé 1431 / (937)8 / (4)145 / (261)134 / (206)631 / (1216)73 / (73) ³O³³2040 Build Conditions Figure7Eden Ave Traffic StudyCity of Edina Project: EDINA 156818 User Name: ljohnsonProjection: Hennepin County Coords.Source: ESRI Online Print Date: 11/12/2020 OPOPOP OPX X =Intersection ID Intersection GeometricsOP X !"$ Signalized Intersectionèé Minor Street Stop Control !",$All Way Stop Control Proposed Roundabout Control Proposed Intersection GeometryOPXProposed Ramp Closure 710 / (927) Gus Young Ln Vernon Ave2 ³>=³P>³O=O=!"$ 76 / (64)4 / (12)68 / (72)13 / (9)739 / (1017)79 / (62)12 / (12)4 / (12)12 / (12)30 / (27)490 / (480)60 / (59) Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 13 6. INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS The existing and build scenarios were conducted to determine the level of service (LOS), delay, and approximate queuing information for the AM and PM peak hour conditions at the study intersections. LOS is a qualitative rating system used to describe the efficiency of traffic operations at an intersection. Six LOS are defined by the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM), designated by letters A through F. LOS A represents no congestion, and LOS F represents severe congestion. Table 3 shows the LOS thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 3 – Level of Service Thresholds Level of Service Average Control Delay (sec/veh) Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection (Stop Control/Roundabout) A 0 to 10 0 to 10 B > 10 and ≤ 20 > 10 and ≤ 15 C > 20 and ≤ 35 > 15 and ≤ 25 D > 35 and ≤ 55 > 25 and ≤ 35 E > 55 and ≤ 80 > 35 and ≤ 50 F > 80 > 50 Operational analysis was conducted using Synchro/SimTraffic software (version 9) for stop controlled and signal- controlled intersections. The average of ten simulation runs were performed to determine the necessary measure of effectiveness (MOE’s). Roundabout analysis was performed using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS7), which implements the HCM calculations. The signal timing plans used for analysis were provided by MnDOT at the intersections of Vernon Avenue S & Interlachen Blvd, Vernon Avenue S & TH 100 West Ramps, and W 50th Street & Grange Road and provided by the City (from the 2018 Grandview Transportation Study Synchro models) at the intersection of Vernon Avenue South and Eden Avenue. 6.1. Operational Analysis - Existing Traffic Volumes Using the existing peak hour volumes, the following scenarios were analyzed as part of this traffic study: Existing Condition Scenarios: · Scenario 1-A: Existing Conditions · Scenario 1-B: Removal of SB Right-Turn yield movement at TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave S · Scenario 1-C: Single-Lane Roundabout at Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd Build Condition Scenarios (Ramp Closure): · Scenario 2-A: Ramp Closure · Scenario 2-B: AWSC vs. Single-Lane Roundabout at Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd Build Mitigation Alternatives at TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Avenue S (with Ramp Closure): · Scenario 3-A: Restriping Alternative · Scenario 3-B: Reconstruction Alternative It was also requested that the memo include a supplemental analysis comparing the all-way stop control and single-lane roundabout at Eden Avenue & Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd using 2030 forecasted total traffic from the Our Lady of Grace Expansion study (Spack 2019). The summary includes results from this study and the 2019 study using Spack’s 2030 volumes. Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 14 Scenario 1-A: Existing Conditions This scenario analyzes operations with the roadway network’s existing lane configurations and traffic control. Table 4 summarizes the delay and LOS for each movement and overall intersection for the AM and PM peak hours. The summary shows that all study intersections operate at LOS C or better. Movements experience LOS D on several side-street approaches, including at Vernon Avenue S & Interlachen Blvd and W 50th Street & Grange Road. The northbound movement at Vernon Avenue S & Interlachen Blvd experiences LOS E during the PM peak hour. Appendix B shows a detailed summary of the MOE’s for the existing conditions, including average and 95th percentile queuing information. Most average queue lengths in turn lanes do not exceed past the existing available storage lengths. However, the eastbound left-turn average queue lengths at Vernon Ave S & Interlachen Blvd extend past the available storage length by approximately 40 feet under the existing cycle length. Table 4 – Scenario 1-A: Existing Conditions Operations Summary Intersection Approach AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Approach Delay Intersection Delay Approach Delay Intersection Delay Vernon Ave S at Eden Ave (Signal) EB 19.7 / B 20.8 / C 18.1 / B 16.7 / B WB 13.5 / B 16.6 / B NB 22.9 / C 17.4 / B SB 22.4 / C 15.3 / B Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln (Side-Street Stop Control) EB 13.8 / B 3.6 / A 19.4 / C 4.9 / A WB 11.1 / B 17.3 / C NB 3.1 / A 3.5 / A SB 2.4 / A 2.9 / A Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 20.3 / C 24.4 / C 25.5 / C 32.5 / C WB 24.3 / C 33 / C NB 24.8 / C 55.6 / E SB 29.5 / C 37.4 / D Vernon Ave at Arcadia Ave (Side-Street Stop Control) EB 2.3 / A 3.2 / A 4.7 / A 5.6 / A WB 3.7 / A 5.4 / A NB 5.8 / A 13.8 / B TH 100 West Ramps at Vernon Ave/W 50th St (Signal) EB 6.8 / A 14.4 / B 12.6 / B 20.2 / C WB 13.6 / B 19.6 / B SB 25.8 / C 29 / C TH 100 East Ramps at W 50th St EB 2.1 / A 2.2 / A 2.7 / A 2.1 / A WB 2.3 / A 1.2 / A W 50th St at Grange Rd (Signal) EB 1.8 / A 8 / A 2.6 / A 10 / B WB 5.1 / A 5.2 / A NB 28.6 / C 36.8 / D Eden Ave at Grange Rd (All-Way Stop Control) EB 6.5 / A 9.7 / A 6.9 / A 7.5 / A WB 10.5 / B 8.7 / A NB 7.5 / A 8.3 / A SB 12.8 / B 6.2 / A TH 100 SB On-Ramp at Eden Ave EB 2.4 / A 10.5 / B 2.4 / A 4.6 / A WB 17.3 / C 7.4 / A Eden Ave at Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd (All-Way Stop Control) EB 9.1 / A 9 / A 10.9 / B 9.1 / A WB 9.6 / A 6.7 / A NB 7.8 / A 7.6 / A SB 8.4 / A 9.7 / A Eden Ave at OLG Access (Side-Street Stop Control) EB 1.4 / A 7.1 / A 1.7 / A 2.2 / A WB 6.7 / A 1.8 / A NB 20.3 / C 14.5 / B Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 15 Intersection Approach AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Approach Delay Intersection Delay Approach Delay Intersection Delay Eden Ave at Brookside Ave (Side- Street Stop Control) EB 1.1 / A 0.9 / A 0.9 / A 0.8 / A WB 0.7 / A 0.1 / A SB 3.3 / A 7.9 / A Scenario 1-B: Removal of SB Right-Turn yield movement at TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave S The City has proposed to remove the southbound “free-right”/yield movement at the TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Avenue S and relocate it as a dedicated right-turn lane at the existing signalized intersection of TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Avenue S. Under the existing roadway network, this southbound right-turn lane configuration change was evaluated at the intersection of TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Avenue S. For analysis purposes, there were no changes to the existing signal timings. Table 5 summarizes the operations of the signalized intersection with the addition of the southbound right-turn volume demand. An additional row has been added to specifically call out the comparison of the southbound right-turn delay, in addition to the overall approach delay. By relocating the right-turn to the signalized intersection, overall intersection operations remain acceptable and similar to Existing Conditions (Scenario 1- A). Since the right-turn volumes are shifted to the signal, it is to be expected that additional control delay is experienced compared to the existing yield control. Although the southbound right-turn movement degrades from an LOS A to an LOS D, the operations remain acceptable and are comparable to the existing delay for the southbound left-turn movement. Additionally, the maximum queue lengths may reach up to 325 feet which can be accommodated for if the design of the right-turn storage matches the existing left-turn storage length of approximately 500 feet. Based on this analysis, it is feasible to remove the existing southbound “free-right”/yield movement and relocate the right-turn volume to a dedicated right-turn lane at the existing signalized ramp. Table 5 – Scenario 1-B: Signalized Southbound Right-Turn (Existing Conditions) Intersection Approach/ Movement AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Approach Delay Intersection Delay Approach Delay Intersection Delay EXISTING CONTROL TH 100 West Ramps at Vernon Ave/W 50th St (Signal) EB 6.8 / A 14.4 / B 12.6 / B 20.2 / C WB 13.6 / B 19.6 / B SB 25.8 / C 29 / C SB RT Lane 1.8 / A 4.5 / A TH 100 West Ramps at Vernon Ave/W 50th St (Signal + SB RT Lane) EB 7.3 / A 18.5 / B 12.3 / B 25.0 / C WB 15.1 / B 18.9 / C SB 38.5 / D 42.8 / D SB RT Lane 37.9 / D 44.1 / D Note that this lane configuration change for the southbound right-turn movement is included in all subsequent scenarios. Scenario 1-C: Single-Lane Roundabout at Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd Under the existing roadway network, a single-lane roundabout was evaluated at the intersection of Eden Avenue & Arcadia Avenue/Normandale Road. Figure 6 shows a preliminary concept drawing of a single-lane roundabout suited for the intersection. Due to the proximity to the existing TH 100 on-ramp and to eliminate merging concerns, the roundabout is shown to restrict the on-ramp to an eastbound right-turn only. With this change, all westbound left-turn vehicles would use the roundabout to access the TH 100 on-ramp (“U-Turn” movement). Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 16 Table 6 summarizes the operations of a single-lane roundabout if the ramp remains open and westbound left- turn movements converted to U-Turn movements. The existing all-way stop control and proposed single-lane roundabout control operations are comparable in the AM and PM peak hour scenarios. However, as discussed in the Our Lady of Grace Expansion Traffic Study (Spack 2019), the roundabout is likely to improve overall traffic progression on Eden Avenue throughout the day, as well provide speed calming, especially during school peak periods. Table 6 – Scenario 1-C: Single Lane Roundabout (Existing Conditions) Intersection Approach AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Approach Delay Intersection Delay Approach Delay Intersection Delay EXISTING CONTROL Eden Ave at Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd (All Way Stop Control) EB 9.1 / A 9 / A 10.9 / B 9.1 / A WB 9.6 / A 6.7 / A NB 7.8 / A 7.6 / A SB 8.4 / A 9.7 / A Eden Ave at Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd (Single-Lane Roundabout) EB 11.0 / B 10.0 / B 11.9 / B 9.6 / A WB 9.7 / A 7.2 / A NB 9.4 / A 9.6 / A SB 9.3 / A 9.1 / A Scenario 2-A: Ramp Closure (Build Conditions) Based on the build conditions outlined previously in this memo, Table 7 summarizes the delay and LOS for each movement and overall intersection for the AM and PM peak hours. All intersections operate at LOS D or better. Note that the single-lane roundabout performs at LOS A for both peak hours. Due to the ramp closure, the Vernon Avenue S & Arcadia Avenue intersection experiences approximately 80 and 110 northbound right-turn vehicles in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The analysis shows that the additional demand pushes the intersection to experience an LOS F for the northbound approach. If these significant delays and operations are experienced at the intersection, drivers may self-adjust their routes to Figure 6 – Concept Drawing: Single Lane Roundabout with Ramp (Eden Avenue & Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd) Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 17 utilize Vernon Avenue S, such as making a right-turn movement at the signalized intersection of Gus Young Lane. Since data was not collected as part of this study, it should be noted that the existing traffic volumes at the Vernon Avenue S & Arcadia Avenue intersection were extracted from the Grandview Development traffic study (Kimley Horn 2018), and does not include the development traffic. If the proposed development occurs in the future, improvements to Arcadia Avenue and/or the intersection with Vernon Avenue may be required to accommodate the demand. Using the redistribution patterns obtained from the StreetLight analysis, all movements from the closed TH 100 Ramp on Eden Avenue now utilize the TH 100 West Ramps at Vernon Avenue S/W 50th Street. The operations in Table 7 are based on these new traffic volumes, with minor signal timing adjustments to allocate additional green-time to the existing protected westbound left-turn phase. Based on the build conditions operations analysis, the intersection experiences LOS C in both peak hours, with the westbound movement experiencing LOS D in the AM peak hour and the southbound movement experiencing LOS D in the PM peak hour. Appendix B shows a detailed summary of the MOE’s for the build conditions, including average and 95th percentile queuing information. The average queue length for the westbound movement exceeds 330 feet, which is the approximate length of the bridge. The maximum queue length for the westbound movement reaches approximately 500 feet, which extends past the TH 100 East Ramps. Compared to the existing conditions analysis, the average queues are approximately double the length in the build scenario. The most recent 5 years (2015-2019) of reported crash data shows a total of 17 crashes at the intersection with a crash rate below the statewide average critical crash rate. Two crashes involve a westbound left- turning vehicle, which does not indicate an existing safety pattern or concern for this movement. However, with the longer queue lengths seen in Scenario 2-A, driver behavior, operations, and overall intersection safety may be impacted. Appendix C shows a summary of the crash data obtained from MnDOT’s MNCMAT2 crash database. Table 7 – Scenario 2-A: Ramp Closure (Build Conditions) Operations Summary Intersection Approach AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Approach Delay Intersection Delay Approach Delay Intersection Delay Vernon Ave S at Eden Ave (Signal) EB 22.1 / C 22 / C 16.3 / B 17 / B WB 12.8 / B 16.6 / B NB 25.1 / C 17.8 / B SB 23 / C 15.4 / B Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln (Side-Street Stop Control) EB 14.4 / B 4 / A 21.3 / C 9.2 / A WB 11.8 / B 43.2 / E NB 3.5 / A 7 / A SB 2.6 / A 3.4 / A Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 22.6 / C 28.2 / C 37 / D 39.1 / D WB 30 / C 29.6 / C NB 42.7 / D 45 / D SB 30.7 / C 54.8 / D Vernon Ave at Arcadia Ave (Side-Street Stop Control) EB 5.9 / A 12.1 / B 10.8 / B 25.5 / D WB 1.5 / A 1.7 / A NB 74.3 / F 211.4 / F TH 100 West Ramps at Vernon Ave/W 50th St (Signal) EB 20.3 / C 30 / C 21.2 / C 28 / C WB 43.4 / D 22.3 / C SB 29.8 / C 41.2 / D TH 100 East Ramps at W 50th St EB 2.9 / A 4.4 / A 2.8 / A 2.1 / A WB 5.4 / A 1.3 / A W 50th St at Grange Rd (Signal) EB 2.6 / A 9.4 / A 1.8 / A 10.6 / B WB 7.7 / A 5.4 / A NB 28.2 / C 42 / D Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 18 Intersection Approach AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Approach Delay Intersection Delay Approach Delay Intersection Delay Eden Ave at Grange Rd (All-Way Stop Control) EB 6.2 / A 6.2 / A 6.6 / A 6.8 / A WB 7.6 / A 7 / A NB 7.1 / A 7.8 / A SB 5.1 / A 5.9 / A Eden Ave at Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd (Single-Lane Roundabout) EB 6.8 / A 7.2 / A 7.7 / A 7.0 / A WB 8.1 / A 6.7 / A NB 6.4 / A 6.9 / A SB 6.4 / A 6.3 / A Eden Ave at OLG Access (Side-Street Stop Control) EB 1 / A 2.9 / A 0.9 / A 1.1 / A WB 2.2 / A 0.9 / A NB 8 / A 7 / A Eden Ave at Brookside Ave (Side-Street Stop Control) EB 1 / A 0.6 / A 1.1 / A 0.9 / A WB 0.2 / A 0.2 / A SB 3.4 / A 7.5 / A Scenario 2-B: AWSC vs. Single-Lane Roundabout at Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd Figure 7 shows a preliminary concept drawing of a single-lane roundabout suited for the intersection with the closed ramp. The schematic shows the roundabout shifted slightly southeast of the existing intersection location. The additional space on the west leg allows for approximately 90-100 feet allocated for a westbound left-turn lane into the school access. This additional turn lane will improve operations for school peak hours and maintain adequate vehicle progression along the corridor. To compare with the proposed single-lane roundabout operations in Scenario 2-A, Table 8 shows the operations that reflect the existing all-way stop control with the ramp closure (build volumes) at the intersection of Eden Avenue & Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd. The two control types offer comparable vehicle delays in both peak hours. However, the average and 95th percentile queue lengths are consistently shorter in all directions with the roundabout configuration, reducing blocking concerns from eastbound queue lengths extending past the school access. The roundabout design will likely improve vehicle progression on and entering Eden Avenue during peak hours of the day, including school traffic peak hour periods. Figure 7 – Concept Drawing: Single Lane Roundabout Without Ramp (Eden Avenue & Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd) Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 19 Table 8 – Scenario 2-B: All-Way Stop Control vs. Single Lane (Ramp Closure/Build Conditions) Intersection Approach AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Max Queue Approach Delay Intersection Delay Max Queue Approach Delay Intersection Delay EXISTING CONTROL Eden Ave at Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd (All-Way Stop Control) EB 125’ 7.6 / A 8.6 / A 135’ 8.4 / A 8.4 / A WB 185’ 10.4 / A 110’ 7.1 / A NB 105’ 8.6 / A 130’ 11.9 / B SB 90’ 6.6 / A 100’ 7.4 / A Eden Avenue Study Eden Ave at Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd (Roundabout) EB 50’ 6.8 / A 7.2 / A 50’ 7.7 / A 7.0 / A WB 75’ 8.1 / A 50’ 6.7 / A NB 25’ 6.4 / A 25’ 6.9 / A SB 25’ 6.4 / A 25’ 6.3 / A Scenario 3-A: Build Mitigation Alternative (Restriping) – TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Avenue S Due to the proposed ramp closure, the assumed redistributed traffic volumes will impact the operations and queuing at the signalized ramp location at TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Avenue S/W 50th Street, specifically for the westbound movements. In addition to signal timing adjustments, it is recommended to consider a dedicated westbound left-turn lane to improve intersection operations seen in Scenario 2-A and improve safety at the ramp. Scenarios 3-A and 3-B are two mitigation alternatives outlined in this memo that add a dedicated westbound left-turn lane. Scenario 3-A is a low-cost alternative that alters the lane configuration by restriping Vernon Avenue S/W 50th Street, utilizing the existing roadway width. The proposed lane configuration change in this scenario alters the existing westbound inside lane from a shared through/left-turn lane to a dedicated left-turn lane. This could be achieved by dropping one westbound through lane between the TH 100 West Ramps and Grange Road and adding the second westbound through lane prior to Interlachen Blvd. Figure 8 provides a schematic of the proposed striping to achieve this lane configuration. A scaled version of this schematic is provided in Appendix D. Figure 8 – Concept Drawing: Scenario 3-A WB Left-Turn Lane Restriping Alternative Table 9 summarizes the operations for Scenario 3-A and restates the operations for the intersection in Scenario 2-A. Compared to Scenario 2-A, the overall intersection delay is reduced by approximately 9 seconds/vehicle in the AM peak hour and is comparable in the PM peak hour. The most significant delay Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 20 improvement is seen in the westbound approach, where the movement delay is reduced by approximately 26 seconds/vehicle in the AM peak hour and 6.5 seconds/vehicle in the PM peak hour. The average queue length for the westbound left-turn movement is reduced to approximately 185 feet in the AM peak hour and 165 feet in the PM peak hour. The maximum queue lengths are not anticipated to extend past the East ramps. Table 9 – Scenario 3-A: Build Mitigation Alternative (Restriping) Operations Summary Intersection Approach AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Approach Delay Intersection Delay Approach Delay Intersection Delay SCENARIO 2-A TH 100 West Ramps at Vernon Ave/W 50th St (Signal) EB 20.3 / C 30 / C 21.2 / C 28 / C WB 43.4 / D 22.3 / C SB 29.8 / C 41.2 / D SCENARIO 3-A TH 100 West Ramps at Vernon Ave/W 50th St (Signal) EB 19.3 / B 21.1 / C 19.6 /B 28.2 / C WB1 17.4 / B 15.8 / B SB 29.6 / C 48.8 / D Notes: 1Lane configuration change to 1 dedicated left-turn lane and 1 thru lane. Scenario 3-A offers a low-cost alternative to improve westbound left-turn operations at the TH 100 West Ramps on Vernon Avenue S with low impact to operations at adjacent intersections. By dropping a westbound through lane between Grange Rd and the TH 100 West Ramps, careful considerations should be made to implement proper signing and striping changes to ensure drivers are given advanced warning of the lane configuration change downstream. Scenario 3-B: Build Mitigation Alternative (Reconstruction) – TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Avenue S Scenario 3-B is a higher-cost alternative that adds a dedicated left-turn lane and maintains two through lanes. This scenario requires street reconstruction and bridge widening to accommodate the lane configuration; thus, significantly higher in cost compared to Scenario 3-A. Figure 9 provides a preliminary schematic of the proposed bridge/roadway widening and lane configuration. A scaled version of this schematic is provided in Appendix D. Figure 9 – Concept Drawing: Scenario 3-B WB Left-Turn Lane Reconstruction Alternative Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 21 Table 10 summarizes the operations for Scenario 3-B and restates the operations for the intersection in Scenario 2-A. Compared to Scenario 2-A, the overall intersection delay is reduced by approximately 9 seconds/vehicle in the AM peak hour and 4 seconds/vehicle in the PM peak hour. Overall, operations are comparable to Scenario 3-A, with slightly lower delay time experienced in the westbound movement. The average queue length for the westbound left-turn movement is reduced to approximately 185 feet in the AM peak hour and 165 feet in the PM peak hour. Table 10 – Scenario 3-B: Build Mitigation Alternative (Reconstruction) Operations Summary Intersection Approach AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Approach Delay Intersection Delay Approach Delay Intersection Delay SCENARIO 2-A TH 100 West Ramps at Vernon Ave/W 50th St (Signal) EB 20.3 / C 30 / C 21.2 / C 28 / C WB 43.4 / D 22.3 / C SB 29.8 / C 41.2 / D SCENARIO 3-B TH 100 West Ramps at Vernon Ave/W 50th St (Signal) EB 19.3 / B 21.0 / C 21.1 / C 24.6 / C WB1 16.6 / B 16 / B SB 30.2 / C 35.7 / D Notes: 1Lane configuration change to 1 dedicated left-turn lane and 2 thru lanes. Scenario 3-B offers a high-cost alternative with significant impacts to the existing bridge structure and roadway. Compared to Scenario 3-A, the operations and queue lengths are comparable. However, Scenario 3-B would not impose any lane drop (“left-turn trap”) or merging conflicts as would be seen in Scenario 3-A that may increase safety concerns. 2030 Traffic Analysis – Eden Avenue & Arcadia Avenue/Normandale Road This section provides a subsequent analysis of the Eden Avenue & Arcadia Avenue/Normandale Road intersection based on a future year (2030) operational review of an all-way stop control and a single-lane roundabout. The analysis utilizes the 2030 forecasted total traffic from the Our Lady of Grace Expansion study (Spack 2019). Roundabout operations are based on the same single-lane roundabout configuration shown in Figure 6 and assume an open TH 100 ramp on Eden Avenue. As stated in the Our Lady of Grace Expansion study, the 2030 forecasted total traffic volumes were achieved by applying a 0.3% annual growth rate to the 2019 traffic data for all movements not accessing the school and adding the school’s planned development forecast trip generation to the 2019 data for all movements to the school site. The peak hours analyzed for the school site were found to be 7:45 AM – 8:45 AM and 2:45 PM – 3:45 PM. Table 11 and Table 12 summarize operation results from methodologies outlined in this study and the 2019 Spack study. Note that the 2019 Spack study completed delay calculations using Vistro software, and this study uses SimTraffic for all-way stop control analysis and HCS7 for roundabout analysis. All methodologies utilize HCM calculations. Table 11 summarizes the all-way stop control operations, including maximum queue lengths. The results from the 2019 study and this study show noteworthy differences in delay and queuing for the eastbound and westbound movements. The 2019 study shows poor operations (LOS D and worse) while this study shows acceptable operations for all movements (LOS C or better). The differences are results of the different software packages used. In general, Vistro uses geometric and volume inputs to calculate the operations, while SimTraffic is a micro-simulation model that accounts for geometry, volume, and impacts of surrounding intersections and driver behavior. Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 22 Table 11 – 2030 Total Traffic All-Way Stop Control Operations Summary Intersection Approach AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Max Queue Approach Delay Intersection Delay Max Queue Approach Delay Intersection Delay Spack 2019 Study Eden Ave at Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd EB 410’ 86.6 / F 60.7 / F 415’ 87.1 / F 47.6 / E WB 365’ 69.0 / F 190’ 30.5 / D NB 60’ 18.1 / C 75’ 19.0 / C SB 100’ 22.3 / C 80’ 19.6 / C Eden Avenue Study Eden Ave at Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd EB 150’ 14.2 / B 15.0 / C 150’ 11.3 / B 10.8 / B WB 200’ 17.7 / C 160’ 10.3 / B NB 135’ 10.7 / B 135’ 10.6 / B SB 170’ 14.0 / B 145’ 10.7 / B Table 12 summarizes the single-lane roundabout control operations, including maximum queue lengths. However, only intersection delay was provided in the 2019 Spack study. The Spack 2019 study shows significant improvements for intersection delay (LOS B and LOS A), while this study shows mild improvements in delay with the roundabout control. However, the queue lengths are shorter than with the all-way stop control. The single- lane roundabout shows the longest queue lengths reaching up to 125’ in the eastbound and westbound approaches on Eden Avenue during the AM peak hour; whereas the all-way stop control shows 95th percentile queue lengths at or exceeding 135’ in all directions during both peak periods, which exceeds past the adjacent school site access west of Arcadia Avenue. With these closely spaced intersections, the queues with an all-way stop control may impact the vehicle flow on Eden Avenue and cause higher vehicle delays for vehicles entering Eden Avenue from the school site access during peak periods. It is more likely that operations and vehicle progression are expected to improve with a roundabout control. Table 12 – 2030 Total Traffic Single-Lane Roundabout Operations Summary Intersection Approach AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Max Queue Approach Delay Intersection Delay Max Queue Approach Delay Intersection Delay Spack 2019 Study Eden Ave at Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd EB ~13.0 / B ~10.0 / A WB NB SB Eden Avenue Study Eden Ave at Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd EB 125’ 13.1 / B 12.2 / B 75’ 9.0 / A 7.3 / A WB 125’ 12.0 / B 25’ 4.5 / A NB 50’ 11.1 / B 25’ 6.6 / A SB 75’ 12.0 / B 25’ 4.0 / A 6.2. Operational Analysis – 2040 Forecasted Traffic Volumes To supplement the existing volumes operational analyses, the 2040 forecasted peak hour volumes were analyzed for the following scenarios: Existing Condition Scenario: · Scenario 1-B (2040): Removal of SB Right-Turn yield movement at TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave S Build Condition Scenarios (Ramp Closure): · Scenario 2-B (2040): Single-Lane Roundabout at Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd Build Mitigation Alternatives at TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Avenue S (with Ramp Closure): · Scenario 3-A (2040): Restriping Alternative · Scenario 3-B (2040): Reconstruction Alternative Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 23 Note that 2040 operational analysis focuses on the primary study intersections of TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave S and Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd. Due to the low growth rate applied to the volumes, the 2040 forecasted traffic volume operations are comparable to the existing volume analysis. Scenario 1-B (2040): Removal of SB Right-Turn yield movement at TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave S Table 13 summarizes the delay and LOS for each movement and overall intersection for the AM and PM peak hours using the 2040 forecasted traffic volumes. The analysis is based on the existing geometry, except for removing the SB free right-turn yield movement at the TH 100 West Ramps and relocating it to the existing signalized intersection. This proposed lane configuration change is recommended to improve safety at the off- ramp. The operations show comparable results to the existing volume analysis. The signalized intersection of Vernon Ave and Interlachen Blvd shows slightly worse operations during the peak hours. For this analysis, splits were optimized within the existing cycle lengths, but it is assumed further operational improvements can be achieved in the future by retiming the coordinated signal system along Vernon Avenue. Appendix E shows a detailed summary of the MOE’s for the 2040 conditions, including average and 95th percentile queuing information. Most average queue lengths in turn lanes do not exceed past the existing available storage lengths. However, the eastbound left-turn average queue lengths at Vernon Ave S & Interlachen Blvd extend past the available storage length by approximately 50 feet under the existing cycle length. Table 13 – Scenario 1-B (2040): Signalized SB Right-Turn at TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave S (Existing Conditions) Intersection Approach AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Approach Delay Intersection Delay Approach Delay Intersection Delay Vernon Ave S at Eden Ave (Signal) EB 18.8 / B 20.9 / C 17.2 / B 17.1 / B WB 12.8 / B 16.4 / B NB 22.9 / C 18 / B SB 23 / C 15.4 / B Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln (Side-Street Stop Control) EB 14.2 / B 4.1 / A 23.1 / C 5.2 / A WB 13.3 / B 18.7 / C NB 3.3 / A 3.8 / A SB 2.7 / A 3.2 / A Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 21.9 / C 28.0 / C 28.5 / C 35.4 / D WB 30.5 / C 37.6 / D NB 42.9 / D 53.9 / D SB 29.8 / C 38.8 / D Vernon Ave at Arcadia Ave (Side-Street Stop Control) EB 3.9 / A 4.0 / A 8 / A 7.2 / A WB 1.6 / A 3.2 / A NB 16.2 / C 26 / D TH 100 West Ramps at Vernon Ave/W 50th St (Signal) EB 14.2 / B 20.3 / C 17.7 / B 26.0 / C WB 17.9 / B 27.6 / C SB 31.6 / C 34.0 / C TH 100 East Ramps at W 50th St EB 2.8 / A 2.6 / A 3.1 / A 2.4 / A WB 2.4 / A 1.3 / A W 50th St at Grange Rd (Signal) EB 2.5 / A 8.2 / A 4.6 / A 11.8 / B WB 5.5 / A 5.5 / A NB 28.4 / C 41.7 / D Eden Ave at Grange Rd (All-Way Stop Control) EB 7.1 / A 11.2 / B 7.3 / A 7.9 / A WB 11.4 / B 8.8 / A NB 8.1 / A 9.2 / A SB 16.3 / C 6.5 / A Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 24 Intersection Approach AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Approach Delay Intersection Delay Approach Delay Intersection Delay TH 100 SB On-Ramp at Eden Ave EB 2.4 / A 9.0 / A 2.4 / A 4.7 / A WB 13.9 / B 7.6 / A Eden Ave at Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd (All-Way Stop Control) EB 9.7 / A 8.3 / A 11.4 / B 9.6 / A WB 7.4 / A 6.8 / A NB 7.4 / A 8.5 / A SB 7.8 / A 10 / B Eden Ave at OLG Access (Side-Street Stop Control) EB 1.7 / A 6.7 / A 2.6 / A 3.0 / A WB 4.3 / A 1.8 / A NB 23.1 / C 26.4 / D Eden Ave at Brookside Ave (Side- Street Stop Control) EB 1.2 / A 0.8 / A 1.2 / A 1.0 / A WB 0.3 / A 0.2 / A SB 3.2 / A 7.1 / A Scenario 2-B (2040): Single-Lane Roundabout at Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd Table 14 summarizes the HCS7 operations for the existing and 2040 forecasted traffic volumes based on the proposed single-lane roundabout at the intersection of Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd. Similar to Scenario 2-B with the existing volumes, this analysis assumes the closed TH 100 on-ramp (build conditions). The two analysis years show comparable delays and maximum queue lengths and supports the conclusion that the roundabout design will sustain vehicle progression on Eden Avenue into the future. Table 14 – Scenario 2-B (2040): Single Lane (Ramp Closure/Build Conditions) Intersection Approach AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Max Queue Approach Delay Intersection Delay Max Queue Approach Delay Intersection Delay 2020 Eden Ave at Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd (Roundabout) EB 50’ 6.8 / A 7.2 / A 50’ 7.7 / A 7.0 / A WB 75’ 8.1 / A 50’ 6.7 / A NB 25’ 6.4 / A 25’ 6.9 / A SB 25’ 6.4 / A 25’ 6.3 / A 2040 Eden Ave at Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd (Roundabout) EB 50’ 7.2 / A 7.6 / A 75’ 8.2 / A 7.5 / A WB 75’ 8.7 / A 50’ 7.1 / A NB 25’ 6.8 / A 25’ 7.3 / A SB 25’ 6.7 / A 25’ 6.7 / A Scenario 3-A (2040): Build Mitigation Alternative (Restriping) – TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Avenue S Table 15 summarizes the delay and LOS for each movement and overall intersection for the AM and PM peak hours using the 2040 forecasted traffic volumes based on the low-cost lane restriping alternative to add a dedicated westbound left-turn lane at TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Avenue S/W 50th Street. This option is recommended as a feasible, low-cost alternative to improve the safety and intersection operations in the build conditions. The analysis at the ramp was performed by maintaining the existing 90 second cycle length (AM Peak) and 100 cycle length (PM Peak) and optimizing the splits. Compared to the 2020 analysis, the 2040 forecasted volumes show similar operations for movements on Vernon Ave S/W 50th Street and show worsening delays for the southbound approach. It is assumed that a simple signal retiming/coordination would be performed in the future to meet the actual volume demands. Appendix E shows a detailed summary of the MOE’s for the 2040 conditions, including average and 95th percentile queuing information. The maximum queue lengths for the westbound movements at the TH 100 West ramps are not anticipated to extend past the East ramps. Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 25 Table 15 – Scenario 3-A (2040): Build Mitigation Alternative (Restriping) Operations Summary Intersection Approach AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Approach Delay Intersection Delay Approach Delay Intersection Delay 2020 TH 100 West Ramps at Vernon Ave/W 50th St (Signal) EB 19.3 / B 21.1 / C 19.6 /B 28.2 / C WB1 17.4 / B 15.8 / B SB 29.6 / C 48.8 / D 2040 TH 100 West Ramps at Vernon Ave/W 50th St (Signal) EB 24.4 / C 24.4 / C 23.2 / C 32.2 / C WB1 11.9 / B 15.7 / B SB 42.5 / D 58.4 / E Notes: 1Lane configuration change to 1 dedicated left-turn lane and 1 thru lane. Based on the 2040 analysis, it is assumed that the low-cost alternative of Scenario 3-A will be able to accommodate growth into the future. Signal timing adjustments will be likely to optimize operations along Vernon Avenue S. Scenario 3-B (2040): Build Mitigation Alternative (Reconstruction) – TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Avenue S Table 16 summarizes the delay and LOS for each movement and overall intersection for the AM and PM peak hours using the 2040 forecasted traffic volumes based on the reconstruction alternative to add a dedicated westbound left-turn lane at TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Avenue S/W 50th Street. This option adds a dedicated left-turn lane and maintains two through lanes by widening the bridge and reconstructing the street. The analysis at the ramp was performed by maintaining the existing 90 second cycle length (AM Peak) and 100 cycle length (PM Peak) and optimizing the splits. Compared to the 2020 analysis, the 2040 forecasted volumes show similar operations for all movements on Vernon Ave S/W 50th Street. Appendix E shows a detailed summary of the MOE’s for the 2040 conditions, including average and 95th percentile queuing information. The maximum queue lengths for the westbound movements at the TH 100 West ramps are not anticipated to extend past the East ramps. Table 16 – Scenario 3-B: Build Mitigation Alternative (Reconstruction) Operations Summary Intersection Approach AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Approach Delay Intersection Delay Approach Delay Intersection Delay 2020 TH 100 West Ramps at Vernon Ave/W 50th St (Signal) EB 19.3 / B 21.0 / C 21.1 / C 24.6 / C WB1 16.6 / B 16.0 / B SB 30.2 / C 35.7 / D 2040 TH 100 West Ramps at Vernon Ave/W 50th St (Signal) EB 18.6 / B 20.7 / C 18.9 / B 24.7 / C WB1 13.9 / B 17.8 / B SB 33.9 / C 37.2 / D Notes: 1Lane configuration change to 1 dedicated left-turn lane and 2 thru lanes. Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 26 7. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Driven by recent development projects, the City of Edina has completed several traffic studies within the study area to assess impacts to the roadway network, including various analyses for the study intersections included in this memo. The study focused on these three primary analysis scenarios: · Analysis of the TH 100 West Ramp at Vernon Avenue intersection to potentially remove the southbound free right turn movement. · Analysis of the Eden Avenue & Arcadia Avenue/Normandale Road intersection based on a proposed single-lane roundabout control. · Analysis of operations if the Hwy 100 on-ramp on Eden Avenue is removed from the roadway network. 7.1. Summary The analysis reviewed the AM and PM peak hour volumes for existing and forecasted 2040 conditions, which included analysis of closing the southbound right-turn free/yield movement at TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Avenue S and analysis of a single-lane roundabout at the intersection of Eden Avenue & Arcadia Avenue/Normandale Road. A summary of the primary findings for the 2020 existing conditions scenarios include the following: · Scenario 1-A (Existing Conditions): o All intersections perform acceptably (LOS C or better) & majority of average queue lengths do not exceed past available storage lengths, except the eastbound left-turn average queue lengths at Vernon Ave S & Interlachen Blvd extend past the available storage length by approximately 40 feet under the existing cycle length. o Highest delay for a single movement at Vernon Ave & Interlachen Blvd. o TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Avenue/W 50th Street experience acceptable operations, with westbound average queue lengths ranging between 140-175 feet; 95th percentile queue lengths ranging between 300-310 feet. · Scenario 1-B (Signalized SB Right-Turn at TH 100 West Ramps): o Acceptable operations (LOS B in AM and LOS C in PM) with acceptable queue lengths. · Scenario 1-C (Roundabout at Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave): o Comparable operations shown with existing all-way stop control. Acceptable intersection delay operations (LOS B in AM and LOS A in PM) – Operations are acceptable. Queue lengths will likely see an improvement in addition to traffic speeds and vehicle progression on Eden Avenue. The study redistributed traffic volumes throughout the roadway network based on the proposed roadway condition that closes the SB TH 100 ramp on Eden Avenue. All scenarios include the relocated signalized southbound right-turn lane at the TH 100 West Ramps on Vernon Avenue. A summary of the primary findings for the 2020 build condition scenarios include the following: · Scenario 2-A (Ramp Closure): o With exception of Vernon Avenue S & Arcadia Avenue, all intersections and movements perform acceptably (LOS D or better). o The redistributed traffic will likely impact operations and queuing on Arcadia Avenue for the northbound right-turn movement (stop-controlled). If delay issues are experienced, it is likely that vehicles may self-adjust to utilize Vernon Avenue S (signalized). o Queuing concerns with the additional westbound left-turn demand at TH 100 West Ramps at Vernon Avenue S/W 50th Street. Average queue lengths may extend to 350 feet in the AM peak hour, with 95th percentile queue lengths of 500 feet. These queue lengths are likely to impact upstream operations and westbound vehicle progression. · Scenario 2-B (Roundabout at Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave): o Comparable operations for an all-way stop control and single-lane roundabout control at the Eden Avenue & Arcadia Avenue/Normandale Road intersection - Operations are acceptable. Queue lengths will likely see an improvement in addition to traffic speeds and vehicle progression on Eden Avenue. Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 27 o A roundabout design will also be able to accommodate an additional westbound left-turn lane at the school access location, which will further improve school peak hour operations. A turn lane of approximately 100 feet is recommended. The existing and forecasted 2040 traffic volume operational analyses were comparable due to the assumed low average growth rate in the study area (0.3%). Due to the minimal changes in traffic volumes, the above summary can be generally applied for both analysis years. 7.2. Recommendations · TH 100 West Ramp & Vernon Ave S o Analysis shows acceptable operations and queue lengths if the southbound right-turn lane is relocated to the existing signal. By removing the “free-right” movement, overall safety may also improve since the existing turn lane encourages high speed and does not provide a merge lane onto Vernon Avenue S. o It is recommended to remove the “free-right” movement and provide a dedicated SB right-turn lane at the ramp, maximizing the length of the storage length of approximately 400 feet (matching the left-turn lane storage length). o Signal timing adjustments and coordination along Vernon Avenue S may be necessary to accommodate demand into the future. · Eden Avenue & Arcadia Avenue/Normandale Road o The roundabout will improve vehicle progression and shorten queue lengths in the short-term. In the long-term, it is expected to accommodate future growth in the area and the planned OLG expansion. o A roundabout, as sketched in Figure 6, can be constructed without significant impact to the available right-of-way and to the adjacent intersections. Additionally, a single-lane roundabout can be designed to include a dedicated westbound left-turn lane into the school access, pedestrian crossings, and any future planned roadway configuration changes on Eden Avenue. o It is recommended to consider the implementation of a single-lane roundabout that includes a 100’ dedicated westbound left-turn lane at the school access. · Removal of TH 100 On-Ramp on Eden Avenue o Based on the analysis, it is feasible to remove the TH 100 On-Ramp on Eden Avenue. o Based on the peak hour westbound turning movement volumes and daily traffic volumes on Vernon Avenue S, it is recommended to provide a dedicated WB left-turn lane at the TH 100 West Ramps. o If the SB TH 100 ramp closes, it is recommended to restripe the westbound lanes to configure the inside shared through/left-turn lane as a dedicated left-turn lane (Scenario 3-A). This option utilizes the existing roadway width and has no impact to the bridge structure. Based on the 2040 analysis, this configuration accommodates the future volume demand. o Adequate advanced warning signs of the lane configuration change are recommended to ensure efficient merging operations downstream and upstream of the lane drop. o If development increases traffic demands on Vernon Avenue to the point where the intersection capacity requires a second westbound through lane, a full roadway and reconstruction may be required to widen the roadway width and/or bridge structure to add accommodate three lanes. dedicated westbound left-turn lane. o Arcadia Avenue will also experience increased volume demand and should be monitored as development occurs along the corridor. Improvements may be necessary if queues begin to impact operations at the roundabout or other driveways along Arcadia Avenue. o Further analysis/signal retiming may be useful prior to implementing significant changes to the ramps. · Other o Extend storage length for the EB left-turn lane at Vernon Avenue S & Interlachen Blvd to approximately 200 feet. o Under build conditions, signal timing and re-coordination along Vernon Avenue S will likely be required to accommodate the redistributed volumes. Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis Page 28 EKJ Appendix Material: A. Hennepin County StreetLight Summary B. 2020 Traffic Operations Analysis C. 2014-2019 Crash Summary: TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Avenue D. TH 100 West Ramps Left-Turn Lane Reconfiguration Preliminary Schematics E. 2040 Forecasted Traffic Operations Analysis c: William Bauer, PE – SEH Toby Muse, PE – SEH x:\ae\e\edina\156818\8-planning\87-rpt-stud\eden ave traffic study + 2040 traffic - memo_20201112.docx Appendix A Hennepin County StreetLight Summary Figures 48% 16% 31% 5% 12% 5% 9%27% 14% 11% 8% 13% 11% 10% 5%8% TH 169 5450 - Eden Ave Eastbound - All Day - Tue - Thurs - 1/1/2019 - 12/31/2019 37% Eden Ave & TH 100 Ramp 5450 - Eden Ave Eastbound - 7 - 9 AM - Tue - Thurs - 1/1/2019 - 12/31/2019 50%5% 20% 25% 13% 4% 9% 13% 39%9% 4%9% 13% 31% 14% 13% 7% TH 169 Eden Ave & TH 100 Ramp 47% 33%15% 5% 11% 6% 34%8% 7%8% 15% 28% 10% 15% 10% 10% TH 169 10% 5450 - Eden Ave Eastbound - 4 - 6 PM - Tue - Thurs - 1/1/2019 - 12/31/2019 Eden Ave & TH 100 Ramp 81%10% 12% 5% 7% 6% 53% 60% 16% 9% 11% 5450 - Eden Ave Westbound - All Day - Tue - Thurs - 1/1/2019 - 12/31/2019 TH 169 Eden Ave & TH 100 Ramp 5450 - Eden Ave Westbound - 7 - 9 AM - Tue - Thurs - 1/1/2019 - 12/31/2019 80%5% 8% 5% 3% 5% 63% 67% 20% 10% 11% TH 169 Eden Ave & TH 100 Ramp 68%4% 7% 4% 3% 4% 53% 57% 17% 8% 9% 5450 - Eden Ave Westbound - 4 - 6 PM - Tue - Thurs - 1/1/2019 - 12/31/2019 Eden Ave & TH 100 Ramp TH 169 Appendix B 2020 Traffic Operations Analysis - Existing Conditions - Build Conditions Eden Avenue Traffic Study - Edina, MNScenario 1-A: Existing ConditionsAM Peak HourU L T R Total U LOS L LOS T LOS R LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSStorage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockThru (2)---->% BlockLeft (2)<----Link Length(feet)Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockRight (2)---->% BlockThru (2)<----Storage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal) EB 6 5 4 15 26.5 C 21.1 C 6.2 A 19.7 B 80 20 350 081 20 400 0 00 0WB 191 2 165 358 19.3 B 7.2 A 7.4 A 13.5 B 20.8 C 5062 10316 % 5 % 626 64 2170 0 00 0NB 2 581 289 872 58.6E31.0 C 6.8 A 22.9 C 100 20 43024 % 381 158 285 1 %0250 66 155SB 128 396 12 536 29.1 C 20.3 C 18.1 B 22.4 C 100 721554 % 5 % 794 100 200 5 %0 00 0Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 4 12 28 19.9 C 22.1 C 5.3 A 13.8 B00 00 0204 20 360 0100 20 35WB 52 4 60 116 15.6 C 16.9 C 6.7 A 11.1 B 3.6 A00 00 042 31576 % 3 % 50 2965NB 13 664 75 752 5.1 A 3.0 A 3.3 A 3.1 A 100 20 250 07940200 0140020SB 56 471 29 556 9.8 A 1.6 A 1.3 A 2.4 A 100 20 640 03750200 0 00 0Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 176 497 63 736 49.0 D 11.8 B 10.7 B 20.3 C 150 1222239 % 1 % 375 1303031 %0 00 0WB 80 376 302 758 41.3 D 27.5 C 15.9 B 24.3 C 24.4 C00 00 0360 1503370 0 00 0NB 19 66 13 98 43.2 D 22.7 C 11.4 B 24.8 C 435 20 650 0436 45 1120 0 00 0SB 328 125 161 614 35.2 D 29.2 C 18.4 B 29.5 C 2425 125 2260 02425 122 2770 0 00 0Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB0808 31 8390.0 02.3 A 2.2 A 2.3 A00 00 0360 20 98 1 %0 00 0WB075807580.0 03.7 A0.0 03.7 A 3.2 A00 00 0173 20 500 0 00 0NB0 076 760.0 00.9 A 11.5 B 5.8 A00 00 0 00 00 0455 29 76SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave/50th St (Signal) EB0670 214 8840.0 07.9 A 3.3 A 6.8 A00 00 0173 1041891 %0300 49 170WB 208 5370745 24.5 C 9.7 A0.0 013.6 B 14.4 B00 00 0382 1402970 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB 357 61 221 639 38.0 D 44.5 D 1.8 A 25.8 C 500 119 2290 01106 166 2710 0300 20 32TH 100 East Ramps & 50th St EB0664 363 1,0270.0 01.3 A 3.5 A 2.1 A00 00 038202001 % 252042WB0745 580 1,3250.0 01.3 A 3.6 A 2.3 A 2.2 A00 00 0161 20 5101 % 252049NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Grange Rd & 50th St (Signal) EB0595 69 6640.0 01.9 A 1.0 A 1.8 A00 00 0161 20 740 0 00 0WB 8 122001,228 11.9 B 5.1 A0.0 05.1 A 8.0 A00 00 0380 112 261019000 0NB 1040127 231 38.9 D 2.4 A 47.0 D 28.6 C 175 711620 0 00 00 09097 180SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Eden Ave & Grange Rd EB 136 105 85 326 7.0 A 7.8 A 4.2 A 6.5 A 100 37 720 0774 39 770 0 00 0WB 44 270 3 317 7.9 A 10.9 B 6.6 A 10.5 B 9.7 A 75 258505 % 380 67 1670 0 00 0NB 96 55 41 192 7.9 A 9.4 A 4.3 A 7.5 A00 00 0434 45 97 4 %050 2151SB 35 119 210 364 11.8 B 14.9 B 11.7 B 12.8 B00 00 0185 812246 % 7 % 100 37150TH 100 SB On-Ramp & Eden Ave EB0326 167 4930.0 02.2 A 2.8 A 2.4 A00 00 0117 20 360 040 2071WB 162 4140576 18.3 C 16.9 C0.0 017.3 C 10.5 B 120 35 9703 % 774 23 188 3 %0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 03500 0 0 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Arcadia Ave & Eden Ave EB 40 371 47 458 6.7 A 9.6 A 6.7 A 9.1 A 100 23 8204 % 131 781350 0 00 0WB 44 284 86 414 6.7 A 10.9 B 6.9 A 9.6 A 9.0 A 75 2598012 % 117 701280 0 00 0NB 63 27 56 146 8.9 A 9.1 A 5.8 A 7.8 A00 00 0679 45 960 0 00 0SB 66 44 109 219 9.0 A 10.6 B 7.1 A 8.4 A00 00 0906 43 1150 0 00 0OLG Entrance & Eden Ave EB 2 306 109 4170.0 01.7 A 0.7 A 1.4 A00 00 0139 20 910 0 00 0WB 151 304 1 456 10.2 B 5.0 A0.0 06.7 A 7.1 A00 00 0131 691410 0 00 0NB 530150 203 56.0F0.0 08.1 A 20.3 C 240 38 1330 0 00 00 0120 38130SB 10 010.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 5 4170422 4.3 A 1.1 A0.0 01.1 A 100 20 270 06260200 0 00 0WB0354 3 3570.0 00.7 A 0.5 A 0.7 A 0.9 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB0 03030.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 03.3 A 3.3 A00 00 0345 20 200 0 00 0NOTES 1. If the reported queue is greater than zero (0), but less than 20 ft, a minimum of 20 ft is reported.2. Block Percentage is proportion of analysis time (1 hour) the storage lane or through lane is blocked or blocking.3. Multiple storage lanes of different length are averaged together to show the "Effective Storage Length" per lane.AM Peak HourVehicle Queing Information (feet)Through Lane (s)Left Turn LaneRight Turn LaneLOS ByApproachLOS ByIntersectionIntersectionApproachDemand VolumesDelay (s/veh) Eden Avenue Traffic Study - Edina, MNScenario 1-A: Existing ConditionsPM Peak HourU L T R Total U LOS L LOS T LOS R LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSStorage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockThru (2)---->% BlockLeft (2)<----Link Length(feet)Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockRight (2)---->% BlockThru (2)<----Storage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal) EB 2 10 5 17 35.4 D 22.1 C 5.0 A 18.1 B 80 20 310 081 20 410 0 00 0WB 211 4 138 353 21.6 C 17.9 B 9.0 A 16.6 B 16.7 B 5070 10420 % 5 % 626 73 2190 0 00 0NB 2 867 315 1,184 48.2 D 21.5 C 6.0 A 17.4 B 100 20 46029 % 381 1933321 %0250 64 151SB 104 435 7 546 26.3 C 12.8 B 10.3 B 15.3 B 100 561473 % 3 % 794 81 170 3 %0 00 0Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 12 12 36 26.0 D 26.4 D 5.4 A 19.4 C00 00 0204 20 570 0100 20 37WB 72 12 64 148 21.8 C 25.5 D 10.3 B 17.3 C 4.9 A00 00 04243 6018 % 5 % 50 3159NB 9 940 58 1,007 7.8 A 3.5 A 3.1 A 3.5 A 100 20 270 0794 20 630 0140020SB 55 462 27 544 14.6 B 1.8 A 1.5 A 2.9 A 100 21860 03790200 0 00 0Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 289 690 37 1,016 60.8E12.2 B 12.2 B 25.5 C 150187 23034 % 2 % 379 1693922 %0 00 0WB 72 417 369 858 55.3E36.9 D 24.1 C 33.0 C 32.5 C00 00 0354 1993400 0 00 0NB 29 115 24 168 45.5 D 60.2E46.0 D 55.6E425 22 900 0427 118 2800 0 00 0SB 373 129 98 600 43.4 D 33.0 C 20.5 C 37.4 D 2965 149 2550 02965 114 2340 0 00 0Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB01050 37 1,0870.0 04.7 A 3.9 A 4.7 A00 001 % 354 73 222 7 %0 00 0WB085808580.0 05.4 A0.0 05.4 A 5.6 A00 00 0173 20 950 0 00 0NB0 072 720.0 01.2 A 24.6 C 13.8 B00 00 0 00 00 0455 40 120SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave/50th St (Signal) EB0874 248 1,1220.0 014.6 B 5.3 A 12.6 B00 00 01731692056 %0300 100 173WB 177 5070684 36.7 D 13.2 B0.0 019.6 B 20.2 C00 00 0382 1743110 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB 635 53 351 1,039 40.9 D 47.6 D 4.5 A 29.0 C 500 203 3470 01106 244 412 2 %0300 41322TH 100 East Ramps & 50th St EB01216 293 1,5090.0 02.2 A 4.8 A 2.7 A00 00 0382 20 290 0252038WB0684 332 1,0160.0 00.8 A 1.9 A 1.2 A 2.1 A00 00 01610200 0252030NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Grange Rd & 50th St (Signal) EB01147 69 1,2160.0 02.6 A 1.8 A 2.6 A00 00 0161 401290 0 00 0WB 4 7900794 23.0 C 5.1 A0.0 05.2 A 10.0 B00 00 0380 77 173019000 0NB 2260194 420 41.3 D 5.3 A 41.4 D 36.8 D 175 1361840 0 00 00 090122 185SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Eden Ave & Grange Rd EB 97 124 90 311 6.8 A 8.8 A 4.4 A 6.9 A 100 33 660 0774 42 860 0 00 0WB 50 170 10 230 7.6 A 9.2 A 5.7 A 8.7 A 7.5 A 75 266501 % 380 51 980 0 00 0NB 96 132 72 300 8.4 A 9.9 A 5.1 A 8.3 A00 00 0434 56 124 8 % 1 % 50 3169SB 33 106 127 266 7.2 A 8.2 A 4.0 A 6.2 A00 00 0185 43 870 0100020TH 100 SB On-Ramp & Eden Ave EB0312 197 5090.0 02.2 A 2.8 A 2.4 A00 00 0 00 00 040 2079WB 117 2760393 8.8 A 6.8 A0.0 07.4 A 4.6 A 120 23 600 07740200 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 03500 0 0 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Arcadia Ave & Eden Ave EB 36 363 50 449 7.2 A 11.7 B 7.7 A 10.9 B 100 2311408 % 132 841380 0 00 0WB 49 167 60 276 6.4 A 7.7 A 4.1 A 6.7 A 9.1 A 75 20 6301 % 117 49980 0 00 0NB 79 35 58 172 7.9 A 8.9 A 6.3 A 7.6 A00 00 0678 49 1040 0 00 0SB 88 108 103 299 9.8 A 11.4 B 7.8 A 9.7 A00 00 0910 66 1460 0 00 0OLG Entrance & Eden Ave EB 1 427 15 4430.0 01.7 A 1.1 A 1.7 A00 00 0137 20 1000 0 00 0WB 17 3310348 6.0 A 1.6 A0.0 01.8 A 2.2 A 130 20 380 0 00 00 0 00 0NB 12018 30 13.5 B0.0 015.2 C 14.5 B 235 20 330 0 00 00 0115 20 36SB 402 60.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 2 4270429 3.0 A 0.9 A0.0 00.9 A 1000200 0626 20 200 0 00 0WB0341 4 3450.0 00.1 A 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.8 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB 150120270.0 010.5 B0.0 04.0 A 7.9 A00 00 0345 20 450 0 00 0NOTES 1. If the reported queue is greater than zero (0), but less than 20 ft, a minimum of 20 ft is reported.2. Block Percentage is proportion of analysis time (1 hour) the storage lane or through lane is blocked or blocking.3. Multiple storage lanes of different length are averaged together to show the "Effective Storage Length" per lane.IntersectionApproachVehicle Queing Information (feet)Right Turn LaneDemand VolumesThrough Lane (s)Delay (s/veh)PM Peak HourLOS ByApproachLOS ByIntersectionLeft Turn Lane Eden Avenue Traffic Study - Edina, MNScenario 1-B: Existing Conditions - Signalized SB Right Turn TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave S AM & PM Peak HoursU-Turn L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSStorage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockThru (2)---->% BlockLeft (2)<----Link Length(feet)Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockRight (2)---->% BlockThru (2)<----Storage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave/50th St (Signal)EB0670 214 8840.0 08.5 A 3.4 A 7.3 A00 00 0250 109 186 1 %0300 50 167WB 208 5370745 27.7 C 10.5 B0.0 015.1 B 18.5 B00 00 0385 149 3130 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB 357 61 221 639 38.0 D 43.2 D 37.9 D 38.5 D 500 118 2310 01107 166 2730 0400 123 231TH 100 East Ramps & 50th St EB0664 363 1,0270.0 01.3 A 3.5 A 2.1 A00 00 03820200 025 2042WB0745 580 1,3250.0 01.3 A 3.5 A 2.3 A 2.2 A00 00 0161 20 4801 % 25 2048NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave/50th St (Signal)EB0874 248 1,1220.0 014.4 B 5.1 A 12.3 B00 00 0250 1702146 % 1 % 300 108 170WB 177 5070684 36.4 D 12.7 B0.0 018.9 B 25.0 C00 00 0385 165 2980 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB 635 53 351 1,039 41.6 D 49.0 D 44.1 D 42.8 D 500 2124340 01107 262 519 2 % 4 % 400 207 325TH 100 East Ramps & 50th St EB01216 293 1,5090.0 02.1 A 4.6 A 2.6 A00 00 0382 20 200 025 2043WB0684 332 1,0160.0 00.8 A 2.0 A 1.2 A 2.0 A00 00 01610200 025 2036NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Vehicle Queing Information (feet)Right Turn LaneLeft Turn Lane Through Lane (s)IntersectionApproachDemand Volumes Delay (s/veh)LOS ByApproachLOS ByIntersectionAM Peak HourPM Peak Hour HCS7 Roundabouts Report General Information Site Information Analyst EKJ Intersection Eden Ave & Arcadia Agency or Co.E/W Street Name Eden Ave Date Performed 9/11/2020 N/S Street Name Arcadia Analysis Year 2020 Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Time Analyzed AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Project Description Eden Ave Traffic Study Jurisdiction Edina Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach EB WB NB SB Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Number of Lanes (N)0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Assignment LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (V), veh/h 0 40 371 47 162 44 284 86 0 63 27 56 0 66 44 109 Percent Heavy Vehicles, %3 3 3 10 3 10 3 3 3 10 10 10 3 3 3 3 Flow Rate (vPCE), pc/h 0 45 415 56 181 53 318 96 0 75 32 67 0 74 49 122 Right-Turn Bypass None None None None Conflicting Lanes 1 1 1 1 Pedestrians Crossing, p/h 0 0 0 0 Critical and Follow-Up Headway Adjustment Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Critical Headway (s)4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 Follow-Up Headway (s)2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 Flow Computations, Capacity and v/c Ratios Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Entry Flow (ve), pc/h 516 648 174 245 Entry Volume veh/h 498 626 158 238 Circulating Flow (vc), pc/h 357 152 715 627 Exiting Flow (vex), pc/h 737 515 173 158 Capacity (cpce), pc/h 959 1182 666 728 Capacity (c), veh/h 924 1141 605 707 v/c Ratio (x)0.54 0.55 0.26 0.34 Delay and Level of Service Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Lane Control Delay (d), s/veh 11.0 9.7 9.4 9.3 Lane LOS B A A A 95% Queue, veh 3.3 3.5 1.0 1.5 Approach Delay, s/veh 11.0 9.7 9.4 9.3 Approach LOS B A A A Intersection Delay, s/veh | LOS 10.0 B Copyright © 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Roundabouts Version 7.5 Generated: 9/11/2020 5:32:07 PM Eden Ave & Interlachen_AM Peak Hour-Base Year.xro - Scenario 1-C: Single-Lane Roundabout HCS7 Roundabouts Report General Information Site Information Analyst EKJ Intersection Eden Ave & Arcadia Agency or Co.E/W Street Name Eden Ave Date Performed 9/11/2020 N/S Street Name Arcadia Analysis Year 2020 Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Time Analyzed PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Project Description Eden Ave Traffic Study Jurisdiction Edina Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach EB WB NB SB Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Number of Lanes (N)0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Assignment LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (V), veh/h 0 36 363 50 117 49 167 60 0 79 35 58 0 88 108 103 Percent Heavy Vehicles, %3 3 3 10 3 10 3 3 3 10 10 10 3 3 3 3 Flow Rate (vPCE), pc/h 0 40 406 60 131 59 187 67 0 94 42 69 0 99 121 115 Right-Turn Bypass None None None None Conflicting Lanes 1 1 1 1 Pedestrians Crossing, p/h 0 0 0 0 Critical and Follow-Up Headway Adjustment Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Critical Headway (s)4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 Follow-Up Headway (s)2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 Flow Computations, Capacity and v/c Ratios Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Entry Flow (ve), pc/h 506 444 205 335 Entry Volume veh/h 488 427 186 325 Circulating Flow (vc), pc/h 410 176 676 471 Exiting Flow (vex), pc/h 705 396 149 240 Capacity (cpce), pc/h 908 1153 693 854 Capacity (c), veh/h 875 1110 630 829 v/c Ratio (x)0.56 0.39 0.30 0.39 Delay and Level of Service Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Lane Control Delay (d), s/veh 11.9 7.2 9.6 9.1 Lane LOS B A A A 95% Queue, veh 3.5 1.8 1.2 1.9 Approach Delay, s/veh 11.9 7.2 9.6 9.1 Approach LOS B A A A Intersection Delay, s/veh | LOS 9.6 A Copyright © 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Roundabouts Version 7.5 Generated: 9/11/2020 5:32:33 PM Eden Ave & Interlachen_PM Peak Hour-Base Year.xro - Scenario 1-C: Single-Lane Roundabout Eden Avenue Traffic Study - Edina, MNScenario 2-A: Ramp Closure (Build Scenario)PM Peak HourU L T R Total U LOS L LOS T LOS R LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSStorage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockThru (2)---->% BlockLeft (2)<----Link Length(feet)Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockRight (2)---->% BlockThru (2)<----Storage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal) EB 2 10 5 17 26.2 C 22.4 C 4.6 A 16.3 B 80 20 200 081 20 450 0 00 0WB 211 4 138 353 21.9 C 5.7 A 9.2 A 16.6 B 17.0 B 5071 10420 % 5 % 626 74 2340 0 00 0NB 2 886 294 1,182 36.0 D 21.9 C 5.7 A 17.8 B 100 20 24028 % 381 1853351 %0250 59 180SB 94 435 7 536 24.8 C 13.4 B 10.1 B 15.4 B 100 551342 % 3 % 794 85 174 3 %0 00 0Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 12 12 36 26.7 D 31.8 D 5.3 A 21.3 C00 00 0204 20 630 0100 20 33WB 72 12 64 148 42.6E43.4E43.9E43.2E9.2 A00 00 0224 7417820 % 12 % 504375NB 9 960 58 1,027 9.7 A 7.2 A 3.7 A 7.0 A 100 20 5208 % 794 36 1770 0140020SB 55 452 27 534 15.5 C 2.1 A 1.8 A 3.4 A 100 25 810 03690200 0 00 0Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 289 720 37 1,046 96.4F15.3 B 12.3 B 37.0 D 150200 23051 % 1 % 369 2143761 %0 00 0WB 72 417 369 858 59.0E33.7 C 19.3 B 29.6 C 39.1 D00 00 0355 2063500 0 00 0NB 29 115 100 244 44.1 D 48.0 D 32.7 C 45.0 D 425 24 640 0427 95 1940 0 00 0SB 433 71 98 602 66.2E35.3 D 18.3 B 54.8 D 715 220 4000 0713 85 2090 0 00 0Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB01138 37 1,1750.0 010.8 B 9.3 A 10.8 B00 002 % 355 20736620 %0 00 0WB085808580.0 01.7 A0.0 01.7 A 25.5 D00 00 0169 20 620 0 00 0NB0 0187 1870.0 045.9E249.0F211.4F00 00 0 00 00 0450366625SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave/50th St (Signal) EB0874 445 1,3190.0 024.7 C 14.1 B 21.2 C00 00 0250 18522018 % 2 % 300 153 169WB 294 5070801 36.8 D 13.7 B0.0 022.3 C 28.0 C00 00 0380 2403720 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB 635 53 351 1,039 40.5 D 47.4 D 41.5 D 41.2 D 500 198 3760 01107 249 468 1 % 3 % 400 201324TH 100 East Ramps & 50th St EB01216 293 1,5090.0 02.2 A 5.2 A 2.8 A00 00 03820200 0252037WB0801 332 1,1330.0 01.0 A 2.0 A 1.3 A 2.1 A00 00 0161 20 200 0252034NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Grange Rd & 50th St (Signal) EB01147 69 1,2160.0 01.8 A 1.3 A 1.8 A00 00 0161 29 650 0 00 0WB 4 8840888 19.6 B 5.3 A0.0 05.4 A 10.6 B00 00 0380 83 198019000 0NB 2490194 443 46.1 D 7.2 A 42.5 D 42.0 D 1751511840 0 00 00 090121 187SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Eden Ave & Grange Rd EB 97 124 90 311 6.4 A 7.9 A 4.8 A 6.6 A 100 35 770 0767 48 970 0 00 0WB 50 76 10 136 6.4 A 7.8 A 4.2 A 7.0 A 6.8 A 75 25 480 0380 35 710 0 00 0NB 84 144 72 300 8.1 A 9.1 A 4.6 A 7.8 A00 00 0434 58 122 7 % 1 % 50 3267SB 33 106 115 254 5.9 A 7.4 A 4.4 A 5.9 A00 00 0185 41 820 0100 20 20Arcadia Ave & eden Ave (Roundabout) EB0 0WB0 0NB0 0SB0 0OLG Entrance & Eden Ave EB 1 396 15 4120.0 00.9 A 0.1 A 0.9 A00 00 0139 20 230 0 00 0WB 17 3310348 4.7 A 0.7 A0.0 00.9 A 1.1 A 90 20 340 0 00 00 0 00 0NB 12018 30 10.6 B0.0 04.8 A 7.0 A 240 20 310 0 00 00 0120 20 21SB 402 60.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 2 3970399 3.7 A 1.1 A0.0 01.1 A 100 20 200 0626 20 260 0 00 0WB0341 4 3450.0 00.2 A 0.1 A 0.2 A 0.9 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB 150120270.0 011.0 B0.0 03.4 A 7.5 A00 00 0345 20 340 0 00 0NOTES 1. If the reported queue is greater than zero (0), but less than 20 ft, a minimum of 20 ft is reported.2. Block Percentage is proportion of analysis time (1 hour) the storage lane or through lane is blocked or blocking.3. Multiple storage lanes of different length are averaged together to show the "Effective Storage Length" per lane.LOS ByApproachLOS ByIntersectionSee Attached HCS7 Summary for Roundabout Control OperationsVehicle Queing Information (feet)Right Turn LaneDemand VolumesThrough Lane (s)Delay (s/veh)Left Turn LaneIntersectionApproachPM Peak Hour Eden Avenue Traffic Study - Edina, MNScenario 2-A: Ramp Closure (Build Scenario)AM Peak HourU L T R Total U LOS L LOS T LOS R LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSStorage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockThru (2)---->% BlockLeft (2)<----Link Length(feet)Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockRight (2)---->% BlockThru (2)<----Storage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal) EB 6 5 4 15 26.6 C 27.5 C 7.3 A 22.1 C 80 20 430 081 20 420 0 00 0WB 191 2 165 358 18.2 B 3.4 A 7.1 A 12.8 B 22.0 C 5062 10414 % 4 % 626 62 2060 0 00 0NB 2 614 256 872 43.6 D 32.4 C 6.2 A 25.1 C 100 20 28027 % 381 1833622 %0250 64246SB 120 396 12 528 30.1 C 21.0 C 16.4 B 23.0 C 100 691614 % 6 % 794 100 217 6 %0 00 0Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 4 12 28 19.3 C 27.3 D 4.7 A 14.4 B00 00 0204 20 440 0100 20 30WB 52 4 60 116 16.7 C 18.7 C 7.4 A 11.8 B 4.0 A00 00 042 30596 % 3 % 50 3063NB 13 697 75 785 6.9 A 3.4 A 3.6 A 3.5 A 100 20 290 0794 20 200 0140020SB 56 463 29 548 11.3 B 1.8 A 1.6 A 2.6 A 100 20 720 03750200 0 00 0Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 176 539 63 778 53.8 D 13.5 B 12.0 B 22.6 C 15013222913 % 1 % 375 1553451 %0 00 0WB 80 376 302 758 52.1 D 33.6 C 19.9 B 30.0 C 28.2 C00 00 0362 1843400 0 00 0NB 19 66 70 155 41.0 D 46.9 D 26.4 C 42.7 D 435 20 650 0436 64 1380 0 00 0SB 373 80 161 614 37.2 D 29.5 C 16.7 B 30.7 C 735 149 2580 0733 105 2420 0 00 0Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB0894 31 9250.0 05.9 A 5.8 A 5.9 A00 001 % 362 803318 %0 00 0WB075807580.0 01.5 A0.0 01.5 A 12.1 B00 00 0169 20 370 0 00 0NB0 0188 1880.0 01.3 A 105.6F74.3F00 00 0 00 00 0445 161463SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave/50th St (Signal) EB0670 382 1,0520.0 021.7 C 14.2 B 19.1 B00 00 0250 16220912 % 2 % 300 136 169WB 370 5370907 68.3E24.9 C0.0 042.7 D 30.0 C00 00 03803535060 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB 357 61 221 639 29.6 C 33.1 C 30.4 C 30.2 C 500 101 2060 01107 156 2370 0300 113225TH 100 East Ramps & 50th St EB0664 363 1,0270.0 01.6 A 5.2 A 2.9 A00 00 0 00 001 % 252346WB0907 580 1,4870.0 05.9 A 4.7 A 5.4 A 4.4 A00 00 0161 431481 % 2 % 252453NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Grange Rd & 50th St (Signal) EB0595 69 6640.0 02.7 A 1.9 A 2.6 A00 00 0161 42 880 0 00 0WB 8 135001,358 13.2 B 7.7 A0.0 07.7 A 9.4 A00 00 0380 141335019000 0NB 1370127 264 39.2 D 2.0 A 39.1 D 28.2 C 175 901780 0 00 00 09082169SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Eden Ave & Grange Rd EB 136 105 85 326 6.4 A 7.3 A 4.2 A 6.2 A 100 38 700 0767 43 800 0 00 0WB 44 140 3 187 6.5 A 8.1 A 4.2 A 7.6 A 6.2 A 75 25 570 0380 43 840 0 00 0NB 81 71 41 193 7.4 A 8.4 A 4.3 A 7.1 A00 00 0434 45 107 3 % 1 % 50 2476SB 35 119 194 348 6.3 A 7.7 A 3.4 A 5.1 A00 00 0185 44 1010 0100 20 71Arcadia Ave & eden Ave (Roundabout) EB 65 304 47 416 2.7 A 3.4 A 2.7 A 3.2 A00 00 0150 20 870 0 00 0WB 44 284 86 414 2.4 A 3.1 A 2.5 A 2.9 A 3.3 A00 00 062 34880 0 00 0NB 63 68 15 146 3.6 A 4.3 A 3.6 A 3.9 A00 00 0658 21 610 0 00 0SB 8 44 109 161 4.1 A 4.5 A 3.5 A 3.8 A00 00 0894 20 650 0 00 0OLG Entrance & Eden Ave EB 2 265 109 3760.0 01.2 A 0.5 A 1.0 A00 00 0139 20 280 0 00 0WB 151 304 1 456 5.7 A 0.5 A0.0 02.2 A 2.9 A 90 361041 %0 00 00 0 00 0NB 530150 203 17.5 C0.0 04.7 A 8.0 A 240 24 700 0 00 00 0120 3191SB 10 010.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 5 3750380 2.9 A 1.0 A0.0 01.0 A 100 20 200 0 00 00 0 00 0WB0354 3 3570.0 00.2 A 0.2 A 0.2 A 0.6 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB0 03030.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 03.4 A 3.4 A00 00 0345 20 200 0 00 0NOTES 1. If the reported queue is greater than zero (0), but less than 20 ft, a minimum of 20 ft is reported.2. Block Percentage is proportion of analysis time (1 hour) the storage lane or through lane is blocked or blocking.3. Multiple storage lanes of different length are averaged together to show the "Effective Storage Length" per lane.AM Peak HourLOS ByApproachLOS ByIntersectionVehicle Queing Information (feet)Through Lane (s)Left Turn LaneRight Turn LaneIntersectionApproachDemand VolumesDelay (s/veh) HCS7 Roundabouts Report General Information Site Information Analyst EKJ Intersection Eden Ave & Arcadia Agency or Co.E/W Street Name Eden Ave Date Performed 9/11/2020 N/S Street Name Arcadia Analysis Year 2020 Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Time Analyzed AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Project Description Eden Ave Traffic Study (Build)Jurisdiction Edina Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach EB WB NB SB Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Number of Lanes (N)0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Assignment LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (V), veh/h 0 65 305 47 0 44 284 86 0 63 69 14 0 8 44 109 Percent Heavy Vehicles, %3 3 3 10 3 10 3 3 3 10 10 10 3 3 3 3 Flow Rate (vPCE), pc/h 0 73 341 56 0 53 318 96 0 75 82 17 0 9 49 122 Right-Turn Bypass None None None None Conflicting Lanes 1 1 1 1 Pedestrians Crossing, p/h 0 0 0 0 Critical and Follow-Up Headway Adjustment Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Critical Headway (s)4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 Follow-Up Headway (s)2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 Flow Computations, Capacity and v/c Ratios Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Entry Flow (ve), pc/h 470 467 174 180 Entry Volume veh/h 453 450 158 175 Circulating Flow (vc), pc/h 111 230 423 446 Exiting Flow (vex), pc/h 367 515 251 158 Capacity (cpce), pc/h 1232 1091 896 876 Capacity (c), veh/h 1187 1052 815 850 v/c Ratio (x)0.38 0.43 0.19 0.21 Delay and Level of Service Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Lane Control Delay (d), s/veh 6.8 8.1 6.4 6.4 Lane LOS A A A A 95% Queue, veh 1.8 2.2 0.7 0.8 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.8 8.1 6.4 6.4 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Delay, s/veh | LOS 7.2 A Copyright © 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Roundabouts Version 7.5 Generated: 10/15/2020 10:57:07 AM Eden Ave & Arcadia_AM Peak Hour-Base Year + Ramp Closure - Updated Volumes.xro Scenario 2-A HCS7 Roundabouts Report General Information Site Information Analyst EKJ Intersection Eden Ave & Arcadia Agency or Co.E/W Street Name Eden Ave Date Performed 9/11/2020 N/S Street Name Arcadia Analysis Year 2020 Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Time Analyzed PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Project Description Eden Ave Traffic Study (Build)Jurisdiction Edina Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach EB WB NB SB Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Number of Lanes (N)0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Assignment LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (V), veh/h 0 85 284 50 0 49 167 60 0 79 74 19 0 9 108 103 Percent Heavy Vehicles, %3 3 3 10 3 10 3 3 3 10 10 10 3 3 3 3 Flow Rate (vPCE), pc/h 0 95 318 60 0 59 187 67 0 94 88 23 0 10 121 115 Right-Turn Bypass None None None None Conflicting Lanes 1 1 1 1 Pedestrians Crossing, p/h 0 0 0 0 Critical and Follow-Up Headway Adjustment Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Critical Headway (s)4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 Follow-Up Headway (s)2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 Flow Computations, Capacity and v/c Ratios Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Entry Flow (ve), pc/h 473 313 205 246 Entry Volume veh/h 456 300 186 239 Circulating Flow (vc), pc/h 190 277 423 340 Exiting Flow (vex), pc/h 351 396 250 240 Capacity (cpce), pc/h 1137 1040 896 976 Capacity (c), veh/h 1095 998 815 947 v/c Ratio (x)0.42 0.30 0.23 0.25 Delay and Level of Service Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Lane Control Delay (d), s/veh 7.7 6.7 6.9 6.3 Lane LOS A A A A 95% Queue, veh 2.1 1.3 0.9 1.0 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.7 6.7 6.9 6.3 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Delay, s/veh | LOS 7.0 A Copyright © 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Roundabouts Version 7.5 Generated: 10/15/2020 11:00:45 AM Eden Ave & Arcadia_PM Peak Hour-Base Year + Ramp Closure - Updated Volumes.xro Scenario 2-A Eden Avenue Traffic Study - Edina, MNScenario 2-B: All-Way Stop Control (Existing Control) AM & PM Peak HoursU-Turn L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSStorage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockThru (2)---->% BlockLeft (2)<----Link Length(feet)Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockRight (2)---->% BlockThru (2)<----Storage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1Arcadia Ave & Eden Ave EB 65 304 47 416 6.5 A 8.1 A 5.7 A 7.6 A 100 28 6401 % 131 651270 0 00 0WB 44 284 86 414 7.4 A 11.7 B 7.8 A 10.4 B 8.6 A 75 32100013 % 109 801850 0 00 0NB 63 68 15 146 9.1 A 9.0 A 5.7 A 8.6 A00 00 0679 47 1040 0 00 0SB 8 44 109 161 6.6 A 9.3 A 5.6 A 6.6 A00 00 0906 34 890 0 00 0Arcadia Ave & Eden Ave EB 85 283 50 418 9.1 A 8.6 A 5.8 A 8.4 A 100 33861 % 2 % 131 661320 0 00 0WB 49 167 60 276 6.2 A 7.9 A 5.5 A 7.1 A 8.4 A 75 20 5702 % 109 501110 0 00 0NB 79 74 19 172 12.4 B 12.9 B 6.0 A 11.9 B00 00 0679 52 1310 0 00 0SB 10 108 103 221 7.8 A 9.5 A 5.3 A 7.4 A00 00 0906 40 990 0 00 0PM Peak HourDelay (s/veh)LOS ByApproachLOS ByIntersectionAM Peak HourIntersectionApproachDemand VolumesVehicle Queing Information (feet)Right Turn LaneLeft Turn Lane Through Lane (s) Eden Avenue Traffic Study - Edina, MNScenario 3-A: Dedicated Left-Turn Lane (Restriping)AM & PM Peak HoursU-Turn L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSStorage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockThru (2)---->% BlockLeft (2)<----Link Length(feet)Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockRight (2)---->% BlockThru (2)<----Storage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave/50th St (Signal)EB0670 382 1,0520.0 022.7 C 12.9 B 19.3 B00 00 0250 160 202 15 % 2 % 300 128 161WB 370 5370907 30.4 C 8.9 A0.0 017.4 B 21.1 C 385 1853380 0380 127 2780 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB 357 61 221 639 29.6 C 32.6 C 28.6 C 29.6 C 500 95 2290 01119 154 2580 0400 106 227TH 100 East Ramps & 50th St EB0664 363 1,0270.0 01.7 A 5.3 A 2.9 A00 00 038602001 % 25 2148WB0907 580 1,4870.0 02.1 A 4.7 A 3.1 A 3.0 A00 00 0161 20 11702 % 252452NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave/50th St (Signal)EB0874 445 1,3190.0 023.3 C 12.0 B 19.6 B00 00 0250 176 206 18 % 2 % 300 143 161WB 294 5070801 31.6 C 6.5 A0.0 015.8 B 28.2 C 385 163 3090 0380 100 2070 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB 635 53 351 1,039 46.2 D 54.3 D 52.5 D 48.8 D 500 226 4230 01119 281 540 2 % 6 % 400 217 324TH 100 East Ramps & 50th St EB01216 293 1,5090.0 02.2 A 4.9 A 2.7 A00 00 03860200 025 2037WB0801 332 1,1330.0 01.0 A 2.1 A 1.3 A 2.1 A00 00 0161 20 200 025 2036NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0PM Peak HourDelay (s/veh)LOS ByApproachLOS ByIntersectionAM Peak HourIntersectionApproachDemand VolumesVehicle Queing Information (feet)Right Turn LaneLeft Turn Lane Through Lane (s) Eden Avenue Traffic Study - Edina, MN Scenario 3-B: Dedicated Left-Turn Lane (Reconstruction)AM & PM Peak HoursU-Turn L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSStorage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockThru (2)---->% BlockLeft (2)<----Link Length(feet)Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockRight (2)---->% BlockThru (2)<----Storage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave/50th St (Signal)EB0670 382 1,0520.0 022.6 C 13.3 B 19.3 B00 00 0250 16821314 % 2 % 300 139 169WB 370 5370907 31.7 C 6.4 A0.0 016.6 B 21.0 C 350 1853244 %0380 73 2970 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB 357 61 221 639 29.9 C 35.5 D 29.3 C 30.2 C 500 102 2220 01107 156 2690 0400 108 227TH 100 East Ramps & 50th St EB0664 363 1,0270.0 01.7 A 5.2 A 2.9 A00 00 038202001 % 25 2147WB0907 580 1,4870.0 01.4 A 3.4 A 2.2 A 2.5 A00 00 0161 20 5901 % 25 2046NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave/50th St (Signal)EB0874 445 1,3190.0 024.9 C 13.1 B 21.1 C00 00 0250 18622320 % 3 % 300 150 169WB 294 5070801 33.4 C 6.6 A0.0 016.0 B 24.6 C 350 163 291 2 %0380 65 1820 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB 635 53 351 1,039 34.6 C 41.1 D 37.0 D 35.7 D 500 186 3750 01107 229 448 1 % 2 % 400 187 320TH 100 East Ramps & 50th St EB01216 293 1,5090.0 02.3 A 5.2 A 2.9 A00 00 0382 20 2001 % 25 2037WB0801 332 1,1330.0 00.9 A 1.9 A 1.2 A 2.2 A00 00 01610200 025 2036NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Vehicle Queing Information (feet)Right Turn LaneLeft Turn Lane Through Lane (s)IntersectionApproachDemand Volumes Delay (s/veh)LOS ByApproachLOS ByIntersectionAM Peak HourPM Peak Hour Appendix C 2014-2019 Crash Summary: TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Avenue Table A1Vernon Ave at the Southbound TH 100 Ramps2015 to 2019 Crash DataMnDOT Crash Mapping Software InformationCrash RateCritical RatesCriticalIndexMnDOT AverageIntersectionControlTypeEntering ADTFatalABCPropertyTotalCrashRateCrashRateCriticalIndexCrashRateVernon Ave at SB TH 100 RampSignal (3)30,000000116170.31 1.00 0.31 0.70TOTAL 000116170% 0% 0% 6% 94% 100%Study IntersectionsIntersection Rear End Right Angle Sideswipe Head On Other Total Pedestrian BicycleVernon Ave at SB TH 100 Ramp 6 8 3 0 0 17 0 0TOTAL 68300170035% 47% 18% 0% 0% 100%NOTES:Crash Rates - Number of crashes per million entering vehiclesExceeding the Calculated Critical Rates indicated a sustained crash problem. Intersection Type Crash RateSignal (3) - High Volume, Low Speed 0.70Study Intersections Crash SeverityINTERSECTION CRASH RATE INFORMATIONCritical Rate ExceededCritical Index ≥ 1Average Rate ExceededMnDOT Statewide Average Rates (2015 Data; 5-Year)*Pedestrian / Bicycle CrashesDiagram - Crash Type Appendix D TH 100 West Ramps Left-Turn Lane Reconfiguration Preliminary Schematics - Restriping Alternative - Reconstruction Alternative GRA N G E R D 50TH ST WNB TH-100 ENTRANCE RAMPVERNON AVETO SB TH-100 ENTRANCE RAMP / ARCADIA AVEVERNON AVESB TH-100 EXIT RAMP PHONE: 952.912.260010901 RED CIRCLE DRIVE,SUITE 300MINNETONKA, MN 55343www.sehinc.comSEH NO. 156818X:\AE\E\EDINA\156818\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\10-Civil\cad\dwg\exhibit\Eden @ Vernon Options_10282020.dwg kmontebello 11/2/2020 10:34 AM EDEN AVENUE AND BROOKSIDE AVENUE RECONSTRUCTIONCITY OF EDINA,MINNESOTAVERNON AVENUE BRIDGELANE-DROP RESTRIPING CONCEPTDRAFT03060350' LEFT TURN LANE12'12' 12' 12'FIGURE 3-ASTART LANE-DROPPAVEMENT MARKING8" DOTTED LINE WHITE GR A N G E R D 50TH ST WNB TH-100 ENTRANCE RAMPVERNON AVETO SB TH-100 ENTRANCE RAMP / ARCADIA AVEVERNON AVESB TH-100 EXIT RAMP NB TH-100 ENTRANCE RAMPPHONE: 952.912.260010901 RED CIRCLE DRIVE,SUITE 300MINNETONKA, MN 55343www.sehinc.comSEH NO. 156818X:\AE\E\EDINA\156818\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\10-Civil\cad\dwg\exhibit\Eden @ Vernon Options_10282020.dwg kmontebello 11/4/2020 11:35 AM EDEN AVENUE AND BROOKSIDE AVENUE RECONSTRUCTIONCITY OF EDINA,MINNESOTAVERNON AVENUE BRIDGERECONFIGURATION CONCEPTDRAFT350' LEFT TURN LANE1:30 LANE TAPER1' CLEAR ZONE5' SIDEWALK1' CLEAR ZONE5' SIDEWALK13'12'13' 12' 12'WIDEN BRIDGE BYAPPROX. 13.5'FIGURE 3-B0feetscale408040201:30TAPER5' SIDEWALK1.33' BARRIERAND RAILINGTRANSITION TO5' SIDEWALK1:10 TURN LANE TAPERTRANSITION TO5' SIDEWALK12' 13' 13' 12'12' Appendix E 2040 Forecasted Traffic Operations Analyses - Existing Conditions - Build Conditions Eden Avenue Traffic Study - Edina, MN2040 Volumes Scenario 1-B: Existing Conditions - Signalized SB Right Turn TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave S AM Peak HourU L T R Total U LOS L LOS T LOS R LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSStorage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockThru (2)---->% BlockLeft (2)<----Link Length(feet)Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockRight (2)---->% BlockThru (2)<----Storage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal) EB 6 5 4 15 25.8 C 24.6 C 5.8 A 18.8 B 80 20 520 081 20 380 0 00 0WB 203 2 175 380 18.2 B 4.4 A 7.2 A 12.8 B 20.9 C 5063 10415 % 5 % 626 64 2220 0 00 0NB 2 651 272 925 48.9 D 31.0 C 6.6 A 22.9 C 100 20 26027 % 381 1683162 %0250 67190SB 128 420 12 560 32.1 C 20.4 C 17.3 B 23.0 C 100 791695 % 7 % 794 106 219 7 %0 00 0Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 4 12 28 21.7 C 20.3 C 4.7 A 14.2 B00 00 0204 20 440 0100 20 33WB 56 4 64 124 19.5 C 25.5 D 6.8 A 13.3 B 4.1 A00 00 042365811 % 3 % 50 2958NB 13 739 79 831 6.8 A 3.2 A 3.4 A 3.3 A 100 20 250 0794 20 200 0140020SB 60 490 30 580 11.1 B 1.8 A 1.5 A 2.7 A 100 23 790 03750200 0 00 0Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 186 572 67 825 52.6 D 12.7 B 11.9 B 21.9 C 15013222813 % 1 % 375 1463351 %0 00 0WB 84 399 320 803 48.5 D 34.1 C 21.4 C 30.5 C 28.0 C00 00 0360 1973530 0 00 0NB 19 70 13 102 43.6 D 46.4 D 24.1 C 42.9 D 435 20 570 0436 70 1590 0 00 0SB 395 84 171 650 34.2 C 31.1 C 19.8 B 29.8 C 2425 130 2260 02425 132 2630 0 00 0Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB0948 32 9800.0 03.9 A 3.4 A 3.9 A00 001 % 360 42 242 4 %0 00 0WB080308030.0 01.6 A0.0 01.6 A 4.0 A00 00 0170 20 540 0 00 0NB0 0167 1670.0 00.9 A 31.4 D 16.2 C00 00 0 00 00 0455 45 147SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave/50th St (Signal) EB0710 404 1,1140.0 016.7 B 6.1 A 14.2 B00 00 01701431947 %0300 77 169WB 393 5700963 30.0 C 13.2 B0.0 017.9 B 20.3 C00 00 0382 1773490 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB 379 65 234 678 31.3 C 35.4 D 31.0 C 31.6 C 500 113 2170 01107 164 2510 0300 117231TH 100 East Ramps & 50th St EB0704 385 1,0890.0 01.6 A 5.0 A 2.8 A00 00 0382 20 2501 % 252042WB0962 616 1,5780.0 01.3 A 3.8 A 2.4 A 2.6 A00 00 0161 20 9202 % 252255NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Grange Rd & 50th St (Signal) EB0631 73 7040.0 02.4 A 3.1 A 2.5 A00 00 0161 38 990 0 00 0WB 8 143101,439 10.7 B 5.5 A0.0 05.5 A 8.2 A00 00 0380 127296019000 0NB 1450134 279 37.2 D 2.4 A 44.9 D 28.4 C 175 761680 0 00 00 09097 175SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Eden Ave & Grange Rd EB 144 112 91 347 7.7 A 8.5 A 4.6 A 7.1 A 100 40 810 0774 42 930 0 00 0WB 47 149 3 199 8.6 A 11.9 B 10.8 B 11.4 B 11.2 B 75 299406 % 380 71 1820 0 00 0NB 85 76 43 204 8.8 A 9.6 A 4.5 A 8.1 A00 00 0434 47 95 5 % 1 % 50 2459SB 37 126 206 369 12.3 B 17.9 C 16.0 C 16.3 C00 00 0185 902248 % 11 % 100 42150TH 100 SB On-Ramp & Eden Ave EB034603460.0 02.3 A 2.7 A 2.4 A00 00 0117 20 220 040 2086WB04390439 17.3 C 12.7 B0.0 013.9 B 9.0 A 120 3410201 % 774 20 154 1 %0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 03500 0 0 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Arcadia Ave & Eden Ave EB 69 322 50 441 7.3 A 10.3 B 7.6 A 9.7 A 100 268806 % 131 811450 0 00 0WB 47 301 91 439 6.4 A 7.9 A 5.7 A 7.4 A 8.3 A 75 309607 % 117 761410 0 00 0NB 67 75 16 158 8.1 A 8.8 A 6.0 A 7.4 A00 00 0679 47 960 0 00 0SB 8 47 116 171 8.7 A 10.1 B 6.3 A 7.8 A00 00 0906 46 1000 0 00 0OLG Entrance & Eden Ave EB 2 282 116 4000.0 02.0 A 1.0 A 1.7 A00 00 0139 201120 0 00 0WB 160 322 1 483 9.3 A 2.0 A0.0 04.3 A 6.7 A 90 421092 %0131 201130 0 00 0NB 560160 216 39.6E0.0 017.6 C 23.1 C 240 33 1160 0 00 00 0120 44141SB 10 010.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 5 3970402 3.6 A 1.2 A0.0 01.2 A 100 20 280 0626 20 280 0 00 0WB0375 3 3780.0 00.3 A 0.1 A 0.3 A 0.8 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB0 03030.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 03.2 A 3.2 A00 00 0345 20 200 0 00 0NOTES 1. If the reported queue is greater than zero (0), but less than 20 ft, a minimum of 20 ft is reported.2. Block Percentage is proportion of analysis time (1 hour) the storage lane or through lane is blocked or blocking.3. Multiple storage lanes of different length are averaged together to show the "Effective Storage Length" per lane.AM Peak HourVehicle Queing Information (feet)Through Lane (s)Left Turn LaneRight Turn LaneLOS ByApproachLOS ByIntersectionIntersectionApproachDemand VolumesDelay (s/veh) Eden Avenue Traffic Study - Edina, MN2040 Volumes Scenario 1-B: Existing Conditions - Signalized SB Right Turn TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave S PM Peak HourU L T R Total U LOS L LOS T LOS R LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSStorage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockThru (2)---->% BlockLeft (2)<----Link Length(feet)Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockRight (2)---->% BlockThru (2)<----Storage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal) EB 2 10 5 17 23.8 C 23.8 C 5.9 A 17.2 B 80 20 230 081 20 520 0 00 0WB 224 4 145 373 21.7 C 7.3 A 9.4 A 16.4 B 17.1 B 5070 10420 % 5 % 626 81 2400 0 00 0NB 2 920 334 1,256 48.2 D 22.2 C 6.2 A 18.0 B 100 20 50032 % 381 2063341 %0250 67 187SB 110 461 7 578 26.1 C 13.2 B 7.5 A 15.4 B 100 601532 % 3 % 794 88 189 3 %0 00 0Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 12 12 36 32.2 D 30.0 D 5.1 A 23.1 C00 00 0204 20 600 0100 20 32WB 76 12 68 156 23.9 C 23.1 C 12.2 B 18.7 C 5.2 A00 00 04244 7221 % 7 % 50 3263NB 9 996 62 1,067 8.3 A 3.8 A 3.1 A 3.8 A 100 20 2301 % 794 20 590 0140020SB 59 490 27 576 14.6 B 2.0 A 1.7 A 3.2 A 100 23 710 03790200 0 00 0Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 306 730 40 1,076 63.8E14.0 B 12.6 B 28.5 C 150194 23037 % 2 % 379 1913832 %0 00 0WB 76 442 391 909 53.6 D 41.9 D 29.8 C 37.6 D 35.4 D00 00 0354 2503750 0 00 0NB 30 122 25 177 43.1 D 57.9E47.2 D 53.9 D 425 24 890 0427 112 2630 0 00 0SB 396 137 104 637 44.8 D 33.5 C 22.0 C 38.8 D 2965 156 2700 02965 121 2560 0 00 0Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB01113 41 1,1540.0 08.0 A 7.2 A 8.0 A00 003 % 354 14032814 %0 00 0WB090909090.0 03.2 A0.0 03.2 A 7.2 A00 00 0170 22 1230 0 00 0NB0 077 770.0 01.0 A 46.4E26.0 D00 00 0 00 00 0455 55 185SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave/50th St (Signal) EB0927 263 1,1900.0 020.6 C 7.2 A 17.7 B00 00 0170178 21213 % 1 % 300 115 170WB 187 5380725 49.5 D 19.5 B0.0 027.6 C 26.0 C00 00 0382 2133640 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB 673 57 372 1,102 32.7 C 38.5 D 35.8 D 34.0 C 500 194 3330 01107 251 450 1 % 3 % 300 175313TH 100 East Ramps & 50th St EB01288 311 1,5990.0 02.5 A 5.5 A 3.1 A00 00 0382 20 76 1 % 1 % 252038WB0725 352 1,0770.0 01.0 A 2.0 A 1.3 A 2.4 A00 00 0161 20 200 0252033NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Grange Rd & 50th St (Signal) EB01216 73 1,2890.0 04.7 A 3.4 A 4.6 A00 00 0161 1021650 0 00 0WB 4 8370841 21.6 C 5.4 A0.0 05.5 A 11.8 B00 00 0380 83 199019000 0NB 2390206 445 44.9 D 6.4 A 42.6 D 41.7 D 175 1431840 0 00 00 090123 181SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Eden Ave & Grange Rd EB 103 132 95 330 7.3 A 8.9 A 4.9 A 7.3 A 100 35 740 0774 48 970 0 00 0WB 53 180 10 243 8.2 A 9.3 A 5.4 A 8.8 A 7.9 A 75 297101 % 380 52 1040 0 00 0NB 101 140 76 317 9.8 A 10.9 B 5.3 A 9.2 A00 00 0434 65 157 11 % 1 % 50 35102SB 35 113 135 283 8.2 A 8.9 A 4.2 A 6.5 A00 00 0185 46 120 1 %0100 20 55TH 100 SB On-Ramp & Eden Ave EB0331 209 5400.0 02.2 A 2.8 A 2.4 A00 00 0117 20 230 040 2096WB 124 2930417 10.0 B 6.6 A0.0 07.6 A 4.7 A 120 23 550 0 00 00 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 03500 0 0 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Arcadia Ave & Eden Ave EB 39 384 53 476 7.3 A 12.2 B 8.6 A 11.4 B 100 27101010 % 132 851400 0 00 0WB 52 177 64 293 6.2 A 7.8 A 4.3 A 6.8 A 9.6 A 75 206501 % 117 48950 0 00 0NB 85 37 62 184 9.0 A 9.5 A 7.2 A 8.5 A00 00 0678 51 1200 0 00 0SB 94 114 109 317 10.4 B 11.6 B 8.1 A 10.0 B00 00 0910 68 1430 0 00 0OLG Entrance & Eden Ave EB 1 452 15 4680.0 02.6 A 1.2 A 2.6 A00 00 0137 201200 0 00 0WB 17 3510368 6.1 A 1.6 A0.0 01.8 A 3.0 A 130 20 370 0 00 00 0 00 0NB 12018 30 15.8 C0.0 032.7 D 26.4 D 235 20 340 0 00 00 0115 20 44SB 402 60.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 2 4520454 2.9 A 1.2 A0.0 01.2 A 100 20 200 0626 20 400 0 00 0WB0361 4 3650.0 00.2 A 0.0 A 0.2 A 1.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB 150120270.0 010.5 B0.0 03.4 A 7.1 A00 00 0345 20 410 0 00 0NOTES 1. If the reported queue is greater than zero (0), but less than 20 ft, a minimum of 20 ft is reported.2. Block Percentage is proportion of analysis time (1 hour) the storage lane or through lane is blocked or blocking.3. Multiple storage lanes of different length are averaged together to show the "Effective Storage Length" per lane.IntersectionApproachVehicle Queing Information (feet)Right Turn LaneDemand VolumesThrough Lane (s)Delay (s/veh)PM Peak HourLOS ByApproachLOS ByIntersectionLeft Turn Lane HCS7 Roundabouts Report General Information Site Information Analyst EKJ Intersection Eden Ave & Arcadia Agency or Co.E/W Street Name Eden Ave Date Performed 11/12/2020 N/S Street Name Arcadia Analysis Year 2040 Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Time Analyzed PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Project Description Eden Ave Traffic Study (Build)Jurisdiction Edina Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach EB WB NB SB Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Number of Lanes (N)0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Assignment LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (V), veh/h 0 91 301 53 0 52 177 64 0 85 79 20 0 10 114 109 Percent Heavy Vehicles, %3 3 3 10 3 10 3 3 3 10 10 10 3 3 3 3 Flow Rate (vPCE), pc/h 0 102 337 63 0 62 198 72 0 102 94 24 0 11 128 122 Right-Turn Bypass None None None None Conflicting Lanes 1 1 1 1 Pedestrians Crossing, p/h 0 0 0 0 Critical and Follow-Up Headway Adjustment Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Critical Headway (s)4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 Follow-Up Headway (s)2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 Flow Computations, Capacity and v/c Ratios Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Entry Flow (ve), pc/h 502 332 220 261 Entry Volume veh/h 483 318 200 253 Circulating Flow (vc), pc/h 201 298 450 362 Exiting Flow (vex), pc/h 372 422 268 253 Capacity (cpce), pc/h 1124 1018 872 954 Capacity (c), veh/h 1083 977 793 926 v/c Ratio (x)0.45 0.33 0.25 0.27 Delay and Level of Service Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Lane Control Delay (d), s/veh 8.2 7.1 7.3 6.7 Lane LOS A A A A 95% Queue, veh 2.3 1.4 1.0 1.1 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.2 7.1 7.3 6.7 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Delay, s/veh | LOS 7.5 A Copyright © 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Roundabouts Version 7.5 Generated: 11/12/2020 2:05:33 PM 2040 Eden Ave & Arcadia_PM Peak Hour-Base Year + Ramp Closure.xro HCS7 Roundabouts Report General Information Site Information Analyst EKJ Intersection Eden Ave & Arcadia Agency or Co.E/W Street Name Eden Ave Date Performed 11/12/2020 N/S Street Name Arcadia Analysis Year 2040 Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Time Analyzed AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Project Description Eden Ave Traffic Study (Build)Jurisdiction Edina Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach EB WB NB SB Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Number of Lanes (N)0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Assignment LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (V), veh/h 0 70 322 50 0 47 301 91 0 67 71 16 0 8 47 116 Percent Heavy Vehicles, %3 3 3 10 3 10 3 3 3 10 10 10 3 3 3 3 Flow Rate (vPCE), pc/h 0 78 360 60 0 56 337 102 0 80 85 19 0 9 53 130 Right-Turn Bypass None None None None Conflicting Lanes 1 1 1 1 Pedestrians Crossing, p/h 0 0 0 0 Critical and Follow-Up Headway Adjustment Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Critical Headway (s)4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 Follow-Up Headway (s)2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 Flow Computations, Capacity and v/c Ratios Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Entry Flow (ve), pc/h 498 495 184 192 Entry Volume veh/h 480 477 167 186 Circulating Flow (vc), pc/h 118 243 447 473 Exiting Flow (vex), pc/h 388 547 265 169 Capacity (cpce), pc/h 1224 1077 875 852 Capacity (c), veh/h 1179 1038 795 827 v/c Ratio (x)0.41 0.46 0.21 0.23 Delay and Level of Service Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Lane Control Delay (d), s/veh 7.2 8.7 6.8 6.7 Lane LOS A A A A 95% Queue, veh 2.0 2.5 0.8 0.9 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.2 8.7 6.8 6.7 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Delay, s/veh | LOS 7.6 A Copyright © 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Roundabouts Version 7.5 Generated: 11/12/2020 1:58:53 PM 2040 Eden Ave & Arcadia_AM Peak Hour-Base Year + Ramp Closure.xro Eden Avenue Traffic Study - Edina, MNScenario 3-A (2040): Dedicated Left-Turn Lane (Restriping)AM & PM Peak HoursU-Turn L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSStorage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockThru (2)---->% BlockLeft (2)<----Link Length(feet)Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockRight (2)---->% BlockThru (2)<----Storage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave/50th St (Signal)EB0710 404 1,1140.0 029.5 C 15.7 B 24.5 C00 00 0250 170 2000 0150 118178WB 393 5700963 20.6 C 6.1 A0.0 011.9 B 24.4 C 350 1703070 0380 104 2510 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB 379 65 234 678 40.9 D 48.2 D 43.5 D 42.5 D 500 133 2560 01119 180 3010 0400 138 285TH 100 East Ramps & 50th St EB0704 385 1,0890.0 01.8 A 6.3 A 3.4 A00 00 0386 20 2002 % 2529 43WB0962 616 1,5780.0 02.4 A 5.4 A 3.6 A 3.5 A00 00 0161 20 10503 % 2528 58NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave/50th St (Signal)EB0927 472 1,3990.0 028.3 C 12.9 B 23.2 C00 00 0250 172 2090 0150 110175WB 310 5380848 28.3 C 8.7 A0.0 015.7 B 32.2 C 350 1653020 0380 118 2560 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB 673 57 372 1,102 53.6 D 56.0E67.9E58.4E500 2464500 01119 346 620 2 % 11 % 400 224 324TH 100 East Ramps & 50th St EB01288 311 1,5990.0 02.6 A 6.1 A 3.3 A00 00 0386 20 54 1 % 1 % 25 2039WB0848 352 1,2000.0 01.1 A 2.3 A 1.4 A 2.5 A00 00 0161 20 200 025 2037NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0PM Peak HourDelay (s/veh)LOS ByApproachLOS ByIntersectionAM Peak HourIntersectionApproachDemand VolumesVehicle Queing Information (feet)Right Turn LaneLeft Turn Lane Through Lane (s) Eden Avenue Traffic Study - Edina, MN Scenario 3-B (2040): Dedicated Left-Turn Lane (Reconstruction)AM & PM Peak HoursU-Turn L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSDelay(S/Veh)LOSStorage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockThru (2)---->% BlockLeft (2)<----Link Length(feet)Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1% BlockRight (2)---->% BlockThru (2)<----Storage(feet) 3Avg.Queue(feet) 1MaxQueue(feet) 1TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave/50th St (Signal)EB0710 404 1,1140.0 022.2 C 11.6 B 18.6 B00 00 0250 161 2000 0150 103179WB 393 5700963 26.7 C 5.2 A0.0 013.9 B 20.7 C 350 1813212 %0380 57 2170 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB 379 65 234 678 33.7 C 39.8 D 32.8 C 33.9 C 500 116 2360 01107 166 2690 0400 126 238TH 100 East Ramps & 50th St EB0704 385 1,0890.0 01.8 A 6.0 A 3.3 A00 00 0382 20 2602 % 2526 45WB0962 616 1,5780.0 01.5 A 4.1 A 2.5 A 2.8 A00 00 0161 20 6302 % 25 2149NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0TH 100 West Ramps & Vernon Ave/50th St (Signal)EB0927 472 1,3990.0 023.3 C 10.0 B 18.9 B00 00 0250 1812170 0150 100175WB 310 5380848 36.0 D 7.2 A0.0 017.8 B 24.7 C 350 1843143 %0380 69 2390 0 00 0NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB 673 57 372 1,102 36.6 D 42.4 D 37.4 D 37.2 D 500 2084380 01107 252 518 2 % 2 % 400 202 325TH 100 East Ramps & 50th St EB01288 311 1,5990.0 02.5 A 6.1 A 3.2 A00 00 0382 20 3901 % 25 2138WB0848 352 1,2000.0 00.9 A 1.9 A 1.2 A 2.3 A00 00 01610200 025 2034NB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0SB0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 00.0 A00 00 0 00 00 0 00 0PM Peak HourDelay (s/veh)LOS ByApproachLOS ByIntersectionAM Peak HourIntersectionApproachDemand VolumesVehicle Queing Information (feet)Right Turn LaneLeft Turn Lane Through Lane (s) Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Technical Memorandum To: Chad Millner and Ross Bintner, City of Edina (City) From: Julia Macejkovic and Michael McKinney, Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: Lift Station 9: Capacity Evaluation and Preliminary Engineering Date: December 4, 2020 Project: 23271827.00 1.0 Introduction and Background The Edina sanitary sewer lift station 9 (LS-9, also referred to as the Grandview station) is located southwest of the intersection of Arcadia Avenue and Eden Avenue (Figure 2-1; SEH 2020). Proposed transportation upgrades in the area include construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Arcadia Avenue and Eden Avenue, requiring relocation of LS-9. Relocation of LS-9 provides an opportunity to evaluate future development within the lift station sewershed and determine if upsizing and other upgrades to the lift station are required to support growth. The City of Edina (City) hired Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) to assist with evaluating LS-9 relocation, sizing, and upgrades. The following technical memorandum describes (a) evaluating flows associated with future development, (b) evaluating lift station sizing and capacity of the sanitary sewer system downstream of LS-9, and (c) preliminary engineering and design of the relocated lift station. 2.0 Data Acquisition and Review The City provided a draft roundabout concept for the Arcadia Avenue and Eden Avenue intersection on October 23, 2020 (Figure 2-1; SEH 2020). As shown in Figure 2-1, the proposed layout of the roundabout will require relocation of LS-9. In addition to draft roundabout concepts, the City and Barr conducted multiple meetings to discuss future development and associated demand planning within the LS-9 sewershed and exchanged correspondence related to sizing and relocation considerations. A complete summary of data acquired, reviewed, and incorporated into the evaluation of the lift station relocation and sizing is summarized in Table 2-1. To: Chad Millner and Ross Bintner, City of Edina (City) From: Julia Macejkovic and Michael McKinney, Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: Lift Station 9: Capacity Evaluation and Preliminary Engineering Date: December 4, 2020 Page: 2 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271827 LS-9 Upgrades\WorkFiles\400_TechMemo\Edina_LS09_Evaluation_20201204.docx Table 2-1 List of data collected and reviewed Item Data Received Application of Data Data Source 1 LS-9 record drawing and system pump curve Incorporated into XP-SWMM model and used for sizing features City 2 Trammel Crow redevelopment project approved units Incorporated into demand planning Scenario 1 (existing conditions) City 3 Ultimate buildout (20-30yr) development parcels and development density estimates Incorporated into demand planning Scenario 2 (ultimate development) City 4 Results of dye test at 5101 Gus Young Lane (Starbucks) Incorporated into modeling (not tributary to LS-9) City 5 Previous LS-9 studies (Barr, 2014; Barr, 2017a) Reviewed and used to validate demand planning results for this study Barr Figure 2-1 Draft Eden Ave and Arcadia Ave Roundabout Concept – Alternate 2 (SEH, 2020) SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION TO BE RELOCATED OUR LADY OF GRACE SIGN TO BE RELOCATED CLOSE SB- TH 100 RAMP TO ALL TRAFFIC EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY To: Chad Millner and Ross Bintner, City of Edina (City) From: Julia Macejkovic and Michael McKinney, Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: Lift Station 9: Capacity Evaluation and Preliminary Engineering Date: December 4, 2020 Page: 3 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271827 LS-9 Upgrades\WorkFiles\400_TechMemo\Edina_LS09_Evaluation_20201204.docx 3.0 Demand Planning Barr staff met with City staff to define development scenarios within the LS-9 sewershed. City planners identified parcels within the LS-9 sewershed that were likely to develop or redevelop within 20 to 30 years and provided development density estimates for each parcel (e.g., 100 units per acre). City staff indicated that development density estimates represent a “best guess” as to where and what type of development may occur within the study area. As development occurs, assumptions should be reviewed and updated as needed. Ultimately, the City requested that Barr evaluate the two development scenarios described below: • Scenario 1 – Existing Conditions o Used 2016 water use data for all parcels except parcel 119 and 120. o For parcels 119 and 120, used approved flow rate for the Trammel Crow development (166 units; 95.4 units/acre) • Scenario 2 – Ultimate Development o Assumed a development density of 100 units per acre for all development parcels identified by the City (development parcels highlighted in green in Figure 3-1, parcels 104 – 118; 122 – 124; 129; 135). o Scenario 1 conditions for all other parcels (2016 water use data with approved Trammel Crow development). Assumptions for development Scenario 1 and 2 are shown in Figure 3-1. Methodology for estimating flow from parcels with anticipated development is discussed in Section 3.1 and 3.2. 3.1 Scenario Flow Estimate Methodology Flow estimate methodology for parcels with anticipated development was adapted from the Edina South Sanitary Trunk Line Capacity Evaluation and Preliminary Engineering project (Barr, 2020). Specifically, Barr calculated flow for residential units based on the following assumptions: • Residential density: 2.5 residents per unit • Flow value: 75 gallons per day per resident (Metropolitan Council, 2004). The residential density and flow values listed above were used to estimate flow per parcel based on the residential units per acre for each development scenario (e.g., 100 units per acre for future development and 95.4 units acre for Trammel Crow development) and the size of the developed parcel. For example, a 0.8-acre parcel anticipating future development can expect a flow of 15,000 gallons per day. [100 units per acre x 0.8 acres x 2.5 residents per unit x 75 gpd per resident = 15,000 gpd] To: Chad Millner and Ross Bintner, City of Edina (City) From: Julia Macejkovic and Michael McKinney, Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: Lift Station 9: Capacity Evaluation and Preliminary Engineering Date: December 4, 2020 Page: 4 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271827 LS-9 Upgrades\WorkFiles\400_TechMemo\Edina_LS09_Evaluation_20201204.docx 3.2 Scenario Flow Summary Flow estimates for parcels anticipating development and Trammel Crow development were calculated using the residential flow estimate methodology outlined in Section 3.1. Table 3-1 provides a summary of the daily flow estimate calculated at each development parcel referencing parcel ID values shown on Figure 3-1. Table 3-1 Scenario Demand Planning flow summary by parcel Parcel ID (1) Development Scenario (2) Parcel Area (ac) Assumed Residential Units (#) Demand Planning Flow Estimate (gpd) (3) 119 Scenario 1 & 2 0.766 183 13,705 120 0.975 233 17,438 104 Scenario 2 2.913 728 54,617 105 0.206 52 3,871 106 0.206 52 3,871 107 0.526 132 9,866 108 0.228 57 4,270 109 0.566 141 10,606 110 0.245 61 4,603 111 0.256 64 4,791 112 0.255 64 4,785 113 0.229 57 4,299 114 0.080 20 1,505 115 0.175 44 3,281 116 0.115 29 2,159 117 0.462 115 8,659 118 0.544 136 10,206 122 0.677 169 12,686 123 0.178 44 3,330 124 0.421 105 7,887 129 1.167 292 21,889 135 1.346 336 25,235 (1) Parcel ID values referenced shown on Figure 3-1. (2) Development scenarios discussed in Section 3.0. (3) Average daily flow estimate from methodology outlined in Section 3.0. 100 127 104 125 134133 135 129 131 120119 122 132 101 109 107 117 128 103 118 124 111112 130 110 113 108106105 121 102 115 123 116 114 Barr Footer: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Lift_Station_09_Upgrades_23271827\Users\KSB\Figure_3_1 User: KSB Legend LS-9 Sewershed Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Sanitary Manholes Sanitary Forcemain Sanitary Laterals Sanitary Main Sanitary Pipes ")LS-9 Dye test indicates5101 Gus Young Land does not drainto LS-9 Unit Flow Estimate Assumptions: Parcels 119 and 120 (Trammel Crow): 95.4 units/acre All other scenario 2 parcels: 100 units/acre 0 500 Feet !;N FIGURE 3-1 LS-9 SewershedDevelopment Scenarios To: Chad Millner and Ross Bintner, City of Edina (City) From: Julia Macejkovic and Michael McKinney, Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: Lift Station 9: Capacity Evaluation and Preliminary Engineering Date: December 4, 2020 Page: 6 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271827 LS-9 Upgrades\WorkFiles\400_TechMemo\Edina_LS09_Evaluation_20201204.docx Barr has previously developed demand planning estimates for the LS-9 sewershed for two different studies: • Grandview Area Sanitary Sewer Analysis (Barr, 2014): Barr performed a study to evaluate the impact of anticipated development within the Grandview area. For this study, sanitary sewer flow estimates outlined in the Grandview District Development Framework (Cunningham Group, 2012) were incorporated into 2014 Edina sanitary sewer modeling to evaluate capacity throughout the sanitary sewer network. • Grandview Green Lid Sanitary Sewer Evaluation and Conceptual Study (Barr, 2017a): Barr evaluated flow estimates associated with a conceptual project in the Grandview area. Flow estimates developed for the previous Grandview area studies (Barr, 2014; Barr, 2017a) are compared to flow estimates developed for this study in Table 3-2. Table 3-2 shows that flow estimates developed for this study are higher than the 2014 study, but significantly less than the 2017 Grandview Green Lid conceptual study Table 3-2 Comparison of demand planning for previous Grandview studies Study Development Scenario Total Estimated Demand Planning Flow (1) gpd gpm Grandview Redevelopment (Barr, 2014) Phase 1 48,700 34 Ultimate Development 197,700 137 Grandview Green Lid Project (Barr, 2017) Ultimate Development 587,066 408 2020 LS-9 Capacity Evaluation (this study) (2) Scenario 1: Existing Conditions 31,143 22 Scenario 2: Ultimate Development 233,558 162 (1) Estimated average daily flow from development (does not include existing flow from non-development parcels). Note: this is not peak flow calculated using MCES peaking factors. (2) Development scenarios discussed in Section 3.0. Existing conditions includes the Trammel Crow development. To: Chad Millner and Ross Bintner, City of Edina (City) From: Julia Macejkovic and Michael McKinney, Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: Lift Station 9: Capacity Evaluation and Preliminary Engineering Date: December 4, 2020 Page: 7 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271827 LS-9 Upgrades\WorkFiles\400_TechMemo\Edina_LS09_Evaluation_20201204.docx 4.0 Model Update and Results The model used to establish baseline conditions reflects 2016 water use data (Barr, 2017b). The following subsections outline methodology used to estimate peak flows for each development scenario and evaluate capacity of LS-9 and receiving sanitary sewer trunk lines. 4.1 Peak Flow and Pipe Capacity Methodology Barr calculated the peak flow within each sanitary sewer pipe to calculate the percent of pipe capacity utilized. The methodology is consistent with the approach outlined in the Southeast Edina Sanitary Sewer Preliminary Engineering study (Barr, 2017b), and is described below. Barr additionally utilized this methodology to evaluate existing and development scenario peak flows to LS-9. • Peak flow methodology (Barr, 2017b): peak flow rates for each scenario are calculated by multiplying the average daily flow rate in each pipe by the corresponding MCES peaking factor (Metropolitan Council, 2016). Peaking factors were not applied to the portion of average daily flow attributed to inflow and infiltration (I/I). • Pipe capacity methodology (Barr, 2017b): the percentage of pipe capacity utilized was calculated as the ratio of peak flow rate to the pipe full flow calculated using the Manning Equation. The remaining Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) units for each pipe was calculated by subtracting the peaked flow rate from the pipe full flow rate. 4.2 Existing Lift Station 9 Capacity Evaluation The capacity of the existing LS-9 was reviewed and compared to the flow estimates for each scenario to evaluate (a) the ability of the existing LS-9 to serve future flow rates from the sewershed and (b) to develop LS-9 preliminary engineering sizing recommendations (Section 5.0). Using LS-9 record drawing and pump curve information (Table 2-1), a system curve was developed and used to evaluate the maximum operational range of the current Flygt NP 3127 MT-438 pumps (350-450 gpm, see Figure 4-1). To: Chad Millner and Ross Bintner, City of Edina (City) From: Julia Macejkovic and Michael McKinney, Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: Lift Station 9: Capacity Evaluation and Preliminary Engineering Date: December 4, 2020 Page: 8 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271827 LS-9 Upgrades\WorkFiles\400_TechMemo\Edina_LS09_Evaluation_20201204.docx Figure 4-1 LS-9 system curve used to evaluate maximum existing capacity 4.3 Scenario Modeling Results Model simulations were completed for the two scenarios summarized in Section 3.0. As described, flow values for each parcel anticipating future development (Figure 3-1) were calculated using methodology outlined in Section 3.0 (see Table 3-1) and were used to supersede 2016 flows at these parcels. Average daily flow rates to LS-9 and all sanitary sewer pipes tributary to and downstream of LS-9 were calculated, and MCES peaking factors (MCES, 2016) were applied to calculate peak flow rates to LS-9 and all gravity sewer pipes. Table 4-1 provides a summary of the total peak flow rate to LS-9 for the two development scenarios evaluated. Table 4-1 shows that the existing LS-9 has sufficient capacity to support flow from existing conditions (including the Trammel Crow development). This is supported by current operating data as the City reports no issues with the current LS-9 capacity. However, the current LS-9 does not have sufficient capacity for the ultimate development condition. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400Total Dynamic Head (TDH, ft)Pump Flow Rate (gpm) Max TDH Min TDH NP 3127 MT 3~438 (existing) To: Chad Millner and Ross Bintner, City of Edina (City) From: Julia Macejkovic and Michael McKinney, Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: Lift Station 9: Capacity Evaluation and Preliminary Engineering Date: December 4, 2020 Page: 9 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271827 LS-9 Upgrades\WorkFiles\400_TechMemo\Edina_LS09_Evaluation_20201204.docx Table 4-1 LS-9 capacity analysis for development scenarios Description Row ID (1) Flow (gpm) Scenario 1: Existing Condition Scenario 2: Ultimate Development LS-9 current capacity (Section 4.2) A 350 - 450 2016 Calibrated Model Flow (Existing Condition) (2) B 38 Existing Infiltration + Inflow (I/I) C 3 Flow removed due to anticipated development D 0.1 3.7 Flow added due to anticipated development (3) E 22 162 Updated Flow Minus I/I F = B - C - D + E 56 194 MCES Peaking Factor (4) G 4.0 3.7 Anticipated peak flow to LS-9 H = (F x G) + C 229 719 (1) Row ID letters assigned to demonstrate peak flow calculations (see row F and H). (2) Average daily flow from 2016 conditions (Barr, 2017b). (3) Development parcel flow total (see Table 3-2). (4) Peaking factor for average daily flow (MCES, 2016). In addition to the lift station, Barr also analyzed the capacity of the gravity sewer pipes within the LS-9 sewershed and downstream of LS-9 for the two scenarios. Table 4-2 provides a summary of the number of over-capacity pipes for the two development scenarios evaluated. Table 4-2 shows that there are 0 total over-capacity pipes for the existing condition scenario and 5 over-capacity pipes for the ultimate development scenario. The pipe capacity utilized as a percentage of full flow for each development scenario are shown in Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3. Table 4-2 Pipe capacity changes Development Scenario Pipes over 80% capacity utilized (#) Pipes over 100% capacity utilized (#) Within LS-9 Sewershed Downstream of LS-9 Sewershed Within LS-9 Sewershed Downstream of LS-9 Sewershed Scenario 1: Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 Scenario 2: Ultimate Development 2 7 2 2 ") ") MINNEAPOLIS SAINT LOUIS PARK MCES-127 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-11-25 15:29 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Lift_Station_09_Upgrades_23271827\Users\KSB\Figure_4_2.mxd User: MBM FIGURE 4-2 Pipe Capacity Used for Scenario 1:Existing Conditions00.25 0.5 Miles !;N Forcemain MCES-127 Metershed Municipal Boundary LS-9 Sewershed ")MCES Meters ")LS-9 Pipe Capacity Used (%) Less than 50% Greater than 50% Greater than 60% Greater than 70% Greater than 80% Greater than 90% Greater than 100% ") ") MINNEAPOLIS SAINT LOUIS PARK MCES-127 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Barr Footer: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Lift_Station_09_Upgrades_23271827\Users\KSB\Figure_4_3 User: KSB FIGURE 4-3 Pipe Capacity Used for Scenario 2:Ultimate Development00.25 0.5 Miles !;N Forcemain MCES-127 Metershed Municipal Boundary LS-9 Sewershed ")MCES Meters ")LS-9 Pipe Capacity Used (%) Less than 50% Greater than 50% Greater than 60% Greater than 70% Greater than 80% Greater than 90% Greater than 100% To: Chad Millner and Ross Bintner, City of Edina (City) From: Julia Macejkovic and Michael McKinney, Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: Lift Station 9: Capacity Evaluation and Preliminary Engineering Date: December 4, 2020 Page: 12 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271827 LS-9 Upgrades\WorkFiles\400_TechMemo\Edina_LS09_Evaluation_20201204.docx 5.0 Preliminary Engineering: Lift Station 9 Design Preliminary engineering related to the relocation and design of LS-9 is discussed in the following subsections. 5.1 LS-9 Relocation As discussed in Section 2.0, the proposed layout of the roundabout will require relocation of LS-9. The proposed layout for LS-9 is shown in Figure 5-1. Because a new lift station is required, infrastructure will be sized to accommodate the flow estimate from scenario 2: ultimate development (Section 3.0). The proposed relocation plan includes the following design elements: • Existing pumps, pipe, and all other appurtenances inside the lift station will be removed. • The existing lift station will be repurposed into a sanitary sewer manhole with a new top slab and manhole casting. • Installation of 100 LF 18-inch diameter RCP gravity sewer between the existing lift station and proposed LS-9 location. • Construction and installation of new LS-9, including 72-inch diameter manhole in green space, control panel, valve vault, 2 submersible pumps, pipe, and appurtenances. • Installation of permanent backup generator. • Installation of 150 LF 8-inch HDPE forcemain from the proposed LS-9 location to the existing forcemain tie-in. To: Chad Millner and Ross Bintner, City of Edina (City) From: Julia Macejkovic and Michael McKinney, Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: Lift Station 9: Capacity Evaluation and Preliminary Engineering Date: December 4, 2020 Page: 13 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271827 LS-9 Upgrades\WorkFiles\400_TechMemo\Edina_LS09_Evaluation_20201204.docx Figure 5-1 Proposed Lift Station Location (based on SEH, 2020) 5.2 LS-9 Design and Sizing Design and sizing considerations for the proposed LS-9 are outlined, below: • Lift station manhole: the proposed 72-inch diameter LS-9 manhole is designed to fit two submersible wastewater pumps and appurtenances. • Pumps: the proposed two pumps for LS-9 are Flygt submersible wastewater pumps designed to provide 720 gpm of capacity each. It is anticipated that one pump will operate at a time (alternating), providing one pump for standby. • Gravity sewer pipe: the proposed pipe connecting the existing lift station and proposed LS-9 is designed to provide capacity for future capacity increases. • Forcemain: the proposed tie-in between the existing forcemain and proposed LS-9 is designed to maintain velocities between 2 and 10 ft/s. Both the tie-in pipe and the existing forcemain are 8-inch HDPE. • Electrical: the proposed electrical upgrades and backup generator will be sized to operate the proposed pumps. 5.3 Cost Estimate Barr developed a class V cost estimate for the proposed LS-9. The cost estimate includes modifications to the existing lift station, construction and installation of the new lift station, and installation of proposed SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION TO BE RELOCATED OUR LADY OF GRACE SIGN TO BE RELOCATED CLOSE SB- TH 100 RAMP TO ALL TRAFFIC EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY To: Chad Millner and Ross Bintner, City of Edina (City) From: Julia Macejkovic and Michael McKinney, Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: Lift Station 9: Capacity Evaluation and Preliminary Engineering Date: December 4, 2020 Page: 14 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271827 LS-9 Upgrades\WorkFiles\400_TechMemo\Edina_LS09_Evaluation_20201204.docx gravity piping, forcemain piping, pumps, appurtenances, electrical upgrade, and backup generator. The developed class V cost estimate is summarized in Table 5-1. Table 5-1 Engineer’s Opinion of Cost Item No. Item Qty Unit Unit Price 1 Mobilization and demobilization (10%) 1 LS $34,000 2 Site improvements and restoration 1 LS $15,000 3 Adjust existing pump station to sanitary manhole. Connect to new pump station. 1 LS $17,000 4 72" pump station, 72" valve vault, and appurtenances 1 LS $150,000 5 Connect to existing forcemain and bypass pumping (1 week) 1 LS $17,000 6 Electrical 1 LS $85,000 7 Backup generator 1 LS $55,000 8 Contingency (20%) 1 LS $75,000 Total $450,000 Anticipated Accuracy Range High 50% $ 680,000 Low -25% $ 340,000 The opinion of probable construction cost provided in this memo is made on the basis of Barr’s experience and qualifications and represents our best judgment as experienced and qualified professionals familiar with the project. The cost opinion is based on project-related information available to Barr at this time and includes a conceptual-level design of the project. The opinion of cost may change as further design is completed. In addition, because we have no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or services furnished by others, or over the contractor’s methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Barr cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the opinion of probable construction cost. The contingency included in this opinion of probable construction cost represents an allowance to cover unknown conditions that are not possible to adequately define from the information at hand at the time the cost estimate was prepared but must be accounted for by a sufficient cost to reasonably cover the foreseeable issues. The contingency applies to the currently defined project scope and is not used to account for future project scope or schedule changes. To: Chad Millner and Ross Bintner, City of Edina (City) From: Julia Macejkovic and Michael McKinney, Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: Lift Station 9: Capacity Evaluation and Preliminary Engineering Date: December 4, 2020 Page: 15 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271827 LS-9 Upgrades\WorkFiles\400_TechMemo\Edina_LS09_Evaluation_20201204.docx 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Proposed transportation upgrades at the intersection of Arcadia Avenue and Eden Avenue will require LS- 9 to be relocated. Relocation of the LS-9 provided an opportunity to evaluate future development within the LS-9 sewershed and design the relocated LS-9 to provide sufficient capacity for future development conditions. Barr performed a capacity evaluation for two development scenarios. Conclusions and key considerations from evaluation of development scenarios are outlined, below. • The existing capacity of LS-9 is 350 – 450 gpm. • Scenario 1 (existing conditions with the Trammel Crow development) anticipates a peak flow of 229 gpm to LS-9. o Based on scenario 1, zero (0) sections of gravity pipe within the LS-9 sewershed and downstream of LS-9 are over 80% capacity. o The existing LS-9 has sufficient capacity to support flow from scenario 1. • Scenario 2 (ultimate development) anticipates a peak flow of 719 gpm to LS-9. o Based on scenario 2, two (2) sections of gravity pipe within the LS-9 sewershed are over 80% capacity, and seven (7) sections downstream of LS-9 are over 80% capacity. o The existing LS-9 does not have sufficient capacity to support flow from scenario 2. Barr reviewed LS-9 relocation alternatives and developed preliminary engineering level design and sizing recommendations. Additionally, Barr developed a Class V cost estimate for the relocation and construction of the relocated lift station. Conclusions and recommendations from preliminary engineering analysis of LS-9 are outlined, below: • Relocate LS-9 to the green-space area east of current location (property currently owned by MnDOT, see Figure 5-1). • Repurpose existing LS-9 structure to gravity manhole. • Design the lift station to provide capacity for scenario 2 (ultimate development) conditions. Barr recommends installing a duplex submersible station (similar to existing LS-9) with a valve vault. Each pump should have a design capacity of 720 gpm (one duty pump and one standby pump alternating). The relocated LS-9 should also include a permanent backup generator. • Class V cost estimate for the proposed LS-9 relocation: $450,000 ($340,000 - $680,000) To: Chad Millner and Ross Bintner, City of Edina (City) From: Julia Macejkovic and Michael McKinney, Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) Subject: Lift Station 9: Capacity Evaluation and Preliminary Engineering Date: December 4, 2020 Page: 16 \\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271827 LS-9 Upgrades\WorkFiles\400_TechMemo\Edina_LS09_Evaluation_20201204.docx 7.0 References Barr Engineering Co. (Barr). 2014. Grandview Area Sanitary Sewer Analysis. February 2014. Prepared for the City of Edina. Barr Engineering Co. (Barr). 2017a. Grandview Green Lid Sanitary Sewer Evaluation and Conceptual Study. January 2017. Prepared for the City of Edina. Barr Engineering Co. (Barr). 2017b. Southeast Edina Sanitary Sewer Preliminary Engineering. April 2017. Prepared for the City of Edina. Barr Engineering Co. (Barr). 2020. Edina South Sanitary Trunk Line Capacity Evaluation and Preliminary Engineering. January 2020. Prepared for the City of Edina. Metropolitan Council. 2004. Water Demand and Planning in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Council. 2016. 2016 Inflow & Infiltration Task Force Report. https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Publications-And-Resources/WASTEWATER/Inflow- Infiltration/Inflow-Infiltration-Task-Force-Report,-2016.aspx Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH). 2020. DRAFT Eden Avenue and Brookside Avenue Reconstruction: Eden Avenue/Arcadia Avenue Roundabout Concept – Alternate 2. Provided by City of Edina to Barr Engineering October 26, 2020. Grandview District Parking Ramp Study CITY OF EDINA, MN DECEMBER 2020 Prepared By: Project Location Grandview District Parking Ramp Study December 2020 2 Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3 Scope of Study ........................................................................................................................... 3 Overview of Grandview Parking Ramp ........................................................................................ 3 Concept Study ............................................................................................................................ 3 New Vehicle Ramp to Connect Two Parking Levels..................................................................... 3 Wayfinding Signage and Entry Banner Improvements ................................................................. 5 New Pedestrian Overpass ........................................................................................................... 6 Lighting Improvements ................................................................................................................ 7 Maintenance and Repairs ........................................................................................................... 7 Stakeholder Engagement ............................................................................................................ 7 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs...................................................................................... 8 3 Grandview District Parking Ramp Study December 2020 INTRODUCTION SCOPE OF STUDY The City of Edina is updating the Grandview TIF District capital improvement plan. The City requested Kimley-Horn study the following elements of the capital improvement plan: ·New vehicle vertical circulation ramp between the two parking levels of Grandview Ramp ·New wayfinding signage for the Grandview Ramp including lighted monument signs on Vernon Ave and “public parking” banner signs at the two parking entrances to Grandview Ramp ·New pedestrian overpass of the railroad to connect to future development on old public works site ·Lighting upgrades and new CCTV cameras for the Grandview Ramp ·Grandview Ramp general maintenance to address findings from annual inspections This study report presents the concept development, recommendations, stakeholder input and opinions of probable cost for the items listed above. The City will assemble the Grandview TIF District capital improvement plan using this information, along with other work being performed by the City or their consultants. OVERVIEW OF GRANDVIEW PARKING RAMP Grandview Ramp is a three level, mixed-use building in Edina. The ground level of the building is occupied by a water-treatment facility and a storage area for the City of Edina Police Department. The eastern bay of the ground level is a continuation of Brookside Avenue for truck access to the water treatment facility, the police storage, and delivery’s to Jerry’s foods. Levels 2 and 3 of the building are public parking levels that serve adjacent businesses, mainly Jerry’s Foods. The ground floor occupancies have vehicular access from the south via Brookside Ave from Eden Ave. The two parking levels have vehicular access from the north via driveway from Vernon Ave S. or Gus Young Ln. Each parking level has a dedicated entry/exit from grade and there are no ramps that allow for traffic circulation between the levels within the garage. The garage is bounded on the east side by train tracks and associated right-of-way; bounded on the west side by a narrow service alley that serves the buildings to the west; and partially bounded on the south side by an alley that serves as delivery access to Jerry’s Foods. The structural system of the building is cast-in-place, post-tensioned (PT) concrete with columns supporting three-span beams in the east-west direction and a one-way slab spanning between the beams in the north-south direction. CONCEPT STUDY NEW VEHICLE RAMP TO CONNECT TWO PARKING LEVELS Kimley-Horn evaluated the addition of a traffic circulation ramp connecting the parking levels at the Grandview Ramp. The additional circulation ramp would allow for both levels to remain open for public Grandview District Parking Ramp Study December 2020 4 parking if one of the entry/exits to each parking level needed to be closed temporarily or permanently. Two options for the traffic circulation ramp were explored. A ramp within the existing footprint of the building (internal ramp) and a ramp outside of the existing footprint of the building (external ramp). The preliminary design effort entailed an investigation to determine if there are structural, functional, site or constructability issues that preclude the feasibility of the additional circulation ramp options. Our investigation included a review of the existing drawings of the facility to become familiar with the structural system and its limitations; a site visit to observe and field measure specific site constraints; consultation with City of Edina staff to gain additional knowledge of site constraints; and consultation with specialty contractors to verify constructability concerns. INTERNAL RAMP OPTION Figure 1 illustrates the internal ramp option that was explored for preliminary design. The existing eastern spans of the top level beams and the slabs they support in the eastern bay would be removed and new structure would added sloping down from Level 3 to Level 2. The placement of the circulation ramp in the eastern parking bay was based on several considerations including traffic circulation, pedestrian circulation, minimized net parking loss, and minimized structural impact on the existing building. It is our opinion that the layout chosen for exploration was the most likely to be feasible. Primarily, the internal ramp option is not feasible due to constructability issues related to the building’s structural system and the limitations imposed on constructability by the operations and layout of the water treatment facility. The PT concrete structural system has beams and slabs that are reinforced by steel cables that run the length of the structure in both directions. These steel cables are draped and stretched within the structure to resist gravity loads much like the tension in a bowstring resists the pull of an archer when drawing back a knocked arrow. Prior to removal of the eastern beam spans, the tension in the PT tendons must be released weakening the other two beam spans along the same beam line. Therefore, temporary shoring supports would need to be erected supporting the two top level beam spans to remain. Due to the limits of the load carrying capacity of the Level 2 structure, the temporary shoring supports would need to be extended down to the ground level. This is not possible for this facility due to layout and operational limitations of the water treatment facility at grade level. Other issues could also interfere with the feasibility of adding the internal ramp but they were not studied in depth due to the discovery of this critical issue. EXTERNAL RAMP OPTION Figure 2 illustrates the external ramp option that was explored for preliminary design. The external ramp would be constructed of additional support structure on the south side of the building over the alley between the buildings. The ramp would connect to Level 3 at the west end over the deliveries alley and connect to Level 2 at the east end over Brookside Ave. The ramp would be required to allow for two way traffic circulation. The placement of the external circulation ramp in the south side of the building was based on several considerations including traffic circulation, railroad/property line limitations on the eastern side, narrow alley and access considerations on the western side, and existing parking level access constraints on the northern side. It is our opinion that the layout chosen for exploration was the most likely to be feasible. 5 Grandview District Parking Ramp Study December 2020 The external ramp option is not feasible primarily due to fact that the width of the service alley south of the building isn’t wide enough to accommodate a two-way circulation ramp. A two-way circulation ramp should have a minimum clear width of 24 feet to allow for two discreet lanes of traffic. During our site visit we measured the clear width at the ground level at approximately 24’. However, the existing slabs at Levels 2 and 3 of the existing building are cantilevered from the southern column lines by several feet reducing the clear width to approximately 20-ft at the elevation of the new ramp. Based on our understanding of the PT concrete structural system, it is our opinion that it isn’t practically feasible to remove this cantilever portion of the structure without affecting the operations of the water treatment facility at the ground level. Even if it were feasible to remove the cantilever structure this would only create a clear space between the buildings of about 24-ft resulting in a structured ramp that would then have a clear width less than 24-ft. We also discovered other issues regarding the south service alley that tend to make construction of an external ramp infeasible. In consultation with City staff, it is our understanding that there are significant buried utilities within the service alley that may interfere with potential foundations of the structure required to support the external ramp. In addition, we learned that the extent of the foundations of the neighboring building are not known and may project into the alley. If ramp support columns cannot be placed and founded against the neighboring building wall, then the ramp columns may significantly reduce the alley width at grade level. This reduced alley width would, in turn, interfere with the alley’s required service functions. Still other issues could also interfere with the feasibility of adding the external ramp but they were not studied in depth due to the discovery of these critical issues. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Neither option for an additional vehicular circulation ramp is feasible due to the existing post-tensioned parking ramp construction and the temporary structural supports that would have to extend to ground level to support the beams and slabs when the post-tension tendons are de-tensioned to make the vehicular circulation ramp modifications. The existing water treatment facility on the ground level of the parking ramp makes the temporary structural support system for the contemplated ramp modifications cost prohibitive. The concept of isolating and temporarily holding post-tension tendons, without the need for temporary shoring, was explored, but no cost effective construction technique is known to take this approach. WAYFINDING SIGNAGE AND ENTRY BANNER IMPROVEMENTS Kimley-Horn evaluated the addition of wayfinding signage and entry banner improvements to increase the visibility of public parking in the Grandview Ramp. The goal of this evaluation was to provide wayfinding signage on Vernon Avenue and Gus Young Lane pointing to the Grandview Ramp and to provide entry banners at the Grandview Ramp to making it clear the ramp is open for public parking. Locations for signs are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Precedent imagery used to develop sign concepts are shown in Figure 5. Concepts for three types of signs were developed, as described below and shown in Figure 6. Grandview District Parking Ramp Study December 2020 6 SIGN TYPE 1 – ENTRY DRIVE SIGN Single-sided sign, mounted back to back on the existing Jerry’s sign base. Assumes no modifications to existing Jerry’s sign. Aluminum tube frame and sign panel, painted with reflective vinyl applied lettering. Sign to be up-lighted with power from adjacent existing street lighting SIGN TYPE 2 – MONUMENT SIGN Ground mounted sign. Sign at Gus Young Lane location requires removal of 1 existing parking space and curb modifications. Sign at existing Grandview Ramp location requires removal of existing monument sign. Sign base is a concrete block with limestone veneer and precast concrete cap. Sign panel is an aluminum tube frame, painted with reflective vinyl applied lettering. The Type 2 sign at Gus Young Lane will be a single-sided sign blade. The Type 2 sign at the existing monument sign location is assumed to be about 75% size of the Gus Young Lane sign, with a double-sided sign blade. Signs to be externally lit, either ground mounted or down-lit from top of sign. SIGN TYPE 3 – PARKING ENTRY DRIVE SIGN Surface mounted sign above the entry and exit to the Grandview Ramp. Sign is an aluminum tube frame and sign panel, painted with reflective vinyl applied lettering, single-sided. Signs to be lighted by adjacent site lighting SIGN TYPE 4 – WALL MOUNTED SIGN Surface mounted sign on Grandview Ramp wall facing Vernon Avenue. Sign is an aluminum panel ‘circle P’ sign painted blue with white reflective vinyl applied lettering, +/-2’ dia. NEW PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS Kimley-Horn evaluated the concept of a pedestrian overpass connecting the top level of the Grandview Ramp to a future residential building to the east, across the existing railroad tracks, on the former public works site. The concept assumes a pedestrian overpass would connect to the northeast corner of the Grandview Ramp at the top level of the parking ramp, in order to provide the 23’ clearance over the railroad tracks and to provide the most convenient route for pedestrians using the bridge to walk to Grandview District businesses. It is assumed that the future residential development on the former public works site would be designed to support the east end of the pedestrian overpass. See Figure 7. The possible pedestrian overpass concepts ranged from an open-air prefabricated steel bridge to a fully enclosed skyway. In addition, there was discussion about whether a stair core and / or elevator would be needed to connect the parking ramp levels. Based on similar projects, the cost for a fully enclosed skyway would cost in the range of $1M and the stair core with elevator would cost in the range of $1.5M. In both the fully enclosed skyway concept and the open-air prefabricated steel bridge concept the incremental cost for the future residential development to accommodate a bridge is in the range of $500k. The City selected an open-air prefabricated steel bridge without stair core and / or elevator in the west bridge support. 7 Grandview District Parking Ramp Study December 2020 LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS The existing lighting system in the Grandview Ramp has reached the end of its service life and needs to be replaced. The City recently replaced the lighting in the parking ramps in the 50th & France district with motion sensing LED fixtures manufactured by Lithonia. Those fixtures have been working well for the City and is the City’s choice for the replacement lighting for the Grandview Ramp. Based on our evaluation, the same motion sensing LED fixtures can be installed at the Grandview Ramp. The existing lighting system is routed through conduit that is embedded in the cast-in-place concrete elements of the parking ramp. Those existing conduits can be reused, but in order to expand the lighting system coverage to address some darker areas of the parking ramp, conduit will need to be surface mounted to reach those areas. The lighting assemblies on the top level of the parking ramp will need to be replaced due to their condition. Xcel Energy has rebate programs for replacing less efficient existing lighting systems with LED and for adding controls to a lighting system that boost the efficiency of the system. The background for these rebate programs can be found under the “Equipment Upgrades or Installations for Construction Projects” section at: https://www.xcelenergy.com/programs_and_rebates/business_programs_and_rebates/equipment_rebate s/lighting_efficiency During the concept development portion of the study the City determined that the new CCTV camera system for the Grandview Ramp will be designed and installed by the City’s security consultant. This work was removed from Kimley-Horn’s contract. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS Annual parking ramp inspections are performed on the Grandview Ramp. Based on the annual inspections a budget of $300k has been estimated for maintenance and repairs. The primary maintenance and repairs that have been identified include: ·Replace precast parapet caps on top level of ramp ·Repair spalling concrete and spalling brick veneer ·Rout and seal cracks, including cracks over the police impound area that are allowing water leaks ·Reapply traffic coating membrane at level 1 entrance ·Clean floor drains and provide missing grates STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The primary stakeholder involved in the Grandview Ramp is Jerry’s Food and Jerry’s Hardware. The City and Jerry’s share maintenance responsibility for the parking ramp. Two meetings with Jerry’s were held during concept development. Input from Jerry’s helped to refine the concepts. Grandview District Parking Ramp Study December 2020 8 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS The estimate construction cost for the Grandview Ramp concepts is $2,140,000 and summarized below. In addition, indirect costs, such as engineering, administrative, legal and capitalized interest are estimated at approximately 30% of the opinion of probable costs resulting in a total project cost of approximately $2,800,000. Table 1. Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Proposed Capital Improvement Estimated Cost New Vehicle Ramp to Connect Two Parking Levels N/A -Option not feasible, not included in cost estimate Wayfinding Signage and Entry Banner Improvements $90,000 -Sign Type 1: Entry Drive Signs -Sign Type 2: Monument Signs -Sign Type 3: Parking Entry Drive Sign -Sign Type 3: Parking Entry Drive Sign Bridge / Low Clearance Bar – Top Level -Sign Type 4: Wall Mounted Sign $15,000 $40,000 $15,000 $15,000 $5,000 New Pedestrian Overpass $1,500,000 -Prefabricated Steel Bridge (10’ wide x 60’ long with ornamental 8’ railing) -West Abutment (Column, no stairs or elevator, includes ramp modifications) -East Abutment (Incremental cost to future building to accommodate bridge) $250,000 $750,000 $500,000 Lighting Improvements $200,000 -LED lighting system replacement (Includes new lighting assemblies on top level)$200,000 Maintenance and Repairs $350,000 -Address annual inspection recommendations -Waterproofing over police impound yard $300,000 $50,000 TOTAL Opinion of Probable Construction Costs $2,140,000 Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 300, Minnetonka, MN 55343-9302 SEH is 100% employee-owned | sehinc.com | 952.912.2600 | 800.734.6757 | 888.908.8166 fax SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER AGREEMENT December 8, 2020 RE: City of Edina Eden Avenue & Brookside Avenue Final Engineering SEH No. EDINA158097 10.00 Mr. Chad Millner, PE Director of Engineering City of Edina Engineering and Public Works Facility 7450 Metro Boulevard Edina, MN 55439 Dear Chad: Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH®) appreciates the opportunity to submit the attached proposal for final engineering and construction services relative to the referenced project. If accepted, this supplemental letter agreement describes how we will provide these services for a not-to- exceed fee of $497,500.00. This amount is detailed in the attached Task Hour Budget (THB) and includes our reimbursable expenses. We will bill the City monthly for reimbursable expenses and on an hourly basis for labor. We will provide these services in accordance with our Agreement for Professional Engineering Services dated June 4, 2013, herein called the Agreement. The project entails the shaded area shown in Attachment 1. Our scope of work includes the final design, preparation of bidding documents, bidding assistance, and construction administration and observation services for the reconstruction of Eden Avenue from Grandview Square to east of the southbound TH 100 on ramps with the addition of a single lane roundabout at the intersection of Eden Avenue and Arcadia Avenue. Utility work will include roadway, roundabout, and trail lighting on Eden Avenue, the replacement of the 8” CIP water main on Eden Avenue, CIPP lining of all existing sanitary sewer within the project limits, and replacing storm sewer as needed based on its existing condition and the configuration required for the roundabout. The relocation of the sanitary sewer lift station located at the Arcadia Ave intersection will be designed by Barr Engineering and the relevant plan sheets and specifications will be coordinated with and included in the SEH bidding documents. The project’s final design will encompass several technical challenges including the roundabout, wet cast retaining wall design in the northeast quadrant of Arcadia Ave and Eden Ave, cast-in-place retaining wall design to accommodate trail and sidewalk construction underneath the Canadian Pacific Railroad bridge, capacity analysis of the existing storm sewer trunk main along Eden Avenue that empties into a MnDOT storm sewer along TH 100, and a traffic control and staging plan to construct the project in phases while maintaining access to all adjacent property owners. Extensive coordination with agency stakeholders including MnDOT, Hennepin County, Canadian Pacific Railroad, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be required to ensure a successful project. Mr. Chad Millner, PE December 8, 2020 Page 2 In addition, our traffic engineering scope will consist of the following in relation to the evaluation of the closure of the southbound TH 100 ramp at Eden Ave. Refer to Attachment 2 for additional information. Intersections referenced below by number or letter correspond to those shown on the attachment. TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS (CAMERA SETS) Turning movement count data is proposed to be collected for 48 hours before and during the ramp closure. This data will help provide video log and volume data to support or dismiss the proposed ramp closure on Eden Avenue to southbound TH 100. The proposed count locations below are intended as a conservative approach to ensure that all key study intersections from the traffic study are reviewed. This data is also intended to be useful for future traffic signal retiming projects on Vernon Avenue/W 50th Street if necessary. 1. One (1) location will be set before the ramp closure and processed during the week for 48 hours. • 8 - Eden Ave & TH 100 on-ramp 2. Seven (7) locations will be set before and during the ramp closure and processed during the week for 48 hours. • 1 - Vernon Ave S & Eden Ave • 2 - Vernon Ave & Interlachen Blvd • 4 - Vernon Ave & TH 100 West Ramps • 5 - W 50th Street & Grange Rd • 6 - Grange Rd & TH 100 NB On/Off Ramps • 7 - Eden Ave & Willson Rd/Grange Rd • 9 - Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd 3. One (1) location will be set to only collect and review video log before and during the ramp closure. Data will not be processed. • 3 - Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave DATA COLLECTION PRIORITY LOCATIONS Intersections 2, 4 and 5 are locations of primary interest related to impacts that traffic pattern changes may have on intersection operations. All other locations, at a minimum should be observed with traffic cameras of the video log for traffic queuing, lane blocking or other operational issues (without 48 hours of processing turning movements). BI-DIRECTIONAL VOLUME COUNTS (TUBE SETS) The bi-directional volume counts are proposed to be collected at strategic locations on the roadway network to understand the traffic patterns before and during the ramp closure. Specifically, the tube counts located on Vernon Ave (south of Eden Ave) and on W 50th St (east of Eden Ave) will provide insight as to how the ramp closure impacts the volume of vehicles entering the site from the east and west. Several locations are positioned at MnDOT Historical AADT sites for comparison purposes and to recognize any traffic impacts from the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders. 1. Eight (8) locations will be set for two full weeks (1 week before ramp closure and 1 week during ramp closure). It is assumed the tubes will be checked every 3-4 days to ensure they are functioning properly throughout the weeks. It is assumed the tubes will only be set once. Speed and class information is not included. 2. Locations are shown on the attached map, in the general locations: • A - Vernon Ave (south of Eden Ave) Mr. Chad Millner, PE December 8, 2020 Page 3 • B - Vernon Ave (between Eden Ave & Gus Young Ln) • C - W 50th St (between Grange Rd & Dale Dr) • D - W 50th St (east of Eden Ave) • E - Eden Ave (between Grange Rd & W 50th St) • F - Eden Ave (between Brookside Ave & OLG Access) • G - Arcadia Ave (between Gus Young Ln & Vernon Ave) • H - Arcadia Ave (north of Eden Ave) Our anticipated project production schedule is given in the table below. Anticipated Project Schedule Work Item No. Work Item Description Work Item Key Milestone Date 1 Receive Approval to Begin Final Design December 17, 2020 2 Complete Bid Documents March 2021 3 Open Bids April 2021 4 Complete Ramp Test Closure and Evaluation April – May 2021 5 Begin Construction May 2021 6 Final Completion October 2021 This Supplemental Letter Agreement, THB, and the Agreement represent the entire understanding between the City of Edina and SEH in respect to the project and may only be modified in writing if signed by both parties. We look forward to working with you and your staff on this project. Please contact me at 319.450.8732 or wbauer@sehinc.com with questions regarding this proposal. Sincerely, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. William Bauer, PE (Lic. MN, IA, SD) Toby Muse, PE (Lic. MN) Project Manager Client Service Manager Enclosures Project Area Map Ramp Test Closure Data Collection Map x:\ae\e\edina\158097\1-genl\10-setup-cont\03-proposal\sla ltr eden ave 11 30 20 fnl.docx Accepted on this ___day of________________, 2020 City of Edina, Minnesota By: _________________________________ Name _________________________________ Title X CSSTVPPSSPPSTHHSTHH STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ST>>>>>>>>>>EDEN AVENUEBROOKSIDE AVENUE ARCADIA AVENUE EDEN A VENUE VERNON AVENUE NORMANDALE ROADTH-100 SB TH-100 ENTRANC E R A M P SHERWOOD ROAD EDEN AVENUE GRANDVIEW SQUARE W 52ND STREETHANKERSON AVENUE I I III I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I IIIII IIII I II I I III I I I FILE NO.DATE:PHONE: 952.912.260010901 RED CIRCLE DRIVE,SUITE 300MINNETONKA, MN 55343www.sehinc.com15681812/1/20FIG NO.x:\ae\e\edina\156818\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\10-civil\cad\dwg\exhibit\ed156818_memo graphics_11.05.2020.dwg 12/1/2020 8:05 AMkmontebello0feetscale601206030 EDEN AVENUEPROJECT AREA MAP1LEGENDCURB AND GUTTERINTERIM GURB AND GUTTERRETAINING WALLASPHALT PAVEMENTROUNDABOUT TRUCK APRONROUNDABOUT GREEN SPACEASPHALT MULTI-USE TRAILCONCRETE SIDEWALKINTERIM CONCRETE SIDEWALKINTERIM ASPHALT PAVEMENTFULL RECONSTRUCTION OFEDEN AVE FROM GRANDVIEWSQUARE TO EAST OF TH 100ON RAMP PM PM PE PE PE PE PE PE Grad Eng Grad Eng Grad Eng Sr Tech Survey Crew Chief Survey Tech Admin Tech Reimbursable Expenses (23) Total 1.1 1 1 1 1 8 8 1.2 22 2 6 111111111 11 11 2 4 6 1156 13 24 23 2 13 44 4 12 0 0 22 22 8 16 16 10 42 274211493131011000 N/A 121 $6,127.58 $6,414.14 $138.78 $208.42 $798.59 $1,208.32 $398.78 $160.84 $3,467.82 $0.00 $97.11 $136.70 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $491.51 $19,648.57 2.1 9 9 8 8 1 8 9 4 4 2.2 12 2 5 2 12 14 2 30 32 88 75 91 12 8 24 35 0 0 216 16 34 0 0 2 4 6 1 6 7 2 6 8 2 8 10 2 6 8 1 8 9 220 4 26 12 3 24 24 30 342 36 81 328 4 35 0 24 4 10 Size proposed storm sewer system Create existing and proposed pipe networks Traffic Control/Construction Staging (14) Identify BMP design standards Create existing conditions model Complete capacity analysis of Eden trunk main Drainage/Storm Sewer Design (11) (12) Create storm sewer layout Delineate drainage basins Finalize proposed Geometrics (8) (9) Determine typical sections Establish proposed centerline alignment (horizontal) and road stationing Calculate catch basin spacing & roadway spread Establish proposed centerline profiles and create corridor model Refine corridor models (profiles, assemblies, corridor) Identify/coordinate private utility relocation locations and schedule Calculate design flows Meetings (Notice, Agenda, Materials, Minutes) Kickoff meeting with Client Design meeting with private utilities (1) MnDOT/Hennepin County meeting (2) City coordination/review meetings (3) Watershed District Meeting (6) Neighborhood Open House Meeting (5) City Council/HRA Meeting (5) Property Owner Meetings (7) Internal kickoff meeting Railroad Meeting (4) Client: City of Edina Invoice management Project Name: Eden Avenue & Brookside Avenue Final Engineering Contract and General Develop supplemental letter agreement Create project in accounting system SEH Project #158097 Date: December 1, 2020 Billing Title Task #1 - Project Management Task Hours Summary Task Fee Summary Task #2 - Final Engineering Assess existing soils conditions Develop road subgrade recommendations Develop road typical section recommendations Develop trench excavation and backfill recommendations Geotechnical Investigation Final Street and Utility Design Create proposed conditions model Prepare stormwater BMP documentation (13) Private Utility Coordination (10) Page 1 of 5 PM PM PE PE PE PE PE PE Grad Eng Grad Eng Grad Eng Sr Tech Survey Crew Chief Survey Tech Admin Tech Reimbursable Expenses (23) Total Client: City of Edina Project Name: Eden Avenue & Brookside Avenue Final Engineering SEH Project #158097 Date: December 1, 2020 Billing Title 0 0 1 4 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 8 0 25 25 0 0 5 26 2 33 40 90 130 0 0 26 2 212 2 26 26 2 212 2 26 26 2 216 2 30 2.3 11 3 5 11 3 5 14 16 21 2.4 30 30 60 78 78 6 17 23 520 25 11 220 24 2.5 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 8 8 2 2 8 8 226 43 71 4 4 1 4 5 1 8 9 6 6 1 24 25 1 24 25 1 8 9 1 16 17 20 16 36 6 6 8 8 8 8 16 Summary Memo and Q/C Develop Construction Plans Brookside Ave Plan/Plan Sheets - mill and overlay Plan and Profile Sheets - street and storm sewer Roundabout Details Temporary Ramp Closure Traffic Control Plan, Specs, and Coordination Data collection Review traffic data Develop ramp closure recommendation Prepare right of way/easement graphics and descriptions Traffic Design Right of Way/Easements (17) Identify permanent right of way/easement needs Quantity Calculations and Cost Estimating 100% Cost Estimate Water Main Design Retaining Wall Design Arcadia retaining wall (15) 90% Cost Estimate 60% Cost Estimate Create pipe profile/pressure pipe network Street Lighting Create water main layout Prepare sanitary sewer lining and manhole rehabilitation plans Sanitary Sewer Design Identify temporary right of way/easement needs Retaining Wall Plans/Profiles Storm Sewer lead profiles Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Erosion Control Title Sheet General Layout Estimated Quantities, Notes, Standard Plates General Notes Tabulations Construction details Typical Sections Sequence of Operations/Phasing Alignment Tabulation and Survey Control Right of Way/Easements Existing Conditions/Removals Site Grading Plan Plan and Profile Sheets - sanitary sewer and water Railroad retaining walls (16) Page 2 of 5 PM PM PE PE PE PE PE PE Grad Eng Grad Eng Grad Eng Sr Tech Survey Crew Chief Survey Tech Admin Tech Reimbursable Expenses (23) Total Client: City of Edina Project Name: Eden Avenue & Brookside Avenue Final Engineering SEH Project #158097 Date: December 1, 2020 Billing Title 126 43 70 8 24 32 9 7 16 6 25 31 2 16 18 2 24 26 2844 16 34 14 4 9 22 2 6 0 28 20 30 2.6 1 2 4 7 1 2 3 2 2 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 6 4 12 4 16 6 4 30 4 16 4 24 24 6 14 4 1 10 2.7 22 4 22 4 212 14 1 2 3 14 4 9 2.8 2 2 4 8 212 12 2 28 1 2 3 11 2 4 56 384 30 20 7 56 0 81 866 0 125 64 0 0 31 N/A 1,720 $12,709.06 $58,643.52 $4,163.25 $4,168.45 $1,397.53 $7,518.42 $0.00 $13,028.24 $96,875.09 $0.00 $12,138.75 $8,748.48 $0.00 $0.00 $2,795.81 $13,769.15 $235,955.76 3.1 1 21 4 14 22 9 8 85 21 4 2 6 4 2 6 3.2 28 10 250 52 Task #3 - Construction Services Preconstruction Activities Submit NPDES permit Construction Administration Project management Engineering Support Preconstruction meeting agenda, attendance, minutes Review shop drawings Create field quantity book Create application for payment forms Task Hours Summary Task Fee Summary Project Manual Front end documents Conditions of the contract Supplementary conditions Special provisions Technical specifications Coordinate sanitary sewer lift station specifications with Barr Engineering Quality control review Respond to bid questions & prepare addenda Review Tabulation of Bids for Accuracy and Completeness Prepare Recommendation Letter Bidding requirements Geotechnical data Contract forms Quality control review Constructability Review Project site walkthrough plan review Coordinate sanitary sewer lift station relocation plan with Barr Engineering Cross Sections Traffic Control Pavement Markings/Signing Street Lighting Sidewalk/Ped Ramp details RRFB (18) Bidding Prepare ad for bid & electronic bid docs Agency Review and Permit 60% Owner Review 90% Owner Review Watershed Permits (19) Department of Health Agency Permits (MnDOT, County, Local) Page 3 of 5 PM PM PE PE PE PE PE PE Grad Eng Grad Eng Grad Eng Sr Tech Survey Crew Chief Survey Tech Admin Tech Reimbursable Expenses (23) Total Client: City of Edina Project Name: Eden Avenue & Brookside Avenue Final Engineering SEH Project #158097 Date: December 1, 2020 Billing Title 75 75 36 36 6 6 12 12 24 3.3 44 8 44 8 44 8 44 8 44 8 12 12 24 44 8 12 12 24 12 12 24 12 12 24 44 8 12 12 24 16 16 32 16 16 32 16 16 32 24 24 48 12 12 24 88 16 44 8 3.4 1125 1125 0 3.5 16 65 18 2 8 10 88 16 8 8 8 8 16 1 16 5 22 13 4 8 22 2 6 918000002001,2340172081924 N/A 1,846 $2,042.53 $27,489.15 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $265.85 $0.00 $0.00 $144,378.00 $0.00 $2,323.82 $24,085.88 $19,874.40 $360.75 $21,075.30 $241,895.67 Task Hours Summary Task Fee Summary Materials Testing Subconsultant (22) Project Closeout Site closeout walkthrough & develop punchlist Punchlist coordination As built survey & structures Set monuments Corner Certificates or Monumentation Records Complete as built drawings Final application for payment & contractor closeout letter 1 year warranty walkthrough and follow up Construction Observation Full time observation (21) Roadway Subgrade Aggregate base Pavement Curb and gutter Walks Pedestrian Ramps Signs & Striping Materials testing coordination City project website updates Construction Staking Weekly construction meetings (20) Pay applications Water Main Lighting & Electric Roadway Alignment Grading & Ponds Create stakeout file / point files Stake Right of Way and Easements Construction Limits & Silt Fence Stake removals Storm Sewer Sanitary Sewer Set project control Retaining Walls Page 4 of 5 PM PM PE PE PE PE PE PE Grad Eng Grad Eng Grad Eng Sr Tech Survey Crew Chief Survey Tech Admin Tech Reimbursable Expenses (23) Total Client: City of Edina Project Name: Eden Avenue & Brookside Avenue Final Engineering SEH Project #158097 Date: December 1, 2020 Billing Title 274211493131011000 N/A 121 $6,127.58 $6,414.14 $138.78 $208.42 $798.59 $1,208.32 $398.78 $160.84 $3,467.82 $0.00 $97.11 $136.70 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $491.51 $19,648.57 56 384 30 20 7 56 0 81 866 0 125 64 0 0 31 N/A 1,720 $12,709.06 $58,643.52 $4,163.25 $4,168.45 $1,397.53 $7,518.42 $0.00 $13,028.24 $96,875.09 $0.00 $12,138.75 $8,748.48 $0.00 $0.00 $2,795.81 $13,769.15 $235,955.76 918000002001,2340172081924 N/A 1,846 $2,042.53 $27,489.15 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $265.85 $0.00 $0.00 $144,378.00 $0.00 $2,323.82 $24,085.88 $19,874.40 $360.75 $21,075.30 $241,895.67 92 606 31 21 11 65 5 82 897 1,234 126 82 208 192 35 N/A 3,687 $20,879.17 $92,546.81 $4,302.03 $4,376.87 $2,196.12 $8,726.74 $664.63 $13,189.09 $100,342.91 $144,378.00 $12,235.86 $11,208.99 $24,085.88 $19,874.40 $3,156.56 $35,335.96 $497,500.00 Notes: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) Task Hours Summary Task Fee Summary Task #2 - Final Engineering Task Hours Summary Task Fee Summary Assumes Avidor curb lines and sidewalk along Eden Ave and Brookside Dr will not be disturbed Project falls on the border of Nine Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek Watershed Districts. Assumes between 0.10 and 1.0 acres of impervious will be added, a permit will be required for both organizations, and one round of comments on each permit. Task #1 - Project Management Task #3 - Construction Services Task Hours Summary Assumes all easements and right of way negotiations will be completed by City staff Review options to determine proposed construction phasing and/or road closures/detours Assumes SEH will lead one (1) design meeting with Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District staff to review design and identify BMP solutions Assumes meeting will not be held and/or SEH attendance is not required Assumes only catch basins and leads will be rehabilitated or replaced based on results of structure inventory; storm sewer mainline will not be replaced Assumes weekly meetings for 25 weeks. Includes preparation of meeting agendas and minutes. Assumes full time construction observation (45 hours/week) for 25 weeks. Assumes testing subconsultant will contract directly with the City Includes memorandum and existing and proposed condition figures Includes employee mileage, reproductions, vehicle, survey equipment and computer costs Includes adjustment of roundabout geometrics as a result of corridor tie-ins and sanitary sewer lift station coordination Assumes RRFB at Grandview will be relocated to accommodate trail construction on the south side of Eden Ave. Does not include design of RRFB's at roundabout SEH will attend one (1) meeting with each property owner from which easements/right of way will be required or will be impacted by project construction to provide technical support. Assumes up to eight (8) meetings that will be lead by the City. Includes coordination of potholing to be completed by private utility companies and shot by SEH survey staff Includes calculation of catch basin spreads and storm sewer lead capacity analysis Assumes Arcadia wall will be wet cast block. Includes preparation of design memorandum. Assumes walls under railroad bridge will be cast-in-place concrete Project Hours Summary Project Fee Summary Assumes three (3) meetings with City staff during final design to review project design issues/constraints/opportunities, coordinate the ramp test closure, and discuss closure findings SEH will attend one (1) meeting with the railroad to provide technical support. Assumes meeting will be lead by the City. Assumes SEH will lead one (1) design meeting with MnDOT and Hennepin County staff to discuss test closure of SB TH 100 ramp from Eden Ave. Includes preparation and coordination of MnDOT ROW permit. Task Fee Summary Project Summary Assumes SEH will lead one (1) design meeting with private utility companies to review anticipated utility impacts and discuss proposed relocation locations and schedule Page 5 of 5 Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com December 4, 2020 Chad Millner, PE Engineering Director City of Edina 7450 Metro Boulevard Edina, MN 55439 Re: Proposal for City of Edina Lift Station 9 Design Dear Mr. Millner: This letter presents our proposed scope of services and estimated cost for designing upgrades for Lift Station 9 (LS-9, also known as the Grandview lift station). The scope of work presented below is based on general work tasks described during our June 16, 2020, conference call, our July 13, 2020, site visit with City of Edina (City) staff, and subsequent project meetings related to the sanitary sewer capacity evaluation and proposed intersection redesign at Eden Avenue and Arcadia Avenue/Normandale Road. Project Understanding This project focuses on upgrades to the sanitary lift station located near Arcadia Avenue and Eden Avenue, LS-9. Due to planned redevelopment in the area, we understand that the intersection adjacent to the lift station will be reconfigured per transportation design work concurrently being performed by SEH necessitating the need to relocate the current lift station to accommodate the proposed intersection design. The relocated station will be designed to accommodate capacity associated with future development in the area, as determined by Barr’s recent capacity evaluation. The scope of work below describes design of the lift station replacement. Project Scope of Work Tasks associated with the scope of work are described below. Task 1.0 Design-Phase Project Kickoff This phase will consist of a lift station design kick-off meeting with City staff and Barr staff. We will hold the kick-off meeting using Microsoft Teams. During this meeting, we will introduce the project team, review the overall project objectives related to the lift station, review information regarding the proposed intersection upgrades, and finalize the lift station replacement scope and schedule. This task will also include any relevant data review. In addition, Barr will attend an overall project kick-off meeting (hosted by SEH) to discuss design, bidding, and construction of the project. The purpose of attending this meeting will be to introduce staff and confirm coordination during the design phase. Mr. Chad Millner Page 2 \\barr.com\Administration\Business Units\WR\Proposals\2020\P119.20 City of Edina Sanitary Lift Station 9\Final Design Proposal\City of Edina - Grandview_LiftStation_09_Scope_of_Work_Design_12022020.docx deliverables • Lift station design kick-off meeting with City staff including meeting invitation, meeting agenda, and meeting notes • Engineering scope modifications, only if needed assumptions: • Lift station design project kick-off meeting with City staff will be held via Microsoft Teams • Two Barr staff will attend overall project kick-off meeting hosted by SEH anticipated completion: January 2021 estimated cost: $3,800 Task 2.0 Design Barr will develop final design documents to be used by the City to solicit bids. Barr will prepare and submit 60%, 90%, and final plans of the proposed improvements to the City for review and comment. Barr will coordinate with SEH on site civil design, bypass pumping, traffic, and lighting plans. Barr will provide drawings and technical specifications for lift station removals, lift station site layout, inlet and effluent piping plan, profile, and details; process (civil/mechanical features of the lift station and valve vault); and electrical (except lighting) components. Barr will prepare civil, process, and electrical plans using AutoCAD. We anticipate providing approximately 3-4 civil sheets, 2-3 process sheets and 4 electrical sheets. The design will include components necessary to construct the following: Lift station and utility removals Gravity inlet pipe Precast concrete wet well and valve vault Submersible pumps (primary and backup) Wet well and valve vault piping Instrumentation and controls Electrical power supply Permanent backup generator (we assume 480V power is already available at the site) Flow monitoring/measuring Forcemain connection Site access and screening In addition to the plans, Barr will prepare technical specifications for the project. Barr will provide the City with draft specifications at the 90% design submittal and incorporate one round of revisions into the final specification book and full set of bidding documents. It is assumed that the front-end contracting documents will not be prepared by Barr. Barr will also prepare and provide engineer’s estimates for construction at 90% design. Mr. Chad Millner Page 3 \\barr.com\Administration\Business Units\WR\Proposals\2020\P119.20 City of Edina Sanitary Lift Station 9\Final Design Proposal\City of Edina - Grandview_LiftStation_09_Scope_of_Work_Design_12022020.docx deliverables: • Draft plans; 60% and 90%. • Final plans: Issue for Bidding • Draft specifications: 90% • Final specification: Issue for Bidding • Engineer’s estimate for probable construction cost (at 90% design) assumptions: • two Barr staff will attend two site visits • meetings with City staff will be held via Microsoft Teams (2 meetings) • one Barr staff will attend one city council meeting, as needed • City staff will provide existing lift station information including drawings and pump and electrical information • SEH will perform topographic and site feature survey and provide CAD files for site basemap preparation • Barr will coordinate with SEH to locate one soil boring at the proposed lift station location as part of the project’s overall geotechnical analysis (not in Barr’s scope) • Barr’s plans and specifications will be included in the SEH-prepared Project bidding documents • 20 hours of coordination with SEH during the design phase anticipated completion: March 2021 cost: $32,000 Task 3.0: Bidding Assistance It is assumed that the City will be facilitating online bidding through QuestCDN. During the bidding process, Barr will attend a pre-bid meeting and respond to questions during the bidding process. Barr does not anticipate attending the bid opening or tabulating the bids for the City’s review; it is assumed that will be performed by SEH. deliverables: • Digital and hard copy (full-size and half-size) bidding documents (plans and specifications). The digital files will be provided to the City on flash drive or other method as confirmed with the City • Addenda assumptions: • Barr staff will not attend the City Council meeting approving the successful bidder anticipated completion: April 2021 cost: $2,200 Mr. Chad Millner Page 4 \\barr.com\Administration\Business Units\WR\Proposals\2020\P119.20 City of Edina Sanitary Lift Station 9\Final Design Proposal\City of Edina - Grandview_LiftStation_09_Scope_of_Work_Design_12022020.docx Task 4.0: Construction Services After contract award, we will attend the pre-construction meeting. Barr’s other tasks will include reviewing required shop drawings and answering contractor’s requests for information (RFI’s). In addition, Barr will plan to attend up to 6 construction meetings. The Barr team will provide intermittent on-site construction observation services, consisting of four, 2- hour visits. After substantial completion, we will complete a final site inspection and prepare a punch list of any remaining items related to the lift station to be completed prior to final acceptance of the site. At the conclusion of the project, the Barr team will prepare record drawings based on the available information from the contractor during construction. As we will not be on site full time, drawing accuracy will be dependent on information collected by the City and the contractor during construction. deliverables: • Submittal and RFI responses • Electronic copy of final punch list • AutoCAD and PDF files of record drawings assumptions: • Barr staff will be onsite for four, 2-hour visits during construction • Barr staff will attend the pre-construction meeting and up to 6 construction meeting • Barr will prepare a punchlist walkthrough after substantial completion anticipated completion: October 2021 cost: $11,500 Project Team The following is a list of key individuals who will be supported by additional staff, as needed, to complete each task. Jon Minne, P.E., Vice President, Senior Civil Engineer Jon will serve as Barr’s principal-in- charge for the project. Julia Macejkovic, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer Julia will serve as Barr’s project manager and technical lead for the project. Megan Stage, P.E., Civil Engineer Megan will serve as project engineer for the project. Zach Nesler, Electrical Designer Zach will serve as project electrical designer for the project. Mr. Chad Millner Page 5 \\barr.com\Administration\Business Units\WR\Proposals\2020\P119.20 City of Edina Sanitary Lift Station 9\Final Design Proposal\City of Edina - Grandview_LiftStation_09_Scope_of_Work_Design_12022020.docx Project Cost Estimate and Schedule The estimated cost for the scope of work described above is summarized in the following table. We propose to complete this work on a time and expense basis, and will complete the work by the end of 2021 (dependent on construction schedule). Barr will complete the proposed scope of work in accordance with the May 2013 Master Agreement for Professional Engineering Services in place with the City of Edina The table below summarizes the cost and estimated completion date for each task. Task Estimated Cost Estimated Completion Date Task 1: Design Phase Project Kick-off $3,800 January 2021 Task 2: Design $32,000 March 2021 Task 3: Bidding Assistance $2,200 April 2021 Task 4: Construction Services $11,500 October 2021 Total: $49,500 We appreciate the opportunity to continue providing engineering services to the City of Edina and look forward to working with you on this project. If the proposed scope of services is satisfactory, please sign a copy of this letter in the space provided, and return it to us. If you have any questions about the scope of services, please contact Julia Macejkovic (Project Manager) at 952-832-2693 or jmacejkovic@barr.com or Jon Minne (218-262-8688, jminne@barr.com). Sincerely yours, BARR ENGINEERING CO. Jon Minne Its Vice President Accepted this ____________ day of ___________________, 20____ City of Edina By kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651 645 4197 December 1, 2020 Mr. Chad Millner Director of Engineering City of Edina 7450 Metro Boulevard Edina, MN 55439 RE:City of Edina – Grandview TIF District Improvements at Jerry’s Ramp Supplemental Agreement to Master Agreement for Professional Engineering Services Dear Mr. Millner: Kimley-Horn is pleased to submit this Supplemental Agreement for final design and construction administration services in the Grandview TIF District related to the parking ramp owned by the City of Edina (City) located at 5106 Brookside Avenue (Jerry’s Ramp). This Supplemental Agreement amends the July 23, 2020 Supplemental Agreement for planning and design services. The work will be performed in accordance with Kimley-Horn’s Master Services Agreement with the City. Project Understanding The City is updating the Grandview TIF District capital improvement plan. The City has requested Kimley-Horn provide final design for the following elements of the plan: · Lighting upgrades for Jerry’s Ramp · New wayfinding signage for Jerry’s Ramp including three lighted monument signs, on Vernon Ave and Gus Young Lane, and three “public parking” banner signs at the two parking entrances to Jerry’s Ramp and on the west facing façade of the parking ramp · Repairs to Jerry’s Ramp based on recommendations in the 2019 inspection report The City will assemble the Grandview TIF District capital improvement plan using this information, along with other work being performed by the City or their consultants. Design is anticipated to occur in early 2021 with construction anticipated in summer / fall 2021. Scope of Services Kimley-Horn will provide the services specifically set forth below. Task 1: Lighting Upgrades · Concept Development Page 2 kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651 645 4197 o Deleted CCTV concept development task. This task will be completed by the City’s security consultant. · Design o Deleted final design and construction documents for a CCTV system. This task will be completed by the City’s security consultant. This task includes coordination with City’s security consultant for CCTV power supply and conduit routing. o Added one additional proposed parking monument sign to the electrical system design. · Deliverables o Unchanged. Task 2: Study and Design of Wayfinding Signs and Entry Banners · Concept Development o Unchanged. · Design o Added one proposed parking monument sign and one proposed parking banner sign. o Added interior lighting for parking monument signs. · Deliverables o Unchanged. Task 3: Study of New Vehicle Vertical Circulation in Jerry’s Ramp · Concept Development o Unchanged. · Deliverables o Unchanged. Task 4: Study of New Pedestrian Overpass of Railroad to Old Public Works Site · Precedent Study o Unchanged. · Deliverables o Unchanged. Task 5: Project Development and Stakeholder Meetings · Meetings o Two (2) additional stakeholder meetings to provide information about the project, seek input and review the proposed design with businesses or groups in the Grandview area. · Deliverables o Unchanged. Page 3 kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651 645 4197 Task 6: Study Report · Deliverables o Unchanged. Task 7: Design of Jerry’s Ramp Repairs · Confirm and Quantify Recommended Repairs o Conduct one (1) site visit to perform a visual review of the current conditions, estimate quantities of work recommended in the 2019 annual inspection report and identify any new priority work items for the structure. Includes waterproofing over police impound lot. o Perform non-destructive testing as deemed necessary by Kimley-Horn, such as chain dragging and sounding. o Prepare opinion of probable construction costs to finalize list of repairs to be addressed. Assumes estimated construction cost will be no greater than $350,000. o Includes structural evaluation of Jerry’s sign on Vernon Ave for addition of parking wayfinding sign. o Includes structural design of “low clearance” bar on top level of parking ramp for installation of new entry banner sign. · Repair Document Development o Visit the site one (1) time to follow-up on additional information that may need to be documented. o Perform structural engineering services to design and detail required repairs. o Develop repair drawings including a plan showing repair locations, appropriate repair details and any required general notes. o Develop technical specifications and bidding documents. o Update opinion of probable construction costs at 90% and 100% design complete. · Deliverables o Preliminary opinion of probable costs to finalize list of repairs to be addressed. o 90% design review documents and opinion of probable costs. o 100% design documents for bidding. Task 8: Bidding and Construction Administration · Bidding o Prepare advertisement for bids, answer questions during bidding, prepare addenda, tabulate bids and provide City with a recommendation of award letter. Assumes all work will be bid as one construction package. · Construction Administration o Prepare Notice of Award, Contract and NPDES permit o Preconstruction meeting and periodic construction meetings. Assumes five (5) total meetings, including preconstruction meeting. Page 4 kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651 645 4197 o Part-time on-site construction observation. Assumes fifteen (15) weeks of construction with on average sixteen (16) hours per week of construction observation time. o Review and respond to contractor product submittals, requests for information and change order requests. o Prepare pay applications and change orders. Assumes four (4) pay applications and up to four (4) change orders. o Prepare record drawings identifying any plan revisions or field changes noted by the contractor. o We assume construction surveying or material testing, if necessary, will be provided by the contractor. · Deliverables o Pay applications o Change orders o Record drawings Additional Services Any services not specifically provided for in the above scope will be billed as additional services and performed at our then current hourly rates. Additional services we can provide include, but are not limited to, the following: · Topographic surveying · Geotechnical services · Architectural services · Design of preferred vertical circulation option or pedestrian overpass Schedule We will provide our services as expeditiously as practicable with the goal of completing the final design work within 3 months of notice to proceed. Fee and Billing Kimley-Horn will perform the services in Tasks 1 - 7 on a labor fee plus expense basis with the maximum total fee shown below. Previous Current Total Agreement Agreement Authorized Task 1: Lighting Upgrades $ 25,000 ($ 5,000)$ 20,000 Task 2: Wayfinding Signs and Entry Banners $ 29,000 $ 7,000 $ 36,000 Task 3: New Vehicle Vertical Circulation $ 15,000 $ 0 $ 15,000 Task 4: New Pedestrian Overpass $ 9,000 $ 0 $ 9,000 Task 5: Meetings $ 12,000 $ 4,000 $ 16,000 Page 5 kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651 645 4197 Task 6: Study Report $ 8,000 $ 0 $ 8,000 Task 7: Design of Jerry’s Ramp Repairs $ 0 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 Task 8: Bidding and Construction Administration $ 0 $ 67,000 $ 67,000 Total Fee (Labor Plus Expense)$ 98,000 $108,000 $206,000 Kimley-Horn will not exceed the total fee shown without authorization from the Client. Individual task amounts are provided for budgeting purposes only. Kimley-Horn reserves the right to reallocate amounts among tasks as necessary. Labor fee will be billed on an hourly basis according to our then-current rates. A percentage of labor fee will be added to each invoice to cover certain expenses as to these tasks such as telecommunications, in-house reproduction, postage, supplies, project related computer time, and local mileage. Administrative time related to the project may be billed hourly. All permitting, application, and similar project fees will be paid directly by the Client. Fees will be invoiced monthly based. Payment will be due within 25 days of the date of the invoice. In addition to the matters set forth herein, our Agreement shall include and be subject to, and only to, the terms and conditions of the Master Agreement for Professional Engineering Service between the City and Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. dated August 16, 2013. If you concur in all the foregoing and wish to direct us to proceed with the services, please have authorized persons execute both copies of this Supplemental Agreement in the spaces provided below, retain one copy, and return the other to us. We appreciate this opportunity to continue our services to the City of Edina. Please contact me at 651-643-0451 if you have any questions. Very truly yours, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Daniel J. Coyle, P.E. Project Manager / Vice President Agreed to this day of , 2020. CITY OF EDINA BY:________________________________ Chad Millner. Engineering Director Date: December 17, 2020 Agenda Item #: VII.B. To:Chair & Commissioners of the Edina HRA Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manager Item Activity: Subject:Re-use and Redevelopment of 5146 Eden Avenue Discussion Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Established 1974 CITY OF EDINA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: No action required; for discussion only. INTRODUCTION: Previously this year, staff updated the HRA Board on the status of this vacant site and recommended that action be taken in 2021 to redevelop and reuse the property. In November, staff recommended that the HRA Board evaluate any portion of the site that should be retained for future fire department use and establish a process to select a buyer for the remainder. In recent months, a few developers have expressed interest in the site. Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate and United Properties proposes to construct two new buildings on the property. Frauenshuh had previously been selected as the HRA's potential development partner but the terms of that exploratory agreement have been fulfilled. At this point, neither the HRA nor Frauenshuh has a binding commitment. Frauenshuh and United Properties will present their preliminary concept for the site. Following the presentation, a discussion is encouraged to provide staff guidance on how to proceed with redevelopment on the site. ATTACHMENTS: Description HRA Board Presentation Frauenshuh concept Re-use and Redevelopment of 5146 Eden Avenue Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Housing & Redevelopment Authority HRA Board Discussion December 17, 2020 Today’s Dicussion EdinaMN.gov 2 Housing & Redevelopment Authority •Introduction •Status Update •Presentation by Frauenshuh / United Properties •HRA Board Discussion 5146 Eden Avenue EdinaMN.gov 3 Housing & Redevelopment Authority Staff recommends that redevelopment be actively pursued in 2021. Recent Background EdinaMN.gov 4 •3.3 acres vacant since 2013 •Several years of community input •Previous efforts unable to identify a new public facility appropriate for the site •Fire Dept studying possible location for Station #3 in 5-10 years •Frauenshuh Company remains interested to develop a multi- phase, mixed-use project •Other developers remain interested too Housing & Redevelopment Authority Updated Information EdinaMN.gov 5 Future Fire Station #3 •Five Bugles site study in progress •-One of three sites identified as a viable location •Construction timeline is 5-10 years Housing Task Force Report •Completed December 2020 •Identifies needs for: •-seniors and families at low to moderate incomes •- Ownership and rental •No specific preference for this site Housing & Redevelopment Authority Developer Concept EdinaMN.gov 6 Housing & Redevelopment Authority Frauenshuh and United Properties will briefly present their concept for the site HRA Questions to Discuss EdinaMN.gov 7 Housing & Redevelopment Authority 1)Should negotiations be pursued with the Frauenshuh / United Property team? 2)Should presentations by other interested developers be scheduled with the HRA Board? 3)Should staff prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit competitive offers to sell or lease a portion of the site? 4)Any other directions or suggestions for staff? Thank You EdinaMN.gov 8 Housing & Redevelopment Authority 5146 EDEN AVENUE EDINA, MN December 17, 2020 Concept submitted for Edina HRA consideration DICUSSION OBJECTIVES 2Concept for HRA consideration 12-17-2020 COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 3Concept for HRA consideration 12-17-2020 TEAM INTRODUCTION 4Concept for HRA consideration 12-17-2020 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT 5Concept for HRA consideration 12-17-2020 WHY SENIOR COOPERATIVES? 6Concept for HRA consideration 12-17-2020 WHY SENIOR COOPERATIVES? 7Concept for HRA consideration 12-17-2020 WHY MEDICAL OFFICE/HEALTH & WELLNESS? 8 Concept for HRA consideration 12-17-2020 CIVIC ELEMENTS 9 Excerpt from Grandview District Development Framework Concept for HRA consideration 12-17-2020 7 10 R R R R R R R The 5146 Parcel is the “strategic interior link” between the Grandview District Hwy 100 Frontage area and Vernon Avenue West Gateway area. The proposal activates this link with the pedestrian connections, green plaza on Arcadia and maintains access for transit. Economic viability includes tax base, residential living, expanded service offerings and job creation. The proposal hits on all points with tax capacity generation of the entire site, new home ownership opportunities for Edina residents, and economic development to enhance neighborhood center improvements. The development is layered over structured parking that uses the natural 25-foot topographic differential from north to south. Pedestrian connectivity –once a barrier, is now an opportunity. The site design captures all of these themes –vibrant, walkable, functional, attractive and life filled. The plan offers nearly 200 new parking spaces with the potential for shared district use and moreover activates the Brookside ramp (270+ spaces) into a renewed resource for parking supply in the district with the addition of the pedestrian bridge. Multi-modal, pedestrian led, transit ready. The site plan covers the objective and opportunities for district wide access to and through the site. A combination of common space, home ownership and community health and wellness care packaged within a design plan that is sustainable and augments the potential of existing district infrastructure. Concept for HRA consideration 12-17-2020 SITE CONTEXT 11 Brookside Parking RampJerry’s Foods The Hilltop 5100 Eden Building Avidor Apartments Our Lady of Grace Campus Site (3.3 acres) Brookside Water Plant Concept for HRA consideration 12-17-2020 11 DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMPONENTS Concept for HRA consideration 12-17-2020 12 Brookside Parking RampJerry’s Foods The Hilltop 5100 Eden Building Brookside Water Plant Plaza Green Concept for HRA consideration 12-17-2020 13 Brookside Parking Ramp Avidor Apartments The Hilltop 5100 Eden Building Jerry’s Foods Brookside Water Plant Plaza Green Concept for HRA consideration 12-17-2020 15 Brookside Parking Ramp The Hilltop 5100 Eden Building Jerry’s FoodsOur Lady of Grace Campus Starbucks Drive Through Concept for HRA consideration 12-17-2020 16 Thank you! Concept for HRA consideration 12-17-2020 Date: December 17, 2020 Agenda Item #: VIII.A. To:Chair & Commissioners of the Edina HRA Item Type: Other From:Liz Olson, Administrative Support Specialist Item Activity: Subject:Correspondence Information Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Established 1974 CITY OF EDINA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: There has been no correspondence since the last HRA meeting.