HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-24 Meeting PacketAGENDA
Regular Meeting of the
Edina Transportation Commission
6:00 PM, Thursday, February 24, 2005
Edina City Hall
4801 West 50th Street
Community Room
I. Call to Order
II. New Business
a. Handouts
o 2030 Mn/DOT Plan presentation (Twin West Chamber of
Commerce)*
o Transportation Funding Proposals*
o January 14, 2005 Letter to Commissioner Bennett & Summary of
Traffic Studies from 2000 to Present*
•
Deleted (postponed until March 24, 2005)
c. Traffic Study for Proposed Redevelopment at West 50th Street & France
Avenue, Haugland Company*
III: Old Business
a. Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan — Scoring and Ranking*
o Northwest Edina
1. Parkwood Knolls Area
2. View Lane/South Knoll Drive
o High School and Valley View Middle School Area (McCauley Trail
and Gleason Road intersection, Gleason Road and Valley View Road
intersection, Valley View Road and Antrim Road intersection and
Valley View Road access adjacent to the High School)
o West 56th Street (from Wooddale Avenue to France Avenue)
IV. Approval of Minutes
a. January 27, 2005*
V. Adjournment
VI. Open Discussion
* Note: Attachment included.
To:
From:
Subject:
Transportation Commissioners
Steven Lillehaug, PE , PTOE
Traffic Engineer
Handouts
Regular Transportation
Commission Meeting
Date: February 24, 2005
Agenda Item No. II a.
H Recommendation/Motion
Z Information
Discussion
Info/Background:
The following documents are being provided to you as general information:
• 2030 Mn/DOT Plan presentation (Twin West Chamber of Commerce)
• Transportation Funding Proposals
• January 14, 2005 Letter to Commissioner Bennett & Summary of Traffic
Studies from 2000 to Present
To: Transportation Commissioners Regular Transportation
Commission Meeting
From: Steven Lillehaug, PE , PTOE Date: February 24, 2005
Traffic Engineer Agenda Item No. II c.
Subject: Traffic Study for Proposed
Redevelopment at West 50th Ti Recommendation/Motion
Street and France Avenue,
Haugland Company
Information
Discussion
Info/Background:
The City has received a zoning request to redevelop 3901-3907 West 50th Street and
5000-5020 France Avenue located in the southwest quadrant of West 501" Street and
France Avenue (see attached drawings for location). The attached memorandum
presents the results of a traffic study prepared by Benshoof and Associates regarding
the proposal.
ICIF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE TWO / HOPKINS, MN 55343 / (952) 238-1667 / FAX (952) 238-1671
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES INC.
February 16, 2005 Refer to File: 05-08
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gene Haugland, Haugland Company
FROM: James A. Bensh f and Aravind Gottemuk.Ab
RE: Traffic Study for Proposed Redevelopment at 50'h Street and France Avenue
Intersection in City of Edina
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
This memorandum is to present the results of our traffic study for the proposed redevelopment of
property located in the southwest quadrant of the 50" Street/France Avenue intersection in the
City of Edina. Based on discussions with City staff and yourself, the following traffic questions
were addressed in this study:
a) What is an alternative development scenario that could be constructed on the subject
property in a manner consistent with existing zoning?
b) For the proposed redevelopment plan for the alternative scenario from question a), what are
the total numbers of trips that would be generated on a weekday during the p.m. peak hour
for adjacent street traffic' and on a daily basis? Considering the number of trips generated
by existing uses of the property that would be eliminated, what is the incremental change in
trip generation for the proposed plan and for the alternative scenario?
c) Applying the incremental change in trip generation with the proposed development, what
would be the change in p.m. peak hour traffic volumes along the property frontage of
France Avenue and through the intersection of France Avenue and 50th Street?
d) Considering the volume changes from point c), to what extent would traffic operations be
impacted along the subject portion of France Avenue and at the France Avenue/50th
Street intersection? Would any negative impacts be experienced?
e) How will parking needs for the proposed development be accommodated? Will any
negative parking impacts occur?
f) Will adequate traffic operations be provided within the site and in relationship to the
adjacent parking ramp?
The subject property presently consists of approximately 13,393 SF (square feet) of specialty
retail (including Edina Grill restaurant) and a 2,755 SF Arby's restaurant. The proposed
redevelopment plan will increase the specialty retail from 13,393 SF to 22,500 SF, will eliminate
the existing Arby's restaurant, and will add 23 condominium units. Full completion of the
proposed redevelopment is expected in 2006.
The p.m. peak hour for adjacent street traffic is one hour between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. on a typical
weekday. The p.m. peak hour for site trip generation is not the same as the peak hour for adjacent street
traffic. The p.m. peak hour for adjacent street traffic was examined in this study as it is the busiest hour for
501h Street and France Avenue. P.M. peak hour in this document means p.m. peak hour of adjacent street
traffic.
Mr. Gene Haugl and -2- February 16, 2005
The redeveloped property will be served by one existing exit driveway on France Avenue, the
existing one-way northbound alley connecting to 51st Street, and a new connection to the parking
ramp opposite the entrance to the underground parking garage for residents. We understand that
the parking ramp connection will be restricted by gates. Access through this connection will only
be available for residents of the proposed development.
RESPONSES TO TRAFFIC QUESTIONS
Question a). Alternative Development Scenario
To address this question, we reviewed the existing City zoning map and City Code to postulate an
alternative development scenario. The property is currently zoned as PCD-2 (Planned
Commercial District). The City Code allows a wide variety of commercial uses under PCD-2,
most of which are characterized as specialty retail by the Institute of Transportation Engineers for
trip generation purposes. The Code allows a maximum floor area ratio of 1.5 for PCD-2.
Considering the above information, we determined that 45,000 SF of specialty retail uses could
be developed on the site in full conformance with the City Code.
Question b). Incremental Change in Trip Generation
As presented earlier, the proposed redevelopment will expand the existing 13,393 SF specialty
retail to approximately 22,500 SF, an increase of approximately 9,100 SF in gross floor area for
this use. The current redevelopment plan will also add 23 condominium units above the specialty
retail uses. In conjunction with the redevelopment, the existing Arby's restaurant will be
removed.
For the alternative development scenario, the existing 13,393 SF of specialty retail would be
expanded by 31,607 SF to a total of 45,000 SF, and the existing Arby's restaurant would be
removed.
To estimate the change in trip generation that would be caused by the proposed redevelopment or
the alternative development scenario, we completed entering and exiting p.m. peak hour trip
counts at the existing Arby's restaurant, and we used the trip generation rates presented in the
Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation, Seventh Edition for specialty retail, fast-
food restaurant, and condominium uses. The incremental changes in trip generation due to the
proposed redevelopment and the alternative development scenario are presented in Table 1.
As presented in Table 1, the current redevelopment plan actually causes a reduction in trip
generation for the subject site both during the p.m. peak hour and on a daily basis. On the other
hand, the alternative development scenario consisting of 45,000 SF specialty retail that could
occur on this site would generate significantly greater number of trips compared to the existing
trip generation for the site. Thus, the current redevelopment plan would generate fewer trips
compared to the existing uses and would generate substantially fewer trips compared to the
alternative development scenario that is consistent with the current zoning designation for the
property.
Mr. Gene Haugland -3- February 16, 2005
Table 1
Change in Weekday Trip Generation for
Proposed Redevelopment and Alternative Development Scenario
Use
Change in Trip Generation Source of Trip
Generation P.M. Peak Hour of
Adjacent Street Traffic Daily
Proposed Redevelopment
Remove 2,275 SF Arby's
restaurant -45 -644 P.M. Peak Hour Count and
ITE data
Add 9,100 SF Specialty
Retail 25 403 1TE Trip Generation,
7th Edition
Add 23 condominiums 12 135 ITE Trip Generation,
7th Edition
Net Change — -8 -106 - Pro # osed Redevelosment
Alternative Development Scenario
Remove 2,275 SF Arby's
restaurant -45 -644 P.M. Peak Hour Count and
ITE data
Add 31,607 SF Specialty
Retail 86 1,400 ITE Trip Generation,
7th Edition
Net Change —
Alternative Development 41 756
Ouestion c). Change in P.M. Peak Hour Volumes
The current redevelopment plan will remove the existing entrance driveway on France Avenue
and will retain the existing exit driveway. The reduced trip generation and the reduced access on
France Avenue will result in reduced traffic volumes on France Avenue.
Based on current traffic counts at France Avenue/50th Street intersection, the adjacent roadway
network, and location of major attractions relative to the subject site, we expect that the trips
generated by the site are distributed as per the following percentages:
• 30 percent to and from the west on 50' Street
• 25 percent to and from the east on 50th Street
• 25 percent to and from the south on France Avenue
• 20 percent to and from the north on France Avenue
The net change in p.m. peak hour trip generation presented in Table 1 was assigned to the 50th
Street/France Avenue intersection according to the above trip distribution percentages. During
the p.m. peak hour, a total of 2,122 vehicles presently enter the France Avenue/50th Street
intersection. Following completion of the proposed development, the total volume entering this
intersection will be reduced by about 10 vehicles.
Mr. Gene Haugland -4- February 16, 2005
Question d). Impacts on France Avenue and France Avenue/50th Street Intersection
As presented in response to question c), the proposed redevelopment will benefit France Avenue
by actually causing a slight reduction in the volume using this roadway. In addition to the
volume reduction, the proposed redevelopment will result in one less driveway on France
Avenue, which will improve safety on this roadway by reducing the number of conflict points.
The reduced volumes through the France Avenue/50th Street intersection will cause a slight
improvement in operations through this intersection.
Question e). Parking Needs
The current redevelopment plan shows a total of 47 parking spaces (45 underground and two
surface parking spaces) that will be available only for residents. The 47 parking spaces translate
to approximately two spaces per dwelling unit. To check the adequacy of parking for residents,
we reviewed the data and standards presented in the following two documents:
• City Code
• ITE Parking Generation, Third Edition
Based on a review of the City Code parking requirements and discussions with City staff, we
understand that the minimum parking requirement for condominiums is 2.0 spaces per dwelling
unit, of which at least 1.25 spaces must be fully enclosed. City staff indicated that the remaining
0.75 spaces can either be exposed or enclosed. All of the required two spaces per dwelling unit
must be provided on the site. The proposed development meets the City Code requirements
through the provision of 45 underground and two surface parking spaces for the 23 dwelling
units.
Based on data collected at other similar developments, the ITE Parking Generation document
presents an average peak parking demand of 1.46 parking spaces per dwelling unit for
condominiums. Thus, the current redevelopment plan exceeds the average peak parking demand
for condominiums by 0.54 spaces per dwelling unit.
In addition to residents, parking demand is generated by residential guests and users of the
specialty retail uses. The City has provided ramp and on-street parking to adequately fulfill
parking needs for the residential guests and retail users.
Ouestion f). Traffic Operations within Site
The current redevelopment plan was reviewed to determine if adequate operations would be
provided within the site. As presented earlier, the following access arrangements will be
provided for the proposed redevelopment:
• One-way northbound alley between the parking ramp and the site that will allow entry
into the site from 51st Street.
• Driveway on France Avenue that will allow exiting out of the site.
• Connection to the parking ramp opposite the entrance to the underground parking garage
that will allow residents to use the ramp to enter and exit the site. The connection to the
ramp will be controlled by access gates that will restrict use of this connection to
residents only.
With the above access provisions, the current redevelopment plan will provide adequate
operations within the site.
Mr. Gene Haugland -5- February 16, 2005
CONCLUSIONS
Based on information presented in this memorandum, we have established the following three
principal findings:
a) The proposed redevelopment will not cause any negative impacts on France Avenue and
at the France Avenue/50th Street intersection.
b) Adequate parking will be provided to effectively meet the expected demand.
c) Satisfactory operations will be provided within the site.
Zoning Request
February 9, 2005
Subject Property:
Parcel 1: 3901 — 3907 West 50th Street and 5000— 5018 France Avenue South, owned
by MOHAMOKO Associates LLP (the property between Edina Theatre and Arby's)
Parcel 2: 5020 France Avenue South, owned by JSG Company, LLP (Arby's)
Developer: Haugland Company
General Plan:
Developer proposes to demolish all existing buildings on the 2 parcels. The subject
buildings have reached a level of functional and physical obsolescence which is no longer
competitive in the modern marketplace.
The proposed redevelopment project will replace the current 13,400 s.f. of retail and
Arby's with approximately 22,500 s.f. of new retail space at ground level.
In addition, Developer proposes to build 23 condominium units on 3 levels above the
retail space. Below grade, one level of parking will be built for the private use of the
residents of the condo units.
The project is planned to be built in 2 phases. The first phase will consist of the
demolition of Arby's and the build-out of new retail space at that location (including a
small number of condo units on the upper levels). This will allow 2 or 3 existing tenants
to relocate to the new space while the remainder is rebuilt. This gives those tenants the
opportunity to keep their business in continuous operation.
The second phase will consist of the demolition of the remaining retail and the build-out
of new retail with condo units above.
Delivery and Trash Services:
Currently, the trash facility behind Edina Theatre serves the entire block with the
exception of Excel Bank and Lunds. This facility also serves as the delivery location for
the Edina Liquor Store. The one-way alley from 51St to the Theatre and out to France
serves as the truck/delivery route for all retail business on the block except Lunds.
It is clear that the service route provided by the alley is essential to the retailers on the
block, and after considering alternatives, it has been decided that the trash facility remain
in its current place. As such, the new project is being designed to work with those
existing conditions.
Parking:
The underground parking will provide the necessary parking (45 stalls) for the residential
units. Currently, there are 3 parking places off the alley by Designer Home Fabrics.
These will be replaced by 2 stalls behind the southern most portion of the new
development. In addition, a loading area is being provided to reduce congestion and
provide a location for customer pick-up. To a large extent, the existing surface stalls are
being used for pick-up and delivery today.
Deliveries:
The existing one-way alley will remain in place with a slight shift in alignment to
enhance maneuverability.
Residential Parking Access:
After reviewing various alternatives for ways to provide ingress/egress for the
underground residential parking, a proposed alternative was selected.
The major issue is that delivery vehicles often block the one-way alley resulting in a less
than acceptable path for ingress/egress. Using France Avenue as a path to ingress/egress
was deemed a safety hazard and a detriment to traffic on France Avenue.
The result is a proposed solution which uses the city parking ramp as a path for
ingress/egress. This will allow residents only to cross the alley at 90 degrees and avoid
congestion with delivery vehicles. A remote controlled gate and garage door system will
eliminate use of this path by non-residents and provide security to the residential
underground parking.
Architecture:
The design of the project has been developed with the intent of preserving the 50th and
France community feel and scale. While the height of the residential units will be at the
height of the Edina Theatre, the scale at the pedestrian level is intended to preserve the
character of the neighborhood. Each individual retail establishment will be allowed to
express their own image through the unique design and materials of the storefront.
It should be noted that the 3-story residential component is setback from the face of the
retail. These units have a wide variety of setbacks and opportunities for exterior
treatment of windows, terraces and balconies.
2
In order to develop the residential component as a single facility, the plan proposes to
bridge the alley that exists on the north side of Arby's at the 21m, 3`d and 4m levels. This
allows egress for service vehicles at the ground level.
The plan also proposes that the underground parking is continuous under the same area of
the alley. This is necessary to provide adequate parking for the residential units by
having a single point of ingress/egress.
Pedestrian Walkways:
The 50th Street sidewalk is proposed to remain at its current size; however, the proposed
plan will widen the France Avenue sidewalk by 3 feet from 50th Street to the alley. South
of the alley, the sidewalk will remain at the same width or be wider. At the southerly end
of the development, adjacent to Ampersand, an outside eating area is proposed for
summer use by a restaurant.
The walkway between the proposed redevelopment and the "Ampersand" property will
be slightly wider than it is currently.
It is proposed that the walkway behind the Theatre be formalized to cross over the alley
and proceed to France Avenue on the south side of the alley. The two walkways will
enhance the pedestrian experience when leaving the parking ramp and walking to France
Avenue.
Requests to the City of Edina:
• Proper zoning to accomplish the development plan.
• Air and subterranean rights under and over the alley.
• Slight adjustment in the alley easement for realignment.
• Ingress/Egress easement through the parking ramp for resident parking access.
• City participation in covering the sidewalk between the proposed project and
"Ampersand" using a design similar to the walkway by Chico's.
• Such other necessary easements for access and utilities as may be required.
Respectfully submitted by:
Gene Haugland
President
Haugland Company
3
4(1144:
. I Mil
WOK IIIPL I NI 11141111 111111111.1M .1•4 WM Mlle 1.111111, MEI 141111111111141GlInimililtamill111111111MMillIa. Nu imasn:AIN IBA no 4.11111=4 rani I al .111 rionligirja INN I II SIM nnn== 11.61.11.111.111111"..."1"11111 41.1111".1181
1-1111,41 ri rivt!: ,
111•11111111111111111Mmommas mainsr...1111/1111111111•11W missiles a.m....maw • --n•n••••n••••".......=Z. ---:111111"."11111111."ThZ"4.61:11111):‘ 4111.11.11111". •- - • rutioct.:„ I.; 1)4.• 14MIlialgab drzo
41
.....•••••%14,00":;,, 711
Cr. sigIgnavia! IMMI
MEM% 71: iv me .
PP147;-'1 I IND ;
r II: Ma: sursmiassi
--1.11 r%
pansurci
Imasvesue Ile/r*INI11111111111
A14411 011,
i1011)
II, miter
Atie.•0
„.•,w/111" .0110 mieuiso marlinlp amierwatadi mix I.,-vs! -*.1 NAN !Mei Mar. 2:: To- 11.1, ,e4rLarion„, TamainstamilmosimmilNIIIIN ommosolllig_io• AlwavairArr_ al11•1111111111111111111111/mearium”Iww. esur••••n *my Oap. 4*,11117 MOW .1.11 'alp a, OW ..Agasszwamissilignmeopmg, ra.
m
..1 'Nun; ---zeinienunic
4 Mk r..111111an =I. II 111111=71111.11111n10... •n•••nn•n•nn•n•••...7.
Atiled
404-Evik\
Ataltmlw,
"oe:45,1041:
OBIS #411M1
vL EV!
1111'11;
r111
FOI
ex444 ,h1111
:dot
— patio 1,143 ;pr.71,1
11117AI
ilk," 1 67,. an. `1174214gisim4sa irswyr•••n,sto '' I -"Numarno& avime eta no .I.E10•!!"- 4os we
n7112 ritt VIT.N.SP2 IIW517
r4H,
Alt 'MI
YAW -IOW
4114
- alipA falj .1.1f -441C-747 1:=.1310'. """A* - "r4,- ,v4z0
/
ci
S.
s\-)
LOT 45
>> I PANUTS
M1E0 ID
97.00
>>
t. INV 57 .97 N NV 876.72 W
vt.."
6%0
,00110. /2)
PARCEL 1
16,371 sq. ft.
0.3758 acres
PERIWAKLES # 5004 FRANCE AVE. 1-STORY STUCCO II
47 LOT
I 6
.1
In I.*sn••M MEM
----THE SOUTH 7 FT. OF THE NORTH 40 FT.
OF THE SE 1/4 OF SEC. 18, Th. 28,
RANGE 24
130.0
EXISTING BUILDING
BLDG. FOOTPRINT 13,393 SQ. FT.
97.0
CARROLL/BR1TTON COSSIETTC STUDIO # 5010 FRANCE AVE. 1-STORY STUCCO
NECESSARY PIECES 11- # 6010 FRANCE AVE. 1-STORY STUCCO
LIVE, LAUGH, LOVE IF # 5010 FRANCE AVE. 1-STORY STUCCO
411
*89'59'50"E 4E0.%0"-j
>>
>>
1
r /FFE 1
/ FVE 1 t..._ 884.25 .L- - FM --I- / 55£77 - SWIM ;
"-PERTAIT FOR STREET ENCROACHMENT-1 BLUEBIRD BOUTIQUE PER DOC. NO. 5417156 i 3909 50TH ST. 1-STORY BRICK
EDINA GRILL # 3907 50TH ST. 1-STORY STUCCO
'
EXISTING BUILDING
3911 50TH STREET WEST !Sci
UILDING FOOTPRINT 13,970 SQ. FT.
- UCENSE AND AGRREMENT BETWEEN EDINA THEATRE CORPORATION AND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA PER DOC. NO. 4240621
PUBLIC WALKWAY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 4294177 PERMIT FOR OVERHANG ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 5414215
\--NORTH UNE OF THE SE 1/4 OF SEC. 18,
TWP. 28, RANGE 24
RIM 363.18 INV 577.56 E
LANE
>>
PALERS
4f r f.
avaiv46.""v" .1:51 2 0.44ww"""
DESIGNER
FABRICS HOME r
3905 50TH ST.1 1-STORY sruccq §
4 I.,
4'
waxy/ RF MOELLER JEWELEFt # 5000 FRANCE AVE 1-STORY STUCCO.
-r
C.;
ESI
0-
49.00
89'59'50" .1r6s g)c- -4--113.9-
" EXCE TIO
72.71 aajuilm in •
2 iv.(
<0----/t11911=6-«
1 prummous 1-mia-unclisi. 56- Ai
UNE OF LOT 47 WEST
RIM 879.90
NOM
11B1.04
/41/1/Zirief/414.17/1/1/4////t2
• .."."1
<C vanes
INV 673.24
•11
GFE 879.88
El
N/CREIE
se.
oo
1
•
P22Cb
"-THE SOU
NV 873.75
CONCRETE
A.
13
41,3
13
lii
33
il
A.
; I I
I 12 I N
0.1b ]('1
I_
e
_
13
<,)
11
13
13
RIM 580,72
NV 575.72 W
er7g 877.75 NW INV 576.76 S
13.
I 11 lie
I
ll Engineers . Surveyors
Landscape Architects
n 11111n11111111n1 Al1111n11115111111111111111
ROW N. 04-0690
;vs. by DRC
Checked by DRC
Peek/Pow 136/14
Haudond
Hansen Thorp Panen Olson Inc.
7610 Market Place Delve Eden Ptak* 114 55344-1644 (652) 5211-0700 FAX (052) en-zsoe
LOCATION MAP
F: \Land Projects 2004\04-089\dwg\4AP.gif
Scale In feet
20 40 60
BENCHMARK:
TOP NUT OF HYDRANT AT THE NE CORNER OF
WEST 50TH STREET AND FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH.
EIEVATION 885.71
LEGEND
• BOU.ARO
I3 CATCH BASIN
ID ELECTRIC BOX
gi GAS VALVE
s HANDHOLE
If HYDRANT
o SET IRON MONUMENT
* UGHT POLE
• MB
CPS° ELEC, GAS, PARK METER
SIGN
-*. DBL. POST SIGN
•
SANITARY MANHOLE
e STORM MANHOLE
CO TELEPHONE BOX
I§ ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
e WATER MANHOLE
Po WATER VALVE
GUARDRAIL
GASMAIN
WATERMAIN
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
tu--- OVERHEAD UT1U1IES
TREE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 47, except the South 2.45 feet of the East 51 feet thereof, Auditor's Subdivision Number 172
Hennepin County. Minnesota.
NV 568.9: The West 97 feet of the East 130 feet of the South 7 feet of the North 40 feet of the South=
Quarter of Section 18, Township 28, Range 24, according to the United States Government Survey
thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Abstract Property
Known as 5000 France Avenue South, Edina, Minnesota.
CERTIFICATION:
To Mohomoko Associates, a Minnesota general partnership, Hougland Company. JSO Company, UP
and Old Republic National Title insurance Company:
This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it ix based were mode in
accordance with the 'Minimum Standard Detoil Requirements for ALTA/ACSA Land Title Surveys'.
jointly established and adopted by ALTA, ACSSA and NSPS In 1999 thereof. Pursuant to the
Accuracy Standards as adopted by ALTA. NSPS and ACSM and in effect on the date of this
csrUfication, undersigned further certifies that proper field procedures, instrumentation, and
adequate survey personnel were employed in order to achieve results comparable to those outlinec
In the *Minimum Angle, Distance, and Closure Requirements for Survey Measurements Which Contra
Land Boundaries for ALTA/ACS).4 Land Title Surveys.*
D. Daniel Thorp, Licensed Surveyor
Minnesota Registration No.16321
Dote: December 15, 2004
NOTES:
1. This survey relies on information found in the commitment for title insurance prepared
by Old Republic Title Insurance Company, file no. OR1027358-C, doted Nov. 24, 2004.
2. The locations of underground utilities ore based upon available mops. records and field
locations. The locations may not be exact
3. All distances are in feet
4. The basis of bearings is assumed.
5. The area of the property described above is 16,371 square feet or 0.3758 acres.
7. The property does not lie In a flood hazard zone according to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel No. 270160 0002 B.
dated May 1, 1980.
8. According to the City of Edina website the current zoning for the site Is PCD-2 Planned
Commercial District 2. Since the property does not border another zoning district no setbod
are given.
9. Building encroaches along West 50th Street and along France Ave. South.
ALTA/ACSM
LAND TITLE SURVEY
FRANCE AVE. SOUTH
EDINA, MINNESOTA
TOTAL SITE AREA:
RETAIL AREA:
RESIDENTIAL AREA:
SITE AREA: 14,277 SF SOUTH PARCEL
16,371 SF NORTH PARCEL
30,648 SF
22,490 GSF
66,896 GSF (UNITS
AND CIRCULATION)
23 UNITS
45 SPACES SHOWN IN GARAGE,
2 SPACES AT GRADE
PARKING SPACES:
SITE PLAN
•,16' I'dGni E3NE I-110g ER TREES AT 30' 0.5. TYPICAL PROPERTY UNE
160.-0*
1 EXI TIN PARKING RAMP
PROPERTY
FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH
PROJECT INFORMATION
01. OPUS,
NISTM704
ME MOM
2/9/05 CRY SUBMITTAL (ZONING)
DOM DOOM
M34-5790 PfleaCf MCI
DM XXPOVXX MELT IMOWAR
PM If
S. Johnson Of= IlY
D. Young Dixon
• Erma nom occur in the tramnission of
electronic ams. TM Cf. =Mmho omo not responsible for cny cfairr . clamono or emcee, teeing out of the uneuttortrod me
of tM kicanallon contained in elatronic
• Electronic fles mac not emonot* Med
the final as—bat conallons. It Is the creponelbiSty of the user to verity all layouts, dimensions and other rted
information.
• This document may not be used or
copied without prior written consent
0 of riaSla maned
Pmerwl kr
olto OPUS.
MOW
50TH AND
FRANCE
REDEVELOPMENT LOCATOI
Edina, Minnesota
MEET ME
ARCHITECTURAL
SITE PLAN
Stat *Mot
A1.1
To:
From:
Subject:
Transportation Commissioners
Steven Lillehaug, PE, PTOE
Traffic Engineer
Neighborhood Traffic
Management Plan — Scoring
and Ranking
Regular Transportation
Commission Meeting
Date: February 24, 2005
Agenda Item No. III a.
Recommendation/Motion n Information
XI Discussion
Info/Background:
The Transportation Commission directed staff to initiate the Neighborhood Traffic
Management Plan (NTMP) process for the following traffic issue areas identified by the
Local Traffic Task Force:
• Northwest Edina
1. Parkwood Knolls Area
2. View Lane/South Knoll Drive
• High School and Valley View Middle School Area
Additionally, on February 15, 2005, City Council directed staff to initiate review and
forward the traffic issue area of West 56th Street (from Wooddale Avenue to France
Avenue) to the Transportation Commission.
Scoring and ranking of the referenced traffic issue areas have been completed for the
Commission's consideration.
Engineering Department 2005 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGMENT PLAN Date: 2/18/2005
SCORING FOR RANKING
City of Edina
Ranking Item
Location No. 05-A (Gleason Rd) Location No. 05-A (Valley View Rd Location No. 05-B (Parkwood Rd) Location No. 05-C (View Lane) Location No. 05-D (W. 56th St.)
High School/Middle
School/Creek Valley School
Area (Intersections of Gleason Rd.
with McCauley Tr., Gleason Rd.
with Valley View Rd. and Valley
View Rd. with Antrim Rd. & Valley
View Rd. adjacent to the High
School/Middle School)
High School/Middle
School/Creek Valley School
Area (Intersections of Gleason Rd.
with McCauley Tr., Gleason Rd.
with Valley View Rd. and Valley
View Rd. with Antrim Rd. & Valley
View Rd. adjacent to the High
School/Middle School)
Cut-through path NW Edina (north of
Londonderry Rd. and Lincoln Dr.
intersection via Redwood Rd.)
View Lane and Schaefer Road (north
of Vernon Ave.)
West 56th Street (between Park Place
and France Avenue)
1341door Arterial (State Aid
Roadway)
B-Minor Arterial (State
)
Local Roadway Local Roadway Local Roadway
Description Points Description Points Description Points Description Points Description Points
1. Sidewalk adjacent to the benefited area (0 to100 points):
• None + 100
• All of 1 side + 50
• All of 2 sides + 0
All of 1 side 50 Allot 1 side 50 None 100 None 100 None 100
2. Public school yard, play lot, playground development adjacent to benefited area (0 to 200 points):
- None + 0
- All of 1 side + 100
• All of 2 sides + 200
. Within school district elementary walking boundary + 100
All of 1 side 100 All of 1 side 100 None 0 None 0 None 0
3. Residential development adjacent to benefited area (0 to 100 points):
• None + 0
• All of 1 side +50
• All of 2 sides + 100
Allot 1 sides 50 Allot 1 sides 50 All of 2 sides 100 All of 2 sides 100 All of 2 sides 100
4. Number of reported correctable crashes based on last 5 years of available data (0 to 200 points):
• 20 per crash; maximum of 200 points
11 crashes 2000-2004 200 36 crashes 2000-2004 200 3 crashes 2000-2004 60 2 crashes, 2000-2004 40 No reported accidents since 1997 o 5. Average residential density adjacent to benefited area (0 to 50 points): • 50 points maximum
- (0 dwelling units per adjacent 100 fin. ft = 0 points
• 5+ dwelling units per adjacent 100 fin. ft = 50 points)
1 per 104 ft = .96 per 100 ft 10 1 per 104 ft. = .98 per 100 ft 10 1 per 159 ft. = 0.63 per 100 ft 6 1 per 125 ft. = 0.80 per 100 ft 8 1 per 119 ft. = 0.84 per 100 ft 8 6. Average Daily Traffic Volumes - ADT (0 to 200 points):
• ADT divided by 10; maximum 200 points
• For intersection, street segments or multiple steets, use higher volume street
200
August 2001, Valley View Rd.
west of Antrim Rd. ADT = 5723 200
April 2003, 6633 Parkwood Road
ADT = 770 77 Sept 2001 5709 View Ln ADT =868 87
July 2004, east of Woodland Circle
(west), ADT =981 87
October 2000,Gleason Rd. at
Creek Valley School ADT = 5801
7. Percent over speed limit- ADT (0 to 200 points):
• Percent over speed limit times 2.5 (times 100); maximum 200 points (80% over limit)
• For intersection, street segments or multiple steels, use street with higher speeds August 2001, Gleason Rd. north
of Valley View Rd. = 78.1%>
30MPH 195
August 2001, Valley View Rd.
west of Antrim Rd. = 49.0%>
30MPH 123
April 2003, 6633 Packwood Road
45.3% > 30MPH 113
Sept 2001, 5709 View Ln., 54.7%>
30MPH 137
July 2004, east of Woodland Circle
(west), 21.5% > 30MPH 54
Total Score 805 733 456 472 349
Rank i Gleason Rd. governs 3 2 4
Page 1 of 1
vs### 4)64k Sf.+r
;5S‘te etreo-- Commeti
repor÷fi fecomovoweep, ova
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To: Mayor & City Council Agenda Item # V. D.
From: Boyd Tate Consent
Traffic Safety Coordinator Information Only
Date: February 15, 2005 Mgr. Recommends To HRA
Subject: Traffic Safety Staff Review for IX To Council
February 3, 2005 Action [21 Motion L Resolution ri Ordinance
(-1 Discussion
Recommendation:
Review and approve Traffic Safety Staff Review of Thursday, February 3, 2005.
Info/Background:
It is anticipated that residents will be in attendance at the Council meeting regarding
the attached issue.
GAInfrastructure\Streetaraffic\Traffic Advisory Committee\Staff Review Summaries\05 TS AG & Min\rr 01-10-05.doc
TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW
THRUSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2005
The staff review of traffic safety matters occurred on February 3, 2005. Staff present
included the City Engineer, Traffic Engineer, Traffic Safety Coordinator, City Planner,
Sign Coordinator, Traffic Safety Sergeant and Chief of Police.
From that review, the recommendations below are provided. On each of the items,
persons involved have been contacted and the staff recommendation has been
discussed with them. They have also been informed that if they disagree with the
recommendation or have additional facts to present, they can be included on the
February 15, 2005 Council Agenda.
SECTION A:
Requests that staff recommends approval of request:
None for the February 3, 2005 meeting.
SECTION B:
Requests that staff recommends denial of request:
None for the February 3, 2005 meeting.
SECTION C:
Requests that are deferred to a later date or referred to others:
Request to remove the STOP signs on pest_ 56th Street at Woodland
Circle (west) that were installed at the direction of the Council on August
17, 2004 for a period of six months.
The requestors live along West 56th Street and are asking that the signs
be removed. The requestors indicated that the signs, based on their
observations, have not done anything to slow traffic on West 56th Street
and have not made the neighborhood safer. The requestors indicated that
as a direct result of the added stop signs, traffic now slows and breaks
hard to stop at the signs, and then accelerates rapidly causing a
substantial increase in the level of noise in their neighborhood. They
indicated that they have observed many vehicles rolling through the stop
signs or grossly ignoring them all together. Additionally, the requestors
indicated they have observed vehicles violating the signs greater than
50% of the time and feel that safety on the street has been diminished as
a result of adding the new STOP signs.
Prior to August 2004, West 56th Street existed with east-west STOP signs
at Brookview Avenue and France Avenue (and currently at Woodland
Traffic Safety Staff Review Page 1 of 3
February 3, 2005
Circle-west). The north-south side streets between Brookview Avenue
and France Avenue (Park Place, Woodcrest Drive and Woodland Circle
west and east) are controlled with STOP signs. Sidewalks are not present
in this area.
History:
A request was made in June 1997 to install STOP signs on West 56th
Street at Park Place and in March 2001 to install STOP signs on West 56th
Street at Woodland Circle. In April 2001, a traffic survey was performed
on West 56th Street. The Monday thru Friday average daily traffic was 882
vehicles and the 85th-percentile speed was 32.3 mph. Of the 4410
vehicles in the survey, 31 vehicles (0.7%) were recorded traveling at or
over 40 mph. The request was denied by the City Council at the May
2001 meeting.
Again, in June of 2004 several requests were made to install STOP signs
on West 56th street at Park Place and/or Woodland Circle (west). Those
requestors also live along West 56th Street and were concerned with the
volume and speeds of traffic and the safety of pedestrians on West 56th
Street.
A traffic survey was performed in June-July 2004 on West 56th Street.
The Monday thru Friday average daily traffic was 981 vehicles and the
85th-percentile speed was 31.7 mph. In summary, although the volume of
vehicles increased since 2001, the 85th-percentile speed was actually
lower (only 1.7 mph above the speed limit).
There were no reported accidents since 1997 and intersection sight lines
were determined to be acceptable.
At the August 17, 2004 City Council meeting, staff recommended
maintaining the existing STOP signs in their existing locations and denial
of the request to install STOP signs (All-way Stops) at additional locations
on West 56th Street for lack of warrants.
Several residents who live on West 56th Street attended the August 17th
meeting and voiced their concerns for neighborhood safety and
encouraged the council to order the installation of STOP signs on West
56th Street at Woodland Circle (west).
Following a Council discussion, the Mayor made a motion to reverse the
recommendation of the Traffic Safety Committee and approve installation
of STOP signs on West 56th Street at Woodland Circle (west) for a period
of six months. The motion carried 3 (ayes) to 1 (nay). The STOP signs
were installed as directed shortly thereafter.
Subsequently, a request to remove the temporary STOP signs was made
and on January 26, 2005, a letter was sent to the West 56th Street area
residents informing them of the current request. Residents were informed
Traffic Safety Staff Review Page 2 of 3
February 3, 2005
that the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee would be reviewing this issue
and presenting their recommendation to the City Council at its regular
meeting on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
As a result of this letter, five e-mails and six phone calls were received
from neighborhood residents requesting the City to leave the STOP signs
in place.
A traffic• volume/speed survey has not been completed since the
installation of the STOP signs. However, similar results are anticipated at
this location in comparison to a similar situation/location in Edina where a
traffic study was performed regarding an unwarranted STOP sign
installation. The results of this study indicated that the STOP signs had an
insignificant effect on the volume and speed of traffic (mid-block). The
study's data showed a slight reduction in speed for the shorter block
(approximately 1.0 mph) and a slight increase in speed for the longer
block (approximately 0.3 mph). These insignificant results are anticipated
to be very similar to the results that we would find for the shorter block
east of the Woodland Circle intersection and the longer block west of the
intersection.
Existing STOP signs are present at every intersection within the
referenced area. All-way STOP signs are not warranted in accordance
with City policy and State guidelines. Engineering guidelines indicate that
warranted STOP signs should be installed in a manner that minimizes the
number of vehicles having to stop (the street carrying the lowest volume of
traffic should be stopped).
It is recommended that these guidelines be followed so that the meaning
of traffic control devices is uniform through the City.
Due to the relatively low 85th-percentile speed exceedance of the speed
limit; no immediate alternative routes to divert the existing traffic that
currently uses this roadway; and the adamant concerns of the applicants
for the safety of the pedestrians and children in the referenced area, staff
continues to recommend installation of sidewalks along West 56th Street.
Studies show that streets with sidewalks on both sides of the streets have
less than half the accidents compared to streets with no sidewalks.
Additionally, due to the existing volume of traffic on this local street and
the support of the neighborhood to address the perceived safety issues,
staff makes the following recommendations:
Staff recommends referral of this issue to the Transportation Commission
for further consideration and implementation of possible traffic calming
measures. Additionally, staff recommends installing sidewalks along West
56th Street.
GAInfrastructure\Streets\traffic\Traffic Advisory Committee\Staff Review Summaries\05 TS AG & Min102-03-05 TRAFFIC SAFETY review.doc
Traffic Safety Staff Review Page 3 of 3
February 3, 2005
Aug. 3, 2004 Edina City Council Meeting Minutes Page 29 of 37
OF THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Manager Hughes indicated the Human Relations
Commission has recommended the adoption of Ordinance No. 850-12, Amending Edina Code Section
140 to change the name of the Commission to the 'Edina Human Rights and Relations Commission'.
They believe the name change was more in line with State law and the names of similar commissions.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed name change.
Melvin Ogurak, said during a study of the Commission's by-laws, it was realized that the name did not
follow State law. The Commission requests approval of the name change as proposed.
Member Housh asked if the mission of the Commission would remain the same. Mr. Ogurak said the
mission would remain the same, only expanded with up- to-date law.
Following a brief discussion, Member Hovland made a motion approving Ordinance No. 850-12,
Amending Edina Code Section 140 - Changing the Name of the Human Relations Commission to
Edina Human Rights and Relations Commission, with a waiver of second reading as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 2004-12
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION 140
RENAMING THE EDINA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
The City Council of the City of Edina ordains:
Section 1. Subsection 140.02 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"140.01 Establishment. To further accomplishment of the above policies, the Human
Rights and Relations Commission (the Commission) is hereby established."
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect after its
adoption and publication according to law.
First Reading: August 17, 2004
Second Reading: Waived
Publication: September 16,2004
Attest:
Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk
Member Masica seconded the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Housh, Hovland, Masica, Maetzold
Motion carried.
Dennis F. Maetzold, Mayor
TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW OF AUGUST 5, 2004, APPROVED Assistant City Engineer
Lillehaug explained that at the August 5, 2004, Traffic Safety meeting, several residents expressed an
interest in participating in the Council meeting of August 17,2004. He presented a brief overview of the
City's STOP sign policy and concluded that when STOP signs are used as speed breakers, and
unwarrantly installed, a high incidence of drivers intentionally ignoring the STOP signs, creating a
greater risk.
Section B.2 - Request for STOP signs on West 56t-h- Street at Woodland Circle and/or Park Place
Mr. Lillehaug indicated a request to install STOP signs on West 56th Street at Woodland Circle (west)
and/or Park Place was received stating a concern of high traffic volumes, high speeds, safety of
pedestrians, and alleviating cut-through traffic. Staff recommends maintaining the existing STOP signs
http://ci.edina.mn.us/Pages/CityCouncil_MeetingMinutes/20040817Reg.htm 2/8/2005
Aug. 3, 2004 Edina City Council Meeting Minutes Page 30 of 37
in their existing locations, denial of the request to install STOP signs at additional locations on West
56th Street for lack of warrants and referral of the issue to the Transportation Commission for further
consideration and implementation of possible traffic calming measures.
Laura Hemmer, 5601 Park Place, voiced concern with the traffic study taken during the summer
months and suggested it be re-taken during the school year. 54th Street and 58th Street are less
residential while 56th Street was residential and most driveways empty onto 56th Street. Member
Hovland inquired whether sidewalks would be appropriate in the area. Ms. Hemmer said some
residents were opposed to sidewalks.
Engineer Houle reiterated that the Transportation Commission was working on a policy plan, which includes a
neighborhood management plan for residents to study for traffic calming measures.
Mayor Maetzold encouraged Ms. Hemmer to acquire a petition for sidewalks.
Mike Sullivan, 81 Woodland Circle, said there must be concern with traffic in the area because of the
previous traffic studies. He stated the area has charm that a sidewalk could alter and he asked that a
solution be found. Mr. Sullivan inquired whether the City has any liability if a problem was not solved.
Member Housh the City was attempting to find a process to deal with traffic.
Scott Kelly, 96 Woodland Circle, suggested residents of 56th Street pay for the STOP signs at the
recommended locations. If, in six months, traffic and speeds have increased, the signs could be pulled.
Mr. Housh noted within the warrants STOP signs are not used to reduce volume or speed.
Member Masica inquired whether a temporary STOP or YIELD sign could be installed. Mr. Houle
noted that he would not recommend a YIELD sign as it was similar to a STOP sign and residents will
still roll through the intersection. Mr. Housh again stated that the City was attempting to find a process
to deal with traffic.
Member Hovland asked what the timeline was for the Transportation Commission to consider traffic
calming measures. Mr. Houle said if the Commission adopted the policy, and the Council recommends
adoption proposed to be in October, and after the neighborhood applies, solutions would be sought
during the winter for implementation in the summer.
Following a Council discussion, Mayor Maetzold made a motion to reverse the decision of Section
B.2, of the Traffic Safety Committee and approve installation of STOP signs on West 56th Street at
Woodland Circle (west) and/or Park Place for a period of six months. Member Masica seconded the
motion.
Ayes: Hovland, Masica, Maetzold
Nays: Housh
Motion carried.
Section B. 3- Request to install a STOP sign on eastbound Hibiscus Avenue at West Shore Drive
Assistant Engineer Lillehaug said a request was received from a resident on West Shore Drive south of
Hibiscus Avenue with concerns of vehicle speeds and safety on West Shore Drive. The intersection was
http://ciedina.mn.us/Pages/CityCouncil_MeetingMinutes/20040817Reg.htm 2/8/2005
Page 1 of 1
Steve Lillehaug
From: Gordon Hughes
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 11:27 AM
To: 'Jim Hovland'
Cc: Steve Lillehaug
Subject: RE: stop sign on West 56th.
Will do. I suspect that we may wish to route this first to the Traffic Safety Committee for their review and
recommendation.
Original Message
From: Jim Hovland [mailtolhovland@krauserollins.com]
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 11:25 AM
To: Gordon Hughes
Subject: stop sign on West 56th.
The above was supposed to be a temporary placement for 6 months. Can we have Steve provide a report
on the same soon? I know the Meads and Hoigaards are not happy about the signs and I believe the Meads
wrote to the Council in the past two weeks. Perry Mead has a follow-up call into me.
James B. Hovland
Krause & Rollins, Chartered
310 Groveland Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403
(612) 874-8550
(Fax) (612) 874-9362
jhovland@krauserollins.com
1/6/2005
Very sincerely,
4.44.
December 13, 2004
Steve Lillehaug
Assistant City Engineer
City of Edina
4801 W. 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Re: Traffic Stop Signs at 56th Street and Woodland Circle (West)
Dear Mr. Lillehaug:
A few months ago the City added a temporary stop signs on 56th Street at Woodland Circle (west). We
would like to request the signs be removed because it has resulted in substantially increasing the noise
level in our neighborhood. In addition, the new stop signs have not, based on our observation, done
anything to slow traffic on 56th Street or make the neighborhood safer.
As a direct result of the added stop signs, traffic now breaks hard to stop at the signs, then accelerates
rapidly as they continue forward on 56th Street. Through the action of stopping and accelerating the
noise level from each passing vehicle is increased substantially. We noticed the increased noise from
vehicle traffic on 56th Street immediately after the stop signs were installed, and other neighbors have
commented the same. The addition of the stop sign has had the effect of changing a pastoral
neighborhood to the sounds of a busy thoroughfare.
As the City has found in previous studies, it is our observation the addition of the stop signs has not
reduced the speed of traffic. We have observed many violations, from rolling through the stop signs to
grossly ignoring the signs. We have observed violations approximating 50% or more of the time. Our
view is safety on the street has been diminished as a result of adding the new stop signs on 56th Street.
We respectfully request the City of Edina to remove the temporary stop signs on 56th Street. This is
consistent with the Counsel's original action at the August 17, 2004 Regular Meeting, to review the
decision after six months. The request is als .consistent with the original recommendation of the Traffic
Safety Committee. 31
Please inform us of the action the City will take on our request. Thank you.
Perry and Mary Mead
80 Woodland Circle
Edina, MN 55424
952-929-0148 (Home)
763-398-6348 (Day)
Cc: Dennis Maetzold, Mayor
James B. Hovland, Counsel Member
Gordon Hughes, City Manager
January 26, 2005
West 56th Street Area Residents
Edina, Minnesota
RE: Temporary Stop Signs on West 56th Street at Woodland Circle (west)
Dear Resident:
On August 17, 2004, the Edina City Council ordered the installation of temporary STOP
signs on West 56th Street at Woodland Circle (west) for a period of six months.
Recently, the City has received requests to remove the temporary STOP signs due to the
negative impacts and their ineffectiveness. The Traffic Safety Advisory Committee will
be reviewing this issue and presenting its recommendation to the City Council at its
regular meeting on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 at 7:00p.m.
Please contact me at 952-826-0349 or e-mail at btate@ci.edina.mn.us with any questions
or comments.
Sincerely,
Boyd Tate
Traffic Safety Coordinator
Page 1 of 1
Boyd Tate
To: DAVID & MIA LIEBL
Subject: RE: Stop Sign on 56th and Woodland Circle
Hello David & Mia
Thank you for your e-mail. I will present it to the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee when
we meet on 02-03-2005 at 10:00 a.m.
I have received similar concerns from several of your neighbors.
Boyd Tate
Traffic Safety Coordinator
City of Edina
Original Message
From: DAVID & MIA LIEBL [mailto:mliebl@msn.corn]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 3:34 PM
To: Boyd Tate
Subject: Stop Sign on 56th and Woodland Circle
Hi Boyd,
I am a resident at the comer of 56th and Park Place, and I was very unhappy to hear the possible
removal of the new stop sign. I have 3 young children and really appreciate the fact that it has
definately slowed the traffic down coming from the East.
Please let it be known that I am definately in support of keeping that stop sign up.
Sincerely,
Mia M Liebl
2/2/2005
Message Page 1 of 3
Boyd Tate
_
From: Jeffrey A. Spizale Deffs@exceffixtures.com]
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 2:11 PM
To: Sullivan, Michael P.; swkelley@mmm.com; maryk@northerntool.com;
aspizale@preferredspeakers.com
Cc: rbsullivan@riderlaw.com; Boyd Tate
Subject: RE: Temporary Stop Sign at West 56th St. at Woodland Circle
Mr. Tate,
I live across the street from the Sullivan's at 50 Woodland Circle. Each day I pick up my Son
at his bus stop and I wait for him by the stop sign nearest to our house. I am there from 3:30-
4:00 each week day. I count on average 5-6 cars a minute stop at the signs, that is one car
every ten seconds. That volume of traffic increases at other times.
Cars coming off France avenue onto 56th street travel at extreme speeds and if the stop sign
was not on that corner it would be anyone's guess how fast they would continue to go down
56th to Wooddale. That is why each day I wait at the bus stop. It is not safe for my Son to
walk from the bus stop to home (three houses) or to cross the streets.
Our children and other children on our street can not be in their front yards without
supervision. Let alone ever ride their bikes on the street or cross the streets alone. We
moved to Edina two years ago from Minneapolis for the schools and for the safety
that Edina might offer for our children.
We would not enjoy having to move again so soon but, the traffic is an issue
that we need to resolve. Thank you for your time. What ever you can do to help in this
situation would be appreciated greatly.
Regards,
Jeff Spizale 952-929-4160
Original Message
From: Sullivan, Michael P. [mailto:Michael.Sullivan@gpmlaw.com]
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 7:39 AM
To: swkelley@mmm.com; maryk@northerntool.com; aspizale@preferredspeakers.com;
jeffs@excelfixtures.com
Cc: rbsullivan@riderlaw.com
Subject: FW: Temporary Stop Sign at West 56th St. at Woodland Circle
See below
Original Message
From: Boyd Tate [mailto:btate@ci.edina.mn.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 9:42 AM
To: Sullivan, Michael P.
Subject: RE: Temporary Stop Sign at West 56th St. at Woodland Circle
2/7/2005
Message Page 2 of 3
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
Thank you for your e-mail voicing your concerns about the STOP signs on West 56th Street at Woodland
Circle (west).
I will be giving it to the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee at our meeting this morning.
This committee will make a recommendation to the City Council of February 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
They can recommend that the signs be taken down, left as is, or continue on for further study.
Remember, the committee can only make a recommendation. The Edina City Council has the actual say.
The city has conducted additional tests at this intersection. On three different days, during three different
time periods, car counts, speed studies and sign compliance studies were made.
Normally speed studies and car counts are done by laying down hose tubes for a seven day period.
However, these tests can not be done during the winter months because of snow plowing. During the
winter months my job is to go out and visually collect the data.
Speeds were not found to be excessive. Traffic count has not increased significantly since the last study
was done in 2001.
Compliance of the STOP signs, east bound and west bound was found to be the same as that of any
residential stop signs. In one study, 75 vehicles passed through the intersection. 67 complied with the
stop signs, 8 did not. Testing on the other two days were about the same.
Speeds ranged from a high of 34 to a low of 18 mph. This is normal for residential areas similar to this.
The City has received one request for the signs to be taken down. This request was in writing and came
from a resident at that intersection.
The reasons given are: "Increased noise due to traffic breaking hard and then rapidly accelerating. The
signs have not slowed the traffic on 56th Street. The addition of the stop sign has had the effect of
changing a pastoral neighborhood to the sounds of a busy thoroughfare. I have observed many violations,
from rolling through to grossly ignoring the signs. We have observed violations approximating 50% or
more of the time. Our view is safety on the street has been diminished as a result of adding the new stop
signs."
Since the letter went out I have received 4 phone calls and 4 e-mails all requesting that the signs be left in
place.
I could not find any data on other stop signs being removed in the City.
All of the above will be presented to the committee which consists of: Chief of Police, Traffic Safety
Sergeant, Public Works Supervisor, City Planner, City Traffic Engineer, City Engineer, and the Traffic
Safety Coordinator.
I hope this answers your questions.
I will inform you of the committee's recommendation and your options should you disagree with their
recommendation within the next few days.
Respectfully,
Boyd Tate
Traffic Safety Coordinator
City of Edina
2/7/2005
Message Page 3 of 3
Original Message
From: Sullivan, Michael P. [mailto:Michael.Sullivan@gpmlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 5:34 PM
To: Boyd Tate
Cc: rbsullivan@riderlaw.com
Subject: Temporary Stop Sign at West 56th St. at Woodland Circle
Dear Mr. Tate: I received your letter dated January 26, 2005, regarding the temporary stop
signs on West 56th Street at Woodland Circle (west). Frankly, your letter surprised me as the
stop sign has been a great addition to our neighborhood. To help me gain a better
understanding of the issue, at your earliest convenience, could you please provide me
answers to the following questions:
• Since installation of the stop sign, has the city conducted any further tests to determine
the sign's effectiveness?
• If the city has conducted additional tests, when were the tests conducted and what
were the results of those tests (i.e. average speed, cars per day, etc.)?
• How many "requests" has the city received to remove the temporary stop signs?
• How many of the requests were made in writing?
• How many of the requests came from people living on West 56th Street?
• What were the "negative impacts" that people cited?
• In 2004, how many stop signs did the city remove due to negative impacts and
ineffectiveness?
Furthermore, if you or anyone on the Traffic Advisory Safety Committee would like my
perspective on the stop sign prior to making a recommendation to the City Council, I would
welcome a phone call. I live right in front of the signs, so my perspective would probably be
helpful. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
Best regards,
Michael P. Sullivan, Jr.
81 Woodland Circle
Edina, MN 55424
Work Phone: 612-632-3350
Fax: 612-632-4350
E-mail: michael.sullivan@gpmlaw.com
2/7/2005
L-64-
Page 1 of 1
Boyd Tate
To: Sjw9876@aol.com
Subject: RE: Stop sign on W. 56th St.
Susan & Tom
Thank you for your concerns on this subject.
I will be reading your letter to the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee when we meet on
February 3, 2005. I will call or mail you with their decision.
There are basically three things the committee can do with this. Recommend to the City Council that the signs be
removed. Recommend that they be left in place. Recommend that this be referred for a continuing study.
Remember, the City Council has the ultimate say on these issues.
I will be in touch.
Boyd Tate
Traffic Safety Coordinator
Original Message
From: Sjw9876@aol.com [mailto:Sjw9876@aol.corn]
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 3:53 PM
To: Boyd Tate
Subject: Stop sign on W. 56th St.
Dear Boyd,
As a homeowner at 51 Woodland Circle we want to loudly protest the idea of removing the stop sign on
56th St.
Our home is essentiallly at 56th and France although our adress is on Woodland Circle and the speed of
the cars turning off France onto 56th is dangerous. We have had numerous accidents at this corner.
Backing out of our diveway can be dangerous as those who have turned off France accelerate down 56th.
Anything that can be done to reduce the speed and eliminate the idea that 56th is just a freeway available
to help people reach Wooddale faster is something we are in favor of. There are three children in our
family and you have children of all ages in this neighbrhood.
Yes, the stop sign is an inconvenience for some. It actually makes them slow their car down so that we
can all exist safely in this neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Susan J. Wheeler
W. Thomas Goodnow
51 Woodland Circle
Edina, MN 55424
Ph : 952 285-2846
Cell: 612 816-8001
2/1/2005
c)c '-rs A
e--
Temporary Stop Sign at West 56th St. at Woodland Circle Page 1 of 1
Boyd Tate
From: Sullivan, Michael P. [Michael.Sullivan@gpmlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 5:34 PM
To: Boyd Tate
Cc: rbsullivan@riderlaw.com
Subject: Temporary Stop Sign at West 56th St. at Woodland Circle
Dear Mr. Tate: I received your letter dated January 26, 2005, regarding the temporary stop signs on West 56th
Street at Woodland Circle (west). Frankly, your letter surprised me as the stop sign has been a great addition to
our neighborhood. To help me gain a better understanding of the issue, at your earliest convenience, could you
please provide me answers to the following questions:
• Since installation of the stop sign, has the city conducted any further tests to determine the sign's
effectiveness?
• If the city has conducted additional tests, when were the tests conducted and what were the results of
those tests (i.e. average speed, cars per day, etc.)?
• How many "requests" has the city received to remove the temporary stop signs?
• How many of the requests were made in writing?
• How many of the requests came from people living on West 56th Street?
• What were the "negative impacts" that people cited?
• In 2004, how many stop signs did the city remove due to negative impacts and ineffectiveness?
Furthermore, if you or anyone on the Traffic Advisory Safety Committee would like my perspective on the stop
sign prior to making a recommendation to the City Council, I would welcome a phone call. I live right in front of
the signs, so my perspective would probably be helpful. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
Best regards,
Michael P. Sullivan, Jr.
81 Woodland Circle
Edina, MN 55424
Work Phone: 612-632-3350
Fax: 612-632-4350
E-mail: michael.sullivan@gpmlaw.com
2/3/2005
Page 1 of 1
-5 Let av 7
+61- 4
Boyd Tate
From: Mary Everett [meverett@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 11:04 AM
To: Boyd Tate
Subject: The stop sign on 56th street
Boyd,
Thanks for our conversation, it was nice to meet you on the phone. I just want to summarize my suggestions:
1. I think that the gentleman at 80 Woodland Circle has a couple reasons to remove the sign but I think the
reasons to keep it are far greater than to remove.
2. By the response you've already received you can see that many are more in favor of the sign than against it.
3. This couple ALREADY has a stop sign in front of their house (Woodland Circle). If they only want 1 sign, then
remove Woodland Circle and keep 56th Street.
4. If the cars seem to speed up radidly when leaving the sign on 56th, possibly add one or two more signs
between Woodland Circle and Brookside. The cars would not be able to go as fast if they had to stop sooner
again.
5. When entering 56th street, turning left from Woodland Road and heading East on 56th, the visibility is VERY
poor due to the incline of the street and landscaping. It would make more sense for the cars on 56th to stop so
the cars on Woodland Circle can see them when turning. The cars heading west on 56th have a clear view of
Woodland Circle in both directions when they are stopped. The cars on Woodland Circle do NOT have a clear
view of traffic on 56th (to the east) when stopped.
6. Also, please consider that almost every house on 56th street has a driveway that enters 56th even if there
address is that of the side street. It is far more difficult to back out
with traffic coming so quickly with little stopping.
7. Consider the number of children on the street. I'd be happy to give you that if it is helpful. The children are
heavily located between Park Place and wooddale as well as close to France Ave.
I appreciate your attention to this and will hope the sign is not removed. As I said, I am sure that many of the
recent stop signs that have been added to streets in Edina were also put in against the recommendation of the
Engineering dept. I also am sure if I look into it that few, if any, stop signs have been put in as temporary, much
less removed.
Mary Everett
meverett@earthlink.net
Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.
2/1/2005
Boyd Tate
From: swkelley@mmm.com
ient: Thursday, January 27, 2005 8:43 PM
fo: Boyd Tate
Subject: Temporary Stop Signs on West 56th Street at Woodland Circle
tfLD V CCP, ‘2,- )%0,-'NQ
r
Boyd:
I received you letter regarding the subject. I am extremely concerned that
the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee would even consider removing these
stops signs. Our house is on the corner of 56th Street and Woodland Circle
East. The volume and speed of traffic on 56th street was completely
unacceptable prior to the insertion of the stop signs in question. While
they have not completely alleviated the traffic problem, the stop signs
have definitely have helped reduce the speed of the vehicles traveling past
our house.
Myself and other residents on 56th street fought hard for these stops
signs. The agreement reached on August 17th was that another traffic study
would be conducted and compared to the baseline to gage the impact of the
stop signs. Consideration should be given to the fact that the baseline
data is incorrectly skewed as the study was conducted in late June or early
July when school was not in session, resulting in seasonally lighter
traffic.
Please suggest alternative traffic calming strategies before even
considering removal of these stop signs! And these suggestions should be
near term (do not recommend sidewalks as this has no effect on the volume
or speed of traffic on 56th Street). The City of Edina is responsible for
ensuring the safety of residents of 56th street. With the traffic
situation prior to the installation of the stop signs, this was not a safe
environment due to the speed and volume of traffic!!!!
Scott Kelley
96 Woodland circle
Edina, MN 55424
Boyd Tate
To: swkelley@mmm.com
Mr. Kelley,
Thank you for your e-mail concerning the Stop signs on West 56th Street and Woodland Circle(west).
I will present your letter to the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee at our meeting of February 3, 2005.
I will advise you of the decision that is made and we can also discuss your options if you are in disagreement.
The Committee only recommends...The City Council has the final decision.
Boyd Tate
Traffic Safety Coordinator
1
MINUTES OF THE
Edina Transportation Commission
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Edina City Hall
4801 West 50th Street
Community Room
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Richards, Marie Thorpe, Jean White, Warren Plante, Joni Kelly Bennett, Les
Wanninger, Dean Dovolis
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Steve Lillehaug, Sharon Allison
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Wanninger.
H. New Business
a. 1-494 Corridor Commission
Wanninger and White attended the 1-494 Corridor Commission meeting. Wanninger reported
that the group clearly knows what their needs are, but it did not appear as though they had
prioritized the issues and their plans do not include Highways 62 and 169. Wanninger
believed that these highways should be a part of their discussion because changes to them
would have positive effects on 1-494 as well as the reverse. He suggested that the ETC create
a list of five priorities to present to the Commission for consideration. The group meets
monthly.
b. Letter from Jeanne K. Hanson
Staff was directed to draft a response letter to Ms. Hanson indicating that the draft policy does
not address covenant issues nor is it proposing street closures. All letters addressed to the
ETC, whether individually or as a group, will be reviewed by the Commissioners and a
response letter drafted by staff and signed by the Chair. Motion made by Dovolis and
seconded by Wanninger.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
"Street Utility Fee" Bill Introduction in Minnesota Senate: Lillehaug stated he drafted letters for
the Commissioners to sign supporting the street utility bill that was introduced by the Senate
and a similar one by the House. (City Manager Hughes also sent a similar letter.) The bill will
allow a city to implement a street utility similar to the storm and sanitary utility.
The consensus is to not send the letters until the Commissioners have had a chance to consult
with the Council regarding whether the Council, with the Commissioners support, should send
the letters. Other things to consider is the possibility that the City's special assessment policy
could be revised in the near future (Council is in the midst of reviewing it) and how to equitably
1
tax residents on streets that have not yet been repaired and residents that have already been
assessed.
Old Business
a. Update — FINAL DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy Jan 6, 2005
Lillehaug stated the Council will be holding a public hearing on March 1st to discuss the
ETC's Final Draft Policy. Richards said Bennett will be presenting her minority report to the
Council also and asked that the Commissioners get a copy ahead of time so that they can
respond. Richards said someone should give a presentation to the Council on March 1st
describing how they arrived at the policy that is before the Council and also the
Commissioners' response to Bennett's minority report.
Wanninger suggested not doing any more editing to the final draft policy since it has already
been sent to the Council for consideration. The consensus is to stop editing until a response
is received from the Council.
b. Memorandum — 2003 Local Traffic Task Force Action Plan Update
In a memo to the ETC, staff presented an update to the 2003 Local Traffic Task Force Action
Plan on the six issue areas (Northeast Edina Area; Northwest Edina Area; Edina High
School and Valley View Middle School Area; Edina Community Center Area; W. 70th Street;
and France Avenue Area [Greater Southdale Area]) as follows:
The root cause of the problems in the Northeast was identified as congestion on Hwy. 100
and in the 50th & France area. With the delay of expansion of this highway until 2014, the
City of St. Louis Park has invited the ETC to a joint meeting with them to discuss this issue.
In addition to meeting with the City of St. Louis Park, staff was directed to schedule
meeting(s) with the City of Richfield, City of Bloomington and other adjoining cities to discuss
working jointly towards solutions of transportation/traffic issues that are common to all.
Staff recommended that the ETC consider the Northwest and parts of the Edina Community
Center area for the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) once the policy is
approved. A traffic study is in progress around the Edina Community Center area and the
findings will be presented to the ETC at the February 24th meeting. The area bounded by
Concord Avenue, Wooddale Avenue, Golf Terrace and Valley View Road was also
recommended for the "NTMP for a basket-weave application of stop signs and/or traffic
calming measures" due to "perceived traffic volume and speed..."
Staff is scheduled to meet with the Edina High and Valley View Middle Schools' staff to
discuss possible solutions to improve traffic flow in this area. Engineering staff has discussed
improvements such as adding turn lanes on Valley View Road, a sidewalk along the south
side of Valley View Road and an educational program to address drivers' behavior.
Potential solutions for West 70th Street "include significant physical improvements that may
require the redevelopment of properties adjacent to the roadway." Staff is "investigating
improvements at the intersections of France Avenue with West 70th Street and West Shore
Drive with West 70th Street, and improving the frontage road system at Highway 100 to
encourage West 66th Street destined vehicles."
A consultant is conducting a land use/transportation study for the France Avenue Area
(Greater Southdale Area). A report should be ready within the next several months.
2
Within the six areas identified by the Task Force are issue areas that staff believe are not
applicable to the NTMP procedure. Therefore, staff recommended that the ETC make
recommendations to the Council regarding studies and improvements for these areas, so that
they can be budgeted as part of the Capital Improvement Program.
Staff also recommended that issues typically caused by congestion within neighborhoods be
addressed through the NTMP process once approved.
After discussion, Wanninger motioned that they select the Northwest Area and Edina High
and Valley View Middle Schools Area as the two projects to begin with and follow the
philosophy of the NTMP, but not be limited by it. Dovolis seconded the motion.
Ayes: 6
Nays: 1
Motion carried.
IV. Approval of Minutes
Bennett motioned and Dovolis seconded approval of the corrected minutes of December 9,
2004.
Bennett motioned to have changes made to the January 6, 2005 minutes. Her motion failed
for a lack of support. Dovolis motioned and Plante seconded approval of the minutes as
submitted.
Meeting adjourned.
Next meeting is scheduled for February 24, 2005, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. in the Community Room,
Edina City Hall.
3
Cr)
City of Ec ma
January 14, 2005
Joni Bennett
4003 Lynn Avenue
Edina, MN 55416
Dear Ms. Bennett:
In response to your letter of December 3, 2004, Traffic Engineer Steve Lillehaug has prepared the
enclosed memorandum that summarizes traffic studies and investigations that have been
performed over the course of the past five years. You also inquired if the 2005 City Budget
includes amounts for the Edina Transportation Commission or the Neighborhood Traffic
Management Policy. The 2005 Budget does not include a specific amount for the Commission or
for the Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy. It was assumed that costs associated with the
work of the Commission would be included within the consulting and contractual services budget
of the Engineering Department. In addition, as you know, the City hired a staff engineer for the
purpose of working with the Commission on the policy and other activities.
Sincerely,
Gordon L. Hughes
City Manager
GLH/dw
cc: Transportation Commission
Wayne Houle, City Engineer
Steve Lillehaug, Assistant City Engineer
City Hall 952-927-8861
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
FAX 952-826-0390
EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424-1394 www.cityofedina.com TTY 952-826-0379
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF EDINA
DATE: January 14, 2005
TO: Gordon Hughes, City Manager
FROM: 53Steven Lillehaug, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Summary of Traffic Studies from 2000 to Present
At the request of Transportation Commissioner Bennett (letter dated December 3, 2004), the
following is a summary of neighborhood/residential street traffic analyses and/or studies
conducted in the City of Edina during the past five years:
The attached 2000-2004 Traffic Safety Staff Review Summary summarizes traffic safety
requests for the past five years. Of the 676 documented requests and issues, approximately
200 generated the need for traffic analyses. In general, City staff performed the analyses
ranging from simple evaluations to more in depth traffic studies. The costs and amount of staff
time spent on these studies have not been quantified.
Additionally, in response to several issues requiring a more in depth analysis, outside consulting
firms performed traffic studies in three separate instances regarding neighborhood/residential
street traffic issues. These included the Parkwood Knolls area, the Country Club area and, in
response to a Citywide directive by the Edina City Council, a Local Traffic Task Force was
formed and study performed.
The Parkwood Knolls area traffic study was completed over a six year period from 1994 to 2000
by SRF Consulting Group. Recommendations from that study that have been implemented
include the signal system at Vernon Avenue and Gleason Road and revising the crosswalk on
Vernon Avenue at Tamarac Avenue/Artic Way. No fees were paid for this study to SRF
Consulting Group for the period from 2000 to present — All fees and payments predated this
period.
The Country Club area traffic study was completed by SRF Consulting Group in 1993 and
resurfaced in 2000. Recommendations from the 1993 study that were implemented included
adding Stop signs at strategic locations throughout the neighborhood. No recommendations
were implemented as part of the 2000-01 study. Fees paid to SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for
these studies from 2000 to present amount to approximately $35,000.
The Local Traffic Task Force was formed by the Edina City Council and studied traffic issues
over an eight-month period from June 2002 to February 2003. A recommendation from the Task
Force study that has been implemented includes establishing a committee (Transportation
Commission) to examine issues related to the operation of the local street system. No other
recommendations have been implemented. Hoisington Koegler Group facilitated the Task Force
efforts and fees paid to them amounted to approximately $11,800.
Please advise if more information is needed.
2000-2004 TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW SUMMARY
City staff receive traffic safety requests on a daily basis. Engineering staff respond accordingly
to these requests ranging from simple evaluations to more in depth traffic studies and
recommendations (typically performed by City staff).
Engineering staff then present their recommendations and studies to the Traffic Advisory
Committee. The review of traffic safety matters typically occurs on a monthly basis. Staff
present includes the City Engineer, Traffic Engineer, City Planner, Sign Coordinator, Traffic
Safety Coordinator, Traffic Safety Sergeant and the Police Chief.
From those reviews, recommendations are made to the Council for final action. On each of the
items, persons involved are contacted and the staff recommendation is discussed with them.
They are also informed that if they disagree with the recommendation or have additional facts to
present, they can be included on the Council Agenda.
The following is a summary of the traffic safety requests and studies for the past 5 years:
• Traffic Safety Staff Review 2000 yearly summary:
o 197 requests/issues
o 51 recommendations to Council
• 23 approval recommendations
• 19 denial recommendations
• 9 continued/deferred requests/issues
• Traffic Safety Staff Review 2001 yearly summary:
o 134 requests/issues
o 29 recommendations to Council
• 6 approval recommendations
• 12 denial recommendations
• 11 continued/deferred requests/issues
• Traffic Safety Staff Review 2002 yearly summary:
o 143 requests/issues
o 48 recommendations to Council
• 14 approval recommendations
• 23 denial recommendations
• 11 continued/deferred requests/issue
• Traffic Safety Staff Review 2003 yearly summary:
o 91 requests/issues
o 22 recommendations to Council
• 6 approval recommendations
• 12 denial recommendations
• 4 continued/deferred requests/issues
• Traffic Safety Staff Review 2004 yearly summary (as of December 16, 2004):
o 111 requests/issues
o 45 recommendations to Council
• 8 approval recommendations
• 26 denial recommendations
• 11 continued/deferred requests/issues
o 23 requests/issues currently pending action
1/14/2005
Prepared By: Steven L. Lillehaug
GAInfrastructure\ Streets \traffic \Transportation ComrnissionCorrespondance\2005 Corn2000-2004 TRAFFIC SAFETY Summary.doc
Gordon Hughes
City Manager
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
• Edina, MN 55424
December 3, 2004
Dear Mr. Hughes:
I am writing as a member of the Edina Transportation Commission ("ETC") and as an
Edina resident to ask for information relevant to the public discussion and Edina City
Council consideration of the ETC draft Policy.
The draft Policy establishes a formal Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy
("NTMP"). The ETC was not presented with any budget or financial information for an
NTMP. Was a budget prepared, even in estimate form, for 2005? I would like to know
the estimated total cost of the program, as well as the itemized estimates (e.g., consulting
fees, city staff time and costs, drafting and engineering costs, etc.).
In order to compare the cost of the proposed NTMP to the amount of staff time and city
money spent on such activity in the past, I would appreciate information on
neighborhood/residential street traffic analyses or studies conducted by or at the request
of the City of Edina during the past five years. Specifically:
1. For each of the past five years, how many studies were requested? Who or what
body requested each study?
2. For each of the past five years, how many studies were performed, even in part?
3. For each study conducted: What was the subject and location of the study? What
process/research was employed or facilitated? What measures were recommended?
What measures were adopted? What was the cost of the study, and approximately
how much city staff time was spent on the study? What was the cost of the measures
adopted, if any, and who paid that cost?
This request is made to you pursuant to the instruction given to ETC commissioners at
their first meeting by Chairman Fred Richards that "If [ETC] members would like staff to
do something, that request should flow through chairperson [sic] or Gordon Hughes, the
City Manager." See Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Edina Transportation
Commission, Tuesday, January 20, 2004, Section III. Process & Procedures, subsection
d) Resources.
Please note that I first requested this information from Assistant City Engineer Steve
Lillehaug by e-mail on June 11, 2004. Mr. Lillehaug forwarded my e-mail to ETC
Chairman Fred Richard, who directed Mr. Lillehaug to refrain from providing the
requested information pending full ETC decision to consider it. Both Mr. Richards and I
erred; I, in requesting information directly from City staff (I had not reviewed the ETC
minutes before doing so), and Mr. Richards, in instructing Mr. Lillehaug that a
commissioner's access to information was a question for other commissioners to decide.
Very truly yours,
Airt,t,t 141L
J8ni Kelly Benn
4003 Lynn Avenue
Edina, MN 55416
(952) 927-0661
pbennett@mn.mcom
-.CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Highway 100 Facts
(Highway 100 from 36th Street West to Cedar Lake Road)
Background
In the Minnesota Department of Transportation 10 year plan, Highway 100 from 36th Street West to Cedar
Lake Road (2.1 miles) is slated to add capacity by reconstructing the roadway to a 6-lane freeway and
replacing the existing bridges. The complete reconstruction will add an additional lane in each direction,
reconstruct the interchanges at Highway 7 and at Minnetonka Blvd, correct the vertically deficient bridge
clearances, improve drainage, address flooding problems under the railroad bridge, add water quality and
retention ponds, add noise mitigation walls, and correct other geometric deficiencies. The estimated project
cost is $80 million for construction and $7 million for right of way.
Originally scheduled for a 2004 start date, the current scheduled start date is November 2010. The Highway
100 project will take approximately 2 years to complete with construction ending in 2012. To minimize
delays, Highway 62 (the Crosstown) and Highway 100 will not be under construction at the same time.
Highway 62 is scheduled to begin in 2006 with project completion in 2010.
Problem
Funding: Lack of a federal authorization bill and state funding deficits have pushed this two mile stretch of
Highway 100 from 2004 to 2010. There is a real threat that Highway 100 could be delayed four more
years to 2014. The project costs are estimates from 2003, delays will increase the project costs as the price
of goods increase.
Oldest freeway design: Originally built in the mid-1930's, it is part of the first beltway around the Twin
Cities. Minimal work has occurred on this section over the last 60 years.
Congestion: This segment is the last 4-lane section on Highway 100 south of 1-394 and is the busiest, and
one of the most congested 4-lane freeways in the metro area. The traffic volumes on this segment were over
capacity in 2001 and are continually getting worse. In 1998, the annual average daily (AADT) traffic was
68,000. In 2025, traffic projection is 158,900 AADT! Under 2000 modeling, Highway 100 has 916,678 cars
in the AM peak hours and 1.32 million in PM peak hours. If the improvements are made, 92,388 additional
cars would be able to flow through this area.
Crash Rates: Increased congestion increases the potential for crashes to occur on the freeway. The crash rates
for this stretch of Highway 100 are high. This stretch has a crash rate of 1.3 and a severity rate of 2. 6.
Comparable roadways have a severity rate of 2.1. To put this in perceptive, of all the non-interstates the
13.74 total miles of Highway 100 has the second highest number of crashes with 36th Street West reference
point having 25% of all the crashes on Highway 100. MNDOT estimates that with the proposed geometric
improvements, there will be approximately a 30% reduction in overall crashes.
Local Street Impacted: To avoid the Highway 100 bottleneck, local neighborhoods are inundated with cars
during peak hours. The cars impact safety of residents and their quality of life.
Action Steps
The TwinWest Chamber of Commerce will be an advocate for the proposed Highway 100 improvement.
Highway 100 must be kept on track with the 2010 project start date. Highway 100 congestion, safety
concerns and condition of the infrastructure make this project a priority for our region.
10550 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55305 Ph: (952) 540-0234 Fax: (952) 540-0237 •www.twinwest.com
Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Golden Valley, Hopkins, Medicine Lake, Minnetonka, New Hope, Plymouth, St. Louis Park
--T-NA/ 1 NJ W
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Performance Based
Investment Plan
Metro District
Draft Summary
February, 2004 toes044.
0.) op rø
Ove Mew
• Summary of Investment Plans
— District Plans- highway system capital
investments
• How District Plans were developed
— Performance Based Planning-what it is
— Mn/DOT's Highway Planning & Programming
Process
— Performance Measures & Targets used
— Resulting investments identified
• Major Issues
District Plan Investment Summary
Statewide Metro
$38.1B $27 B
$14.5B $6.4 B
$23.9B $20.6 B
• Investments to meet
performance targets
2008-2030
• Forecasted available
funding priorities:
• Additional investment to
meet performance
targets:
Performance Based Transportation
Planning
• Approach focused on outcomes
— how the system works for users (e.g, travel speeds)
— physical condition ( e.g., structural integrity)
— cost effectiveness (minimize life cycle costs)
• Part of nationwide trend: improve accountability
• Consistent with Administration's governing
principles:
— Focus on customers
— Manage for results
• Performance based District Plans
— Unique, innovative, first effort
Mn/DOT's Highway Planning and Project Programming Process
10 Year Program
Years 14
Stab --A, Construction -
Transparlalion
Improwment
Program
(Metro TSP)
Identification of investments to achieve policies
and performance targets
Development of projects to
achieve policies and
performance targets
Construction of
facilities to achieve
policies and
performance targets
Years 4.10
Mn/DOT
Strategic,
Pla n
Statewide .-
Transportation
Plan
Mn/DOT
District
Long-Range
" Plans
(2008-2030)
State Transportation Plan
Policy Overview Strategic Direction Safeguard r .-
: - ' - •
-
What Exists •
Make the Transportation
Network Operate Better,
.
. Make Mn/DOT
Work Better • Plan Policies ..
Preserve Es s tntial Elements of A Provide Cost.effect. Q Continually bnprove MnIDOrs:
Exist np Transportation Systems: . Transportation Options .: - ". - Internal Management and
(DP) for People and Freight. (DP) ' . Program Debar". , • ' •
. .
Support Land Use Dscillons that Enhance Mobildy in inteirtgkmal .
Pras era Mobility and Enheneette 5 Trinspodaticin Corridors Linking ., • Intern; Involve and Educate
Safety a Transportstion Syt.tatr..: . P.eglonal Trade Centers. (DP) -, .. • . AU Potentially Affected. •
,-. Stakeholders in Transportation -
- Plans and investment Decision , •
Effectively Maur; the Operation g. Enhance Mobility Withinilajor - : - Processes.
- of Existing Transportation Systems u. Regional Trade Centers. IDP)- :. • • - -
to Provide Fiximuin Service to - - — - — .." :- " - " - in
, • .cuttoroimoisop) . J.V Protect the Environment and
-.. Ensure the Safety and Security
of the Transportation Systems
and -Th sir Usvi•:(DP 1 CM SP/ .
- " Respect Community Values.
Performance Measures & Targets
• Each policy has set of measures and targets
• Measure: A consistent set of numbers that tells
us how we are doing toward achieving a desired
outcome.
— Example: % bridge area with structural condition
rating good or better
• Target: Desired Outcome
— Example: 60% of bridges rated good or better by
2023
• Mn/DOT's Measures and Targets
— Address most essential performance features
— Conservative approach
District Plan Purpose
Ariz/DOT Distric
Lon-Ran q,
Trans ation
Plan act ance
1. Create objective, consistent
statewide estimate of
investments to meet
performance targets
2. Identify those performance
target categories where
additional funding, if
available, could be applied
(range of options)
3. More refined project scope
and cost estimates
District Plan Scope
5 Performance Policies
• System Preservation
• Interregional Mobility
• Trade Center Mobility
• Safety (stand alone)
3 Planning Periods
• 2008-14
• 2015-23
• 2024-30
2 Investment Scenarios
• Investments to meet performance targets
• Investment priorities-forecasted available funding
Policy 1: Preserve essential
elements of the system
• Pavements
— 70 % system in good condition or better
— Minimize system wide life cycle costs
— Annual inspections, inventory, investment model to
identify time and fix
— Seal coat, thin overlay, mill/overlay, reconstruct
• Bridges
— 60% of TH Bridge Area in Good Structural Condition or
better
— Prolong useful life of structure
— Annual inspections, inventory, fix varies by type,
age, condition
— Paint, overlay, re-overlay, redeck, replace
35
30
25
10
0'P 0`P 0° 4" 0's1' 0° 0N‘ le 0° 0° 0N4' 041' 0° 44 'P4 0 0 4' 4, 4'
Pavement Preservation
Metro Pavement Preservation
D Rehab PreservatiOn.."; "0 Preventive MakitenanCo {
Jurisdiction
• Measure
— MnDOT Ownership of Principal Arterials
• Target
— MnDOT owns all principal arterials, no minor arterials or local
streets/collectors
• Issues
— Costs to benefits
— Evolution of system/change of function for some minor arterials
over time
• Recommendation
— Finish commitments (212, 242,101, 120, 12, 361)
— Funding in 2018 used as target funds
, . • Minnesota Roadway Feta['flea All State & Local Rcatdal.
SO:4'144e plan Lonti-Teren Targets:-'
Statewide Plan
Trend43ased Projection 736
''' 6134.
664 -
633 ... Statewide Plan
628 617 623 617 Moderate Target
3.W..Aig. Ending With Year hoiin
00
Policy 7: Increase Safety and
Security of the Transportation
System and Users
Safety Targets: Reduce fatalities and
crash rates
• Performance outcome affected by more than
highway design: behavior, weather
• All investments address safety
— Pavement, bridge preservation
— Mobility, congestion mitigation
• Comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional approach
required
— Education, enforcement, engineering, emergency
services
• Stand alone highway investments focus on high
crash locations
Safety Target Investment Strategies
• Corrective Investments- IRC & Other
— Existing high crash intersections and segments- where
cost effective design modifications may mitigate rate
and severity
• Preventive Investments- IRC & Other
— Run-off the road, head-on collisions
• 2-4 lane rural expansion: > 11,200 ADT
• Minimum shoulders w/ rumble strips, turn lanes: >5,000 ADT
• Narrow median- cable barrier: >40,000 ADT
— Rail Crossings-
• Gates and flashers at high hazard locations
Policy 5: Enhance mobility between
trade centers
Interregional Corridor
System Speed Targets
High Priority 60 mph
Medium Priority 55 mph
Regional Corridors 50 mph
Safety related investments
included in Policy 7
Pryiensi Trada Centel
8 Seowdzry ShOpyng o
bd. 00:+.1 Conif
PrOno leftereciovi
Ne,—sn Fox, mreyan,a
.e1C. Cook,.
Slats* Ftaa.
Metro TSP
Safety Measures
(MnDOT)
Te.n.oloo•41.• ODO.002)
k oci
tL,4-
Investments to Meet Performance Target
Interregional Corridor Mobility/Saletv
2008 to 2030
Evalsion -Motilty
C Inlerchava -Moty
a PC ioachmge -Sleiy
Greater MN
IRC Investments to
meet performance
targets
2008-2030
i•n••n Speed Performance
Safety Investments
Investments to meat Performance Target r,
Interregional Corridor Mobility/Safety
2008 to 2030
Funded
a RC Inlachmge -Seldy
Policy 6: Enhance Mobility within Metro
and Regional Trade Centers
Legand
Regional Trade Centers
II
• L..,
• I,v4
O ttr.i,
Analysis Assumptions...
• Expansion/Mobility:
— Freeway Congestion => 1 Hour
— Arterial Congestion =
Travel Time Index of >1.5
(operating at less than 2/3 of posted speed)
— Assessment based on existing (2002)
volumes. of Congested Directional Miles .... o K IR x ae ae at . . . Metro Freeway Congestion Target
33% system miles operating <45 mph
40%
41.5%
33.1%
.
21%
Congestion is defined as the percent of the freeway system directional
miles operating below 45 mph for one hour or more during peak periods
No Build after 2010
Available
Funding SC01111110
Aggressive Target
il
Investments to
'Meet Performance Targets
“ f; .1
I
ii
!I
U.U14
2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2010 2021. 2021 2027 2030
Current Mobility Performance
2003 Metro Freeway Congestion
6:00 - 0:00 s10.
2003 Metro Freeway Congestion
200 - 700 pai
a.
AM Gm....
2;23
NV: .....,n•••••
Congestion
WHERE ESTIMATE:I) SPEEDS
ARE <4.1 MPH
PM Commit..
11111N hown.= tel.-con
Congestion
WHERE ESTI-MAW) SPEEDS
ARE .4 45 MPH
n••••nn • .....r,n•n•nn••nnnn•n•••11.1.1••••••nn•
Investments Is Meet Perlinuance Target
Mobility-Twin Cities Regional Trade Center
2008 to 2030
Freeway Measure
Fleeow [manic,.
I Ni CT
ra li *11:: alii iiii I*
H NEN 13
a--aNI FISWL=110.1,, XPTI, " ANIterMvialilliwarivr
CO
CI
2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2021 2030
Invesheents te Iteet Performance Target
Mobility—Twin Cities Regional Trade Center
2008 to 2030
Freeway Measure
Funded
nn••• freeew &palsies
Metro Arterial Congestion Target
Congestion is defined as the percent of the arterial directional
lane miles operating at lees than 2/3 of the posted (f reef km)
speed for one hour or more during peak periods No Build Scenario
I
—
Forecasted
Available Funding
' Investments to Meet 1
Performance Targets
1.
Aggrosofos Target
Pasted Threshold
aveed Speeti
65 43
55 36 50 33
45 30
30 20
i
60%
50%
0%
50%
35%
29%
11113211111111113 Is MOIlt Performance Tarot
Mobility —Twin Cities Regional Trade Center
2008 to 2030
Arterial Measure
fetcrial5paisica
Immsaments to Meet Performance Target
Mobility—Twin Cities Regional Trade Center Arterial Measure
2008 to 2003
Fulled
Management Investments
Needs analysis
• Safety
• Subset of corridor expansion/mobility
Investment Challenges
• Immediate fiscal constraints require us to gradually increase $
• Reach Setaside levels by 2015
Principles for Interchange Investment
• Project Commitments
• Multiple Objectives/Modes
• Land Use/Transportation Relationships
• Local/Public Support ($)
Investment Components
• High Crash Cost Intersections
• Interchanges
• Access Management
• Noise Walls
• ITS
Access Management Program
No Access Management
Potentially Dangerous &
Haphazard Traffic Flow
Restricted Access
Safer & Smoother
Traffic Flow
Access Management Investment
Strategies
• Corrective Strategies -
- Address identified mobility and/or safety problems on corridor
segments with non-conforming access points and where cost
effective design modifications (e.g., access closure, new frontage
roads, etc.) may improve mobility and/or will mitigate safety
problems (i.e., reduce the crash rate or severity) by using the
Access Management Set-Aside and/or Municipal Agreement
Funding Programs.
• Preventative Strategies -
- Evaluate proposals for direct access to the TH system to ensure
consistency with Mn/DOT's Access Management Spacing
Guidelines. Work with local jurisdictions to develop local access
management ordinances and to utilize the Development Review
process to coordinate with local communities and development
interests to identify access locations that are consistent with
Mn/DOT's Access Management Spacing Guidelines.
Principal Changes from 2001
• Preservation
- FundinQ increases needed early to implement
preventive maintenance model
• More management
- "Improvement" projects included in management
- Redefined - limited to 2 consecutive interchanges per
corridor
- Interchange funding to support development as
outlined in the 2030 Development Framework
Scope and cost refinements
- Higher need figures
- Risk Factors...
- Yields less funding for expansions
Investments to Meet Performance Target
2030 Available Funding Scenario
Expansion Proieds
!MadIvies
mow«. fitW esenlim
BSIICIIMEA. Riojes
investment Priorities
• Preservation first
• High crash-cost intersections
• Expansion projects from 2001 TSP/TPP
• With remaining funding...
— Management
• Interchanges in support of development
• Access Management
• Highway improvements in support of Transit
Master Plan
• Etc...
Policy 6- RTC
Non Freeways
10% olicy 1 -
Pavement Policy 1 -
3% Bridge
PolicY4 - Other
Infrastructure
Investments to Meet Performance Targets
Metro District
($27,000,000,000)
Policy 7 - Policy 7 -
Correct% Prevent%
2%
9%
Policy 1 - Other
Infrastructure
13%
3%
Policy 6- RTC
Freeways
52%
V Policy 5- Cs
& RCs 16%
Policy4 -
Transit
0.2%
Policy 6- RTC
Non Freeways
3%
Policy 6- RTC
Freeways
35%
Policy 5- IRCs
& RCs
7%
Priorities for
Policy 7 -
Corrective
7%
Forecasted Available Funding
Metro District Policy 7 -
($6,400,000,000) Prevent%
0.0%
Policy 1 -
Pavement
12%
Policy 1 - Bridge
22%
Policy4 -
Transit
1%
12% 0.3% Policy 5 - IRCs
& RCs Policy 6 - RTC 19% Non Freeways
13%
Policy 6- RTC
Freeways
56%
Additional Investments to Meet Performance
Targets
Metro District
($20,700,000,000)
Policy 7 - Policy 7 -
Preventive Corrective
Available Funding Plan Benefits
• Fully Preserves Highway System
• Management
— Address High Crash Cost Intersections
— Address High Priority Interchanges
— Strategic Investments in IRC performance
— Manages System Access
• Expansion
— Expands 57 miles of highway
— Slows growth of congestion.. .a little?
• Preserves ROW for two major river crossings
Performance Based Investment Benefits
• Pavement and Bridges are maintained at
minimum life cycle cost
• Interregional travel averages 60/55 mph on all
corridors-supports statewide economy
• Metro Area-beltway completed, slow rate of
freeway congestion (31% vs 43%)
• Statewide reduction in fatalities and serious
injuries
Functional Classification
• Requests for upgrade to principal
— TH 55
— TH 3
— TH 101
• Recommendation
— Metro Council system wide review of function
— Recommended system by June of 2005
Second Beltway
• Preliminary Analysis
— Scale of undertaking
— Alternatives (Inner vs. Outer Beltway)
— Rough Cost (Per Mile)
— Impacts?
• Recommendation
— Enormous costs and high impact make
feasibility and prudence questionable
— Some new principal arterials should
commence development (may form pieces of
second beltway vision in in longer time frame)
Issues yet to be resolved
• Outcomes with available funding
— Increased congestion
— Limited ability to respond to changes in
regional travel demands
• Priorities beyond planned investments
(if new funding becomes available)
Questions?
• Contact:
Brian Isaacson
Brian.isaacson@dot.state.mn.us
651-582-1659
Transportation Funding Proposals
Mn/DOT has a budget shortfall of $162.2 million, mostly
Two projects are delayed as a result of the shortfall: the 1-694/1-35E "
from Public and Private Groups
caused by Mn/DOT's extreme reliance on borrowing.
unweave the weave" project and the 1-494/Highway 169 interchange.
Minnesota
Transportation
Alliance
Starts July 2006
$1.28B/Year
No Constitutional Amendment
Taxes and Fees
re Gas Tax (indexed): 6 cents
re Tab Fee Adjustments
le Metro Area Sales Tax: Y2 cent
re Non-Metro Sales Tax
Authority: 1/2 cent
• Wheelage Tax
ra' Street Utility Fees: Based on
trip generation
d Regional Rail Levy Authority
Increase: ($32M for transit
capital)
Bonds
mr Highway Bonds: $100M/year
for 10 years
a' GO Bonds: MIN/year for
transitways, local roads, bridges
re Metro Regional Bands:
Increase authority for transit
capital
Tolls
re FAST Lanes
Transfers
• MVST Transfer: 5% (phased in)
Association of
Minnesota Counties
Starts July 2006
$1B/Year
No Constitutional Amendment
Taxes and Fees
a' Gas Tax: 10 cents over two
years (indexed in year 3)
mr Tab Fee Adjustments
or Metro Area Sales Tax: V2 cent
• Wheelage Tax
ar Developer Fees
ri Regional Rail Levy Authority
Increase: ($20M for transit
operating)
Bonds
re Highway Bonds: $100M/year
for 10 years
rsir GO Bonds: $60M/year for
local bridges, air/rail/ports
Federal Funds
• $125M/year
Transfers
rit MVST Transfer possible
Mu/DOT Efficiencies
• $45M annually
Minnesota Chamber
of Commerce
Starts July 2008/Ends June 2017
$760M/Year 1
$534M/Years 2-11
Requires Constitutional Amendment
Taxes and Fees
• Gas Tax: 5 cents for 10 years
. via constitutional amendment
at Regional Rail Levy Authority:
Local Match
Bonds
d Highway Bond: $150M/year
for 5 years
ri GO Bonds: $65M/year
for 10 years
Federal Funds
re $160M/year for 10 years
Tolls
or FAST/HOT Lanes: $20M/year
for 10 years
Transfers
at Increase MVST Transfer to
80%
Mu/DOT Efficiencies
$60M/year for 10 years
Governor's
Office
Starts July 2008/Ends June 2017
$7501V1/Year
Requires Constitutional Amendment
(2006)
Bonds
re Highway Bonds: $450M/year
for 10 years
Federal Funds
or Increase used to pay some debt
service on TH Bonds (no
estimate)
Tolls
d FAST/HOT Lanes
Transfers
re Phase in to 100% via
constitutional amendment
(2008 —2014)
Compiled by Senate Majority Re-- --ch 1/05