Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-02-21 Meeting PacketRoe•-ktak 6\ , , L )1/ 47 zc (f671<_ g • 6(Ia 647Z-/.1 11 ‘4 Art 6-- (71,kckfAik ‹(7ectLA -1 (kA AGENDA Regular Meeting of the Edina Transportation Commission 6:00 PM, Thursday, February 21, 2008 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Council Chambers I. Call to Order 11. Chairperson Voting + Comments a. Public Comments IV. Old Business a. Opus Development — Existing Public Works Facility *+ b. Edina Gateway— Pentagon Redevelopment *+ c. Bike Edina Task Force — Bike Comprehensive Plan *+ d. Bikeway Section of Transportation Chapter *+ e. Halifax Avenue Traffic Management Plan Application *+ V. New Business a. Transportation Comprehensive Plan — Implementation Section *+ VI. Approval of Minutes a. Regular Meeting of January 17, 2008 *+ VII. Planning Commission Update (Commissioner Brown) VIII. Staff Liaison Comments (Sullivan) a. West 70th Street/Cornelia Area Open House and Public Hearing Comments # b. West 70th Street/Comelia Area - Study Advisory Committee Meeting #6 on February 26th c. March Edina Transportation Commission Meeting IX. Adjournment * Attachment included + Item requiring action by the ETC # Item for information only During "Public Hearings," the Chair will ask for public comment after City staff members make their presentations. If you wish to speak on the topic, you are welcome to do so as long as your comments are relevant to the discussion. To ensure fairness to all speakers and to allow the efficient conduct of a public hearing, speakers must observe the following guidelines: • Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes or less. The Chair will modify presentation times, as deemed necessary. • Try not to repeat remarks or points of view made by prior speakers and limit comments to the matter under consideration. • In order to maintain a comfortable environment for all those in attendance, the use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not allowed. During "Public Comments," the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to speak about something not on the agenda. Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes or less and cannot speak to an issue for which a public hearing was previously held and closed or a matter scheduled for a future hearing. Individuals should not expect the [Board or Commission] to respond to their comments. Instead, the [Board or Commission] might direct the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Page 1 of 2 Item IV. a. Edina Transportation Commission REGULAR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: From: Date: Transportation Commissioners Jack Sullivan, PE Assistant City Engineer February 21, 2008 Subject: Transportation Impact Analysis — 5146 Eden Avenue — Existing Public Works Facility Agenda Item No.: IV. a. ACTION: Recommendation/Motion Discussion Information Recommendation: Review the attached transportation impact analysis submitted by SRF Consulting Group dated February 15, 2008 and a review memos dated January 24th and February 13th, 2008 from WSB and Associates. Currently staff and our traffic consultant WSB and Associates feel that this transportation submittal is not yet complete. Staff, WSB and SRF Consulting Group are working to resolve the outstanding items listed in the attached memos prior to the Edina Transportation Commission meeting on February 21, 2008. Therefore staff is withholding a recommendation on this project pending the resolution of the outstanding issues. Info/Background: Staff received a proposal for an 115,000 sq ft medical office facility on the site of the existing City of Edina Public Works Facility located in the northwest corner of Arcadia Avenue and Eden Avenue. SRF Consulting Group has submitted a transportation impact analysis for the proposed addition. Staff has also contracted with WSB and Associates, Inc. to review the submittal package. All documents are attached for your review and comment. G:Tngineering\infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\Transportation Commission \Agendas\2008 R&R\20080221_0pus_xxxxEdenAve_PublicWorks_Traffic_Study.doc Page 2 of 2 Item IV. a. Edina Transportation Commission The Edina Transportation Commission first saw this project in draft format during the January 2008 ETC meeting. At that time the building was proposed to be a 150,000 sq. ft. medical office facility with a potential 150 stall park and ride facility providing Metro Transit funds were availed for design and construction. Since that time the use has remained the same but the square footage and stall count has decreased. The Park and Ride facility is no longer a component of the design. The existing Public Works building will be razed to create room to building the Edina Community Medical Center. The new plan calls for 115,000 sq. ft and is designed for a parking stall count of 575 spaces. This will be achieved via a parking ramp structure on the north side of the building that will have access from either accesses on Arcadia or Eden Avenue. GAEngineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\Transportation Commission\Agendas\2008 R&R\200802210pus_xxxxEdenAve_PublicWorks_Traffic_Study.doc , _ „ . _ - ...K..: . . Proposed 4 Level Office Building 'It Proposed 1 Level Surface Parking and 3 Levels Supported Parking n111.11111111111111111161.11i1111 NUE Exit Ramp From HWY '1141.13n61MIL UMW EMU MB SE 111111111511110 151111111611.... 1111111,1•1111111 _ \ L _I I I I L1,1 ZIP" isorr TAW.' evel P3 Entry. 4 ARCADIA AVENUE KR nen n Km G N 2/5108 • opus BUILDING BEYOND Opus Eden Avenue Edina Office Building 0 30 60 120 A Development of Opus Northwest LLC Edina, Minnesota Site Plan 74eit-t. I V. c(_. WSB 41111111n11. Infrastructure • Engineering • Planning • Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South & Associates, Inc. Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 541-4800 Fax: 763 541-1700 Memorandum To: Wayne Houle, PE, Public Works Director/City Engineer Jack Sullivan, PE, Assistant City Engineer City of Edina From: Chuck Rickart, PE, PTOE Transportation Engineer WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: February 13, 2008 Re: Edina Medical Center — Opus Development Traffic Study Review City of Edina WSB Project No. 1686-02 As requested, we have reviewed the revised Traffic Study dated February 15, 2008 prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for the proposed Edina Community Medical Center — Opus Development. The proposed development is located west of TH 100 in the northwest quadrant of Eden Avenue and Arcadia Avenue on the existing City of Edina Public Works site. Development is proposed to include approximately 115,000 square feet of Medical Office with a parking structure with approximately 575 spaces. Previous studies included a 150 space Park 'n Ride facility which is no longer included as part of this project. The proposed project is planned to replace the existing City of Edina Public Works facility. Based on the review of the revised Edina Community Medical Center Traffic Study, the following questions/comments are made: The text indicates that a 2005 PM peak-hour count was conducted at the Vernon Avenue / Interlachen Boulevard / Gus Young Lane intersection. Typically, counts more than two years old should be recounted. The text also indicates that the estimated AM peak turning-movement counts were based on "reversing" the PM peak counts along with "pulse" counts. Please explain what "reversing" the PM peak-hour count and "pulse" counts entail. It is recommended that a revised AM and PM peak-hour count be conducted. 2. There are several driveways adjacent to the site. Response to previous comments indicates these access locations were reviewed for the Study. Please explain the details and results of that review. Specifically, the access to the Our Lady of Grace School and Church across Eden Avenue from the proposed site driveway needs to be evaluated. This intersection experiences delays especially in the AM peak with traffic entering and exiting for the school. Traffic counts should be conducted at this intersection and included as part of the analysis. GAEnginecring Gmeral \E Streets\5146 Eden Avenue \20080213_MEh10-whoule-0213084. Mr. Wayne Houle, PE Jack Sullivan, PE City of Edina February 13, 2008 Page 2 of 2 3. The existing roadway geometrics need to be clearly defined. Response to previous comments indicated that Figure 3 illustrates the roadway geometrics. It is unclear from this figure what the existing geometrics are today. Geometries need to be shown not only at intersections but between intersections adjacent to the site. Figure 4 illustrates lane lines adjacent to the site but does not show exact geometrics at intersections. This should include showing left-turn lanes with left-turn bay lengths and any other turn lanes located adjacent to the site. This can easily be shown on Figure 4. 4. In the previous review comments, a request was made to add deficient queue lengths to Table! and Table 3. This was not completed; however, a discussion was added to the text that indicated the average queue length was 275 feet at the Vernon and Interlachen Boulevard / Gus Young Lane intersection. It is critical that the 95th percentile queue is used in determining the impacts to the queues in the area. This is a typical measure and evaluation of intersection operations. In addition, the available left-turn queue storage should be documented at each intersection. This information needs to be provided to determine if any geometric (striping) improvements need to be included as part of the recommendations. 5. The previous comment indicated that a figure showing bike trails and sidewalks in the area should be provided. Although the site plan does show the proposed sidewalks adjacent to the site, it is unclear how these sidewalks tie into the area pedestrian, sidewalk, and bike trail system. This should be included on a figure in the report. Based on these comments and my general review of this site configuration and traffic study, the additional information requested in this memo needs to be provided before an approval recommendation can be made. G:lEngineering1GenerallE Streets15146 Eden AvenueI20080213_MEMO-whoule-021308.doe WSB A11111111111111111 & Associates, Inc. Infrastructure • Engineering • Planning a Construction Memorandum 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 541-4800 Fax: 763 541-1700 To: Wayne Houle, PE, Public Works Director/City Engineer Jack Sullivan, PE, Assistant City Engineer City of Edina From: Chuck Rickart, PE, PTOE Transportation Engineer WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: January 24th, 2008 Re: Edina Community Medical Center — Opus Development Traffic Study Review City of Edina WSB Project No. 1686-02 As requested, we have reviewed the Traffic Study prepared by SRF Consulting Group Inc. for the proposed Edina Community Medical Center — Opus development. The proposed development is located west of TH 100 in the northwest quadrant of Eden Avenue and Arcadia Avenue on the existing City of Edina Public Works site. The development is proposed to include 150,000 square feet of Medical Office and a 150 space Park and Ride Facility. The proposed project is planned to replace the existing City of Edina Public Works Facility. Based on the review of the Edina Community Medical Center Traffic Study, the following questions/comments are made: 1. The Study should be addressed to the City of Edina with copies to the developer. • Completed 2. The Study indicates that 10 existing intersections were studied. However there is no distinction between the two intersections on 50th Street at the TH 100 Southbound Ramps. One is signalized and one in un-signalized with the south approach as Arcadia Avenue. Both of these intersections should be looked at separately. Figure 1 and all the Tables should be adjusted to this change. • Completed 3. Figure 1 shows the Project Location. It would be helpful to label the location or the Railroad track. This will give a good reference for reviewers of the study. This should be included on all the Figures. • Completed G. \ EngineerineCeneral E Streets15146 Eden Avenuth20080211_Jerenly Monahan_SREMEN10-whoule-012408 Responses doc I v- Mr. Wayne Houle, PE Jack Sullivan, PE City of Edina January 24th, 2008 Page 2 of 4 4. The text indicates that a 2005 PM peak count was conducted at the Vernon Avenue / Interlachen Blvd / Gus Young Lane intersection. Typically counts more than two years old should be recounted. Also, how was the AM peak count determined? • Text in report modified to indicate AM peak count was determined by balancing from adjacent intersections and "reversing" the p.m. peak. Pulse counts were also completed in the area to confirm numbers. 5. There are several driveways adjacent to the site. Were they taken into account with the analysis? They may have impact on the overall operations of the site access locations. It would be recommended that existing traffic be counted or estimated, based on the land uses, for each of these driveways. • The proposed development access and public streets were included in the model. Individual parcel driveways were not included in the model. Existing parcel driveways and the proposed access location were reviewed for the study. 6. There is no discussion or figure showing the existing roadway geometry. This should be included for all roadways and shown on the site plan figure 4. • Existing roadway geometry is illustrated in Figure 3. 7. There is no discussion on any existing deficient Queue lengths. These should be included in Table 1. • Queue length discussions were added to the report. We typically discuss queue lengths when they impact safety or operations. 8. The trips for the existing Public Works Facility were estimated. Was this based on a count or some other means? This should be explained better. It is very misleading that that table 2 indicates no trips in or out during the AM or PM Peak Hours. • Site counts in the peak hour showed minimal (1-2) vehicles entering or leaving during the peak hour. Using a zero trip reduction maintains a conservative approach to traffic volumes on the street network. The peak volume periods for the existing use are prior to the roadway peak hours. 9. Figure 5 shows the Direction Traffic Distribution. How much traffic was assumed on Arcadia Avenue and Eden Avenue adjacent to the site? • Traffic adjacent to the site can be found in Figure 6 and Figure 7. 10. Figures 7 and 8 show the Build Condition Traffic volumes. It should include traffic projections for the site accesses including the adjacent driveways. This could be included on Figure 6 and referenced on Figures 7 and 8. • Completed. 11. Similar to comment number 7, the text and Tables 3 and 4 should include information on projected deficient Queue lengths. • Completed. 12. The recommended improvements indicate that signal timing adjustments should be made. The term split / green time needs to be defined better. Also if 50th Street is a part of a G:nEngineeringlGenerallE Streets15146 Eden Avenue120080211 _Jerelny_Monnhan_SRF MEMO-who:de-012408 Responses.doe Mr. Wayne Houle, PE Jack Sullivan, PE City of Edina January 24th, 2008 Page 3 of 4 Traffic Signal coordinated system, even if the overall cycle length didn't change, the system should be analyzed with the recommended phasing changes. • With reduction in building size and removal of the park and ride, signal timing improvements were only required at Vernon Avenue and Interlachen Boulevard / Gus Young Lane. Signal timing modifications were explained in more detail in the text. 13. Table 3 indicates that both site accesses are at LOS D during the PM peak hour. This is not be acceptable for a new condition. Are there any changes that can be made now to improve this? • With new building size and elimination of the park and ride, both access points will have acceptable LOS during the peak hours. 14. In Table 4 there is an indication of some type of improvements to Eden Avenue at TH 100 South On Ramp. There is no discussion in the text nor is it shown on Figure Al. Similarly, the intersections of Arcadia at Gus Young Lane, Arcadia at the Site access and Eden Avenue at the Site access are shown with improvements. What are the proposed improvements? • These improvements were the "residual" result of other changes in the street network, in particular the addition of a traffic signal at Eden and Arcadia under the previous build conditions. With the revised proposed development, the amount of improvements has reduced. 15. Figure Al should be included and referenced as part of the text, not in the appendix. • Completed. 16. In the Plan Review section an indication on moving the site access on Arcadia Avenue to line up with the TH 100 Off Ramp was suggested. The text also indicates that this configuration may have some issues. Is this a recommendation or not? How would the exiting concerns be handled? • The access along Arcadia Avenue would ideally be lined up across from another driveway, however with the grade issues along this street and the location of the in-place driveways, this option might not be feasible. We recommend that the developer and the City work closely to determine the optimal location of the access along Arcadia. This sentiment is noted in the report. 17. The Bus Stop figure should be included in the text. Also this figure could include locations of Bike trails and Sidewalks. • Bus stops shown in Figure 1. Sidewalks shown in site plan — Figure 4. 18. The discussion of Other Transportation System Issues is good. A figure should be included showing graphically what the text is indicating. • A graphical figure of these was not completed as they are more conceptual in nature. 19. The Conclusions and Recommendations should be updated to reflect the comments herein. • Completed. G:lEngineeringIGenerallE Streets15146 Eden Avenue120080211_Jeremy_Monahan_SRF_MEMO-wholde-012408 Responses.doc Mr. Wayne Houle, PE Jack Sullivan, PE City of Edina January 24th, 2008 Page 4 of 4 Based on these comments and my general review of the site configuration and the Traffic Study, additional information and analysis should be provided before any approval recommendation can be made. GslEngineeringlGenerallE Sireets15146 Eden Avenue120080271_Jeremy_Monnhan_SRF MEMO-whoule-012408 Responses.doc _1_ 71e ki-k I V- ct, WSB Al=11111111111. & Associates. Inc. Infrastructure • Engineering • Planning is Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 5414800 Fax: 763 541-1700 Memorandum To: Wayne Houle, PE, Public Works Director/City Engineer Jack Sullivan, PE, Assistant City Engineer City of Edina From: Chuck Rickart, PE, PTOE Transportation Engineer WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: January 24m, 2008 Re: Edina Community Medical Center — Opus Development Traffic Study Review City of Edina WSB Project No. 1686-02 As requested, we have reviewed the Traffic Study prepared by SRF Consulting Group Inc. for the proposed Edina Community Medical Center — Opus development. The proposed development is located west of TH 100 in the northwest quadrant of Eden Avenue and Arcadia Avenue on the existing City of Edina Public Works site. The development is proposed to include 150,000 square feet of Medical Office and a 150 space Park and Ride Facility. The proposed project is planned to replace the existing City of Edina Public Works Facility. Based on the review of the Edina Community Medical Center Traffic Study, the following questions/comments are made: 1. The Study should be addressed to the City of Edina with copies to the developer. 2. The Study indicates that 10 existing intersections were studied. However there is no distinction between the two intersections on 50th Street at the TH 100 Southbound Ramps. One is signalized and one in un-signalized with the south approach as Arcadia Avenue. Both of these intersections should be looked at separately. Figure 1 and all the Tables should be adjusted to this change. 3. Figure 1 shows the Project Location. It would be helpful to label the location or the Railroad track. This will give a good reference for reviewers of the study. This should be included on all the Figures. 4. The text indicates that a 2005 PM peak count was conducted at the Vernon Avenue / Interlachen Blvd / Gus Young Lane intersection. Typically counts more than two years old should be recounted. Also, how was the AM peak count determined? GAEngineeling GeneralnE Strects‘5146 Eden Avenue\20080124_ChnekRickart_WSB_MEMO-whotde-012408doc Mr. Wayne Houle, PE Jack Sullivan, PE City of Edina January 24th, 2008 Page 2 of 3 5. There are several driveways adjacent to the site. Were they taken into account with the analysis? They may have impact on the overall operations of the site access locations. It would be recommended that existing traffic be counted or estimated, based on the land uses, for each of these driveways. 6. There is no discussion or figure showing the existing roadway geometry. This should be included for all roadways and shown on the site plan figure 4. 7. There is no discussion on any existing deficient Queue lengths. These should be included in Table 1. 8. The trips for the existing Public Works Facility were estimated. Was this based on a count or some other means? This should be explained better. It is very misleading that that table 2 indicates no trips in or out during the AM or PM Peak Hours. 9. Figure 5 shows the Direction Traffic Distribution. How much traffic was assumed on Arcadia Avenue and Eden Avenue adjacent to the site? 10. Figures 7 and 8 show the Build Condition Traffic volumes. It should include traffic projections for the site accesses including the adjacent driveways. This could be included on Figure 6 and referenced on Figures 7 and 8. 11. Similar to comment number 7, the text and Tables 3 and 4 should include information on projected deficient Queue lengths. 12. The recommended improvements indicate that signal timing adjustments should be made. The term split / green time needs to be defined better. Also if 50th Street is a part of a Traffic Signal coordinated system, even if the overall cycle length didn't change, the system should be analyzed with the recommended phasing changes. 13. Table 3 indicates that both site accesses are at LOS D during the PM peak hour. This is not be acceptable for a new condition. Are there any changes that can be made now to improve this? 14. In Table 4 there is an indication of some type of improvements to Eden Avenue at TH 100 South On Ramp. There is no discussion in the text nor is it shown on Figure Al. Similarly, the intersections of Arcadia at Gus Young Lane, Arcadia at the Site access and Eden Avenue at the Site access are shown with improvements. What are the proposed improvements? 15. Figure Al should be included and referenced as part of the text, not in the appendix. 16. In the Plan Review section an indication on moving the site access on Arcadia Avenue to line up with the TH 100 Off Ramp was suggested. The text also indicates that this configuration may have some issues. Is this a recommendation or not? How would the exiting concerns be handled? 17. The Bus Stop figure should be included in the text. Also this figure could include locations of Bike trails and Sidewalks. G:lEngineeringIGenerallE StreetsI5146 Eden Avenue120080124ChuckRickart_WSB_MEMO-wholde-012408.doc Mr. Wayne Houle, PE Jack Sullivan, PE City of Edina January 24th, 2008 Page 3 of 3 18. The discussion of Other Transportation System Issues is good. A figure should be included showing graphically what the text is indicating. 19. The Conclusions and Recommendations should be updated to reflect the comments herein. Based on these comments and my general review of the site configuration and the Traffic Study, additional information and analysis should be provided before any approval recommendation can be made. G:lEngineeringIGenerallE Streets15146 Eden Avenue120080124_ChnekRickart_WSB_MEMO-whoi1e-012408.doc A X_--/e4„_. iv, h WSB 411111111n111111 Infrastructure • Engineering • Planning • Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South & Associates, Inc. Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 5414800 Fax: 763 541-1700 Memorandum To: Wayne Houle, PE, Public Works Director/City Engineer Jack Sullivan, PE, Assistant City Engineer City of Edina From: Chuck Rickart, PE, PTOE Transportation Engineer WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: February 14, 2008 Re: Edina Gateway — Pentagon Park Redevelopment — Overall Development Plan Updated Traffic Impact Analysis Report Review City of Edina WSB Project No. 1686-02 As requested, we have reviewed the updated Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. for the Edina Gateway — Pentagon Park redevelopment — overall development plan dated January 2008. The proposed development is located along 77th Street between TH 100 and France Avenue. The development is proposed to include approximately 820,000 square feet of commercial office space, a 150-room hotel on the Pentagon Tower site south of 77th Street adjacent to TH 100, and 634 residential units with 29,000 square feet of retail on the Pentagon Quad site north of west 77' Street. The proposed project is planned to be completed in five days commencing in 2008 and overall completion in 2017. Based on the review of the updated Traffic Impact Analysis, the following questions/comments were made: 1. The updated Traffic Impact Analysis is well put together and addressed the majority of the comments made in the January 29, 2008, review memorandum. 2. It is noted the project phasing has changed slightly with the reduction of 100,000 square feet of office in Phase 3 and the addition of 100,000 square feet of office in Phase 5. In the Trip Generation Summary Table 10, the total Daily, AM and PM Peak-Hour trip generations have changed slightly from the original study. If the total amount of development has not changed, what occurred that created this change? 3. On page 6 of the Traffic Impact Analysis, reference was given to other developments in Bloomington and Edina that was included in the no-build and build scenarios. Was this background included in the 2008 conditions or just 2010 through 2017? This should be clarified. G. \ Engineering \ Generan70 -79 Streets \ Gateway Submittal \Transportation \ 20080214_Chuck_Rickart_WSB_MEMO-whoule-021408.doc Mr. Wayne Houle, PE Jack Sullivan, PE City of Edina February 14, 2008 Page 2 of 2 4. Tables 11-1, 11-2, 12-1, and 12-2 illustrate the overall level of service (LOS) at each analyzed intersection as well as the overall average delay and includes indications of specific movement deficiencies for each intersection. These tables include a lot of very good information; however, it is unclear if the queue lengths for the deficient movements are exceeding the existing storage, specifically, in the build conditions. Some discussion in the text has been included as to specific queuing issues; however, additional documentation as to verification of queuing issues should be provided. This could be included in a separate table or added to the existing LOS tables. 5. In the LOS tables, reference is given, for example, 2013 no-build, 2013 no-build (improved), 2013 build, and 2013 build (improved). Please explain what the "(improved)" represents in each of these cases. It should be further explained what the build condition includes (i.e., if the no-build required mitigation, is that included in the build condition?). This information can be included as notes at the bottom of each table. 6. The intersection at West 77th Street / Minnesota Drive / Johnson Avenue is shown in 2010 no-build (improved) as LOS D, and then in the 2010 build condition as LOS E. Although this is explained in the text, should the addition of the third lane be included in 2010 vs. 2013 to improve this condition? Also, the 2013 no-build condition then improves to LOS C. I would think this should be similar to 2010 build. This should be clarified. 7. The Synchro/SimTraffic Analysis files were transmitted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008. These files are being evaluated; therefore, no additional comments on the capacity and Level of Service Analysis can be made at this time. It appears from the analysis that the recommendations and mitigations outlined in the Traffic Impact Analysis are accurate and consistent with the AUAR. Additional comments, if any, will be brought to the Transportation Commission February 21, 2008. 8. The Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis Report, that addresses the no-build condition without any of the Gateway Development, was provided on Wednesday, February 13, 2008. This Supplemental Report is being reviewed, and comments, if any, will be brought to the Transportation Commission on February 21, 2008. Based on the above comments and the review of the Traffic Impact Analysis, conclusions, and mitigation plan, the proposed overall development plan is found to be consistent with the AUAR. Therefore, I would recommend approval of the overall Development Plan, keeping in mind that as specific phases are proposed, the Traffic Impact Analysis will be updated. G:lEngineeringIGeneral170 - 79 StreeislGatelmy SubmittallTransportaiion120080214_Chuck_Rickarl_IVSB_METIO-Iihoule-021408.doc WSB AN11111111111111111, Infrastructure • Engineering • Planning • Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South & Associates, Inc. Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 541-4800 Fax: 763 541-1700 Memorandum To: Wayne Houle, PE, Public Works Director/City Engineer Jack Sullivan, PE, Assistant City Engineer City of Edina From: Chuck Rickart, PE, PTOE Transportation Engineer WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: January 29, 2008 Re: Edina Gateway — Pentagon Park Redevelopment — Overall Development Plan Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Report Review City of Edina WSB Project No. 1686-02 As requested, we have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc. for the Edina Gateway — Pentagon Park Redevelopment — Overall Development Plan. The proposed development is located along 77th Street between TH 100 and France Avenue. The development is proposed to include approximately 820,000 square feet of commercial office space and a 150-room hotel on the Pentagon Tower site south of 77th Street adjacent to TH 100 and 634 residential units with 29,000 square feet of retail on the Pentagon Quad site north of west 77th Street. The proposed project is planned to be completed in five phases commencing in 2008 and overall completion in 2017. Based on the review of the traffic impact analysis, the following questions/comments are made: 1. On page 1, the introduction indicates there are only a commercial office and the hotel on the Pentagon Tower site; however, it is my understanding that some associated retail is also included in this area. This should be clarified in the document. 2. Throughout the document there are references to the traffic study and traffic impact analysis. This should be modified and consistent throughout the document. 3. The study area is described very well on page 2 of the report. However, a site plan should be included to show the configuration of the ultimate buildings as well as the private roadway and access locations. 4. On page 2 of the report, a list of study area intersections is shown. A reference to Figure Al should be made corresponding to this list. Figure Al should be modified to include site access locations (different color) and service entrance locations (different color). GAEngincerine0eneral \ 70 - 79 Strccts Gatewo Submittal \TransporUtionl20080129_ChuckRickart_WSB_MEMO-whoule-012808 doc Mr. Wayne Houle, PE Jack Sullivan, PE City of Edina January 29, 2008 Page 2 of 3 5. On page 3, a reference to the freeway operations analysis not being conducted as part of the traffic impact analysis is made. This should be expanded upon to indicate why this is the case and that it was reviewed and analyzed in the AUAR. 6. On page 5, a discussion of the proposed development phasing and additional development phasing is included. References to the other development in the City of Bloomington and the City of Edina should be included or referenced in this section. 7. On page 5, a discussion of the phasing indicates the hotel will be completed in 2008. Is this truly the case, or is expected to be completed in 2008? 8. In Table 2 on page 5, a description of DU and SF should be provided. 9. On page 6, an example of the internal capture traffic reductions was given for a lunch time. However, the rates used were for an AM and PM condition. This should be adjusted to give a more relevant example. 10. A table should be provided which shows the existing traffic generation for both the Pentagon Quad site and Pentagon Tower site. 11. It is unclear in the traffic generation section if the previous phases are included as part of the no-build condition for future phases. The no-build condition for each phase should not include any Gateway Development. Also it should be stressed that all other anticipated development in Bloomington and Edina is assumed to be completed by 2010. 12. In Table 3, the Burgundy Place traffic generation appears to have significant detail. Is this detail consistent with the Burgundy Place traffic study completed for this development? The table also indicates that several facilities will be closed during the AM-peak hour. Is this true in the case for a dry cleaner? The traffic generation indicated here should be the same as what was approved for the Burgundy Place development. 13. The directional distribution is shown on Figure A3. The overall distribution is reasonable for the proposed development and is consistent with the AUAR. However, additional detail should be provided for the roadways adjacent to the site including Computer Avenue, Viking Drive, 77th Street, Parklawn Avenue, and Minnesota Drive. 14. The traffic impact analysis is based on the Highway Capacity Manual and uses the base model completed as part of the Southeast Edina Area Traffic Model. It is outlined in the study that the Minnesota Department of Transportation guidelines of Level of Service DIE were used as an indicator of acceptable traffic operations. The City of Edina recognizes these guidelines, however, at an overall Level of Service D, planning for potential improvements should begin. G:lEngineering1General170 - 79 SireetsIGatemy SubmitialiTransportation120080129_ChuckRickart_WSB_MEMO-ithoule-012808.doc Mr. Wayne Houle, PE Jack Sullivan, PE City of Edina January 29, 2008 Page 3 of 3 15. In the last sentence on page 14, under Figure 1, there is a typographical error, and it should read. . . signal timing, or if that was not possible. . 16. The Traffic Operations Analysis appears to be consistent with the AUAR for the study area. To help better define and outline the impacts, tables should be provided showing the existing no-build and build results for all development phases. The tables should be in a format that can be reviewed and comparisons to each phase can easily be made. In addition, these tables should include not only Level of Service results, but critical queue lengths for specific intersection movements. 17. The summary of analysis results in the mitigation section indicates several improvements for the no-build and build conditions. The results indicate all roadway improvements are the result of the no-build condition through 2010. This appears to be realistic in that very little additional development over what is being removed will be constructed. However, it is unclear if previous phases of the Gateway Development were included in the no-build analysis (see comment No. 11 above). This needs to be clarified. 18. Several improvements in the no-build conditions were identified in the AUAR trigger analysis as being needed in later phases. Additional information is needed with respect to the Synchro/Simtraffic computer analysis to verify if the proposed development phases changes the need for these improvements to an earlier time frame. Please submit a copy of the Synchro/Simtraffic analysis computer files for review. 19. A map and Table outlining the mitigation plan by phase should be provided. 20. The City will be working with the developer with each specific development proposal to determine cost participation and programming of the needed improvements. 21. The Transit Facility section on page 26 gives a good overview of the existing bus stops and turnouts along West T7th Street. A map should be provided which helps illustrate where these locations are with respect to the proposed development. This figure should also identify any improvements required for transit service. 22. Similar to the Transit Facilities' comment, the Bicycle Facilities outlined on page 27 should be illustrated on a map for better review. 23. In general, the figures are of the appropriate size for review; however, the color of the text should be changed. Currently with the black text, they are very difficult to read. Based on these comments and the general review of the Traffic Impact Analysis and conclusions and mitigation plan, it appears the proposed overall development plan is consistent with the AUAR. a-IEngineering1Genera1170 - 79 StreealGatelmy SubmiitallTransportation120080129_ChuckRickart_WSB_MEMO-uitoule-012808.doc mitter dunwiddie Pr'Imirg Kimley-Horn tnRCHIT,','TURE h69_1111111, and Associates. Inc. 123 North Third Street Suite 104 Minneapolis MN 55401-1657 www.millerdunwiddie.com p 612-337-0000 f 612-337-0031 COMM. NO.: KAM0612 DATE: 31 JANUARY 2008 DRAWN: djg CHECKED: C)2007 Wier Dunwidd;e kchiteciure, Inc. PROJECT: EDINA GATEWAY Pentagon Park Redevelopment Re-Zoning and Overall Plan DRAWING TITLE: DRAWING NUMBER: Edina, Minnesota PROPOSED SITE PLAN EDINA GATEWAY - FULL SITE ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN 11x17 info L-1 Wayzata Properties. LLC. W 77TH ST old `.41421 44' Oer 10 90 iii.0.60A10 ttseirtil W 76TH ST ay. W 77TH ST in9 00 • Cit C04e, • • • 1,900 • • • • CP tit fif =..e, • - , iLIIk I 7 , I— ---- ' • INIAn .Y*3•4'..- ...-,jr.„•?...-- - - • — SS Ss 00* l• .ity • ,Ip .. ii al/11 . .11, S : : ., . : rit,.;•,. It P I i,V4 t 0 ,I Intim! al IS 1 /so I, p 125 250 0 • • A- LOFT HOTEL 80,000 gsf 150 ROOMS ri WEST PARKING 6 LEVELS 1,200 STALLS (0 EAST BUILDING (4-11 STORIES) 360,000 gsf Cfr EAST PARKING 6 LEVELS 1,200 STALLS , ASSISTED LIVING 2 103 UNITS TOWNHOME 1 18 UNITS INDEPENDENT LIVING 1 122 UNITS ASSISTED LIVING 1 103 UNITS O WEST BUILDING (4-10 STORIES) 377,375 gsf (OFFICE) TOWNHOME 2 - 18 UNITS INDEPENDENT LIVING 2 122 UNITS TOWNHOME 3 26 UNITS INDEPENDENT LIVING 3 122 UNITS C9 z 1 • :11 5 vho' -J 5 r=1 • 13/ 0°) o_ rc° 0 o. SCALE IN FT. Page 1 of 1 Item IV. c. Edina Transportation Commission REGULAR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Transportation Commissioners Agenda Item No.: IV. c. From: Jack Sullivan, PE ACTION: Assistant City Engineer Recommendation/Motion Date: February 21, 2008 Discussion Subject: Bike Edina Task Information Force — Bicycle Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Review the attached memorandum from the City of Edina Engineering Department dated February 15, 2008. If so desired by the Transportation Commission, adopt a motion that the Commission endorses the staff review and recommendations of the Bicycle Comprehensive Plan as outlined in the attached memo from Wayne Houle dated February 15, 2008. The Commission would endorse the memo to Council as their official recommendation pertaining to the "City of Edina Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan". Info/Background: The Bike Edina Task Force with the help of Community Design Group spent the majority of the summer months of 2007 creating the "City of Edina Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan". The document was completed in September of 2007 and submitted to the City of Edina, City Council, on November 5, 2007. The City Council directed the engineering department and the Edina Transportation Commission to review the document and make recommendations to the Council. Staff has outlined our review and comments regarding the document in the attached memo. G:\Engineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\Transportalion Commission \Agendas\2008 R&R\20080221_BETF_Bike_Compp1an.doc AA- IV. MEMORANDUM ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA DATE: February 15, 2008 TO: Transportation Commission FROM: Wayne Houle — City Engineer / Director of Public Works Jack Sullivan — Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Review of City of Edina Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan Dated September 19, 2007 Engineering staff has reviewed the above Bicycle Transportation Plan and has the following comments: 1. Overall the plan is well done and matches fairly well with the proposed transportation plan. 2. Chapter by chapter comments: Chapter 1.5 Existing bicycle conditions... • The study does not differentiate the jurisdiction issue regarding the County roadways, such as Vernon Avenue, France Avenue, York Avenue, and West 66th Street. • The study suggests dropping the speed limit. Staff and Transportation Commission have agreed that the speed limit should be dropped consistently throughout the state. • Speeds on Vernon Avenue and France Avenue will be difficult to drop due to a speed study that is required (these are County Roads). • Even though bicycle parking is provided at 50th and France, cyclists refuse to use the facilities and continue to scratch the decorative lighting when locking their bikes to the light poles. • A recommendation for bicycle parking facilities should be noted later in the report and cannot be found. • The study points out that hardly any bicycle parking exists in any of the Edina Park facilities — other than facilities like the Aquatic Center is this actually a negative to the City. For instance where and how many parking facilities would you place in each park play area or business area. Chapter 2.1 Route selection and recommended principles • Staff agrees with the Goals and Principles. Chapter 2.2 Recommended routes: • Staff does not object to the recommended Primary and Secondary Routes. Review of Edina Comprehensive Bicycle Plan Dated February 15, 2008 Page 2 of 3 Chapter 2.3 General Recommendations • Staff feels that our current street reconstruction program goes beyond the coined phrase "Complete Streets". The "Complete Streets" program: o Looks at specifies that "all users" be accounted for in the design of a complete street network. o Looks at the network that is associated with the corridor while recognizing the flexibility that must exist. o Uses the latest design standards and directs the solutions to fit within the community. • Staff continues to balance a useable street by all users, while providing an aesthetically pleasing corridor, and taking into account the environmental implications of the proposed roadway. • Designating the automobile space by marking a "fog line" will definitely differentiate the driving lane. This is typically done on roadways with volumes greater than 1,000 vehicles per day, such as collectors and above. The use of paint on local roadways will generate interest from homeowners along the roadway. These types of lines and the paint used on them will require two additional public works workers to repaint the system every year. • Staff agrees with reducing the speed limit to 25 mph. However, the Transportation Commission, the City Council, and staff agree that this should be instituted statewide. Staff is following a City Engineers Association sponsored "Speed Limit" task force, which should be completing their study within the next year and forwarding on the recommendation to the State Legislator. • The report refers to the lack of space for bicyclists within traffic calming measures on local roadways. Traffic calming measures are designed to slow traffic down to 15 mph or less. Staff feels that bicyclists, motorists, and sometime pedestrians can all coexist within these areas. Chapter 2.4 Recommended treatments • Staff does not recommend that pavements in our climate be differentiated with blue paint or any other media that potentially would create a slippery condition. Chapter 2.4.1 Sample treatment options • Staff recommends that bike routes be identified with green bike route markers as approved for the Country Club Roadway Reconstruction Project. • Staff also recommends that no "on-pavement" route dots be placed within the City. Staff feels that these types of markers will create distractions to the cyclists forcing the inexperience riders to constantly be looking down to find their way. The standard route markers will keep the riders eyes looking forward providing a better field of view. • Staff feels that not all routes within both the Primary and Secondary can accommodate bike lanes within the existing geometry and the standards that the City must meet for the majority of these routes. Review of Edina Comprehensive Bicycle Plan Dated February 15, 2008 Page 3 of 3 • Staff does not recommend bicycle loop detectors, but do recommend reviewing the location of pedestrian activated push buttons at signalized intersections. Chapter 2.4.2 Overview of recommended street configurations • Staff still feels that overall driver behavior within the City of Edina and the metro area continues to discourage cyclists from riding on roadways. Chapter 2.10 Operations and Maintenance • Report recommends starting a maintenance request program. "Report a Problem" has been on the City's web site for the last three to four years. • Roadways within Edina are typically plowed curb to curb within 8 to 10 hours of a snowstorm. The larger amount of snowfall the larger the windrows will become along side of the roadways. Along with that, no one within the Public Works field can ever guarantee that no icy conditions will exist within the winter months. • The Edina Public Works Department has a very aggressive street sweeping program. During late winter / spring months we remove the loose debris from the center and edges of the roadway. The lowest areas that are more susceptible for the material to run into storm water ponds are completed first. We continue to sweep through the summer months. Sweeping during the fall months concentrate on leaf removal. • Staff agrees that pavement drop-offs are dangerous for bikers and we continue to repair and replace catch basins and other drop-offs. The shown drop-off on Interlachen Boulevard is a statewide issue with rural designed roadways. Chapter 3.1 Benchmarks • All unsafe catch basin grates should be removed when noted. • Removing all of the hazards along the 250 miles of roadway is very costly. Staff currently replaces around 45 catch basins per year. The City has thousands of catch basins. • Staff does not recommend the installation of blue lanes. Chapter 3.2 Bicycle Coordinator • Staff does not recommend that a bicycle coordinator be funded. The proposed routes can be incorporated into the Capital Improvement Program and projects underway should incorporate the bike routes as shown. • Staff does not recommend a City sanctioned Bicycle Advisory Committee. Staff feels that this duty falls within the Transportation Commission. GAEngineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Sidewalks n Bikeways\Bike Plan\20080215 Engineering bike plan comments.doc Data compiled in this chart is for study purposes only Detailed engineering analysis will be necessary to determine the viability of roadway geometries. 1 of 4 2/15/2008 Prima and Seconda Road Data - Based on Cit of Edina Bike Com. rehensive Plan, Se.t. 2007 Road Name Roadway Width F-F or EB-EB Primary or Secondary Curb and Gutter Parkin. Allowed Speed limit (MPH) State A 'd Route Yes No # of Street Lanes Compliant w/ State Aid Yes No Yes No 2 4 6 if Bikelane is aded* Antrim Road Primary From Valley View to W. 70th St. 44' X X 30 mph X X Yes Arcadia Avenue Prima From Vernon to Eden 30 X X 30 mph X X 1.1111 Blake Road X MN From Vernon to Lake Rid•e 35' X X 30 m h X MIN IllaMall From Lake Rithe to Interlachen 28.-29' X X NO From S•ruce to Interlachen 36 Bit Curb X X MEIN =MEI Benton Avenue ME= 30 m h X From Trac to W. Fronta.e Rd 36-40' X From Trac to Code X Mil YES From Code to W. Fronta•e Rd From W. Fronta• e Rd. to Normandale Rd 52' X X MIKEINIMINIMINIMI YES Brookside Avenue MIMI 30 rn•h X MEM From Interlachen to St. Louis Park 36-36' X From Interlachen to Division on East Side X MIN111•11111111117101111 11=111 YES 111.1111M111. From Division to St. Louis Park on West Side Bush Lake Road Milffing. 30 rri•h X NE From Edina Industrial Blvd to South Ci Limits 40' 11101.111111.11 From Edina Industrial Blvd to Dewe Hill Road 40' X X 1111111 Mil NO Cahill Road X From 78th St W. to 70th St W. 40' X X MillMIS=1111 X NO Code Avenue Seconda X IIMIIIIIMIIIIIEII From Valle View Rd to Grove 30' X X 30 m h X MM. NO Concord Avenue Prima /Seconda X From South View Lane to Valle View 26' X In Be s 30 m•h X Mill NO Coo • er Avenue X From Division to Interlachen 28-30' X X 30 m h X INIMIE NO Cornelia Drive MRIZMIII X MEI From 66th St to 70th St. 30' X X 30 m h X NO Dewe Hill Road Prima X IMMIMMIIMMINIII From Gleason Rd to Cahill 36' X From Gleason to Shannon Dr on North Side X YES From Shannon Dr to Cahill Road on South Side 11111111M1=111 YES From Cahill to Bush Lake Rd 40 X X X =111111.1111111111101111 Division Street Prima X EMI From Brookside to Oxford 29' X Between Rutled•e and Vandervork X 11=1111.1111 NO From Oxford to Coo •er 22-27' X X MIIIMIIIMIll X NO Dovre Drive Prima X From Lincoln Drive to Parkwood Ln 30' X X 11.111111.11111.111 X MM. Edina Industrial Blvd Prima .11=11111.11111 MIMI MEM From 78th Street West to H 100 44' MIIIMM=IIIIIII X X 111111MEEMEM X MEM Eden Avenue Eirffffilli X MINE 36' 111111111.111111 X X 30 rn•tt MI YES From Willson to 50th St. 36' 1111111111.111111 X X 30 m•ti X NO From Vernon to 50th St 36' X Between Wilson Rd and 50th St North Side X EIMMEI 111.1111 IIMM France Avenue From North Ci Limits to 44th St. 48' Mffiell X Timed 111115M111 X X From 44th St to 54th St 43' NIIIIIMII x x mil ml IN MI x x • NO From 54th St to Crosstown H 62 44' MEMI X X INEEMINI X X EMI Mal From Crosstown H 62 to South Ci Limits 51'- median -40' Seconda X X 45 m•h X X X NO Gleason Road Prima .111111=111Mill X =MI= From Vernon to Crosstown 44' X From H 62 to McCaule Trail x ME= Crosstown to Dewe Hill 36' X From McCaule Trail to Gleason Circle IMEIMMINIMMEMIll MIIIIIIIINIEMI Dewe Hill W. 78th St. 39' X X 30 m h X X 111=111 YES From Gleason Circle to 78th St Won West Side .11111.1=2.11 Golf Terrace Seconda IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII X MIIII From H 100 to Lakeview Dr South 36' X X 30 m•h X 111.1111111111.111.111.111111MMIll .11111 11111111 NO NO NO From Lakeview Dr North to Lakeview Dr East 26' X X 30 me h From Lakeview Dr East to Wooddale 30' X X 30 m h X Galla. her Drive =NMI X =II From Parklawn Ave to France 44' X X 30 m h X YES Green Farms Rd IIIINIIIIIIII From Interlachen Blvd to Larada Ln 30' Seconda X X 30 rn•ti Gus Youn • Lane MI From Vernon Avenue to Arcadia 24' 11112M. X X 30 m h X X MIMI GnEngineering \Comprehensive Plan \2008 Comp Plan update \ Transportation \Bikeway Comp Plan \Final Primary_Secondary Road Data.xls Data compiled in this chart is for study purposes only. Detailed engineering analysis will be necessary to determine the viability of roadway geometrics. 2 of 4 2/15/2008 Primary and Secondary Road Data - Based on City of Edina Bike Comprehensive Plan, Sept. 2007 Road Name Roadway Width F-F or EB-EB Primary or Secondary Curb and Gutter Parking Allowed State Kcl Route Yes No # of Street Lanes Compliant w/ State Aid Yes No Yes No Speed limit (MPH) 2 4 6 if Bikelane is aded* Hazelton Rd Primary From France toYork 50' X X 30 mph X X NO Hibiscus Ave Primary X From West Shore Dr to Kellogg Ave 30 X X 30 mph X NO Hilary Lane Primary X From Gleason Road to Valley View Road 35 from mid block to Valley View X 30 mph X YES Interlachen Blvd Primary X From Kelsey Ter to Blake Road 24-28 X X X NO From Blake Road to Brookside 30-33 X No parking on South Side X NO From Brookside to Vernon 48' X X YES Kellogg Ave X From Hibiscus Ave to Cul-de-sac South 30 X X 30 mph X NO Larada Ln Secondary X From Green Farms Rd to Parkwood Rd 30' X X 30 mph X X Lakeview Drive Secondary X From Sherwood Ave to Golf Terrace 28' X X 30 mph X NO From Golf Terrace to Normandale Rd 36' X X 30 mph X NO Lincoln Avenue Primary X From Maloney to 7th St W. 30 X X X NO From Vernon Ave to Londonderry Road 36' X X X YES From Londonderry Road to Dovre Drive 47' X X X YES Londonderry Road Secondary X From Lincoln Drive to Minnetonka 52' X X X YES Maddox Lane From Hansen to Valley View 30' Secondary X X 30 mph X X Maloney Avenue Primary X From Washington to Blake 28 X No Parking on North Side X NO Malibu Drive Primary X From Telemark Trail to 7th Street W 29' X X X NO McCauley Trail South Secondary X From Valley View Road to Indian Hills Road 24' X X X NO From Indian Hills Road to Timber Ridge 26' X X X NO From Timber Ridge to Gleason 36' X X X YES Metro Boulevard Primary From Edina Industrial Blvd to 74 St W. 40 X X 30 mph X X NO From 72nd Street to 70th Street 52' X X 30 mph X X YES Mirror Lakes Road Primary X From Interlachen to Vernon 30-33 From Ayshire North X X NO Normandale Road Primary X From Valley View to Benton Ave 29' X X 30 mph X NO From Benton Ave to South View Lane 34' X X 30 mph X YES South View Lane to 50th St 30' X X 30 mph X NO From 66th St W to Hwy 100 Off Ramp 26' X X X NO From Hwy 100 Off Ramp to 70th St W 39' X X X YES Olinger Boulevard Primary X From Tracy Ave to Vernon Ave 36' X X X YES Ohms Lane Primary X From 74th St W to 72nd St W 40' X X X YES Park Ter Primary X NO From Malibu to Interlachen 30' X X X Parklawn Avenue Primary X From 76th St. to Gallagher Dr 36' X X 30 mph X YES From 76th to 77th St. 57' X X 30 mph X YES Parkwood Lane Primary X NO From Dovre Drive to Parkwood Road 29' X X X Parkwood Road Secondary X NO From Larada Lane to Telemark Trail 30' X X X Ridgeview Drive Secondary X From 63rd St W to Valley Lane 30' X X X NO From Valley Lane to 66th St W 36' X (Bit) X X YES Southview Lane Primary X From Normandale Rd to Concord 38' X Timed 30 mph X NO Tracy Avenue Primary X From Valley View Road to Vernon Ave 36' X no on west side X YES Telemark Trail Primary X From Parkwood Road to Malibu Drive 29' X X X NO Valley Lane Secondary _ X G: \ Engineering Comprehensive Plan12008 Comp Plan updatelTransportation \Bikeway Comp Plan \ Final Primary Secondary Road Dataids Data compiled in this chart is for study purposes only. Detailed engineering analysis will be necessary to determine the viability of roadway geometrics. 2/15/2008 3 of 4 Primary and Secondary Road Data - Based on City of Edina Bike Comprehensive Plan, Sept. 2007 Road Name Roadway Width F-F or EB-EB Primary or Secondary Curb and Gutter Parkin. Allowed State A 'd Route Yes No # of Street Lanes Compliant w/ State Aid IIIMIIEMII Speed limit (MPH) 2 4 6 if Bikelane is acted* From Rid. eview Drive to Valle View Road 36' X NO Valle View Road Prima /Seconda 11111111111111111111111111111111.111111111111111 111111111111111111111.1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII NO From Normandale Rd to Wooddale 38.5' X IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII X 30 m h 11111111.1111111111.1 From Wooddale to 66th St. 43 X X 30 mph X X NO From 66th St. to 69th St. 27'- median - 27' X ME X 30 mph X IIII X NO McCault Trail South to Mark Terr Drive 29' X X X NO From Mark Terr Drive to Antrim Road 36' X X NO From Antrim Road to Hwy 62 44' X X X NO From Hwy 62 to Hillside Road 36' Mill Mill X X X NO From Hillside Road to Hansen Road 31' X X X NO From Hansen Road to Hwy 100 30' X X X X NO From McCaultry Trail to Washington Ave 52' X X X X YES Vernon Avenue Primary From Lincoln Drive to Gleason Road 36 X on South Side X X YES From Gleason Road to Hwy 100 44' X X X X NO Washington Avenue Primary X From Malone 103rd St S 30 X X X NO West Frontage Rd Valley View Road to Eden Ave. 25' Secondary X X 30 mph X NO West Shore Drive Secondary/Primary I X NO From Hibscus Ave to 64th St 29' X X 30 mph NO Wil an Avenue X NO From 66th St W. to 63rd St W 30 X X X Wind Road 27' Secondary South side South Side 30 mph X NO From Normandale Rd to Sherwood Ave X NO Wooddale Avenue Primary X From North City Limits to Sunnyside 31' X X 30 mph X NO From Sunnyside to 50th St 24' X East side 30 mph X NO From 50th St to 56th St 36' X West side 30 mph X YES From 56th St to Valley View Rd 32' X West side 30 mph X YES Wyman Avenue Secondary X From Valley View Road to Maddox Lane 30' X X X NO Xerxes Avenue Secondary X From 54th St to Crosstown Hwy 62 40' X X 30 mph X NO From Crosstown Hwy 62 to 66th St 53' X X 30 mph X YES York Avenue Secondary X From 66th St to South City Limits 27'- median -27' X X 30 mph X NO 7th Street West Primary X From Lincoln Drive to Hwy 169 52' X X X YES 44th Street West 27' Primary X X 30 mph X NO From Brookside to Browndale 30' X X 30 mph X NO From Browndale to Wooddale 29' X X 30 mph X NO From Wooddale to Grimes 40' X Timed 30 mph X NO From Grimes to France X NO 50th Street West 52' Primary X X 30 mph NO From Hwy 100 to Halifax 31' X X 30 mph X X NO From Halifax to France X X 54th Street West Seconda X From Wooddale to Minnehaha Creek 35' X X 30 mph X NO From Minnehaha Creek to France 40' X X 30 mph X NO From France to Drew Ave 40' X X 30 mph X NO From Drew Ave to Xerxes 29' X X 30 mph X NO 58th Street West Primary X From Concord to Wooddale 28' X X 30 mph X NO From Wooddale to Philbrook Lane 28' X 30 mph X NO From Philbrook Lane to France 30' X 30 mph X NO From France to Xerxes 31' X 30 mph X NO 62nd Street West Primary X NO From Valley View to France 30' X X 30 mph X NO G: \ EngineetingnComprehensive Plan \ 2008 Comp Plan update\ Transportation \Bikeway Comp PlanTinal Primary Secondary Road Data.xls Data compiled in this chart is for study purposes only. Detailed engineering analysis will be necessary to determine the viability of roadway geometries. 4 of 4 2/15/2008 Primary and Secondary Road Data - Based on City of Edina Bike Comprehensive Plan, Sept. 2007 Road Name Roadway Width F-F or EB-EB Primary or Secondary Curb and Gutter Parki . Allowed Speed limit (MPH) State Ad Route Yes No # of Street Lanes Compliant w State Aid Yes No Yes No 2 4 6 if Bikelane is aded* 63rd Street West Secondary X 111111111111 NO NO From Wit an Ave to Rithview Drive 30' X X X 64th Street West Secondary X NO From West Shore Dr to Art Center 24' X North side X From Art Center to 66th St. 24' North side X 66th Street West Primary/Secondary From H 100 to France 28' X X 30 m.h X NO From France to Xerxes 39'- median - 27' X X 30 mph X X YES From Ridgeview Drive to Hwy 100 36' X on North Side X X YES 69th Street West Primary X YES From France to Xerxes 27- median -27' X X 30 mph X 70th Street West Primary From Hwy 100 to France 40' X X 30 mph X X YES From France to York 17' - median - 16' X X roundabouts X X NO From York to Xerxes 40' X X 30 mph X X NO From Hwy 100 to Antrim Road 44' X X X X YES no from Hillside Lane and everything West 72nd Street Primary X YES From Ohms Lane to Metro Blvd 52' X X X 74th Street West Primary X From Metro Blvd to Bush Lake Road 40 X X X YES 76th Street West Secondary From Parklawn Ave to France 44' X X — 30 mph X X YES From France to York 73' X X 30 mph X X YES From York to Xerxes 44' X X 30 mph X X NO 77th Street West Primary From Hwy 100 to Parklawn Ave 59' X • X 30 mph X X YES Parklawn Ave to Minnesota Dr 49' X X 30 mph X X NO 78th Street West Secondary From Valley View Road to !kola Way 30' X X 30 mph X X NO From lkola Way to Breamar Blvd 36' X X 30mph X X YES From Breamar Blvd to Gleason Road 28-36' X X 30 mph X X YES From Gleason Road to Edina Industrial Road 62' X X 35 mph X X YES 53 87 * Assumes paved bike lane of 5 feet in width. YES'S NO'S G:\Engineering\Compreherisive Plan12008 Comp Plan update \Transportation \Bikeway Comp Plan\ Final Primary Secondary Road Data.xls Page 1 of 1 Item IV. d. Edina Transportation Commission REGULAR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: From: Date: Transportation Commissioners Jack Sullivan, PE Assistant City Engineer February 21, 2008 Subject: Transportation Chapter — Bike Facilities Agenda Item No.: IV. d. ACTION: Recommendation/Motion Discussion Information Recommendation: Review the attached draft of the Bike Facilities section of the Transportation Chapter of the City of Edina Comprehensive Plan. If so desired by the Transportation Commission, adopt a motion recommending that the language in the attached draft be inserting into the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive plan and forwarded on to the Planning Commission, Comprehensive Plan Task force and City Council for inclusion into the overall Comprehensive Plan. Info/Background: The Bike Facilities Chapter was intentional left out of the first draft of the City Comprehensive Plan in order for the City to have adequate time to review the "City of Edina Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan". Now that the review of the Bicycle Plan is complete it is appropriate to insert this section into the Transportation Chapter. GAEngineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\Transportation Commission \Agendas \2008 R&R\20080221_Transp_Chapter Bike_facilities.doc Bike Facilities In 2006, the City Council appointed the Bike Edina Task Force (BETF), made of citizens interested in bicycle issues and planning. The BETF has overseen the preparation of the City of Edina Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan (Edina Bicycle Plan). The Bicycle Plan provides a detailed identification of current conditions and problem areas regarding bicycle facilities within the City. It also provides a vision regarding system- wide improvements for the City's bicycling facilities. It is the goal of the City to improve conditions for bicycling by reducing hazards and by developing and improving Edina's bicycle transportation infrastructure so as to invite Edina residents, workers, and visitors to include bicycling as part of their daily mobility habits. Bicycle improvements will be implemented to support safe, efficient, and inviting travel for children riding to school, adults riding to work, as well as recreational users. It is hoped that enhancing biking activities will remove a significant number of vehicular trips from Edina's roadway system. The guiding principals for improving bicycle facilities in Edina are as follows: • Improve safety conditions for cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists • Provide safe routes for all ages and ability levels • Improve connections to local and regional destinations • Provide a useful and realistic transportation method within the City • Promote bicycling as a base for community health One of the key tools that will be used by the City to improve its overall bicycling system as outlined above is a recommended route network as identified in the Edina Bicycle Plan. This network is provided as Figure 7.10 of this Comprehensive Plan Update. It is divided into primary routes and secondary routes. The City intends to first focus on integrating the primary routes into existing infrastructure before proceeding with the secondary routes. Prior to system improvements being implemented in this manner, they will need to be reviewed by the City's Engineering and Planning Departments to confirm technical feasibility and to refine design elements as warranted. Implementation of bicycle system infrastructure improvements will be a relatively long- term undertaking that will be broken down into implementation phases or time periods. The planning and implementation of these improvements take into account regional trail systems and associated improvements, as well as more general infrastructure planning on the part of the City and Hennepin County. / V. s ' iiiilmik ° , lin 60,,iar.oirmoogio rise,_. A ,.. eio,„ .121 (Do, °rAlilliiiiii 1_ iliv,410ggnisi IL 01:wi l kitti 1 Ito 0 - _ ii: 2 lifloii.----Din piing midi 1, - thop„ ,Goo„ L-- .m.... -izob ),Ainsd., i olli 11115t. -,iiii0Alh11111111 r °° Aggi Ili 0 ve _mum ...„ 11111111111111111111 ,, 00111111191 `5„, 0 0 t*IIII. Ow' I 1114=rota OW wirullmr ( All sit& mmHg A vow 1 jarail ILIFIUlt• . Rivulan2limom mu moil . WM') MIMI , • -Awr', . , 4' 'fir , - I v i \"" ,.. ot-a:'' P ill: 4' 11) .'* illhounimill II 111111111111 ip ' . ,. • ,o' • , n • / 4,.. ii Allip1111PRES/ .11-11111111-62,52ill flE I @*',._ir - el I /0 ilistl'OO IllAirrig if allIll 11111 ' RIM mul r ung-olip 14411.4 . , "1111111111111111 , ' 2.1 411 dolgau r :rum PNININ11011 4friiiiil ' lh "4 , r" lari ° 141111E1E1N A ow ,_, i "Thl#4 NIMPIV IAN,_ ionH 1110111 Willillf"r litib-mr Cl ° immitim -=-1, \ -*?' 1 .77 ,, 8 II I® Er°_, 1 t --- - - ------- ' ,....a, 62 -41104,... --1111111 - 1 1 1„ .Nue -'-": 1 " ,,,,,, AIM _ illb I 111‘ k <71 um %' - wrap , wil -bre - q *Ai ..,,. 31,1111111 Millitud11111 Jim isk,... . a , .. 1 ill 1.4111110 - 4'4%,,, • . °Pit NE , 4 • ° II D VIII " 't, ,....„,,. n,', MIMI II iME , 11 . 4, O torn - t , , , 1, /4 —like g_____. . .c ‘1 .---,--c- 19 ,—, _ Ir• LEGEND: IT4airvi,ipathway millygcFrindzn Epraor Proposed 1 From the 2007 EdpIrnmaiaCr7Rmoruetehensive Bicycle TransportationPlan City of Edina, Minnesota Bicycle Facilities E Comprehensive Plan 90 "DRAFT" Figure 7.10 RECEIVED NOV 1 5 2007 CITY OF EDINA ENGINEERING DEPT November 15, 2007 , Mr. Jack Sullivan City Engineer City of Edina Public Works IV. e_ RE: Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Application Form Halifax Avenue South Dear Mr. Sullivan: Homeowners on Halifax Avenue South have been busy discussing possible traffic calming measures for the street, as traffic is increasingly becoming a concern for us. Enclosed please find signatures in an application form for traffic management on Halifax Avenue South from 51 Street to 54th Street. Please submit this form to the Edina Transportation Commission for review and discussion. We look forward to any feedback you and the commission have regarding this matter. Thank you for your consideration of this project, and for your service to the community. Sincerely, Marie Pechman 5316 Halifax Avenue South Edina, MN 55424 (952) 926-1446 Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Application Form 111 R.1 1°E-uf11.,47.1 (45 479i q`11(° )441(1) III 151 .200'7- reN01/41n1 msn,e,)61 Edina, Minnesota 55424-1394 Engineering Department 4801 West 50 Street (952) 826-0371 www.cityofedina.c Please indicate traffic issues that concern residents in your neighborhood: 14.Speeding 3KTraffic Volumes -54 Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety 0 Accidents X Other: Cs 6 Fa-A-f‘iCc Suggested Traffic Calming Me.sures (See Appendix B of the Transportation Commission Policy, please rank, No. 1 is most favored): 1) sfg-c-i) 140mPs ii6r efa3 SI st 3'1 srrars 0 NI i-1/41-1 FAX 11'\16.-Ai C--- ok31-14.. /rNIO C--4-6z*.42-S ca- STI2-64er C-161-12-A'Ack, Tr2-e.MW1C-AJT'S hr 574 b, A-1\w) 5Trzeers sPeeo otows F II I is mar 414:>a,o,/ Proposed Location from: 5 1 SI" 51-12-r-to S.21 *A- 'S Tra (street name) We, the undersigned, as residents, hereby request the evaluation of the traffic management device listed above. We understand we may be assessed for the cost for the device. Please list all addresses in the potentially benefited area. One signature per house usiness. Date ame (please print) Address i jtbri. re % 9 z• OA% AZOV./ .42195.141 ; . ,; I , 411r - '47 SAef/k_ Petel, ‘rii to/ -333 17/ ititi°C 6 544 40 A • ' - , jui; astA., U s- / Cf 5t)7 ' k, fir 50Szg/(g,tc doily, Nov , It , / I 025 AT 1 w1/46,,,,, i jeuk, kA.-Co A.,r4 11 522. 8- *I's' 1784' IIN/c J. MI- ixt.ific( Lu. 4 0\ filuvimiy,... F ./fge,k,0747,4 91Asio7 4.Sosag bgAvvivrA) 530S. 14414FAx iturf. ?/a7.57 molly Schorniout-7 5-454R *WA! APe- cSe 9/00 10 ayix 10 e 41 e ( CcR /07, /--/a_O'A 7 -,kle.- S 4;4) AVC 4/4T- Vg.r e .(01M) Cit.c 5 7- '531..'( Mt.( PAKA-44s 0 ._._.. q/2 5' 6-7 / 10 . ak , A 6 I g_ . Page / of Please return the completed application form to the Engineering Department at the address noted above 1. The Minnesota Data Practices Act requires that we inform you of your rights about the private data we are requesting on this form. Under the law, your telephone number is private data. This application when submitted will become public information. There is no consequence for refusing to supply this information. Edina NTMP Application Form- April 2005 Contact Name: Address: 1Day/Message Phone: Today's Date: 1E-mail Address: 63/(, /-141-1 PA >4 Me; S (street name) on ip-A.x ,446,.06 . (street name) cEIDINA Engineering Department 4801 West 50'n Street Edina, Minnesota 55424-1394 (952) 826-0 www.cityofe 77t/4-471=-'1 t_- Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Application Form Contact Name: Address: 1Day/Message Phone: Today's Date: 1E-mail Address: E 63R, fri kw FAX AIS 9. 9.16- NI/ loc-cp-woid e insn coal Please indicate traffic issues that concern residents in your neighborhood: ACSpeeding Traffic Volumes 7--Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety 0 Accidents Other:9--(---1)1a-ei1oni oF 5-0 oh rttif'N 0,6 Suggested Traffic Calming Me aures (See Appendix B of the Transportation Commission Policy, please rank, No. 1 is most favored): '5 P67:4) 1-11)01 es Be---nA&,r--it) • sTrec---e-Th 61\1 itts)vm ANI . prml be_A-1-0Kea-- 0 (2._ "7/2(14-rrn 6-rtin" z1 4)~ 106.)0 't4 Qq)E2 1-1.uv Ps IF 4:P-i 15 No o r MiTecNi&-0 3)5 med. sierrocr-e on Av6.7,10 6 s6 0 . (street name) (street name) We, the undersigned, as residents, hereby request the evaluation of the traffic management device listed above. We understand we may be assessed for the cost for the device. Please list all addresses in the potentially benefited area. One signature per household or business. Date 111111E=MITIMMIN Address 111.111EMEMIll INMPORIM 10 X.3 a 23 0-111MENE111 a Alt,. a /3E af 53/(p ' & S . .• / At t AL. A 0A,TrigAl wittiL‘gi "Ar4Afdt,sii..r. IWARISIMIVA rwirm. PI L__n . ... t`t- Iffir 0 1111511111 111111EMI ININIEWNIIIINEINIMMIlli g to 1/111111111=1122/0-74 11111191 11E11111111M1= 11111MILMMILEffill Ni ov,c Ii int1=1111111M=1111 IIEWIE1111 Page Please return the completed application form to the Engineering Department at the address noted above. 1. The Minnesota Data Practices Act requires that we inform you of your rights about the private data we are requesting on this form. Under the law, your telephone number is private data. This application when submitted will become public information. There is no consequence for refusing to supply this information. Edina NTMP Application Form- April 2005 Proposed Location from: S S roe- to 6--q (57-72&67- (street name) Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Application Form tV244z_'1E atmlim.t 531c, pii-L-Ip_h)‘ A46- (ei.5)_) 9 aco q1/4-/co ///i 5104- 61 Pme-ins41Ki (;) aOekt neighborhood: S. Speeding Traffic Volumes )6 Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety 0 Accidents Other: r2z.-cr1 01\1ô F- 52)41• •4- FrailiocC Please indicate traffic issues that concern residents in your na.corn RECEIVE goy 1 5 2007 CITY OF EDINA ENGINEERING DEPT. Engineering Department 4801 West 50 Street Edina, Minnesota 55424-1394 (952) 826-0 www.cityofe Contact Name: Address: 1Day/Message Phone: Today's Date: 1E-mail Address: CfTY OF EDINA Suggested Traffic Calming MeQsures (See Appendix B of the Transportation Commission Policy, please rank, No. 1 is most favored): i) 14u0 IPS 26-7-W6t-7,1 5-414/` a1re-6-c-rs kW-MAX IhielQU6 St1Q-114 40%16 CA-1-oKeg-S Mt_ s772-C-er 6-7\i-ri2koc-k- 1-11-6-4-TineiOTT AT .5-q -tik Srl&-er 4-1.1 5a 1 sTrzwm 9see&r, 4thrips IEtt- I IS Nor iteegrisleo 3) 015- niei-/ -5 I 611146-6 Proposed Location from: Ti ST126-C—T to sci +1N- (street name) on 640( vr\Ae j ,e)L (street name) (street name) We, the undersigned, as residents, hereby request the evaluation of the traffic management device listed above. We understand we may be assessed for the cost for the device. Please list all addresses in the potentially benefited area. One signature per household or business. Date In1/3Te (please print) Ad ess Signature i ---(_ 7 iiirl&M,.....,...._ \/// /V/ / ) :h ;A 1 3o6 , ///47// 5-70-0 ii--tri- i/ fayo-d://rtiva4- ‘t6/2a444---7 . )k A D )() 7 VDINu ,Ir\ •<- I ) + i'l AL) rA- • 4. Vr,f' 71" 4441 ''')`It`.n L 1A4 ,Q ...1.-, k.,.) so,y 1---i,A,SdN7( 52-2i-- 1+J; ./ 4. c itiltioi kdk_LckitAIJ 1 1 1 //'10 f ic c / i47,7 n E/V/ f ‘,2-.2g,,q t it c ii)( c ' lit i i 4101- MA.A.IL LO1/41s5 1i g- 1:113,14-145( Auacco 6:71*-7.010 Page 3 of Li Please return the completed application form to the Engineering Department at the address noted above. 1. The Minnesota Data Practices Act requires that we inform you of your rights about the private data we are requesting on this form. Under the law, your telephone number is private data. This application when submitted will become public information. There is no consequence for refusing to supply this information. Edina NTMP Application Form- April 2005 Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Application Form Contact Name: MA/0 E. 1(3 1tActro,ekid Address: 3/c, 14A4- I F -11-X 4'Ve- , 7S , 'Day/Message Phone: Today's Date: //// 516 7-- 1E-mail Address: PI I.P6-ti-i-711,9-7.J € 01,S-11,6061 Please indicate traffic issues that concern residents in your neighborhood: ,(Speeding --OS-traffic Volumes A-Pedestrian/Bicycle Safejy U Accidents ZOther: 7,41ce--- 32 17.0621A 57,5 - co- 5z P-1.-S oi9 • ) Suggested Traffic Calming Measures (See Appendix of the Transportation Commission Policy, please rank, No. 1 is most favored): / 5iazeb 4z.,(ntps "WO d_hekers. or 5'1-reel- entra.4ice. "ijudi-ht f4Cis. 0- 5'! 31— a-ni n 51. _creeD /77s 3 Pw rr) Proposed Location from: 67(5 .71- __S-77-e€& to RECEIVE', NOV 1 5 2007 CITY OF EDINA ENGINEERING DEPT Engineering Departrnent 4801 West 50m Street Edina, Minnesota 55424-1394 (952) 82 1— www.ci edina.com (street name) (street name) (street name) We, the undersigned, as residents, hereby request the evaluation of the traffic management device listed above. We understand we may be assessed for the cost for the device. Please list all addresses in the potentially benefited area. One signature per household or business. Date Name (please print) Address • Signature A447 7e-'..E Th.7/.-Z 5z.--.7 /4/,'AGii--,t ,-/t/,, —42- -'. "------------z------ /0 1 /ZPV--- 417,4 DI.OP-A- 6-3).6- 14,,, 4w S--v- 1 ,---tx,„ ., , ji, ).-e 4:1-bi,v,(eif- 3-.3z, -Pak kx,/-6,ie s 7 • - 1 v . .. u\17-10-1 de..:..,,L.., 1...,,,,,•, „..., _3e4,,,..4/ -‘ ...,:_.., , 1. ( IL./ i ei. _. .. 53o\ 444:--c-ocy_, mem wiy-e4 Al ,C3 0 Y. I-1 a f F;)( t‘i,4eiLi i . .74;w67:41 Page i1of ky Please return the completed application form to the Engineering Department at the address noted above. 1. The Minnesota Data Practices Act requires that we inform you of your rights about the private data we are requesting on this form. Under the law, your telephone number is private data. This application when submitted will become public information. There is no consequence for refusing to supply this information. Edina NTMP Application Form- April 2005 PLAN ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS Plan acceptance requirements include educating residents in the Benefited Area about the possibility that they may be asked to fund the installation and maintenance of NTMP Projects through additional taxes and/or special assessments. A typical project includes all costs accrued for the improvement including all costs to perform the preliminary studies and data collection, temporary test installations, final studies, final design and actual construction costs. All costs associated with a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan study and project will be assessed to the Benefited Area if the Council approves the project for final implementation. IV.NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS ("NTMP") INTRODUCTION Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) studies are intended to respond to requests to deal with speeding and excessive volumes of traffic on streets in residential neighborhoods and on multiple streets in one or more neighborhoods, yet are intended to be sensitive to areas where, due to the implementation of calming measures, there may be a potential for diversion of traffic onto other streets and/or into other neighborhoods. These plans are required to respond to traffic problems that are symptomatic of wider problems, such as congestion or lack of capacity on the arterial system. NTMP studies include local, collector and arterial street studies and neighborhood area studies. While solutions will be considered for collector and arterial streets, only a limited number of management devices or measures will be allowed on collectors and arterials due to State design standards and funding requirements (see Appendix B). Studies will be conducted by the City Engineering Department with the involvement of other City departments and upon the approval of the ETC and the City Council. Studies will be scheduled based on available resources. Priority for studies will be based upon factors that include, but are not limited to, the following: • Previous efforts, requests and studies in the area • Intensity and extent of the problems • Degree of conflict between traffic conditions and land uses • Availability of data • Regional improvement projects scheduled or planned • Feasibility of solutions City of Edina Transportation Policy 8 April 2005 PROCESS AND SCHEDULE This section generally details the process and schedule for Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans (See Table 1). Table 1. Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans Schedule Step Item Period (Typical) General Traffic Management Information Open House Late September Step 1 Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Applications Due 2nd Monday in February Step 2 Initial Screening, Scoring and Ranking of Applications Before data collection March/April/May Step 3 • Petition-to-study prepared and circulated by City staff • Presentation to ETC for recommendation and to Council for approval to order plan development May/June Step 4 Plan Development • Review and comment by Fire, Police, Public Works and Engineering, Transit and School (transportation) agencies • Public Open House • Survey-to-test circulated and evaluated by City staff • Trial Project Plan prepared June Step 5a Presentation to ETC for recommendation June Step 5b • Council approval of trial projects • Schedule temporary installations, removals and after data collection (minimum period of 2 weeks after installation) July Step 5c • Temporary installations July/August Step 6 • After data collection (trial projects) • Review and comment by Fire, Police, Public Works, Transit, and School (transportation) agencies • Prepare evaluation summaries September Step 7a Mail Surveys October Step 7b • Summarize returned surveys • Open House November Step 8a Recommendations to ETC, Public comment December Step 8b Recommendations to Council, Improvement Hearing, Preliminary Assessment Hearing, Order Project January Step 9a Survey and Design February / March Step 9b Final approval of plans by Council, Set bid schedule April Step 9c Letting, Assessment Hearing May Step 9d Construction June / July Step 10 After data collection July / August Step 11 Follow-up Evaluation Within 3 to 5 yrs City of Edina Transportation Policy 9 April 2005 NTMP PROCESS: Step 1. Study Request (Application) A Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) study application can be filed by any individual, a business or by a neighborhood organization. Applications to consider a NTMP study must be in writing and are due by 4:30 p.m. on the second Monday in February of each year. (See Appendix C for an NTMP application form). Step 2. Preliminary Review and Priority Ranking In response to each NTMP study application filed, City staff gathers and reviews preliminary data including data related to volume, speed, accidents and other pertinent safety information. City staff also applies the criteria for screening and ranking to prioritize studies for trial and evaluation of a NTMP. The Engineering Department ranks the studies based on the methodology outlined under "Scoring for Ranking" as defined herein, and prioritizes the trial studies for ETC review. The number of trial studies depends on equipment and personnel availability. Some trial studies may be deferred if not feasible due to conflicting construction, development in the area, county or state restrictions or other concerns. Applications are subject to review by the Engineering Department for possible solutions other than a NTMP study. If preliminary review indicates an immediate hazard to the public exists, the City may choose to address the described matter separately from the NTMP process. The City also notifies the ETC of the status of all ranked studies and asks for comments. The City notifies all study requestors of the status of their request after the completion of the Step 2 process. A selected study is considered in the annual priority-ranking step for up to 3 years. If, after 3 years, a study has not received a high enough priority to proceed, it is no longer eligible for consideration. This time limitation ensures that the study request has not become obsolete because of changing traffic conditions and/or new residents in the area. The study requestor is notified when the 3-year limit expires. A new request may thereafter be made to re-enter the study in the NTMP process. Step 1 is then repeated to obtain current information. Step 3. Petition-to-Study A petition-to-study shall be circulated within the defined study area (Benefited Area — see page 17 and Appendix A-1) for all studies selected to proceed to Step 3. The Transportation Commission establishes the Benefited Area, based on information obtained in the Preliminary Review stage of the process (Step 2). At a minimum, this area City of Edina Transportation Policy 10 April 2005 is generally defined as those households and businesses fronting on the affected segments of the Benefited Area. The petition-to-study defines the issue and surveys the Benefited Area to determine if the residents within the Benefited Area agree with the issue that has been requested to be addressed. City staff prepares the petition, describing the issue and the procedures to be followed if a study is undertaken. The City then circulates the petition-to-study. Each household is entitled to one signature. Property owners not living in the Benefited Area are not included in the petition-to-study process. In order to proceed further, a minimum of 51% of all petitions-to-study must be returned with 65% of those returned indicating agreement to study the identified issue. Qualifying petitions-to-study and the underlying NTMP applications are thereafter presented to the ETC and the City Council. The ETC must recommend and the City Council must order the plan development for the study to move to Step 4. Step 4. Plan Development Based on approval from the Council, the NTMP study is commenced. The NTMP is initially reviewed by the City's Fire, Police, Public Works, Planning and Engineering Departments, and by transportation agencies, including transit agencies, and the school district. The ETC then provides notice to the Impacted Area (as defined herein) and holds a public meeting for the Impacted Area and the general public to inform residents of the proposed project, to describe the NTMP process, and to gather additional information about the study issue and related concerns within the Impacted Area. Plan development consists of the following: (a) Assessment of study issues and concerns (b) Identification of project goals and objectives (c) Identification of evaluation criteria (d) Establishment of threshold criteria (on project-by-project basis) (e) Development of alternative plans/solutions Steps 4(a) and (b) are accomplished through public meetings, neighborhood association meetings, and ETC meetings. Steps (c) through (e) are determined by City staff and the ETC. Additionally, City staff prepares a survey-to-test describing the proposed project and calling for a temporary test installation. Staff then circulates by U.S. Mail the survey-to-test within the Impacted Area. Each household and business within the Impacted Area is entitled to file one survey response. The survey responses are evaluated by City staff. Possible criteria, solutions and their impacts are proposed based on the citizen responses and sound engineering principles and are evaluated by the ETC, City staff and other affected agencies. Based upon that evaluation, a trial installation plan is prepared. City of Edina Transportation Policy 11 April 2005 Step 5. Test Installation The proposed NTMP test installation plan is presented to the ETC and the City Council. If recommended by the ETC and approved by Council, the test will be installed for a trial period of between 3 and 12 months. If the City Traffic Engineer finds that an unforeseen hazard is created by the test installation, the test installation may be modified or removed. Step 6. Project Evaluation Following the test period, the City evaluates the performance of the test NTMP in terms of the previously defined study issues and objectives. The evaluation includes the subject street and other streets affected by the project, and is based on before-and-after speeds and volumes, impacts on emergency vehicles or commercial uses, and other evaluation criteria determined during Step 4. If, in the evaluation, measurable improvements are not met to the satisfaction of the ETC and City staff, the NTMP may be modified and additional testing conducted. The test results are thereafter reviewed with the ETC, Impacted Area, and relevant City staff, and the information is distributed during the survey stage. The City will not proceed to Step 7 if the test results show the NTMP may be unsafe or otherwise violates the Policy or other relevant City policies or regulations. Step 7. Survey To forward the project to the stage where permanent implementation is approved (Step 8), a survey from households, businesses and non-resident property owners within the Impacted Area is obtained through a mail survey administered by the City. The ETC then holds an open house for the Impacted Area to update residents about the proposed project. Step 8. City Council Action Based on the project evaluation and survey, City staff members prepare a feasibility report and recommendations for the ETC and City Council. The report outlines the process followed, includes the project findings, states the reasons for the recommendations and includes a preliminary assessment roll. The feasibility report and preliminary assessment roll will be presented for a recommendation by the ETC before final action by the City Council. If the feasibility report is adopted and the preliminary assessment roll is approved by the City Council, the project is ordered. If the feasibility report and preliminary assessment roll are not adopted by the Council, the plans and specifications will not be ordered and the project will be terminated. The project will thereafter be removed from the list and the Benefited Area is not allowed to reapply for a same or similar study for five years. City of Edina Transportation Policy 12 April 2005 Step 9. Design, Final Assessment Roll and Construction Final design and construction supervision are administered by the City and are generally completed within 12 months after final approval and assessment by the City Council. City staff prepares and recommends the final assessment roll as required under authority granted by Minnesota Statute Chapter 429 Step 10. Monitoring City staff shall monitor the NTMP and gather data, including volume, speed and accident information for use in its follow-up evaluation. Step 11. Follow-up Evaluation Within the 3 to 5 year period following construction of an NTMP project, the City shall conduct a follow-up evaluation to determine if the project's goals and objectives continue to be met. This evaluation may entail traffic studies of volumes, speeds and accidents, as well as public opinion surveys. The follow-up evaluation will be conducted by City staff and presented to the ETC. CRITERIA FOR SCREENING Each NTMP study application is initially reviewed and screened for general qualification for this process. The following prescribes the general criteria used by staff to determine the eligibility for a NTMP study: 1. Roadway Classifications • Eligible: All Edina streets under the Public Works Department jurisdiction. • Not Eligible: All roadways within Edina designated as County, State, or Federal Highways. 2. Minimum Distance of the traffic calming device from the following (all must apply for eligibility): • Traffic Signals (except neckdowns) 300 ft. • Stop Signs (except neckdowns) 300 ft. • Other Traffic Calming Devices or Measures 300 ft. • Driveway/Alleys 20 ft. • Horizontal or Vertical Curves affecting sight lines 200 ft. • Railroad Crossing 300 ft. • Dead End 400 ft. 3. Access: City of Edina Transportation Policy 13 April 2005 Page 1 of 1 Item V. a. Edina Transportation Commission REGULAR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Transportation Commissioners From: Jack Sullivan, PE Assistant City Engineer Date: February 21, 2008 Subject: Transportation Chapter — Implementation Agenda Item No.: V. a. ACTION: Recommendation/Motion Discussion Information Recommendation: Review the attached draft of the Implementation section of the Transportation Chapter of the City of Edina Comprehensive Plan. If so desired by the Transportation Commission, adopt a motion recommending that the language in the attached draft be inserting into the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive plan and forwarded on to the Planning Commission, Comprehensive Plan Task force and City Council for inclusion into the overall Comprehensive Plan. Info/Background: This is the last section of the Transportation Chapter to be written and is required to get included in the overall Comprehensive Plan. GAEngineering\Infrastructure\Streets\TrafficUransportation Commission \Agendas\2008 R&R\20080221Transp_Chapter Implemenation.doc 7.5 TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION Previous sections of this chapter have examined existing conditions, as well as future issues, needs, and recommendations. This section summarizes implementation considerations associated with moving forward to accomplish the City's transportation objectives. Transportation Plan Adoption By adopting the overall Comprehensive Plan Update including the Transportation Chapter, the City Council will establish the guidelines by which decisions regarding transportation facilities and programs will be made in Edina. The City should periodically review the assumptions under which the plan was developed, including estimates of future development, changing financial resources, citizen and governmental input, and other factors which may arise, and update the plan as appropriate to these considerations. Roadway Network • TH 62/France Avenue Bridge reconstruction — continue to encourage this project to be advanced, working with Mn/DOT, Hennepin County, and local organizations including adjacent landowners. Partner with these organizations on securing future funding for the necessary improvements. • France Avenue — work with Hennepin County to ensure the overall operation and safety of this roadway, particularly at its interchanges with TH 62 and 1-494. • W. 70th Street — complete current study and implement its recommendations balancing local considerations with the need to meet regional (Met Council) requirements to provide an effective arterial roadway network. • Gateway redevelopment project area— continue to work with the local developer to define roadway needs and ensure that the developer (s) participates appropriately in the funding of improvements. • East-west connector roadway — continue to coordinate with adjacent communities, Mn/DOT, and Hennepin County to discuss and advance this concept (identified on Figure 7.13) as appropriate. • Functional classification — work with the Metropolitan Council and other agencies as needed to advance reclassification of the following roadways to arterial status: )=. Xerxes/York Avenue be between American Boulevard (Bloomington) and TH 62 (to "B" Minor Arterial) • Washington Avenue south of Valley View Road (to "A" Minor Reliever Arterial) • West Bush Lake Road south of 78th Street (to "A" Minor Reliever Arterial - with Bloomington as the lead agency) • Jurisdictional Classification — Hennepin County has identified two roadway segments as potential turnback candidates to go to the City. The City opposes these reclassifications. The City should coordinate as needed with Hennepin K Edina — Draft Transportation Implementation Page 1 of 4 County to demonstrate that turning back jurisdictional authority to the City is not appropriate for the following locations: CSAH 158 (Vernon Avenue) between TH 62 and TH 100 CSAH 31 (York/Xerxes Avenue) between 1-494 and CSAH 21 (5Øt Street) Transit • Continue efforts to establish a park-and-ride facility at TH 100/50th Street. • Continue to evaluate the feasibility of circulator service focusing on the western portion of the City, and shuttle service in the Greater Southdale area. Work with Metro Transit to implement such service if feasible. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) • Review and potentially implement the option of increasing TDM requirements for developers. Non-motorized Transportation • Use the Comprehensive Bike Plan to identify ongoing projects for feasibility review and implementation as warranted. • Working in conjunction with roadway or other infrastructure improvement projects, construct sidewalks on an on-going basis consistent with the future network plan identified on Figure 7.9. Sources of Funding Funding for transportation improvements and programs can be obtained from a variety of sources, as summarized below: General Ad Valorem (Property) Taxes — Transportation projects can be funded with the general pool of municipal revenues raised through property taxes. State Aid — Cities with populations of greater than 5,000 are eligible for funding assistance from the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund (funded with the state gas tax and vehicle taxes, as well as federal transportation funds through Mn/DOT). These funds are allocated to a network of Municipal State Aid (MSA) streets. Currently, the City of Edina receives an apportionment per year for improvements to its MSA streets, which are generally collector roadways. Federal Transportation Funds — The guidelines for direct federal funding for transportation projects are established under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETELU). Theses funds are allocated by the Metropolitan Council which serves as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Roadway, transit, non-motorized, and Edina — Draft Transportation Implementation Page 2 of 4 other transportation-related projects are selected on a competitive basis based on evaluation, prioritization, and recommendation by the Metropolitan Council's Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). The process of solicitation for project proposals and resulting allocation of federal funding to selected projects occurs every two years. The next round of solicitation for proposals will take place in 2009. Cooperative Agreements with Mn/DOT and/or Hennepin County — Different levels of government can cooperate on planning, implementing, and financing transportation projects which provide benefits to all the concerned agencies. The financial terms and obligations are generally established at the front end of the projects. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) — This is a method of funding improvements that are needed immediately by using the additional tax revenue anticipated to be generated because of the given project's benefits in future years. The difference between current tax revenues from the targeted district and the increased future tax revenues resulting from the improvements is dedicated to retiring the municipal bonds used to finance the initial improvement(s). Developer Contributions/Impact Fees — Under this approach, the impact of the additional traffic from a proposed development on the local roadway system is projected, using standard traffic engineering procedures. Costs associated with improving the roadway system to handle the additional traffic at an acceptable level of service are assessed to the developer. This approach generally involves some level of negotiation between the local government and the developer to work out a cost-sharing agreement that allows the development to move forward. Assessments — Properties that benefit from a roadway scheduled for improvement may be assessed for the cost of construction. In order to assess the owner, it must be demonstrated that the value of their property will increase by at least the amount of the assessment. In addition to these methods, the City should always consider negotiating with local property owners and developers help fund transportation improvement projects, large or small, which would have direct benefits to those centers. Two potential sources of transportation funding have been proposed and discussed for a number of years, but are not currently allowed under state law. They are: Road Access Charge — All new developments would be charged based on the trip generation rates of the given development, without an estimation or documentation of specific traffic impacts or improvement requirements. It would be analogous to the Sewer Access Charge (SAC) for access to the Metropolitan Council's sanitary sewer system. Revenues from this source could be used to Edina — Draft Transportation Implementation Page 3 of 4 build or improve collector and arterial roadways within the local jurisdiction collecting the tax. Transportation Utility Billing — All properties within the local jurisdiction would be subject to a periodic fee, based on the number of vehicle trips generated by the type of property. The pool of funding generated in this manner would be used for community-wide transportation improvements such as preventive maintenance and road reconstruction. The periodic nature of the billing would be beneficial in terms of supporting on-going or routine roadway maintenance projects through the entire network. The City should continue to support and promote the passage of legislation at the state level which would allow these forms of dedicated local transportation revenue generation. Edina — Draft Transportation Implementation Page 4 of 4 MINUTES OF THE Edina Transportation Commission Thursday, January 17, 2008 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Les Wanninger, Steve Brown, Marie Thorpe, Marc Usem, Geof Workinger, Paul Mooty, Warren Plante MEMBERS ABSENT: Hilah Almog, Jean White, STAFF PRESENT: Jack Sullivan, Sharon Allison I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Wanninger. II. Housekeeping items a. Re-appointment of Commissioner Workinger Asst. City Engineer Sullivan announced that Commissioner Workinger was re-appointed to another term. b. Vote of Chair and Vice-Chair Commissioner Plante nominated Chair Wanninger to continue on in the position as the chair because of his leadership and unfinished business. Chair Wanninger said he would not be able to serve because the Council has a two-year limit for chairs. Commissioners Workinger and Usem agreed with Commissioner Plante that Chair Wanninger should continue on as chair. Commissioner Workinger moved that the nomination for chair be closed. Motion was seconded Commissioner Mooty. All voted aye. Commissioner Workinger nominated Commissioner Plante as vice-chair. Commissioner Plante declined. Commissioner Usem nominated Commissioner Workinger and the nomination was seconded by Commission Brown. Commissioner Workinger accepted the nomination. All voted aye. c. Attendance Per the Council, Commissioners are to begin signing an attendance sheet at each meeting. III. Comments a. Chairman Comments None. b. Commission Comments Commissioner Brown said he is not comfortable with the options that have been presented for the W. 70th/Cornelia Area Traffic Study. He said more solutions should be considered and he does not feel they have pushed hard enough to find more options. He said his expectation is for the same consideration given to the Country Club to be given to W. 70th and to push the consultants to dig deeper to find more solutions. In response, Chair Wanninger said the same process used in the NE Edina study is being used and will continue to be used. Commissioner Brown said his concerns are based on input received from constituents feeling that a deal has already been struck and consultants not been pushed to be more creative. He said none of the solutions included getting traffic down to 8,000 even though the consultants said at this level they begin to see traffic problems arise. Commissioner Brown said he wants to challenge the ETC and the consultants to find a solution. Chair Wanninger said it is a myth that there is a pre-determined solution and Commissioner Brown agreed. c. Public Comments None. IV. Old Business a. Edina Gateway — Pentagon Redevelopment Asst. City Engineer Sullivan said the next phase of the project will be discussed at the February 21st ETC meeting. He said staff has been meeting weekly with the development team to discuss expectations of the Engineering and Planning Departments. He said some of the major issues are traffic-related such as intersection access, and close proximity to the City of Bloomington, as well as balancing the primarily residential with the commercial side of the development to have acceptable level of services. b. Bike Edina Task Force — Bike Comprehensive Plan Asst. City Engineer Sullivan recommended that all comments are submitted by the February 21st ETC meeting because the plan will need to be forwarded on to the Planning Commission and Council. Chair Wanninger said Commissioner White forwarded some questions/concerns that she would like addressed. They are: • Implication of funding — what is the cost going to be? • Jurisdictional control — France for example, is a county road, but also involve the City of Minneapolis. • Who has responsibility for the Bike Plan? The Council? The ETC? • Complete street concept vs. share-the-road approach. • Who will physically oversee the plan within the City and where does the Park Board fit in since some things are park-related. Commissioner Usem noted that the plan mentioned a Bike Task Force member serving on the ETC. Commissioner Workinger recommended considering this appointment only if there is an opening. Commissioner Usem questioned how much of the ETC work is bike-related to warrant having a full-time member from the Bike Task Force. Chair Wanninger said biking is one issue for the ETC and the individual would be expected to focus on all of the issues, not just those that are bike-related. 2 V. New Business a. Opus Development — Existing Public Works Facility The City is working with Opus to redevelop the existing Public Works site and relocate Public Works to a different location. The plans are still at the very early stage and therefore, it is not know what the site might become; however, in the past, Metro Transit has talked about a park- and-ride lot in this area. VI. Approval of Minutes a. Regular Meeting of November 15, 2007 Commissioner Plante motioned to approve the minutes of November 15, 2007 and it was seconded by Commissioner Workinger. All voted ayes. VII. Planning Commission Update (Commissioner Brown) Commissioner Brown said they are still focusing on the Comp Plan; another public meeting for comments is scheduled, followed by a workshop with Council. One major project that they are also working on is the Pentagon Park in terms of impact on the area and the Comp Plan. VIII. Staff Liaison Comments (Sullivan) a. Upcoming W. 70th/Cornelia Area Traffic Study Meetings An open house is scheduled for January 23, 6:30-9:00 p.m., at Cornelia Elementary School; approximately 1400 mailers were sent out to area residents inviting them to the open house. A public hearing is scheduled for January 31, 6:00-9:00 p.m. at City Hall. b. Halifax Avenue Traffic Management Plan Application An application was received and Sullivan recommended that the ETC accept as valid and determine how to proceed. Chair Wanninger noted that this is the first application they've received in four years. He said the application will be addressed based on the current process in place. c. "Pace Car' Signage "Pace Car" signage is scheduled to be rolled out this spring. IX. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 6;50 p.m. and was followed by a workshop to discuss the Bike Plan. 3 MEMORANDUM CITY OF EDINA DATE: February 15, 2008 TO: ETC Members FROM: Jack Sullivan SUBJECT: February 21, 2007 ETC Meeting Overview ETC Members, As you can see by the size of your packet and the number of items on the agenda we have a VERY full night. We have some very big items that may take a little time to get thru. I would also like to get a head count of whether we'll have a quorum for the March meeting. At this time it does not look like we'll have the 4 voting members necessary. I think it would be advisable for the ETC to determine if a March meeting is even necessary. Providing we get thru all of our agenda items next week, there are no project applications for March. See you next week. If you have any questions please contact me at the contacts listed below. Jack D. Sullivan, PE Assistant City Engineer City of Edina Direct: 952.826.0445 Fax: 952.826.0389 jsullivan@ci.edina.mn.us