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