Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-04-16 Meeting PacketEdina Transportation Commission Roll-Call Sign-in Sheet April 16, 2009 Last Name First Name N Signature Bonneville Thomas Brown Steve -et 410 ' n Janovy Jennifer - Mooty Paul )-i-- .......29L:34.:---- Plante Warren /Lou,/ Calciivre-- Sierks Julie Usem Marc Wertfrirrgei White Jean Jean / '7 Workinger Geof 11 / , 4 AGENDA Regular Meeting of the Edina Transportation Commission 6:00 PM, Thursday, April 16, 2009 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Council Chambers I. Call to Order II. Comments a. Chair Comments b. Public Comments Ill. Approval of Minutes a. Regular Meeting of January 15, 2009 *+ IV. Old Business a. No Old Business - February and March Meetings were Cancelled V. New Business a. Voting for Chair/ Vice-Chair*+ b. Halifax Avenue NTMP*+ c. Attendance Policy Requirements *# VI. Planning Commission Update (Commissioner Brown) VII. Bike Edina Task Force Update (Commissioner Janovy) Bike meeting minutes (February & March 2009) VIII. Staff Comments a. Workshop with Council - May 19, 2009 5:30 pm# b. Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Resolution# 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. MEMORANDUM CITY OF EDINA DATE: April 10, 2009 TO: ETC Members FROM: Jack Sullivan SUBJECT: April 16, 200 TC Meeting We should have a short meeting this month as you can see from the attached agenda. After we adjourn the meeting we'll go into a work session in the community room for an Edina Transportation Commission "refresher" course and to discuss ideas for future meetings. I asked all ETC members to submit ideas for the future direction of the ETC to be discussed at the April 16, 2009 ETC. The following is a list of all the ideas that have been suggested. We'll be able to address these and any other thoughts on the 16th. 1. Discussion centering on ETC and its relationship to biking task force. 2. A short presentation on Robert's rules and meeting might be in order during the "refresher" part of the work session. 3. To identify traffic "hot spots" within the city 4. Potential solutions / brainstorm ways to solve 5. Meeting with City Council to review W. 70th St. corridor process and results to date. 6. Review of N.E. Traffic study and potentially benchmarking progress/improvements 7. Traffic training Learn how the controllers work on traffic signals and how the new smart sensors can be utilized in situations such as 70th Street. 8. Edina roadway capacity Study the various major roads in Edina for % of capacity used. Look at new alternatives for routing. Example: NB100 to EB 76th Street ramp improvement. Page 2 of 4 April 16, 2009 ETC Meeting Memo 9. Study Underutilization Determine where some important routes are not being used as much as they have capacity to handle and are disappointing to our resulting traffic flows. There are several streets and roads like this. 10. Oversize intersection safety Look at striping for controls of cars to keep them in proper lanes and for control of oversize intersections. Examples are 66th and France, Xerxes and 66th, 69th and France, 70th and Normandale, etc. 11. School Zones Should Edina enforce the State guidelines for School zones? Should we have a State expect come to us to give a talk on it? Let's be sure to test this on Cornelia School's vicinity. 12. Major Highways We have a dangerous merge of SB100-toEB494 that should be reviewed before we have a death or major injury in this location. Let's brainstorm this with the whole engineering department. 13. The ETC pursue a top down holistic approach to transportation planning, one with a citywide core issues focus, rather than a neighborhood centered problem solving approach. 14. The ETC consider and promote a sustainable transportation planning agenda, again starting with identifying desirable benchmarks for the city as a whole and then working down to the detail level. GAEngineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\Transportation Commission\Correspondance\2009 Corr120090416_ETC_memo.doc Page 3 of 4 April 16, 2009 ETC Meeting Memo 15. Evaluate and make recommendations to improve the decision-making process on large projects. Current process involvement: Engineering Department City consultant Outside consultant SAC Committee ETC Community input City Council 16. A speed zone study for all K-12 schools should be undertaken. 17. Determine ways in which the ETC can coordinate efforts with the Planning Commission on major projects. 18. An aggressive on-going campaign should be developed by the City that may help change drivers' behavior. 19. A clearer understanding of the costs and how larger projects will be funded. 20. City Council should provide some feedback on what direction they would like to have the ETC pursue, annually. 21. For planning purposes, the Engineering Department should provide a list of the five most important transportation issues to the ETC, annually. 22. Engineering time lines should be established for all major projects. 23. Evaluate and determine whether there is a need for the ETC. Keeping in mind the expertise and professionalism that exists in the Engineering Department. GAEngineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffiffransportation Commission\Correspondance\2009 Corr\20090416_ETC_memo.doc Page 4 of 4 April 16, 2009 ETC Meeting Memo 24. ETC should prepare and submit a report of accomplishments to the City Council, annually. 25. ETC should undertake a long range study regarding the parking issues in the business district of 501h & France. 26. Recommend the Engineering Department prepare an executive summary of the transportation section of the 2008 Edina Comprehensive Plan for the ETC which may assist them in developing plans for the future. 27. The ETC should continue to prioritize the larger projects as they have in the past. 28. Evaluate when roundabouts could be placed in the City which could reduce speed. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Jack D. Sullivan, PE Assistant City Engineer, City of Edina Phone: 952.826.0445 email: jsullivan@ci.edina.mn.us a \Engineering\Infrastructure\Streets\TrafficUransportation Commission\Correspondance\2009 Corr\20090416_ETC_memo.doc MINUTES OF THE Edina Transportation Commission Thursday, January 15, 2009 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Les Wanninger, Paul Mooty, Steve Brown, Geof Workinger, Tom Bonneville, Jennifer Janovy, Julie Sierks, Jean White, Marc Usem MEMBERS ABSENT: Warren Plante STAFF PRESENT: Wayne Houle, Jack Sullivan, Sharon Allison I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by chair Workinger. II. Comments a. Chairman Comments Chair Workinger explained that the sole purpose of the meeting was to consider the Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study Advisory Committee's recommendation to the ETC, and for the ETC to then formulate a recommendation to the Council. Chair Workinger thanked Commissioners Brown and Wanninger for organizing and leading the Study Advisory Committee for the past two years. He also thanked the ETC, residents in the study area and the City of Richfield for their participation. b. Public Comments - None III. Approval of Minutes a. Regular Meeting of November 20, 2008 Commissioner Wanninger made a motion to approve the minutes of November 20, 2008, with one correction. The second paragraph under Item V. Approval of Minutes, should say "Commissioner Wanninger said he recalls a communication from the City Manager that SAC minutes are to be formally approved." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bonneville. IV. Old Business No old business — December's meeting was cancelled. V. New Business a. Greater Cornelia Area/ West 70th Street Traffic Study Assistant City Engineer Sullivan explained that over the last two years, the Study Advisory Committee (SAC) for the Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study, met eight times and have formulated a recommendation for the ETC. Mr. Sullivan said the recommendation 7T71e 6q• consist of 11 components that will help to lower speed, reduce volume and increase safety along the corridor. The SAC's recommendation is as follow: 1. Removal of free right on north bound Hwy. 100 to east bound 70th Street. 2. Creation of a school speed zone around Cornelia Elementary School. 3. Installation of a "smart" signal system along the corridor; new traffic signal at West Shore Drive, pedestrian crossing at Wooddale Avenue and modifications to the existing signal at Cornelia Drive. 4. Parking to remain along corridor where applicable. 5. Left turn lanes at West Shore Drive, Wooddale Avenue and Cornelia Drive. 6. Install improved signage at the west end of the corridor to redirect motorists to use alternate routes to access locations further east. 7. Pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction to quiet roadway. 8. Enhance landscaping along the corridor. 9. Explore possibilities for offering turn-a-rounds on private property. 10. Study a roundabout to replace the "T" intersection of W. 70th Street and Valley View Road. 11. Further evaluation of roundabouts at the intersection of W. 70th Street and Hwy. 100. Mr. Sullivan explained the SAC's reason(s) for each of the recommendation as follow: 1. The intersection at Hwy. 100 and W. 70th Street is controlled by Mn/DOT and the free right allows uninterrupted flow of traffic to the east with negative impacts to residents entering and exiting their driveway, etc. 2. The speed zone would also be on some side streets, not just W. 70th Street. 3. This is probably the most complicated component. It would consist of both traffic signals being interconnected with a pedestrian activated crossing. 4. Alternative was to have bike lane. 5. These left turn lanes serve as safety bay as drivers wait to make their turn. A continuous left turn lane was discussed but did not materialize. 6. Signage for alternate routes for drivers leaving Hwy. 100 and heading east bound; placement of signage still to be determined. 7. Existing roadway is concrete and it would be reconstructed using bituminous asphalt. 8. Could include center islands, pedestrian lighting, etc. 9. Approximately 25 of the 48 properties directly on W. 70th Street have a turn-a-around driveway which allows them to access the street facing out. Explore the feasibility of providing turn-a-around to the other property owners. 10. & 11. Requires further study/evaluation to determine feasibility. Chair Workinger asked each commissioner, to comment on the above recommendation. Their comments are as follow: Commissioner Wanninger used a 'carrot' and 'sticks' approach to describe what happened with the NE Edina Traffic Study. He said an assumption was made that drivers wanted to take West 50th Street and France Avenue (carrot) but they used the neighborhood streets (sticks) because those streets were faster. The main recommendation was to improve traffic flow on West 50th Street and France Avenue and this was accepted; additionally, improvements were approved to prevent drivers from using the neighborhood streets (sticks). However, the sticks approach which would affect everyone, were eventually defeated by some residents, while the 2 :LE 0/6 carrot approach that gave positive incentive to do what you would like drivers to do were widely accepted. He said the current recommendation, items 1-9, which he described as calming is a carrot approach to make traffic behave the way it should while increasing travel time, going slower, etc. is a sticks approach. He said SAC member Shotwell, resident and Transportation Commission member for the City of Richfield, suggested a carrot approach to give people an incentive to use Crosstown instead of using West 70th St., (a route often used by drivers going to Richfield). He said this could be done by adding an extra lane on Hwy. 62 in both directions, between Hwy. 100 and Valley View Road. The extra lane on east bound Hwy. 62 would allow drivers to get to Valley View Road quickly and on to West 66th or West 69th, etc. to the business district, etc. The reverse would work for those leaving the business district and heading to Hwy. 100. He said this is a positive incentive for drivers and it does not impact the residents. Commissioner Wanninger proposed that staff, consultant and Mn/DOT study the feasibility of adding a lane on east bound and west bound Hwy 62, between Hwy. 100 and Valley View. He said this could become Item 10a in the recommendation. Commissioner Usem suggested adding background information on each of the 11 components so that Council can more completely understand them. He suggested using a chart that would list each component, elements each component is addressing and the expected outcome. He also recommended changing "study a roundabout" to "install a roundabout" in Item 10 to remove ambiguity. Commissioner Janovy said she is advocating for bike lanes. She recommended speed radar signs within the school zone that would flash "your speed is ....," and reduce the speed limit to 20-25 mph when school is in session. She said when school is out the speed limit would go back to 30 mph; or, if bike lanes are installed it would be 25 mph. Additionally, she expressed concerns with information in the document if they are voting on the recommendation as well as the document. Specifically, she said the paragraphs on the Origination/Destination (OD) study could be misunderstood based on the numbers. She said the OD study was done May 2007, but the paragraph referenced a count of 900 cars taken the year before to create a percentage of thru traffic or local traffic. Also, they were never told the number of cars stopped. She said actual numbers would be clearer. Commissioner Bonneville said he is in favor of Items 1-9 as recommended because they outline the more immediate actions that need to be taken, whereas the engineering studies would be 2009, with implementation in 2010. He said Items 10 and 11 are future phases that should be studied but voted on separately for implementation. Regarding Item 4, parking along the corridor, he suggested adding `no parking' close to intersections with left turn lane. Regarding Item 6, install improved signage, he said to think about going in both directions and that it could take a while to read the signs. Regarding Item 7, quieting of roadway, he said he is not comfortable with removing the asphalt because the road does not appear to be in bad condition. Regarding Item 8, landscaping, he said this should involve the Planning Commission and City Planner because they would be more equipped to have a landscaper draw up the plans and forward to Engineering for approval. Regarding, turn-a-rounds, he said the Planning Commission may also be involved because this would involve site planning issues and if 3 z4 2zz encouraging others to add turn-a-rounds, there should be standards set by the Planning Commission to prevent them from paving their entire front yards. Lastly, he said it is important to look at the Crosstown but the money to add additional lanes is huge and the lanes would create a problem when drivers drift over and then have to move back as they are getting close to the bridge, on both sides. Commissioner White said when Items 1-9 are implemented that local and regional drivers will notice the changes and change their driving behavior. She said she is for drivers having choices if they want to drive a calmer street instead of a freeway. She also said West 70tn Street should be made to feel welcoming, yet safe for the neighbors. She concurred with Commissioner Bonneville regarding a discussion on Crosstown. She said the improvements, with the exception of the reconstruction, does not appear to be too expensive. Commissioner Sierks said Items 1-9 will control the volume and speed on West 70th Street but questioned the impact on other traffic. She said changing Crosstown would help. Commissioner Brown had no comments. Commissioner Mooty said he likes the idea of having extra lanes on Crosstown but improvements to the bridge at France may be more important. With 19,000 vehicles expected in the future, he said West 70th Street will continue to be very busy but the recommended components will help to manage the traffic. He said the process was important, challenging and frustrating at times but everyone seems to be on board. He thanked Commissioners Brown and Wanninger for chairing the SAC. The following are comments from the open discussion: Discussion ensued about the roundabouts — studying versus installing them; or, adding extra lanes on Crosstown. The consensus was that the roundabouts could be more easily constructed given the fact that Crosstown would require multi-agency planning, and as noted by City Engineer Houle, a similar project on Hwy. 100 and Hwy. 394 took approximately 20-30 years from planning to completion. Mr. Houle also suggested that Mn/DOT would probably do more than just adding extra lanes on either side. Chair Workinger asked Mr. Houle if the Crosstown improvements should be kept as a possibility. Mr. Houle responded that they can keep it if they feel strongly about it. While it was noted that the roundabouts appear to be more feasible and would serve as a visual cue for entering a neighborhood, the Commissioners expressed uncertainty about the impacts they would have, level of support for roundabouts, as well as which of the two recommended roundabouts is more important. Studying/evaluating the roundabouts to determine benefits and consequences were suggested. It was noted that the Valley View Road and West 70th Street roundabout had strong support and therefore, the language should be strengthened to prioritize it. The discussion then focused on implementation of the recommended components. Commissioner Bonneville suggested implementing Items 1-9, then measuring the results and if problems are solved, there isn't a need for roundabouts. He said to be patient with the completion of the Crosstown improvements and measure the results again after the project is completed. He also suggested an off ramp on northbound Hwy. 100 and West 70th Street. 4 zrk".71-5-/c Phasing the improvements in three stages was suggested. Commissioner Wanninger said everyone agrees with doing Items 1-9 so this would be Phase I; Phase II would be measuring what happened as result of implementing Items 1-9 and current Crosstown project should be completed by then; and Phase III would be prioritizing and implementing Items 10-12. It should be noted that a consensus was reached to add the Crosstown lanes as Item 12. Consultant Cote said there are extensive data to use as a baseline for measurements. Chair Workinger asked the Commission to prioritize Items 10, 11 and 12 and to come up with a recommendation for these items. Commissioner Wanninger suggested adding a sentence to note that Items 10, 11 and 12 would be evaluated upon completion of Phase I, that all 3 would be studied at the same time, and that the status of the current roadway may need additional improvements. Commissioner Janovy, representing the Edina Bike Task Force, discussed bike lanes. She handed out a document titled "Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation, Lesson 15: Bicycle Lanes" (July 2006) that talks about retrofitting streets with bike lanes. She said West 70th Street is identified as a primary bike route in the Bike Plan, which is included in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, resident surveys showed majority support for Options 1 & 2 which both included bike lanes and 57% supported bike lanes in a separate question on the same survey. Additionally, 47% said parking should not remain on both sides, while 33% were unsure. She said further that the survey showed stronger support for parking on one side of the street — 48% to 34% and no agreement where parking should be. Commissioner Janovy said it is possible to do bike lanes, retain parking on one side and have the left turn lane. She said this would give the Council an opportunity to pass a resolution for 25 mph speed limit and it would be in conjunction with the school zone. Also, West 70th Street is being considered by Three Rivers Park District for an off-road trail. During the bike lane discussion that followed, City Engineer Houle said there is inconsistency on roadway widths for bike lanes. He said Mn/DOT is in favor of 10-ft lanes but State Aid will not approve a 10-ft lane. Commissioner Brown noted that residents directly on West 70th Street were very clear in not wanting encroachment on their yard or parking. He also noted that the surveys were sent to many residents not living on West 70th Street. Commissioner Janovy made a motion that it not be an either (parking) / or (bike lanes); that the recommendation be to retain parking, and acknowledging that they would also like bike lanes and for staff to determine feasibility of both. The motion failed for a lack of second. Commissioner Janovy made a motion to include permanent radar speed signs that tell drivers how fast they are going. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brown. All voted aye. Motion passed. Commissioner Plante, who was not attendance, asked that the commission consider increased enforcement on West 70th Street. Staff will invite the Police Department to a future meeting to talk about this issue. 5 j?Te jZE / Commissioner Bonneville made a motion that Items 1-9 be implemented as soon as possible, and that staff rewrites the items more clearly; furthermore, future Items 10 and 11 could be studied for potential implementation; and that Item 12 is studied because it is outside the parameter of the SAC. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wanninger. Commissioner Usem made a motion for a four phase implementation with the Valley View Road roundabout as phase 2 and Hwy. 100 & Crosstown as phase 3 or 4. Seconded by Commissioner Brown. Commissioner Janovy said while she supports everything she would not be voting favorably on the recommendation because bike lanes were not included. In a roll call vote, the following commissioners voted aye: Commissioners Mooty, Brown, White, Bonneville, Usem, Wanninger and chair Workinger. Commissioner Janovy voted nay. Commissioner Sierks was not present for the roll call. Motion passed. VI. Planning Commission Update (Commissioner Brown) None. VII. Bike Edina Task Force Update (Commissioner Janovy) None. VIII. Open Discussion Commissioner White announced that the Southwest LRT is meeting next Wednesday morning at St. Louis Park City Hall to discuss more alternative lines. Meeting adjourned. 6 Page 1 of 1 Jack Sullivan From: Gordon Hughes Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:18 PM To: Diana Hedges; Sherry Engelman; Heather Worthington; Joyce Repya; Susan Heiberg; John Keprios; Cary Teague; Jack Sullivan; Kris Aaker; Jackie Hoogenakker; Sharon Allison; Janet Canton; Jane Timm Cc: Deb Mangen Subject: Boards and Commissions Reminders A couple of reminders: • As part of your next meeting, please remind your members about the attendance ordinance. I have asked Deb to send a letter with the ordinance to all board and commission members. However, it would be a good idea for you to bring it up at your meeting. A commonly asked question is whether special meetings, including work sessions with the Council, count as a meeting for attendance purposes. The answer is yes. • According to Council policy, each board and commission must hold elections annually and the same individual may not hold the office of chair or vice chair for more than two consecutive years. If you have not done so already, please schedule elections. Thanks! Gordon L. Hughes City Manager City of Edina 952-826-0401 FAX 952-826-0390 www.CityofEdina.com 4/10/2009 1/0 April 13, 2009 City of Edina Halifax Avenue Residents Edina, Minnesota RE: Halifax Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Dear Resident: A petition was circulated in the fall of 2007 requesting the City begin a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) review for Halifax Avenue between 51st and 54th Street to address traffic volumes, vehicle speeds and safety of residents. The City had withheld taking action on this petition due to the pending installation of sidewalk along Halifax Avenue. Now that sidewalk along the east side of Halifax Avenue from 51st Street to 54th Street and along 52hd Street has been installed the City would like to gauge the interest of residents to continue moving forward with a NTMP. In order to proceed with a study and possible implementation of traffic management measures for your street the City requires a minimum of 51% of the attached petition forms returned with 65% of those returned indication agreement to study the identified issues and area. Please note, costs to perform the preliminary studies, data collection, possible temporary test installations and final installations will be assessed to the Benefited Area outlined in black on the attached graphic. Return the attached petition (not yet attached) form in the enclosed self addressed stamped envelope by May 1, 2009. Sincerely, Jack D. Sullivan Assistant City Engineer City Hall 952-927-8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX 952-826-0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424-1394 www.cityofedina.com TTY 952-826-0379 ADT 875 4-2000 33.0 mph Legend 11011 NW Existing Sidewalk ADT Average Daily Traffic 1,1 April 2009 I 4 LL) I 42U 5_ 064249 55002119 5501 0 552-3,- 5022 . ,....cv co co o o of 6029 in Ln 5036 , 5038 511 0 I . - .n a OSall-..a...,a1CMIL..-rna.n,•aaa..a.“aMaa ..7......,— .laaal•-aaa,.....-aaaa/aalaa......damilmilwolam.. 01.1 50TH ST. W. ,,___,.-........................a,-........-..---....---.......,.............................. ,.= -15 6 ,t- `a 6002 , 5003 5002 ' 5003 ---cr - i 1 E E I .,_.,..._1 o o II 9 1 1 004 5005 5004 5005 501 6 501 7 on 5007 5006 ' 5007 .1 5020 I] 006 5021 a a 4050 5009 5008 5009 5024 in I 3945 5011_ 5010 5011 6032 6025 5034 A SI i 5000 6001 5000 5001 ,c-. 1c1 6 N.1-4" 1 a b 3917-43 .--...,..— 50l0 _---. 501 3 , 501 2 '' 501 5 501 4 ' 5012 5016 5017. 5°1 5 501 3 501 5 501 7 501 g 5101 5103 5105 5107 5109 5111 511 .3.,..--- 5.1_15,..,.._,- 511 7 5036 5040 5044 51 00 51 04 6108 5112 511 6 51 20 51 24 5128 5026 5101 51 00 51 05 5104 51 09 5108 5113 5112 511 7 511 6 5121 5120 51 25 5124 51 29 5128 51 33 5132 5137 5136 AD T 13 34 1 ck 503 5029 5029' ..--7:-."Z7,:":".-4,___ 10-1996 5033 5032 ...., s... Ai_ ___ —__ - -..---- . -- _______ ADT 1272 5037 0,,C% 10-1997 501.Lr,. CI _ .--_ . _ n - ..--pmaa -a-- 5101 11 5101 _5c_1„ 01 51 01 - ADT 1133 . --- - -- ff , ; - - u u . ..-- .--.....--- u hi 05 51 04 51 05 . - 8-2007 51 05 6104 it 51 09 510P - -7---%51 30.6 mph Fil ----- - - 51 09 51R,11----, C. 'Ir:-..'..- '' ." ADT 1208 5113 51144a rd 5117 5116 511 7 511,6>E id 51 21 9 5112117 6511112 35-02.300m8p h --= n -- -5-51124- 51 25 51 21 ,5229: 111 51 25 2 . .— 5120 1 1 51 25 51 24'11 1n1 51 29 5121. 51 29 1 ---,--- i,c id 51 5133 5132 33 51 30 s- lolawaturd 3909 5112 511 4 __. 611 6 • =Daum Icc 5201 5200 n 5201 5200 5205 4207 4201 61-6-4—U 5205 5208 IA 5 5209 209 5212 V,c:. 5213 5217 5216 - 5217 5230 5221 - 5220 i 5221 5225 I 9) 5229 22-4- _ "i; 5225 5232- 5233 5241 5236 52TH ST. 1 CCMCOCGC=ECCINEIN 3915 FRAII CE AVE li UE 1 5232 5129 5128m u 51 37 1136 51 37 5132 -,---- H i a' SI 5301 5300 5305 5304 5311 5308 5319 531 2 5325 5316 5331 5320 5337 5324 5343 5328 5351 5357 5336 5229 JJ __ a 5233 - _ _ 5236 ac 5241 5240_2240 mancrlek5241 53-00 Effc m claw 5-3-61^:- 5301 - 5304 I ' 5309 5308 g 5309 -- 8 /DT -208787 531 3 531 2 :7 a. 531 3 531 7 30.4 mph ._ 531-61T-i g 5321 .5320 !;c< [I 5321 ADT 924 5333 — 5336 1.1 5337 5332 — fl 5333 5328 li.j5329 3909 5354 1 5354 5324 L4' t-1 5325 5330 5-2008 28.8 mph 54T1-1 ST. W. G:\Engineering\Contract Numbers12008 \ ENG 08-10 Halifax Sidewalk \ Halifax NTMP\20090413_Halifax NTMP_Petition_to_Study.doc 2 of 2 _-7j-lepk. v.10 '4g 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. Nei hborhood Traffic Mana ement 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 7//0 • No dead-end created without adequate turn around on public roadway right- of-way roadway. 4. Not-Critical Emergency Route: • To be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Chief. All four eligibility requirements must be met for scoring and consideration. SCORING FOR RANKING The following criteria defines the scoring for ranking that is used to prioritize a requested NTMP study application as described in Step 2 of the NTMP process: 1. Sidewalk adjacent to the benefited area (0 to100 points): • None + 100 • All of 1 side + 50 • All of 2 sides + 0 2. Public school yard, play lot, playground development adjacent to benefited area (0 to 200 points): • None + 0 • All of 1 side + 100 • All of 2 sides + 200 3. Residential development adjacent to benefited area (0 to 100 points): • None + 0 • All of 1 side + 50 • All of 2 sides + 100 4. Number of reported correctable crashes based on last 5 years of available data (0 to 200 points): • 20 per crash; maximum of 200 points 5. Average residential density adjacent to benefited area (0 to 50 points): • 50 points maximum • (0 dwelling units per adjacent 100 lin. ft. = 0 points • 5+ dwelling units per adjacent 100 lin. ft. = 50 points) 6. Average Daily Traffic Volumes - ADT (0 to 200 points): City of Edina Transportation Policy 14 April 2005 840 • ADT divided by 10; maximum 200 points • For intersection, street segments or multiple streets, use higher volume street 7. Percent over speed limit - ADT (0 to 200 points): • Percent over speed limit times 2.5 (times 100); maximum 200 points (80% over limit) • For intersection, street segments or multiple streets, use street with higher speeds Scoring is based on the criteria pertaining to the Benefited Area. Correctable crashes are determined by the Engineering Department. REMOVAL OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES/MEASURES The City of Edina's Traffic Calming program is intended to avoid the costly installation and later costly removal of traffic calming devices and measures. On occasion, however, it may be determined to be desirable to terminate the NTMP.. If the removal is City initiated due to safety/crash issues, the removal will be at City expense. If the removal is at the request of the Benefited Area, the removal will be charged to the property owners in the defined Benefited Area. The following procedure will be used for removals initiated by the Benefited Area: 1. Petition requesting removal is submitted to the City Traffic Engineer. 2. A survey, including estimated cost for removal and data collected previously for the NTMP, is mailed to each property owner in the Benefited Area. 3. Surveys are summarized 30 days after mailing. Staff makes recommendation to the ETC. 4. ETC forwards a recommendation to the Council. If the recommendation is for removal, improvement and assessment hearings are scheduled by the Council with notice to the Benefited Area. 5. Final approval of plans by Council. Set bid schedule. 6. Letting, final assessment and construction. 7. A new NTMP will not be considered for five years following the removal of a NTMP in the Benefited Area. City of Edina Transportation Policy 15 April 2005 '140 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES/MEASURES — CITY OF EDINA APPROVED OPTIONS This section lists traffic management devices and measures that are approved for use in the City of Edina. Appendix B contains a detailed description and overview of each item. Speed Reduction Traffic Calming Measures: • Speed Hump • Speed Table • Raised Crosswalk • Raised Intersection • Textured Pavements • Center Island Narrowings • Gateway Treatments • Neckdovvns • Choker • Chicane • Realigned Intersections • Traffic Circle • Roundabout Volume Reduction Traffic Calming Measures: • Diagonal Road Closure • Partial Street Closure • Cul-de-sac • Median Barriers • Forced Turn Islands Education and Enforcement: • Targeted Police Enforcement • Radar Speed Display Units * Neighborhood Traffic Safety Campaigns Regulatory Measures: • Stop Sign • Turn Restrictions • One Way Streets • Traffic Signals ("Rest on Red" and "Rest on Green") • Pavement Striping (Centerline, Edge and Transverse) City of Edina Transportation Policy 16 April 2005 BENEFITED AREA (ASSESSED AREA) This section generally defines the Benefited Area of the traffic management devices and measures for use in determining the assessment area. The following prescribes the typical Benefited Area, but may be adjusted by the ETC on a project-by-project basis. Speed Hump, Speed Table, Raised Intersection, Raised Crosswalk, Textured Pavement, Center Island Narrowings, Neckdowns, Gateway Treatments, Choker, Chicane, Traffic Circle: • Benefited Area extends 300 feet from the device along the street affected by the device, or to the nearest stop sign or traffic signal, whichever is less. Diagonal Road Closure, Round-a-bout: • Benefited Area extends to the next intersection on each leg of the intersection. Partial Street Closure, Realigned Intersection, Forced Turn Island, Median Barrier: • Benefited Area extends to the next intersection on the leg of the intersection partially closed, realigned or restricted. Cul-De-Sac: • Benefited Area extends from the point of closure to the next intersection on the leg that is closed. City of Edina Transportation Policy 17 April 2005 _71:4-e1A. v,10 14g 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. Nei hborhood Traffic Manaciement 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 Y/, 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 7//0 • No dead-end created without adequate turn around on public roadway right- of-way roadway. 4. Not-Critical Emergency Route: • To be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Chief. All four eligibility requirements must be met for scoring and consideration. SCORING FOR RANKING The following criteria defines the scoring for ranking that is used to prioritize a requested NTMP study application as described in Step 2 of the NTMP process: 1. Sidewalk adjacent to the benefited area (0 to100 points): • None + 100 • All of 1 side + 50 • All of 2 sides + 0 2. Public school yard, play lot, playground development adjacent to benefited area (0 to 200 points): • None + 0 • All of 1 side + 100 • All of 2 sides + 200 3. Residential development adjacent to benefited area (0 to 100 points): • None + 0 • All of 1 side + 50 • All of 2 sides + 100 4. Number of reported correctable crashes based on last 5 years of available data (0 to 200 points): • 20 per crash; maximum of 200 points 5. Average residential density adjacent to benefited area (0 to 50 points): • 50 points maximum • (0 dwelling units per adjacent 100 un. ft. = 0 points • 5+ dwelling units per adjacent 100 un. ft. = 50 points) 6. Average Daily Traffic Volumes - ADT (0 to 200 points): City of Edina Transportation Policy 14 April 2005 8/16 • ADT divided by 10; maximum 200 points • For intersection, street segments or multiple streets, use higher volume street 7. Percent over speed limit - ADT (0 to 200 points): • Percent over speed limit times 2.5 (times 100); maximum 200 points (80% over limit) • For intersection, street segments or multiple streets, use street with higher speeds Scoring is based on the criteria pertaining to the Benefited Area. Correctable crashes are determined by the Engineering Department. REMOVAL OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES/MEASURES The City of Edina's Traffic Calming program is intended to avoid the costly installation and later costly removal of traffic calming devices and measures. On occasion, however, it may be determined to be desirable to terminate the NTMP.. If the removal is City initiated due to safety/crash issues, the removal will be at City expense. If the removal is at the request of the Benefited Area, the removal will be charged to the property owners in the defined Benefited Area. The following procedure will be used for removals initiated by the Benefited Area: 1. Petition requesting removal is submitted to the City Traffic Engineer. 2. A survey, including estimated cost for removal and data collected previously for the NTMP, is mailed to each property owner in the Benefited Area. 3. Surveys are summarized 30 days after mailing. Staff makes recommendation to the ETC. 4. ETC forwards a recommendation to the Council. If the recommendation is for removal, improvement and assessment hearings are scheduled by the Council with notice to the Benefited Area. 5. Final approval of plans by Council. Set bid schedule. 6. Letting, final assessment and construction. 7. A new NTMP will not be considered for five years following the removal of a NTMP in the Benefited Area. City of Edina Transportation Policy 15 April 2005 I0 ?/ TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES/MEASURES — CITY OF EDINA APPROVED OPTIONS This section lists traffic management devices and measures that are approved for use in the City of Edina. Appendix B contains a detailed description and overview of each item. Speed Reduction Traffic Calming Measures: • Speed Hump • Speed Table • Raised Crosswalk • Raised Intersection • Textured Pavements • Center Island Narrowings • Gateway Treatments • Neckdowns • Choker • Chicane • Realigned Intersections • Traffic Circle • Roundabout Volume Reduction Traffic Calming Measures: • Diagonal Road Closure • Partial Street Closure • Cul-de-sac • Median Barriers • Forced Turn Islands Education and Enforcement: • Targeted Police Enforcement • Radar Speed Display Units * Neighborhood Traffic Safety Campaigns Regulatory Measures: • Stop Sign • Turn Restrictions • One Way Streets • Traffic Signals ("Rest on Red" and "Rest on Green") • Pavement Striping (Centerline, Edge and Transverse) City of Edina Transportation Policy 16 April 2005 BENEFITED AREA (ASSESSED AREA) This section generally defines the Benefited Area of the traffic management devices and measures for use in determining the assessment area. The following prescribes the typical Benefited Area, but may be adjusted by the ETC on a project-by-project basis. Speed Hump, Speed Table, Raised Intersection, Raised Crosswalk, Textured Pavement, Center Island Narrowings, Neckdowns, Gateway Treatments, Choker, Chicane, Traffic Circle: • Benefited Area extends 300 feet from the device along the street affected by the device, or to the nearest stop sign or traffic signal, whichever is less. Diagonal Road Closure, Round-a-bout: • Benefited Area extends to the next intersection on each leg of the intersection. Partial Street Closure, Realigned Intersection, Forced Turn Island, Median Barrier: • Benefited Area extends to the next intersection on the leg of the intersection partially closed, realigned or restricted. Cul-De-Sac: • Benefited Area extends from the point of closure to the next intersection on the leg that is closed. City of Edina Transportation Policy 17 April 2005 ?I0 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES/MEASURES — CITY OF EDINA APPROVED OPTIONS This section lists traffic management devices and measures that are approved for use in the City of Edina. Appendix B contains a detailed description and overview of each item. Speed Reduction Traffic Calming Measures: • Speed Hump • Speed Table • Raised Crosswalk • Raised Intersection • Textured Pavements • Center Island Narrowings • Gateway Treatments • Neckdowns • Choker • Chicane • Realigned Intersections • Traffic Circle • Roundabout Volume Reduction Traffic Calming Measures: • Diagonal Road Closure • Partial Street Closure • Cul-de-sac • Median Barriers • Forced Turn Islands Education and Enforcement: • Targeted Police Enforcement • Radar Speed Display Units -• Neighborhood Traffic Safety Campaigns Regulatory Measures: • Stop Sign • Turn Restrictions • One Way Streets • Traffic Signals ("Rest on Red" and "Rest on Green") • Pavement Striping (Centerline, Edge and Transverse) City of Edina Transportation Policy 16 April 2005 BENEFITED AREA (ASSESSED AREA) This section generally defines the Benefited Area of the traffic management devices and measures for use in determining the assessment area. The following prescribes the typical Benefited Area, but may be adjusted by the ETC on a project-by-project basis. Speed Hump, Speed Table, Raised Intersection, Raised Crosswalk, Textured Pavement, Center Island Narrowings, Neckdowns, Gateway Treatments, Choker, Chicane, Traffic Circle: • Benefited Area extends 300 feet from the device along the street affected by the device, or to the nearest stop sign or traffic signal, whichever is less. Diagonal Road Closure, Round-a-bout: • Benefited Area extends to the next intersection on each leg of the intersection. Partial Street Closure, Realigned Intersection, Forced Turn Island, Median Barrier: • Benefited Area extends to the next intersection on the leg of the intersection partially closed, realigned or restricted. Cul-De-Sac: • Benefited Area extends from the point of closure to the next intersection on the leg that is closed. City of Edina Transportation Policy 17 April 2005 I0 ?/ TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES/MEASURES — CITY OF EDINA APPROVED OPTIONS This section lists traffic management devices and measures that are approved for use in the City of Edina. Appendix B contains a detailed description and overview of each item. Speed Reduction Traffic Calming Measures: • Speed Hump • Speed Table • Raised Crosswalk • Raised Intersection • Textured Pavements • Center Island Narrowings • Gateway Treatments • Neckdowns • Choker • Chicane • Realigned Intersections • Traffic Circle • Roundabout Volume Reduction Traffic Calming Measures: • Diagonal Road Closure • Partial Street Closure • Cul-de-sac • Median Barriers • Forced Turn Islands Education and Enforcement: • Targeted Police Enforcement • Radar Speed Display Units • Neighborhood Traffic Safety Campaigns Regulatory Measures: • Stop Sign • Turn Restrictions • One Way Streets -• Traffic Signals ("Rest on Red" and "Rest on Green") • Pavement Striping (Centerline, Edge and Transverse) City of Edina Transportation Policy 16 April 2005 BENEFITED AREA (ASSESSED AREA) This section generally defines the Benefited Area of the traffic management devices and measures for use in determining the assessment area. The following prescribes the typical Benefited Area, but may be adjusted by the ETC on a project-by-project basis. Speed Hump, Speed Table, Raised Intersection, Raised Crosswalk, Textured Pavement, Center Island Narrowings, Neckdowns, Gateway Treatments, Choker, Chicane, Traffic Circle: • Benefited Area extends 300 feet from the device along the street affected by the device, or to the nearest stop sign or traffic signal, whichever is less. Diagonal Road Closure, Round-a-bout: • Benefited Area extends to the next intersection on each leg of the intersection. Partial Street Closure, Realigned Intersection, Forced Turn Island, Median Barrier: • Benefited Area extends to the next intersection on the leg of the intersection partially closed, realigned or restricted. Cul-De-Sac: • Benefited Area extends from the point of closure to the next intersection on the leg that is closed. City of Edina Transportation Policy 17 April 2005 city of Edina - City Code Page 1 of CITY CODE Section 180 - Removal of Members of Boards, Commissions and Committees 180.01 Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to provide for the removal from office of those members of various governmental boards, commissions and committees who have repeated absence from the regularly scheduled meetings of the board, commission or committee of which they are member. 180.02 Removal. Any member of a board, commission or committee established by the City Code who fails to attend three consecutive meetings, whether regular or special, or who fails to attend at least 75% of the scheduled meetings in any calendar year, whether regular or special, shall be deemed to have resigned as a member of the board, commission or committee. The requirement of this subsection shall not apply to attendance at meetings of committees or subcommittees established by a board, commission or committee. 180.03 Vacancies. Any member of a board, commission or committee who has been removed pursuant to Subsection 180.02 shall be replaced by the appointment of a new member who shall serve for the remainder of the term of the member removed. The appointment shall be made in the same manner as original appointments to the board, commission or committee are made. 180.04 Exceptions. The removal provisions of Subsection 180.02 shall not apply to members of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Edina, the Edina Foundation, the East Edina Housing Foundation or the Council. History: Ord 162 adopted 4-4-74; amended by Ord 162-Al 3-6-75, Ord 162- A2 5-16-90; Ord 2007-21, 01-02-08 http://wwvv.ci.edina.mn.us/CityCode/L5-01_CityCodeS ectO 1 8 0.htm 4/10/7 ttendance Requirements for Boards and Commissions City of Edina 2009 7-4 _ Vsc def neL, MIONIMMEMINIMMOIMI For attendance purposes, meetings are defined as: - Regular Monthly Board or Commission meetings - Special meetings called by the board or commission (Le. project meetings, public open houses, public hearings) - Joint meetings with the City Council .1e1/"L lice Re Jirements Commissioners and Board members must attend 75% of all meetings in any calendar year Cannot fail to attend three consecutive meetings whether regular or special Does not apply to attendance at meetings of committees or subcommittees established by the board or commission provided that the committee or subcommittee comprises less than the quorum of the board or commission xceptc, Provisions related to attendance do not apply to members of the: Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Edina The Edina Community Foundation The East Edina Housing Foundation City Council Bike Edina Task Force Meeting Notes February 12,2009 The Bike Edina Task Force (BETF) Meets monthly on the 2" Thursday of each month at 8 p.m. in the Mayor's Conference Room at Edina City Hall. For questions contact Kirk Johnson, Chair. • Online source: Source link here (http://tcstreetsforpeople.org/node/638) • Present: Dwaine Lindberg, Abby Nesbitt, Kirk Johnson, Donald Eyberg, Jennifer Janovy, Roger Sweet • Guests: David Henry, Carl Gulbronson • Absent: Sally Dunn, Richard Griffith, Joseph Hulbert, Carl Follstad, Alice Hulbert, Sarah Jakobsen, Kraig Jakobsen, Larry Olson, Todd Brewer • Recorded by: Abby Nesbitt and Kirk Johnson • Distribution: BETF, guests, City Manager, City Engineer, and City Council. Also, Jennifer Janovy (BETF and Edina Transportation Member) to forward to the Edina Transportation Commission. 1) Reviewed meeting minutes from last time to cover follow-ups (Kirk Johnson, group) a. League of American Bicyclists application (Kirk Johnson) - still in progress. b. No other follow-up items being addressed 2) Comments on upcoming March 3rd City Council meeting with BETF: Gordon Hughes informs ""The Council periodically meets with boards/commissions and other groups just to check in and chat. That's what this meeting is about. I believe the Council will be interested in your work and if there is any specific direction that BETF needs from the Council." Our outcomes: a. Agreed to prepare for the meeting by organizing some talking points b. Roles / BETF organization as a City group has opportunity for further clarification c. Discuss what a complete streets policy might mean for Edina d. Communications e. (Other items to be identified) Alice Hulbert was volunteered to organize this talking point list with BETF prior to the meeting. 3) Update from Kirk Johnson on St. Cloud CERTs 2009: Harnessing Resources & Teamwork for Minnesota's Energy Future case study. Bike Edina Task Force was used as a case vir study. Online source is at: http://www.tcstreetsforoeoDle.orq/node/633 . Matthew Lang delivered it, reporting: "The presentation yesterday went really well. There were about 30 people in attendance, mostly from city governments. The presentation generated a lot of questions and everyone got a CDG firm profile and I encouraged them to contact the BETF to learn more about how implementation details are going if interested. Thank you again for putting the time into updating the proposal and for inviting us to present with you." 4) Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) update: Jennifer Janovy covered discussion highlights of the West 70th Street bike lanes with the ETC at the previous meeting. Bike lanes were not included in the recommendation at this time. BETF discussion focused on how bike lanes can calm traffic (gives possibility of having a 25 mph zone), how West 70th Street is in fact useful for Safe Routes to Schools, how it is helpful for bike commuters, and wide interest (more than half) for the West 70th area residents surveyed support bike lines. BETF to encourage interested parties to voice desires (see #6 below). Also, parking bays may prove to be a good solution given limited use of parking in the current situation. 5) Grant Application Preparation (Dwaine Lindberg) a. Wayne Houle distributed 4 copies Preliminary Bike Boulevard Study to Dwaine Lindberg last night. The document includes bike lanes on Wooddale and Share the Road signs on Valley View. The study/application involves 54th Street from Zenith to Wooddale, also Wooddale to Valley View, and Valley View to 70th. There is no digital version of this document available at this time. b. This document is in part a result of discussions with Steve Clark from Transit for Livable Communities (administers $25MM Oberstar money), and Edina has an opportunity to receive some funding if our application would be well received. Feedback from Transit for Livable communities encourages clear connections to Minneapolis and making bicycling safe. c. Cost of the project may be in the $200K to $266 depending on features d. Wayne Houle needs feedback by Friday, February 13. e. Dwaine Lindberg prepared a response memo that includes bike lanes on both sides of Valley View as recommended on p. 54 of the City of Edina Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan. Rationale include important primary bike route, connections to Southdale area, Edina Aquatic Center, and other key destinations and bike lanes have been proven to encourage bicycling. Discussion at the meeting supports Dwaine's memo. BETF members fully support the feedback response: Dwaine will submit to Wayne for consideration. 6) The West 70th public hearing is during the Council regular meeting on Feb. 17. a. BETF will send a letter to the Council re: bike lanes on 70t1) (Kirk Johnson/Jennifer Janovy) b. Good to encourage attendance for support, particularly for non-BETF people to provide public commentary c. Some topics can be covered: i. Need for connectivity to the Promenade and how beneficial lanes will be to connect to that system. ii. Connectivity to other areas being planned (important arterial) iii. Edina Comprehensive Plan includes bike lanes on West 70th via the City of Edina Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan 1. Page 21: West 70th an important biking route 2. Page 47: West 70tth Ideal for bike lanes 3. Page 56: West 70th specifically recommended for bike lanes as part of short/long term improvements iv. Connections to the Southdale area was the most requested route- and 70th is far more appropriate then 66th. v. We will need to address why 66th is not a desirable route, and why the decrease in parking on 70th is an acceptable compromise in gaining safe access for cyclists. vi. Slowing traffic vii. Residents in the West 70th area support bike lanes according to surveys viii. Safe Routes to Schools ix. Strategic vision — what kind of active living community and quality of life would we like to be building for the next 20 years? x. Volunteer to create talking points cards for attendees 7) Upcoming Three Rivers Park District public forum: Flyer to be sent separately (Kirk Johnson). Also note comment from John Keprios: "In my view, it would be helpful to have BETF to have a manned booth with name tags on in support of this proposal. That decision is actually up to Three Rivers Park District and I will respect whatever they prefer." BETF was interested in following-up on this. Kirk mentioned it was similar to what BETF did at all the quadrant meetings. Kirk Johnson to follow-up with Jonathan Vlaming and coordinate with John Keprios and BETF. BETF Priorities Created November 19, 2008, Updated December 15 4) l.) "g o Urgency Priority Lead (All BETF involved in Staff Contact (Work with this person closely to ensure effective Comments / Work Group Category :24 various communications) 4 ways) H H Nine Mile Alice Hulbert John Keprios P. 61 in Bike Plan. Joseph Infrastructure Creek Hulbert also in work group. H H CP Rail Line Todd Brewer John Keprios P. 58 in Bike Plan (Added December 15th: Roger Sweet volunteered to assist Todd) Infrastructure H H Safe Routes to Schools Larry Olson Steve Bristor Application due November 21st, City Manager/Meeting November 19th• Abby Nesbitt has been working with Larry Olson. Promotion / Infrastructure H L Bicycle Friendly Application Kirk Johnson Gordon Hughes League of American Bicyclists. Sally Dunn helped to initiate the application. Promotion / Education H H Phase 1 Project Dwaine Lindberg Wayne Houle TLC grant opportunity being reviewed November 2008 Infrastructure M L Safety Video Carl Follstad Jennifer Bennerotte Public safety, features Edina locations, for public service & YouTube Promotion / Education M L AboutTown Article Carl Follstad Jennifer Bennerotte Quarterly publication Promotion / Education M M Sun Current Series Carl Follstad Jennifer Bennerotte Work through list of topics. Promotion / Education M L Police Education Kirk Johnson Mike Siitari P. 78 in Bike Plan. Project not yet started. Education L M Sun Current Editorial Carl Follstad Jennifer Bennerotte Article drafted and submitted Promotion / Education Questions or corrections? Contact Kirk Johnson. Bike Edina Task Force Meeting Notes March 12, 2009 The Bike Edina Task Force (BETF) Meets monthly on the 2nd Thursday of each month at 8 p.m. in the Mayor's Conference Room at Edina City Hall. For questions contact Kirk Johnson, Chair. • Online source: Source link here (http://tcstreetsforpeople.org/node/665) • Present: Alice Hulbert, Carl Follstad, Dwaine Lindberg, Kirk Johnson, Kraig Jakobsen, Richard Griffith, Sally Dunn, Sarah Jakobsen, Todd Brewer, Dwaine Lindberg • Guests: Steve May, Alex Dirr • Absent: Abby Nesbitt, Donald Eyberg, Jennifer Janovy, Larry Olson, Roger Sweet, Joseph Hulbert • Recorded by: Kirk Johnson • Distribution: BETF, guests, City Manager, City Engineer, and City Council. Also, Jack Sullivan to forward to the Edina Transportation Commission. Meeting Notes 1) Edina: World's Largest Bicycle Parade a) Steve May presented highlights of the World's Largest Bicycle Parade. b) This is Sunday, May 17th. Greg LeMond will be leading the event! c) Reference: www.edinabikeparade.com. d) Ways BETF can help: i) Recruit riders. ii) Volunteer -- there are several committees (contact Steve May or Annie Kennedy). iii) Sponsor. iv) Lead/present bike safety activities & etc.; discussion included: (I) Passing out bike safety wallet cards. (2) Safe routes to schools -- large poster board for routes. (3) Safety checks & others (Todd Brewer referenced 2007 Bike Rodeo which included bike safety check from Penn Cycle, helmet fitting from Edina Bike & Sport, and bikes from Hoigaard's). (4) Facebook entry: Alex Dirr agreed to create one and send to Steve May 2) Bike Rodeo 2009 a) Catherine Elliott interested again to assist -- she was a leader for the 2007 Edina Bike Rodeo; Kirk Johnson sent Todd Brewer her email address. b) Safety Camp -- Alice Hulbert mentioned that this is a popular activity and may have some connections. c) Todd to contact Steve Bristor -- Todd Brewer to contact Steve. His email address is: "Bristor, Steven J" <stebristor@edina.k12.mn.us>. 3) March 3rd outcome (City Council) a) Very positive information exchange session; focused on major projects (including Q&A regarding Nine Mile Creek, Phase I project, and status). b) City Council would like BETF to continue in its current status; noted that BETF has developed its own identify and niche. c) Noted that if there are any areas that present obstacles or challenges that BETF can bring that to the attention of City Council especially if recommendations/suggestions provided. Kirk Johnson continues to meet with Gordon Hughes (BETF Liaison) and City Engineering/Parks approximately monthly; this is a good forum to present any such topics initially (currently, there are no significant issues). d) BETF has been very active with many important priorities (these are included at end of notes) and these should continue in the same approach/communications as in the past. 4) West 70th Street a) Council's recommendation was bike lanes and parking on one side. b) Kirk Johnson posted rough diagram of existing no-parking signage and response to Star Tribune article as a reference. c) Watch for upcoming City Council agenda. 5) Bike to Walk Week a) Edina City sponsorships (Todd Brewer to follow-up) b) Reference site is: www.bikewalkweek.org c) Participants include Minneapolis, first-tier suburbs, Blue Cross Blue Shield, local businesses d) Kirk Johnson to lead a convoy from 50th & France area (Lund' s/Starbucks area) 6) Three Rivers Park District City Hall Open House (Nine Mile Creek) a) BETF information table allowed many constructive interactions because we supplied info on crime statistics, background on BETF, and supplied copies of the FAQ b) Carl Follstad to prepare message for those that signed in wanting more information c) Reference site is at Three Rivers Park District for Nine Mile. d) Some photos from Dwaine Lindberg and Kirk Johnson e) Alice Hulbert (BETF lead) noted to stay tuned for next events. 7) TLC grant status -- "Phase 1" a) Transit for Livable Communities approved project of $250,000 b) Dwaine Lindberg (BETF lead) covered highlights. c) Focus will be on Valley View Road underpass beneath Crosstown, other items in scope too d) Planning underway e) Dwaine Lindberg commented on bike traffic counts and may present some ideas for continuing this at the next meeting. 8) Upcoming Community Rides a) Alice Hulbert commented that it is good to continue events like we had last fall ("Ride with the Mayor") b) May 30th is a Community Bike Ride to Midtown Greenway (Kirk Johnson is leading); see Edina Community Education catalog for May 30th ride details c) At April meeting, we'll talk about June events d) Note that Edina Bike & Sport would like to have regular ride events 9) Priority Items a) We covered applicable highlights in the notes above b) No new process notes 10) Next Meetings a) Next BETF meeting: April 9th (Thursday, 8 p.m.) b) BETF Liaison Meeting: March 23rd (Tom Hedberg from Hedberg maps will be joining us during the first 20 minutes for map opportunity); 4 p.m. City Hall; covering other topics too BETF Priorities Created November 19, 2008, Updated March 16, 2009 8 "g o ei 05 Urgency Priority Lead (All BETF involved in various ways) Staff Contact (Work with this person closely to ensure effective communications) Comments ments / Work Category H H Nine Mile Creek Alice Hulbert John Keprios P. 61 in Bike Plan. Joseph Hulbert also in work group. Infrastructure H H CP Rail Line Todd Brewer John Keprios P. 58 in Bike Plan (Added December 15th: Roger Sweet volunteered to assist Todd) Infrastructure H H Safe Routes to Schools Larry Olson Steve Bristor To be determined in 2009 Promotion / Infrastructure H L Bicycle Friendly Application Kirk Johnson Gordon Hughes League of American Bicyclists. Sally Dunn helped to initiate the application. Promotion / Education H H Phase 1 Project Dwaine Lindberg Wayne Houle Grant received March 2009 Infrastructure M L Safety Video Carl Follstad Jennifer Bennerotte Public safety, features Edina locations, for public service & YouTube Promotion / Education M L AboutTown Article Carl Follstad Jennifer Bennerotte Quarterly publication Promotion / Education M M Sun Current Series Carl Follstad Jennifer Bennerotte Work through list of topics. Promotion / Education M L Police Education Kirk Johnson Mike Siitari P. 78 in Bike Plan. Project not yet started. Education L M Sun Current Editorial Carl Follstad Jennifer Bennerotte Article drafted and submitted Promotion / Education Questions or corrections? Contact Kirk Johnson. MEMORANDUM CITY OF EDINA 1/1 DATE: March 20, 2009 (Modified 4/10/09) TO: ETC Members FROM: Jack Sullivan SUBJECT: May 19, 2009 Workshop of the City Council and ETC The Edina City Council is extending an invitation to the Edina Transportation Commission to participate in a council workshop on May 19, 2009. The workshop will start at 5:30 pm and run up to the council meeting at 7 pm in the Community Room. This workshop will be a great opportunity for the ETC to share some of the future direction ideas generated from the April 16th ETC meeting. It will also give us an idea of the material Council would like the commission to focus on. Please keep in mind, according to the current attendance policy requirement, this is considered a regular meeting and attendance will be taken. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Jack D. Sullivan, PE Assistant City Engineer, City of Edina Phone: 952.826.0445 email: jsullivan@ci.edina.mn.us Dated: March 17, 2009 ATTEST Debra A. Mangen, ity C rk James B. Hovland, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 2009-34 VIIIA ADOPTING THE GREATER CORNELIA AREA/WEST 70TH STREET TRAFFIC STUDY REPORT AS PRESENTED City of Edina WHEREAS, the final report of the Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic Study was presented to the Edina City Council on February 17, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Study Advisory Committee and Transportation Commission explained the steps necessary to address the high volume and speed on West 70th Street; and WHEREAS, the following plan components are adopted: Phase I • Removal of free right on northbound Highway 100 to east bound West 70th Street; • Creation of a school speed zone around Cornelia Elementary School; • Construct bike lanes on both sides of West 70th Street and parking on the north side of the roadway; endeavoring to preserve the existing curb to curb width to the maximum extent possible; • Exclusive left-turn lanes at West Shore Drive, Wooddale Avenue and Cornelia Drive; • Pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction to lower noise of the roadway; • Explore possibilities for offering driveway turn-around on private property; • Enhance landscaping along the corridor; • Install improved signage directing through traffic to use routes other than West 70th Street; • Promote additional lane geometrics on Highway 62 between Highway 100 and France Avenue (or beyond); • Proper planning for future redesign of West 77th Street corridor; Phase ll • Installation of a "smart" signal system along the corridor; including a new traffic signal at West Shore Drive, pedestrian activated crossing at Wooddale Avenue and modifications to the existing traffic signal at Cornelia Drive; with the intent that all costs would be funded by Municipal State Aid; • Evaluate roundabout at the "T" intersection of West 70th Street and Valley View Road; Phase III • Further evaltiation of roundabouts at the intersection of West 70th Street and Trunk Highway 100; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Edina adopts the Greater Cornelia Area/West 70th Street Traffic modified recommendation and authorizes staff to do the required reports and feasibility reports for further City Council consideration to implement these recommendations. City Hall 952-927-8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX 952-826-0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424-1394 www.cityofedina.com TTY 952-826-0379 „Li-V ,/L6 • RESOLUTION NO. 2009-34 Page Two STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of March 17, 2009, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. 1/14 WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this I ( day of (dA. , 2t09. it Clerk