HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-18 Meeting Packet AGENDA
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
COMMUNITY ROOM
September 18, 2014
6:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting of August 21, 2014
V. COMMUNITY COMMENT
During “Community Comment,” the Transportation Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues
or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of
speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on
tonight’s agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair
or Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Commission might refer the
matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting.
VI. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Draft Sidewalk Facilities Plan
B. 2015 Valley View Road Reconstruction Draft Engineering Report
C. 2015 Work Plan Approval
D. Ordinance Discussion: Bicycling in Municipal Parking Facilities
E. Traffic Safety Committee Report of August 13, 2014
F. Walk Edina Working Group
G. Updates
i. Student Member
ii. Bike Edina Working Group – Minutes of August 14, 2014
iii. Living Streets Working Group
iv. Communications Committee
Agenda / Edina Transportation Commission
September 18, 2014
Page 2
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS
IX. STAFF COMMENTS
A. Project Updates
X. ADJOURNMENT
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way
of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in
advance of the meeting.
SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS/DATES/EVENTS
Thursday September 18 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday October 23 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Thursday November 20 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday December 18 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday January 15 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Thursday February 19 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday March 19 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday April 16 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS
G:\Engineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\TRANSP COMM\Agendas & RR's\2014 Agendas\20140918 Agenda.docx
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
To: Edina Transportation Commission
From: Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Date: September 18, 2014
Subject: Walk Edina Working Group
Agenda Item #: VI. F.
Action
Discussion
Information 0
Action Requested:
Approve the Walk Edina Working Group and appoint the chair and members from the ETC.
Information / Background:
Please recall at the ETC's August 21, 2014 meeting Commissioner Boettge requested that the ETC consider
forming a Walk Edina Working Group, whose focus would be to advance pedestrian mobility in Edina.
Commissioner Boettge has prepared the following proposal for the ETC to consider.
Walk Edina Working Group
Mission:
The mission of Walk Edina is to advance pedestrian mobility in Edina, by advocating for a complete
pedestrian transportation network that serves pedestrians of all ages and abilities, safely, comfortably,
and conveniently; serving as a voice and resource for city staff and elected officials, school district, and
the community on pedestrian-related issues; furthering public awareness and acceptance of walking as a
fun, safe, convenient, healthy and sustainable mode of transportation and form of recreation, year
around; and working collaboratively with other organizations to advance our vision for a progressive
pedestrian-friendly community where everyone can integrate walking into their daily lives.
Suggested member composition:
• 1-4 ETC members
• 1 member from other boards and commissions
• Up to 7 other members (hopefully a diverse group of residents and/or people who work in Edina,
including both a senior member and student member)
• Minimum number of members: 3
City of Edina • 480 I W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
REPORT! RECOMMENDATION
Page 2
Working group chair: Emily Boettge
Working group term: Standing
Recommendation: Vote to establish the Walk Edina working group as described above. Appoint the chair
and members from the ETC.
Process:
See ETC bylaws (Section 7: Committees and Working Groups, below) for process re: public notice and
selection/appointment of non-ETC members.
Transportation Commission Bylaws, Section 7: Committees and Working Groups
Introduction
Committees or Working Groups may be established by a majority vote of the Edina Transportation
Commission to study issues in greater depth and report findings. Committees or Working Groups
present their analysis to the Edina Transportation Commission for discussion and recommendations.
The Edina Transportation Commission has the sole authority to make final recommendations on all
matters on which a Committee or Working Group has given guidance. The Edina Transportation
Commission defines the scope and the duration of the Committee or Working Group's mission. In no
case may the Committee or Working Group exceed the authority granted by the Edina
Transportation Commission.
Committee and Working Group participants may not include enough voting Edina Transportation
Commission members to constitute a quorum for the Edina Transportation Commission.
Committees or Working Groups may be designated as standing (ongoing) or temporary in nature.
Definitions
Committees and Working Groups may be comprised of two or more people, one of whom is the
Chair appointed by the Edina Transportation Commission. A Committee is comprised of current
Edina Transportation Commission members only. A Working Group is led by an Edina Transportation
Commission member, but will also include members of the public.
Working Group Announcement
Public notice will be given of the formation of any Working Group, including a press release from the
City to local media outlets. Individuals will have a minimum of 14 days after the public notice to
express interest in joining before members are selected.
Public Access
Based on the potential public interest in the topic, some Committee and Working Group meetings
may be designated as public meetings by the Edina Transportation Commission or the City Council. If
a Committee or Working Group's meetings are designated as public meetings, official meeting
notices, written agendas and written minutes are required. Refer to Section 4 of these bylaws for
additional information on meeting notices.
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
Page 3
Appointments and Chair Assignments
Committees: The Edina Transportation Commission Chairperson will ask for Committee volunteers
from the Edina Transportation Commission membership. A majority vote may approve the
Committee appointments once sufficient volunteers are established. A temporary Committee Chair
will be appointed by the Transportation Commission at the time of Committee formation. The
Committee will elect its own Chair and notify the Edina Transportation Commission Chairperson.
Working Groups: The Edina Transportation Commission Chairperson will ask for volunteers from the
Edina Transportation Commission to serve as the Working Group Chair. The Working Group Chair is
approved by a majority of the Edina Transportation Commission members. The Working Group Chair
will recommend other Working Group members. By definition, those members will include
individuals outside of the Edina Transportation Commission. The Chair may also nominate a co-chair
who is not an Edina Transportation Commission member. Working Group appointments will be
made by a majority vote of Edina Transportation Commission members.
The duties of the Committee or Working Group Chair(s) include but are not limited to:
• Set the meeting schedule and, if required, notify the City Staff Liaison for public notification.
• Prepare and distribute a written meeting agenda, if required.
• Lead the meeting in accordance with the agenda and facilitate discussion on agenda items.
• Ensure that this section of the bylaws and Edina Transportation Commission directives are
followed.
• Maintain meeting decorum.
• Recommend members and notify Edina Transportation Commission of changes in
membership (Working Group only).
• Report on the Committee or Working Group's activities at each regular Edina Transportation
Commission meeting.
• Communicate to the Committee or Working Group any directives, questions or input from
the Edina Transportation Commission.
Resignation or Removal
A Committee or Working Group member may voluntarily resign by submitting his or her written
resignation to the Chair of the Committee or Working Group. A Committee or Working Group
member may be removed by a majority vote of the Edina Transportation Commission.
Disbanding
A Committee or Working Group may be disbanded at any regular meeting of the Edina
Transportation Commission by a majority vote of the members. Committees or Working Groups will
automatically be disbanded if no member of the Edina Transportation Commission is available to
serve or appropriate volunteer membership cannot be established.
Walk Edina Working Group Chair would:
• Coordinate with staff re: distributing public notice and soliciting members from the Planning
Commission, Park Board, Community Health Commission, and Human Rights & Relations
Commission
• Work with ETC Walk Edina members to define initial focus areas, priorities
G: \ Engineering \ Infrastructure \Streets \ Traffic \TRANSP COMM \ Agendas & RR's \ 2014 R&R\ 20140918\ Item VI.F. Walk Edina Working Group.docx
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
To: Edina Transportation Commission
From: Mark Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Date: September 18, 2014
Subject: Traffic Safety Committee Report of August 13, 2014
Agenda Item #: VI. E.
Action
Discussion 0
Information El
Action Requested:
Review and recommend Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) Report of Wednesday August 13, 2014, be
forwarded to City Council for approval.
Information / Background:
It is anticipated that residents may be in attendance at the meeting regarding some of the attached issues
(i.e. stop sign requests). An overview of the comments from the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC)
will be included in the staff report provided to Council for their October 21, 2014 meeting.
Attachments:
Traffic Safety Committee Report for August 13, 2014.
G:\ Engineering \ Infrastructure \Streets \Traffic \Traffic Safety Committee \Staff Review Summaries\ 14 TSAC & Min \08-13-14 Cover.docx
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Map : Gleason Rd. and Scotia
Photo : Sightlines from the stop of Scotia
Traffic Safety Preview
Wednesday, August 13th
The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on August 13. The City
Engineer, Public Works Director, Police Traffic Supervisor, Transportation Planner, Sign Coordinator, a
representative from the Planning Department and Traffic Safety Coordinator were in attendance for this
meeting.
From these reviews, the recommendations below are provided. On each of the items, persons have
been contacted and staff recommendation has been discussed with them. They were informed that if
they disagree with the recommendation or have additional facts to present, they can do so at the
September 18 Edina Transportation Commission meeting and/or the October 21 City Council meeting.
Section A : Requests on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends approval
Al. Request for enforcement of 3-way stop sign on Gleason Road and Scotia Drive
Requestor states that stop signs on
Gleason Rd are being ignored. Site
investigations showed that this
location was at the bottom of a steep
(8.75% grade) hill, and is controlled
by an all-way stop. In a video study
of the intersection on July 8th, from
10:19 AM to 1:48 PM (250 vehicles),
traffic traveling south on Gleason ran
the stop sign at a rate of 22%, while
full and complete stops were
performed at a rate of 15 percent.
Gleason has 2,451 vehicles daily (from
a state-aid count), while Scotia has
200 daily vehicles. No accidents
relating to traffic control were
reported in the last five years.
For comparison, research has shown
that 3% to 17% of drivers have come
to full and complete stops at stop
signs when not forced to do so by
conflicting traffic, and 20% of drivers
can be expected to run an
unwarranted stop sign.
After review, staff recommends approval of this request. Police have already been stationed
at this intersection and will continue to conduct operations at this location.
Page 1 of 13
;.; oto. 77 c:oo Pc..(;,:c”.vo
Map : Bus stops at W. 77th Street and Parklawn Avenue
A2. Request to remove "No Pedestrian" pictorial signs from the intersection of W. 77th Street and
Parklawn Avenue, and to install pedestrian signals
This request concerns the bus stops on 77th Street and Parklawn Avenue and the pedestrian
environment of the intersection. Currently there are near side bus stops, and signs banning
pedestrians from crossing the north,
south and east legs. The concern is
that a law-abiding user of transit
would be unable to use the bus stops,
due to the ban on pedestrian
movements. Specifically the south
and west legs were requested to have
their signs removed and pedestrian
signals installed. The Minnesota
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices, section 2B.51, addressing
such signs states in the support
section that the sign is intended to be
used on only one leg of an intersection,
in order to provide access.
The estimated cost of adding the
crosswalk to the north leg of the
intersection is $12,432. The maximum
two hour volumes on each leg were
determined by video study on June 10th
with six crossings on the north leg.
Former studies of the intersection
indicated that the no right on red
should remain (at least on the
southbound approach) due to the dual
right turn lanes, and little benefit from the restriction's removal. According to a WSB report
done earlier this year, with no change the level of service of the intersection will remain the
same, and delay will only rise by a few seconds per vehicle. Mitigation any effect of adding
crosswalks should be possible using the mitigation outlined by WSB.
After review, staff recommends a request for proposals be submitted for a crosswalk on the
north leg of the intersection, to provide access. Staff also recommends that the no right on red
restriction remain in place.
Page 2 of 13
A3. Request for stop signs to be placed at Sunnyslope Road and Dale Drive
Requestor asks for stop signs at this
intersection, noting that it is currently
uncontrolled, and dangerous. Counts
were conducted on the streets as they
approach the intersection, with Dale Dr
having 120 ADT with an 85th percentile
speed of 19.3 mph, and Sunnyslope Rd
having 208 ADT with an 85th percentile
speed of 26.2 mph. Traffic eastbound
on Dale and northbound on Sunnyslope
cannot see each other adequately
according to AASHTO's (American
Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials) 2004
Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets, due to a hill on the southeast
corner of the intersection. No accidents
have been recorded at this intersection in
the past five years. Stop sign warrants are
provided in Appendix A.
After review staff recommends placing a
stop sign for Dale Drive at the
intersection of Sunnyslope Road, due to
sightline constraints.
Photo : Sunnyslope Rd and Dale Dr sight obstruction, 115
feet from conflict point
Page 3 of 13
Photo : Browndale Bridge, looking Southeast
Map : Browndale Bridge
A4. Request for striping on the Browndale Bridge
Requestor states that the Browndale
Bridge is very busy, narrow and its lack
of striping makes for a dangerous
situation for vehicles. Requestor asks
for a painted centerline matching the
markings on the north-east side of the
bridge (double yellow). The bridge's
road surface is 21.5 feet with 17.5 feet
outside of gutter pans. Adding a
double yellow centerline would utilize
one foot of the bridge's width. Due to
recent work renovating the bridge and
lack of shoulder to place a counter,
counts were taken on the northeast
bridge approach and speeds were
found with a radar study. While the
presence of a vehicle on the approach
may have led drivers out of their
lanes, those whose speeds exceeded
22 mph on the bridge failed to stay on
their side of the centerline when
leaving the bridge deck and turning
into the Country Club neighborhood.
3,571 cars use the bridge on an
average weekday, and the 85th
percentile speed on the bridge was
measured as 22 mph. According to
MnDOT and the MUTCD, roadways of
more than 20 feet in width and 4000
vehicles per day should be striped,
whereas those with less than 16 feet in width cay be striped but drivers' possible inability to stay
in their lanes must be considered, additionally a bridge with more than 18 feet of width, but
narrower than the approaching travel lanes should employ the use of narrow bridge signs (Page
2C-17). No accidents have been reported on the bridge in the last five years.
After review, staff recommends that the bridge not be striped, due to a narrowing effect and
mixed results on the safety of striping narrow roadways. However, staff recommends that
narrow bridge warning signs be placed on the approaches to the bridge.
Page 4 of 13
Map : Brookview Ave. and W. 55th St.
Section B: Requests on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends denial
B1. Request for all-way stop signs on Brookside Avenue and W. 44th Street (possible removal of
stop signs at the intersection of
Division Street and Brookside
Avenue)
Requestor states that the intersection
delay is very high at 44th St and
Brookside Ave for those on 44th,
where there is a one way stop. The
requestor also noted that Division St
has an all way stop with Brookside,
while it is a more minor street than
44th . Counts were taken and are
shown on the diagram in Appendix B.
A delay study of 44th was done during
the peak hours and maximum delay (5
minute average) was 37.5 seconds-
per-vehicle, total delay over the
morning peak was 0.475 hours for 325
vehicles and over the evening peak
was 1.08 hours for 456 vehicles. No
crashes at the intersection have been
reported in the last five years.
Application of an All-Way stop is
detailed in Appendix A.
After review staff recommends
denial of this request, due to lack of
warrants.
Photo : Brookside at 44th, looking south (towards Division)
Map : Brookside Ave. Division St. and W. 44th St.
B2. Request for stops signs at W 55th
Street and Brookview Avenue
This request was made to the Edina
Transportation Commission and has
been updated to include non-
motorized users at the intersection.
Requestor feels that there is a lot of
cut through traffic on Brookview Ave
that is driving too fast, that the
current yield signs on W 55th St. do
not reach the desired level of safety,
and that hills in the area lead to
Page 5 of 13
Photo : W55' St. and Brookview Ave looking north.
Map : Count of Lincoln Drive
even more dangerous driving. There are no sidewalks at this location.
A 2010 traffic study was done on this
intersection, and similar speeds and
counts to previous studies show that
the area is not experiencing large
changes in traffic conditions. West
55th Street has an 85th percentile
vehicle speed of 14.6 mph.
Brookview has an 85th-percentile
vehicle speed of 23.7 mph. Due to
requestor concerns that previous
requests had not included the
children of the area on bicycles,
scooters and walking, a video study
of the intersection was done. The
video study showed that and average
of 306.5 users per day of the
intersection approached on 55th
(including 74.5 pedestrians and 73.5 bicycles), while 418.5 users per day approached on
Brookview (including 78.5 pedestrians and 53 bicycles). There is one reported accident at this
location.
Requestor has made similar requests three times in the past five years, all have either been
denied or modified (yield signs placed in 2010 to assign right of way). Warrants for stop signs are
in Appendix A.
After review staff recommends denial of this request based on lack of warrants. This decision
took into account motorized traffic as well as bicycles and pedestrians.
B3. Request for traffic calming on local
roads due to 169 construction
Multiple requestors have asked for
traffic calming due to traffic being
detoured from 169 accesses and to
other accesses on local streets. Lincoln
Drive's ADT went from 3,826 with an
8,-th percentile speed of 37.4 mph
(2013 MSA count), to an ADT of 5,289
and an 85th percentile speed of 39.3
mph. Other recent requests have
mentioned McCauley Trail, as this is
part of an official MnDOT detour for
169.
Enforcement is already being done on
several of these unofficial or minor
detour routes. Staff recommends denial of any physical traffic calming at these areas.
Page 6 of 13
Map : Pamela Park, south access drive
Photo : Pamela Park south access drive, looking north
Photo : Monterey Ave, midblock, looking north
B4. Request for traffic calming (speed bumps prefered) on the Pamela Park South Access Drive
Requestor states that traffic accessing
the park is going at high speeds and
wishes for traffic calming, along the
south access drive of the park. Counts
were taken early in the year (end of
April) and in midsummer to account
for differences in the park's demand.
The spring counts had 137 weekday
ADT, with an 85th percentile speed of
24.9 mph, 88 Saturday ADT, with an
85th percentile speed of 25.6 mph, and
103 Sunday ADT, with an 85th percentile speed of 24.7 mph. Summer counts had 161 weekday
ADT, with an 85th percentile speed of
24.5 mph, 138 Saturday ADT, with an
85th percentile speed of 24.5 and 154
Sunday ADT with an 85th percentile
speed of 24.1 mph. The access drive is
very narrow at 18.5 feet in width, no
accidents have been reported on the
access drive in the past five years.
After review, staff recommends denial of this request, based on low speeds and the
planned future construction of a sidewalk/pedestrian trail on the east side of the access drive.
B5. Request for enforcement, speed bumps
and "Your Speed Is ..." signs on
Monterey Avenue
Requestor states that people often
speed up and down the hills on Lynn
Ave and Monterey Ave and asks for
placement of speed bumps, further
enforcement, and the dynamic speed
signs on Monterey Ave. Requestor has
already been informed that the city
does not install speed bumps. Counts
were taken on Monterey Ave, with a weekday ADT of 150 vehicles and an 85th percentile speed
of 25.2 mph. Neither street has a reported accident in the past five years. There is a significant
hill on Monterey Ave (8.75% grade), the condition of the roadway and curves in the roadway,
prevented counts nearer to the hill.
Page 7 of 13
Map : 50' and France, parking possibilities
Photo : Mozza Mia patio in bus bay
After review, staff recommends denial
of this request, based on the low
speeds in the area.
Mop : Monterey and Lynn Avenues, star at count location
B6. Request for 15-minute parking in the front of bus bays in the 50th and France area
This request comes from the 50th and
France business association. Noting
the Mozza Mia patio in the front of a
bus bay on 50th St• west of France
Ave. the business association has
asked for a 15-minute parking /
loading zone to be added to the front
of the two remaining stalls along 50th
in the area. Metro Transit field
operations has indicated their
preference not to place the stall in
the bays, as drivers often do not
recognize that there is only one stall.
However, if a stall is to be placed,
Metro Transit does request it be in
the rear of the bus bays. Metro
Transit's concerns involve curbing
their buses, overuse of the parking,
and winter use of the bays.
After review, staff recommends
denial of this request, based heavily
on the advice of Metro Transit, and
traffic flow issues that might stem from any abuses of the request.
Page 8 of 13
Mao: W 51st St. and William Ave
Photo : W. 51st St and William Ave
Map : Sunnyslope Neighborhood, accesses to W 50th St.
marked with circles, count locations with stars
B7. Request for traffic control at W 515t Street and William Avenue
Requestors note that this intersection is
uncontrolled and has become a cut
through for traffic from Interlachen Blvd
to Vernon Rd, avoiding congestion at
the intersection of those two streets.
The surrounding area is uncontrolled,
one reported accident has occurred in
the last five years at this location.
Counts were taken at this location, with
51st St having 120 ADT and 85th
percentile speeds of 15.8 mph, on
Saturday 16.3 mph was the 85th
percentile speed. On William, ADT was
139 and the 85th percentile speed was
24.5 mph. Due to parking near and
possibly on the counting equipment,
these counts have a higher margin of
error than is typically associated with
counts
After review staff recommends denial
of this request due to lack of warrants.
B8. Request for traffic calming measures in
the Sunnyslope Neighborhood
Requestor notes high speeds in the
Sunnyslope Neighborhood and asks for
traffic calming in the area. Counts were
taken for the stop sign requests, seen
below, and resulted in 85th percentile
speeds of 19.3 mph, 26.2 mph and 20.0
mph. Requestor also notes a recent,
horrific accident of a young driver with
a neighbor's dog, however there are no
recorded accidents in this
neighborhood in the last five years.
After review, staff recommends denial
of this request based on the low
speeds observed in the neighborhood.
Page 9 of 13
Map : Ridge PI and Woodhill Way
Photo : Ridge PI and Woodhill Way
B9. Request for stop signs to be placed at Ridge Place and Woodhill Way
Requestor asks for stop signs at this
intersection, noting that it is currently
uncontrolled, and dangerous. The
surrounding area is uncontrolled,
counts were conducted on the streets
as they approach the intersection, with
Ridge having an ADT of 273 and an 85th
percentile speed of 20.0 mph.
Repeated counter failure on Woodhill
Way does not allow for a full picture of
the intersection, however in site visits,
it became apparent that Woodhill is the
minor street at this intersection, with
most traffic turning to or from Ridge.
During site visits multiple residents
voiced their opposition to adding stop
signs to this intersection. There have
been no accidents at this location
recorded in the last five years.
After review, staff recommends denial
of this request, based on lack of
warrants.
Page 10 of 13
Map : Mominqside Community Church
At —
Photo : Morningside, looking east, towards Grimes
Section C: Requests on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends for further study
Cl. Request for signing handicapped parking by the church's elevator/ accessible entrance
This request comes from the Edina
Morningside Church, asking for
parking spaces near the accessible
entrance of the church to be marked
as handicapped only parking. The
requested area is along Morningside
Road. Typically two parishioners drive
themselves, or are escorted up to the
church, for services, which leads the
requestor to ask for two spaces be
reserved for parking and another to
be used as a drop off zone. Currently
this area is signed as no parking, for
150 feet from the corner of
Morningside and Grimes Avenue,
which is all-way stop controlled.
After review, staff recommends that
more measurements be taken to be
sure of available space for legal
parking between the intersection
and the curb's taper.
SECTION D: Other traffic safety issues handled
Dl. Request for a speed study on South Knoll Drive, at View Lane, speeds and counts were
recorded and speed study results were forwarded to EPD.
D2. Request for a handicapped parking/transfer zone at 6426 Xerxes for a woman living in a
duplex who is elderly and uses Metro Mobility, referred requestor to Hennepin County
which controls signage on Xerxes.
D3. Request to bar trucks from using Blossom Court as a turnaround for trucks from a tear-
down-rebuild project happening on Skyline Drive. Left requestor message referring her
to the City's Residential Redevelopment Coordinator.
D4. Requestor asks for construction equipment on Tamarac to be kept clear of a walking
path used by residents. This request was referred to the project's engineering
technician.
Page 11 of 13
Appendix A: Stop Sign Warrants (MNMUTCD)
When it is determined that a full stop is always required on an approach to an intersection a
STOP (R1-1) sign shall be used....
At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should first be
given to using less restrictive measures such as YIELD signs.
The use of STOP signs on the minor-street approaches should be considered if engineering
judgment indicates that a stop is always required because of one or more of the following conditions:
A. The vehicular traffic volumes on the through street or highway exceed 6,000 vehicles
per day;
B. A restricted view exists that requires road users to stop in order to adequately observe
conflicting traffic on the through street or highway.
C. Crash records indicate that three or more crashes that are susceptible to correction with
the installation of a STOP sign have been reported within a 12-month period, or that five
or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. Such crashes include
right-angle collisions involving road users from the minor street failing to yield the right-
of-way to traffic on the through street or highway.
Additional warrants from the city of Edina list that:
1. If an intersection experiences five (5) or more right angle accidents in a three (3) year period, stop
signs should be considered.
2. If the presence of a sight obstruction is contributing to accidents at an intersection, removal of the
sight obstruction should be sought before considering a stop sign.
3. If the 85th percentile speed on any leg of an intersection is more than five (5) MPH over the posted
speed limit, a stop sign should be considered for the intersecting street.
4. If traffic volumes exceed 1,000 vehicles per day on each of the intersecting streets, stop signs should
be considered.
5. Residential stop signs shall not be installed in an attempt to control speed.
6. Residential stop signs shall not be installed in an attempt to control volume.
Applicable multi-directional stop control warrant:
Minimum volumes
a. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches 300
vehicles per day for eight total hours of an average day; and
b. The combined vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle volume entering the intersection on the
minor street approaches averages at least 200 units per hour for the same eight hours,
with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle
during the highest hour.
Consideration should also be given to controlling turns, pedestrian conflicts, and sight-
distances for stopped vehicles.
Page 12 of 13
° r. 41,5
Appendix B: Brookside and Division/44th
:.. :, Project Name Improvement No
Contralt No
-....* Computations For Shoot of
By_ __._ _ Date
ri
eti
1 far
x:v I
..._ 4
1 t I _.._____t _
91.. n A
RA:18wir r-is.
L__ I
iviciov%
615 ADT,
Eg JL 9
0A.
LA
.,nn ••••••n •nnnn •==t
643/01?
Page 13 of 13
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
1888
To: Edina Transportation Commission
From: Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Date: September 18, 2014
Subject: Ordinance Discussion: Bicycling in Municipal Parking Facilities
Action Requested:
No action requested
Agenda Item #: VI. D.
Action El
Discussion
Information
Information / Background:
At a recent ETC meeting, Commissioner Janovy requested that the Commission discuss the current City
Code which restricts the operation of Bicycles in City-owned parking facilities. The following is from the
Edina Code of Ordinances, Chapter 24, Article VIII, Division 5:
Sec. 24-399. Operation of certain devices prohibited.
No person shall use a skateboard, roller skates, in-line roller skates or blades, bicycles, scooters or
similar devices on or within any municipal parking facility
In light of the recently-approved ordinance allowing the operation of bicycles (with exceptions) on City
sidewalks (Ordinance No. 2014-09, attached), the ETC will discuss the use of bicycles on or within municipal
parking facilities and make recommendations, if necessary.
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 2014-09 Amending Chapters 24 and 26 of the Edina City Code Concerning Operation of
Bicycles on Sidewalks
G:\ Engineering \Infrastructure\Streets \Traffic \ TRANSP COMM\ Agendas & RR's \2014 R&R \20140918\ Item VI.D. Bicycling in Parking Facilities.docx
Li- _
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Page 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. 2014-09
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 24 and 26 OF THE EDINA CITY CODE
CONCERNING OPERATION OF BICYCLES ON SIDEWALKS
THE CITY OF EDINA ORDAINS:
Section I. Section 26-6( c ) of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-6. General Rules for Drivers
(c) Driving or parking on sidewalk. No motor vehicle shall be parked or driven on or along a
sidewalk.
Section 2. Section 24-255 ( 7 ) of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 24-255. Additional restrictions for parks and publicly owned properties
(7) Drive or park a motor vehicle on any area not designated for parking or travel.
Section 3. The Caption of Chapter 26 Article 10 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as
follows:
Article X. Bicycles
Section 4. Chapter 26 Article 10 of the Edina City Code is amended by adding Section 26- 283 to read
as follows:
Sec. 26-283. Rules for operating bicycles on public sidewalks
A person may operate a bicycle on a public sidewalk, including in a business district, subject to
the following requirements in addition to those found in state statute. A bicyclist shall:
Ride at a speed no greater than Is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, and in
no event at a speed greater than 10 miles per hour.
Slow to a walking pace when pedestrians are present.
Slow to a walking pace upon approach to and when crossing a driveway or intersection;
enter driveway or intersection only when clear of traffic.
Not ride on sidewalks where the entrance or exit of a building abuts the sidewalk.
Not ride on sidewalks where posted.
Section 4. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
First Reading: June 3, 2014
Second Reading: Waived
Published: June 12, 2014
Attest
Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor
https://newords.municode.com/APPortal.axd?rt—c&dk=00055EB851RD2EUKBD3CCR8A... 9/9/2014
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
,e(
To: Edina Transportation Commission
From: Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Date: September 18, 2014
Subject: 2015 Work Plan Update
Agenda Item #: VI. C.
Action 121
Discussion
Information 0
Action Requested:
Recommend attached 2015 ETC Work Plan to be forwarded to the City Council for approval.
Information / Background:
Attached is the 2015 ETC Work Plan. All comments received to date have been included in the work plan.
G:\ Engineering \ Infrastructure \ Streets \ Traffic \ TRANSP COMM \Agendas & RR's\ 2014 R&R \ 20140918 \Item VI.C. 2015 Work Plan.docx
City of Edina • 4801 W. 506 St. • Edina, MN 55424
EDINA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
2015 Annual Work Plan
2015 New Initiative
Review and recommend modifications to roadway
reconstruction project survey content and
methodology
Target Completion
Date
May 2015
Budget
Required
No
Staff Support Required Council
Approval
Yes
Progress Report:
2015 New Initiative
Review and recommend modifications to Traffic
Safety Request process
Target Completion
Date
Budget
Required
Staff Support Required Council
Approval
August 2015 Yes
Progress Report:
2015 New Initiative Target Completion
Date
Budget
Re. uired
Staff Support Required Council
A. 'royal
Greater Southdale Area Transportation and
Circulator Study implementation
October 2015 Yes - $100,000-
$150,000 TIF
funds
Yes
Progress Report:
2015 New Initiative Target Completion
Date
Budget
Re uired
Staff Support Required Council
Approval
Study access to and from Southwest LRT stations in
St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Eden
Prairie
December 2015 No Yes
Progress Report:
Ongoing Responsibilities
Living Streets Policy/Plan:
Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan — continue to look at opportunities for funding.
Sidewalk Plan — prioritize sidewalk (PACS Fund) projects annually
Way-finding Signage for bikeways and pedestrians
Review/revise City Code for Plan implementation
Meet with Police Department and Public Works annually to discuss shared interests.
Education and outreach activities around pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist safety
Review transportation projects in the proposed Capital Improvement Program
Review Public Works street mill and overlays and seal coat projects as to opportunities for remarking for bicycle facilities
Valley View Rd between Gleason Rd and Antrim Rd — work with School District to address traffic issues.
Review transportation items in the Comprehensive Plan and make recommendations for study/implementation
Other Work Plan Ideas Considered for Current Year or Future Years
Proposed Month for Joint Work Session:
Staff Comments:
Council Comments:
GAEngineering\Infrastructure \Streets \Traffic \TRANSP COMM \ Workpla n\2015 20140918 2015 ETC Work Plan.docx
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
To: Edina Transportation Commission
From: Chad A. Millner, PE, Director of Engineering
Date: September 18, 20 14
Subject: 2015 Valley View Road Reconstruction Draft Engineering Report
Agenda Item #: VI. B.
Action El
Discussion
Information
Action Requested:
Review and comment on the 2015 Valley View Road Reconstruction Draft Engineering Report.
Information / Background:
Please recall that our consultant presented the Valley View Road Reconstruction project to the ETC at their
August 2 1 meeting. The consultant has prepared the attached draft engineering report for the project. We
are asking the ETC to review and comment on this report.
Attachments:
Draft Engineering Report: Valley View Road (MSAS 151) — McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive
G:\ Engineering\ Infrostructure\Streets \ Traffic \TRANSP COMM\ Agendas & RR's\2014 R&R \20140918 \ Item VI.B. Valley View Rd Draft Engineering Report.docx
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Engineering Report – BA 377
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDINA
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Valley View Road (MSAS 151) – McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive
September 10, 2014
SUMMARY: The project involves a complete reconstruction of the existing street. The
project will include; concrete sidewalks, curb and gutter, lighting, on-street
bike lanes, upgraded storm sewer system, roundabout at Valley View Road
and Braemar Boulevard, replacement of water services from water main to
curb stops, upgrades to fire hydrants, retaining walls and reconstruction of
bituminous pavement. A state aid variance will be needed for the horizontal
curve on Valley View Road at Comanche Court. Staff plans to apply for the
variance at the December Variance Committee meeting.
It is anticipated improvements will be made to an existing drainage issue that
exists at Sally Lane and Paiute Pass (See Appendix A, STS-406). Staff is
currently analyzing options. A state aid variance will be needed for the
horizontal curve at
The estimated total project cost is $2,720,000. Funding for the project will be a
combination of State Aid funds, special assessments, and utility funds. The
estimated roadway construction cost is $1,280,000 and will be paid for by a
combination of Municipal State Aid funds (80%) and special assessment (20%). The
rate per REU is $8,443.27. Utility improvements and repairs amount to $1,240,000
and will be funded through the respective utility fund.
The project can be completed during the 2015 construction season. Staff believes
the project is necessary, cost effective and feasible to improve the infrastructure as
initiated by the vision of Edina’s Vision 20/20 – “Livable Environment” and “A Sound
Public Infrastructure”.
DRAFT
Preliminary Engineering Report
VALLEY VIEW ROAD – MCCAULEY TRAIL to MARK TERRACE DRIVE
Page 2 of 19
LOCATION: The project is located along Valley View Road from McCauley Trail to Mark
Terrace Drive as shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Project Location Map
Valley View Road consists of the following roadway characteristics:
Classified as a Collector
Posted Speed Limit – 30 mph
Bituminous Pavement, no curb and gutter
Width = 28’-30’
ADT = 2,550 vehicles per day
Length = 2,650’ (0.50 miles)
Preliminary Engineering Report
VALLEY VIEW ROAD – MCCAULEY TRAIL to MARK TERRACE DRIVE
Page 3 of 19
INITIATION & ISSUES: The Valley View Road project was initiated by the Engineering Department as
part of the City’s street reconstruction program and identified in the Capital
Improvement Program. This project addresses updating aging infrastructure
issues associated with the pavement condition, storm water, sanitary sewer,
and watermain systems.
All Engineering projects are reviewed for compatibility with the City of Edina
2008 Comprehensive Plan Update, Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation
Plan, and the Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan.
City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
Sidewalk Facilities
Chapter 7 of the plan addresses locations of proposed sidewalk facilities and
funding options within the City. As shown in Figure 7.10 of Appendix B, there
is not an existing sidewalk on Valley View Road. The plan shows a
proposed state aid sidewalk along Valley View Road.
Bicycle Facilities
Chapter 7 of the plan addresses locations of proposed bicycle facilities within
the City as part of the Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan. As
shown in Figure 7.11 of Appendix B, Valley View Road is designated as a
primary bike route.
Living Streets Policy and Sustainability Evaluation
The vision statement of the Living Streets Policy expresses the need to look
at projects differently in the future:
Living Streets balance the needs of motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and
transit riders in ways that promote safety and convenience, enhance
community identity, create economic vitality, improve environmental
sustainability, and provide meaningful opportunities for active living and better
health.
Although the Living Streets Plan has not been developed, staff has included
elements that pertain to residential neighborhoods in the rehabilitation of the
infrastructure and replacement of the roadways.
Staff is also including a simple sustainability analysis for this project. We
anticipate a more refined analysis after the development of the Living Streets
Plan that will include review and input from a sustainability team.
Sustainability in engineering projects means delivering our services in a
manner that ensures an appropriate balance between the environment, the
community, and funding. This is essentially the “Triple Bottom Line” of
sustainability; Equity, Environment, and Economy. We look at sustainability
Preliminary Engineering Report
VALLEY VIEW ROAD – MCCAULEY TRAIL to MARK TERRACE DRIVE
Page 4 of 19
as maximizing our resources, creating lasting environments, improving and
shaping both the present and future of our community so that future
generations are not burdened by the decisions of today.
The project was evaluated based on the following key indicators to look for
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and risks.
Equity: How well does the project provide or maintain core city services
such as transportation, sanitation, clean water, emergency access, and
emergency service? How does the project influence the well-being of the
community?
Environment: How does the project influence the natural environment;
such as surface or ground water health, forest canopy, natural resource
diversity, wildlife habitat, air quality, noise and others?
Economy: How does the project influence the local economy, what are
the short term and long term costs? Is the continued service worth the
price?
The following is a summary of this evaluation:
Equity: The project maintains access and mobility to the transportation
network. Where available this includes transportation options for a variety of
user groups including, but not limited to, children, seniors, and disabled
individuals. In addition, the project includes mobility for different types of
users such as pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. Updates to the fire
hydrants provide public safety staff the ease of connection needed during an
emergency.
Environment: The project provides homeowners a piping system to discharge
ground water into; this will eliminate standing water and/or algae buildup
along the street curb lines. Construction operations are required to use the
smallest footprint necessary to complete the work thus protecting the existing
natural environment. The project contains landscape components to fit with
the natural wooded and wetland environment.
Economy: The project is designed to reduce construction costs now and into
the future. The proposed roadway section can easily be maintained in the
long term with the use of mill and overlays and/or seal coating operations.
These maintenance operations will extend the life of the pavement.
This is a simplified analysis of the projects sustainability. In the future we
anticipate correlating this analysis to an in-depth scoring system displaying
the City’s sustainability to the community.
Staff Identified Issues
The following issues were identified by staff during the preliminary scoping of
the project:
Poor condition of existing bituminous pavement
Lack of concrete curb and gutter
Preliminary Engineering Report
VALLEY VIEW ROAD – MCCAULEY TRAIL to MARK TERRACE DRIVE
Page 5 of 19
Horizontal curves at Comanche Court and Braemar Boulevard do not
meet 30 mph minimum state aid standards
Lack of pedestrian accommodations
Lack of bicycle accommodations
Storm sewer flooding issues at Sally Lane and Paiute Pass
Resident Input
A street reconstruction informational letter and questionnaire was distributed
on June 10, 2014, to 27 property owners that are adjacent to the proposed
street reconstruction area from McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive. A
copy of the information letter and questionnaire can be found in Appendix C.
The questionnaire was distributed to ascertain the residents’ concerns or
thoughts regarding pedestrian accommodations, street lighting and traffic
management. The questionnaire also inquired about specific drainage
problems and/or if the resident had private underground utilities such as pet
containment or irrigation systems.
A return rate of 48%, or 13 of the 27 residents, responded to the
questionnaire. A tabulation of the responses has been completed and can be
found in Appendix D.
The following is a summary of feedback received from residents:
7 of 13 felt lighting was inadequate and favored upgrading lighting
5 felt sidewalks were needed, 4 were opposed to the addition of
sidewalks
8 residents felt speed was an issue along the corridor.
A neighborhood meeting was held on July 7, 2014. A copy of the
presentation can be found in Appendix E. The meeting was attended by 18
residents representing 12 properties. One comment card was received
following the meeting. A copy of the sign in sheet and comment card can be
found in Appendix F.
A followup newsletter was sent to residents on July 14, 2014. A copy of the
letter can be found in Appendix G. The letter was a summary of the feedback
received and considered revisions to the design based on the feedback. The
two primary revisions were based on reducing land impacts. At the
neighborhood meeting we presented an option for a 5’ boulevard with a 5’
sidewalk on the south side of Valley View Road. Based on previous City
projects, we felt reducing the boulevard to 3’ and planting with daylilies or
other treatment may provide two benefits; reducing the impact to adjacent
properties and less maintenance required than sod or seed. The other option
considered was applying for a 20 mph variane for the horizontal curve at
Comanche Court rather than applying for a 25 mph variance. More details
about each option can be found later in this report.
The project team has received several emails regarding the project. Those
emails can be found in Appendix H.
Preliminary Engineering Report
VALLEY VIEW ROAD – MCCAULEY TRAIL to MARK TERRACE DRIVE
Page 6 of 19
EXISTING CONDITIONS: Roadway
Valley View Road between McCauley Trail and Mark Terrace Drive is a
bituminous asphalt roadway that consists of a two-lane roadway with no
parking allowed. The width of Valley View Road is 28-30 feet wide, with no
curb and gutter. There is currently no sidewalk on either side of the street
and no bicycle accommodations.
The existing right-of-way is 66’ wide. The roadway is generally centered
within the right of way.
Figure 2 - Existing Typical Section
The existing bituminous asphalt pavement is generally in poor condition. The
lack of curb and gutter has caused a lot of deterioration along the edges of
the pavement.
Photo 1 – Deterioration along edge of pavement
Preliminary Engineering Report
VALLEY VIEW ROAD – MCCAULEY TRAIL to MARK TERRACE DRIVE
Page 7 of 19
Horizontal Curves at Comanche Court and Braemar Boulevard
Valley View Road is a Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS 151). The minimum
design speed is 30 mph for the roadway to be eligible for state aid funds. In
certain circumstances where the design speed is difficult to achieve, the local
agency is allowed to apply for a state aid variance.
There are two curves within the project area that do not meet the minimum 30
mph design speed; the horizontal curves at Comanche Court (20 mph) and
Braemar Boulevard (15 mph).
Figure 2 – Horizontal Curves at Comanche Court and Braemar
Boulevard
Valley View Road and Braemar Boulevard Intersection
The existing intersection at Valley View Road and Braemar Boulevard has a
confusing configuration. Braemar Boulevard tee’s into the Valley View Road
in the middle of the curve. Braemar Boulevard splits around a tree in the
middle of the road, which creates confusion for motorists regarding what is
the correct side of the tree to drive as both sides have stop signs. In addition,
sight distance is somewhat limited due to the existing steep superelevation
(roadway banking) that exists.
Preliminary Engineering Report
VALLEY VIEW ROAD – MCCAULEY TRAIL to MARK TERRACE DRIVE
Page 8 of 19
Photo 2 – Aerial of Existing Valley View Road/Braemar Boulevard
Intersection
Photo 3 – Eastbound View of Valley View Road/Braemar Boulevard
Intersection
Traffic and Crash Data
Traffic measurements completed in 2005, 2009 and 2013, below is the
resulting ADT (Average Daily Traffic):
2005 – 3,450
2009 – 2,750
Preliminary Engineering Report
VALLEY VIEW ROAD – MCCAULEY TRAIL to MARK TERRACE DRIVE
Page 9 of 19
2013 – 2,550
The 85th percentile speed was recorded in two locations along the corridor.
Immediately east of McCauley Trail the speed was recorded as 21.3 mph,
which is believed to be influenced by the stop condition. A speed of 35.1
mph was recorded as the 85th percentile between the linear portion of
roadway between Comanche Court and Braemar Boulevard.
There has been a total of 1 crash along the corridor in the last 5 years. A
summary of the crash data can be found in Appendix I.
Geotechnical Information
A geotechnical evaluation report for the corridor was completed and indicates
that the soil conditions of the roadway consist of silty sands, poorly graded
sands, and sandy clay with minimal aggregate base under the existing 5” of
bituminous pavement.
Municipal State Aid Street
Valley View Road, from McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive, is a
designated Municipal State Aid Street (MSA) and is eligible to receive funding
through the State gas tax. The purpose of this fund is to help local
governments construct and maintain collector and arterial roadways. The
State Aid office of MnDOT has established clearly defined design
requirements for MSA streets.
Bicycle Accommodations
According to the City of Edina’s Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan,
Valley View Road is currently a favored street for connection and movement
to destinations within and outside of Edina and has been designated as a
primary route for cyclists. The primary goal of the Bicycle Transportation
Plan is to provide a safe and convenient bicycle transportation network. The
report recommends that in the short and medium term, the City sign the
bicycle route, repair curb-pavement joints, remove certain areas of on-street
parking, and provide striping of bicycle lanes.
Sidewalk Accommodations
According to Chapter 7 of the City of Edina’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan,
Valley View Road currently does not have a sidewalk on either side of the
street. The plan shows a proposed state aid sidewalk. In 2004, a petition was
initiated by residents requesting a sidewalk be constructed. In 2011, a
separate petition was signed by residents opposing a sidewalk. It was chosen
not to pursue the placement of sidewalk at that time, knowing that the
proposed project to reconstruct Valley View Road was scheduled for 2015.
Public Utilities
Preliminary Engineering Report
VALLEY VIEW ROAD – MCCAULEY TRAIL to MARK TERRACE DRIVE
Page 10 of 19
Sanitary Sewer: The trunk sanitary sewer system along Valley View Road
will be televised and evaluated. The sanitary system consists of 12-inch
diameter reinforced concrete pipe.
Watermain: The existing watermain is a 12-inch, unlined, ductile iron pipe,
constructed in 1968. The City has experienced relatively few watermain
breaks or service calls for the area. The hydrants in the area are not
standard City hydrants.
Storm Sewer: A storm sewer system exists along Valley View Road, even
though there is no curb and gutter. The storm sewer system is conveyed to
Nine Mile Creek. There is a known drainage issue north of the project
corridor at Sally Lane and Paiute Pass (See STS-406). The project team is
currently analyzing this issue.
Private Utilities
Private utilities extend within the roadway rights of way and consist of
underground gas, electric, telephone, cable, and fiber optics.
Street lighting consists of “cobra head” lights mounted on wood poles at the
intersections of Valley View Road and Sally Lane, south of Comanche Court,
Braemar Boulevard and Mark Terrace Drive.
Landscaping
Some properties have vegetation, hardscapes (such as boulders and
retaining walls), or other landscaped items within the City right-of-way. A
portion of these landscape items will interfere with some of proposed
infrastructure improvements and will need to be removed in order to complete
the necessary reconstruction work.
PROPOSED Roadway
IMPROVEMENTS:
The pavement section is proposed to be completely reconstructed to the
subgrade. The roadway width is proposed to be increased from 30 feet to 32
feet. Additionally, a 3 foot boulevard and 5 foot sidewalk is proposed on the
south side of the roadway. In general, the new alignment will shift slightly to
the north to limit the impacts to the south side of the corridor.
Figure 3. Proposed Typical Section
Preliminary Engineering Report
VALLEY VIEW ROAD – MCCAULEY TRAIL to MARK TERRACE DRIVE
Page 11 of 19
Roadway Components Proposed
1. Driving Lanes: The existing driving lanes are 15 feet; the
minimum state aid standard is 11 feet. It is proposed to reduce
the lane width to the minimum width allowed.
2. On-Street Bike Lanes: 2-5 foot on-street bike lanes are proposed
for the corridor. The following are the factors considered for this
proposal:
Valley View Road is a Primary Bike Route in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
The MnDOT Bikeway Guidelines recommend 5 foot bike
lanes for this roadway classification and traffic volume.
Photo 4 – Cyclists near Intersection of Valley View Road and Braemar
Boulevard
*The bike lanes are proposed to be constructed with a B660 Design
concrete curb and gutter (5 foot gutter pan), which matches the
eastbound bike lane used on W. 70th Street. The B660 is used to
reduce the necessary space needed for the bike lanes if bituminous
pavement was used next to the City standard B618 curb and gutter.
Preliminary Engineering Report
VALLEY VIEW ROAD – MCCAULEY TRAIL to MARK TERRACE DRIVE
Page 12 of 19
Photo 8- 70th Street Bike Lane
3. Sidewalk (South Side): Multiple factors were considered when
determining where to place the sidewalk along the roadway.
These factors include:
North Side Impacts:
o Significant tree impacts
o Multiple retaining walls, which creates increased costs
and global stability issues that may cause significant
erosion.
o Difficulty reconstructing driveways on the north side,
with needing to meet ADA standards for the sidewalk.
South Side Impacts:
o More Driveway Crossings
o Landscaping Impacts
We also analyzed future potential projects as Valley View Road be
constructed to the north. The topography is relatively consistent continuing to
the north. The north side (becomes the west side northbound) has steep
grades and steep driveways.
Preliminary Engineering Report
VALLEY VIEW ROAD – MCCAULEY TRAIL to MARK TERRACE DRIVE
Page 13 of 19
Photo 9- Steep Driveway North Side of Valley View Road
Horizontal Curve at Comanche Court
The existing horizontal curve at Comanche Court meets a 20 mph
speed. The 30 mph horizontal curve would bring Valley View
Road approximately 10 feet away from the front door of 7138
Valley View Road (see Figure 4). Originally, we determined a 25
mph curve could be placed without encroaching beyond the
existing right of way. However, this would require the roadway to
be superelevated at 4%. We felt this adverse superelevation
would create issues with cyclists and plowing operations.
Staff met with Julie Dresel of MnDOT State Aid. Julie agreed with
our assessment that applying for a State Aid variance of 20 mph
would be appropriate in this situation. It is proposed the project
team would present the 20 mph at the December variance
committee meeting. A resolution by the City is required when
submitting a variance request.
Figure 4. Curve at Comanche Court
30 mph Curve Impact
Preliminary Engineering Report
VALLEY VIEW ROAD – MCCAULEY TRAIL to MARK TERRACE DRIVE
Page 14 of 19
Roundabout at Braemar Boulevard
The existing intersection at Braemar Boulevard and Valley View
Road is confusing to drivers. The fact that the intersection is
located at a 15 mph curve along Valley View Road accentuates
the confusion. Staff is proposing a roundabout here to solve the
following issues:
1. Reduces confusion by creating a standard roundabout
intersection. With 5 roundabouts within the City of Edina,
most residents are now familiar with the rules to
roundabouts.
2. Eliminates the need for a large horizontal curve or
variance.
3. Creates safer sidewalk crossings than would exist at the
existing intersection.
4. Ability to landscape the remnant areas of land. This can
help serve as a gateway to the neighborhood as well as
tieing the roadway in to the natural surroundings.
Figure 5. Roundabout at Braemar Boulevard
Preliminary Engineering Report
VALLEY VIEW ROAD – MCCAULEY TRAIL to MARK TERRACE DRIVE
Page 15 of 19
Metro Transit: There are currently no metro transit routes through the
corridor.
Edina Public Utilities
Sanitary Sewer: The sanitary sewer pipe system is being evaluated.
Watermain: There is a history of only two breaks along the corridor within the
last 10 years.
Hydrants within the project area will be replaced with City standard hydrants.
Staff is proposing the replacement of water services along the corridor as part
of the project. The trunk water main is in satisfactory condition and will not be
replaced as part of the project.
Storm Sewer: The existing storm sewer is proposed to be replaced to meet
the capacity needs based on the City of Edina’s Stormwater Management
Plan and MSA standards. Additional storm sewer piping and catch basins will
address the drainage issues within the roadway.
As part of City Project STS-406, storm water issues have been identified at
Sally Lane and Paiute Pass. The recommended improvements are proposed
to be constructed with the Valley View Road project. Proposed
improvements are still being analyzed by the project team.
Other Improvements
In addition to the proposed improvement discussed above, several other
improvements are being proposed with the project. These include:
Pedestrian Curb Ramps: All of the pedestrian curb ramps will be constructed
to meet the current design standards as dictated by MSA and ADA.
Lighting: Based on resident responses to the questionnaire and the Edina
Transportation Commission feedback from the August 21st meeting, we are
recommending decorative lighting along the sidewalk, the locations of the
proposed lights are shown in the newsletter. A copy of the Lighting
Newsletter to the residents can be found in Appendix J. We requested
feedback regarding the preferred light type.
Private Utilities: It is anticipated that CenterPoint Energy will need to make
spot repairs to their lines as they are currently within the roadway. It is not
anticipated the other buried private utilities will have any significant
relocations.
Preliminary Engineering Report
VALLEY VIEW ROAD – MCCAULEY TRAIL to MARK TERRACE DRIVE
Page 16 of 19
Figure 6 - Proposed Project Layout
RIGHT-OF-WAY
& EASEMENTS: The right of way for Valley View Road is 66 feet. There is no need for any
non-City owned right of way or easements on this project. The improvements
do encroach outside the existing roadway right of way, but those parcels are
owned by the City of Edina.
CITY COUNCIL VOTING: The Public Hearing will contain two separate motions for voting on the project
improvements. Per State statute, the assessment portion of the project
requires a super majority approval from council (4:1). The 2nd vote will be
based on the Pedestrian and Cycle Safety (PACS) components, this requires
a 3:2 vote in favor of the improvements to pass.
PROJECT COSTS: The total estimated project cost is $2,720,000 (Table 1). The total cost
includes directs costs for engineering, clerical, and construction finance costs
from start of the project to final assessment hearing. Funding for the entire
project will be from a combination of utility funds, state aid funds, and special
assessment. The roadway cost is 80 percent funded by state aid funds and
20 percent funded by special assessments.
Preliminary Engineering Report
VALLEY VIEW ROAD – MCCAULEY TRAIL to MARK TERRACE DRIVE
Page 17 of 19
Table 1: Project Costs
PROJECT COSTS
Item City Utility
Municipal
State Aid
Special
Assessment
Roadway
- Roadway $1,024,000.00 $256,000.00
Roadway Total: $1,024,000.00 $256,000.00
Utilities
-
Storm Sewer (Valley
View Road) $530,000.00
-
Storm Sewer (Sally
Lane)* $740,000.00
- Sanitary Sewer $20,000.00
- Water Main $150,000.00
Utilities Total: $1,240,000.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST $2,720,000
*Sally Lane Drainage Improvements are still being analyzed as of 9/10/2014
ASSESSMENTS: City of Edina Assessments
A special assessment of $256,000 is proposed for this project. The
assessments will be levied against the benefitting adjacent properties, see
attached preliminary assessment roll and map in Appendix K. The
methodology used for these assessments are based on the City Council
adopted State Aid Assessment Policy. Per the policy, assessments will be
based on a Residential Equivalent Unit (REU) and will be 20% of the project
cost with the remaining 80% being funded through Municipal State Aid
(monies appropriated through the gas tax fund).
There are 30.32 residential equivalent units (REU); one property is shown as
5 REU’s, 4 properties are shown as a 1/3 REU and 24 properties are shown
as a 1 REU. The cost per REU is $8,443.27.
Braemar Golf Course (City of Edina):
5 REUs = Layout of City owned property with similar size lots in
neighborhood: (5 lots total) / (1 potential access)
Assessment: $42,216.35
FEASIBILITY: The proposed improvements as outlined in this study are found to be necessary, cost
effective, and feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Preliminary Engineering Report
VALLEY VIEW ROAD – MCCAULEY TRAIL to MARK TERRACE DRIVE
Page 18 of 19
PROJECT SCHEDULE: The following schedule is feasible from an engineering standpoint:
Information Meeting #1 .................................................................................... July 7, 2014
Edina Transportation Commission Initial Presentation ............................. August 21, 2014
Edina Transportation Commission Receives Engineering Report ...... September 12, 2014
Feasibility Report Received by City Council ....................................... September 28, 2014
City Council Conducts Public hearing and Orders Project ...................... October 21, 2014
Variance Presentation ......................................................................... December 18, 2014
City Council and MnDOT approve Plans and Specifications ...................... February, 2015
Receive Bids .................................................................................................... March, 2015
Award Contract .................................................................................................. April, 2015
Begin Construction ............................................................................................. May, 2015
Complete Construction ........................................................................................ Fall, 2015
Assessment Hearing ........................................................................................... Fall, 2016
Preliminary Engineering Report
VALLEY VIEW ROAD – MCCAULEY TRAIL to MARK TERRACE DRIVE
Page 19 of 19
Appendix:
A. STS – 406: Improvement Project (Sally Lane and Paiute Pass Drainage)
B. City Comprehensive Plan Update – Sidewalk and Bicycle Facilities (Fig. 7.10 and
7.11)
C. Informational Letter and Questionnaire
D. Questionnaire Results
E. Neighborhood Meeting Presentation
F. Sign-In Sheet and Comment Card
G. Follow-up Newsletter
H. Resident Correspondence
I. Crash Data
J. Lighting Newsletter and Questionnaire
K. Preliminary Assessment Roll and Map
FEASIBILITY STUDY – BA 377
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDINA
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Valley View Road (MSAS 151) – McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive
September 10, 2014
Appendix A
STS-406: Improvement Project (Sally Lane and Paiute Pass
Drainage Issues)
STS-406 Improvement Project
Part 2: Project Areas 4 and 5
Prepared for
City of Edina
May 28, 2014
4700 West 77th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803
Phone: 952.832.2600
Fax: 952.832.2601
STS-406 Improvement Project
Part 2: Project Areas 4 and 5
May 28, 2014
Contents
1.0 Project Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 Project Approach ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Flood Protection .......................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1.1 Changes to Published Precipitation Depths ................................................................. 2
2.1.2 Updated Elevation Data ............................................................................................... 3
3.0 Project Area 4—Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road (Southwest Ponds Catchment) ...................................... 4
3.1 Problem Description................................................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Model Updates ............................................................................................................................................................. 6
3.3 Existing Conditions Flooding .................................................................................................................................. 6
3.4 Improvement Options ............................................................................................................................................... 6
3.4.1 Option A: Providing Additional Flood Storage in Lewis Park Storage Area .................. 7
3.4.2 Option B: Providing Additional Upstream Storage....................................................... 8
3.4.3 Option C: Increasing Flow from Lewis Park Storage Area ............................................ 8
3.4.4 Option D: Localized Flood Proofing .............................................................................. 9
3.4.5 Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost ............................................................................ 9
3.4.6 Water Quality Considerations ...................................................................................... 9
4.0 Project Area 5—Sally Lane and Paiute Pass ................................................................................................................11
4.1 Problem Description.................................................................................................................................................11
4.1.1 Sally Lane and Paiute Pass Intersection (NMSB_83, NMSB_84) ................................ 11
4.1.2 7009 and 7013 Sally Lane Backyard Depression Area (NMSB_70) ............................ 11
4.2 Model Updates ...........................................................................................................................................................12
4.3 Existing Conditions Flooding ................................................................................................................................12
4.4 Improvement Options .............................................................................................................................................12
4.4.1 Option A: Install Additional Pipe from Backyard Depression Area ............................ 13
4.4.2 Option B: Increase Capacity of Sally Lane Storm Sewer ............................................. 14
4.4.3 Option C: Construct Surface Overflow Channels from Sally Lane .............................. 14
4.4.4 Flood Benefits ............................................................................................................. 14
4.4.5 Engineer’s Opinions of Probable Costs ...................................................................... 15
4.4.6 Water Quality Benefits ............................................................................................... 16
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2013\STS_406\Final Reports\Project Areas 4-5\Project Areas 4 and 5 Final Report.docx i
List of Tables
Table 2-1 24-hour duration rainfall depths using NOAA Atlas 14 for Edina, MN for a range of storm
recurrence intervals .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Table 3-1 Estimated cost for Cahill and Dewey (Project Area 4) improvement Option A ................................ 9
Table 4-1 Maximum water surface elevations (feet, MSL) under existing conditions and the number
of dwellings (shown in parentheses) that are inundated at the corresponding elevation ........12
Table 4-2 100-year, 24-hour maximum water surface elevations (feet, MSL) under proposed
conditions and the number of dwellings (shown in parentheses) that are inundated at
that corresponding elevation .............................................................................................................................15
Table 4-3 100-year, 24-hour peak flow rates through the proposed pipes for Sally Lane
improvement Options A, B, and C ....................................................................................................................15
Table 4-4 Estimated costs for Sally Lane and Paiute Pass (Project Area 5) improvement Options A,
B, and C .......................................................................................................................................................................16
List of Embedded Figures
Figure 2-1 Atlas 14 percent of change in precipitation depth for the 24-hour duration storm, as
compared to TP 40 ................................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3-1 The loading dock area of FilmTec Corporation’s (5400 Dewey Hill Road) parking lot
where flooding can occur frequently ................................................................................................................ 5
Figure 3-2 The lobby area of FilmTec Corporation (5400 Dewey Hill Road) where flooding has
occurred ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Figure 3-4 The relationship between elevation and flood storage volume in the Lewis Park storage
area (subwatersheds SWP_34, SWP_35, SWP_46, SWP_46X, SWP_21, SWP_48, SWP_17,
SWP_5, and SWP_14) ............................................................................................................................................... 7
List of Attached Figures
Figure 1-1 Project Study Areas
Figure 3-3 Existing Conditions 100-Year Inundation, Project Area 4—Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road
Figure 3-5 Proposed Improvement Option A, Project Area 4—Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road
Figure 4-1 Existing Conditions 100-Year Inundation, Project Area 5—Sally Lane and Paiute Pass
Figure 4-2 Proposed Improvement Options A and B, Project Area 5—Sally Lane and Paiute Pass
Figure 4-3 Proposed Improvement Options A and C, Project Area 5—Sally Lane and Paiute Pass
List of Appendices
Appendix A Cost Estimate – Project Area 4-Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road
Appendix B Cost Estimates – Project Area 5-Sally Lane and Paiute Pass
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2013\STS_406\Final Reports\Project Areas 4-5\Project Areas 4 and 5 Final Report.docx ii
1.0 Project Background
The City of Edina Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan (December 2011) was developed to
address current and future stormwater issues, especially those related to future development and
redevelopment. The plan addresses stormwater runoff management and flood control, water quality
management, and wetlands protection through establishment of stormwater planning policies and
recommendations. This plan serves as a master plan for the City’s water resources management and storm
drainage system improvements.
One of the goals of the Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan (CWRMP) is to provide
stormwater runoff management and flood control. The CWRMP establishes design criteria for the City’s
preferred level of service for stormwater management and level of protection from flooding provided to
residents of the city. These design criteria serve as a target for the City as redevelopment occurs and
infrastructure improvements are considered. Another goal of the CWRMP is to provide water quality
management for the water bodies throughout the city. Water quality management policies and design
standards have also been established to protect the water quality of the waterbodies within the city.
The CWRMP identifies several areas throughout the city where the desired 100-year level of flood
protection may not currently be provided, based on results of the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling
analyses conducted as part of the CWRMP development. Since identification of these areas, the City has
been evaluating flood improvement options on a case-by-case basis, in conjunction with nearby street
reconstruction or other improvement projects. The STS-406 Improvement Project includes a detailed
evaluation of several areas with high flood potential that correspond to anticipated street reconstruction
projects within the upcoming 5 years. This report summarizes our flood protection analyses and
conclusions for the following project areas within the STS-406 Improvement Project:
(1) Project Area 4 – Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road
(2) Project Area 5 – Sally Lane and Paiute Pass
Locations of Project Areas 4 and 5 are shown in Figure 1-1.
All elevations included in this report reflect Mean Sea Level (MSL) elevations in feet using the NGVD 29
vertical datum.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2013\STS_406\Final Reports\Project Areas 4-5\Project Areas 4 and 5 Final Report.docx 1
2.0 Project Approach
2.1 Flood Protection
Detailed hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of the flood areas within Project Areas 4 and 5 was
conducted using the XP-SWMM models that were originally developed in 2003 as part of the CWRMP.
Updates made to the models as part of this project are described below and within the subsequent
sections of this report.
2.1.1 Changes to Published Precipitation Depths
In 2013, NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS) published new precipitation frequency estimates
(“Atlas 14”) for the state of Minnesota and other Midwestern states. The Atlas 14 precipitation frequency
estimates, which are the estimated rainfall depths for various rainfall durations and exceedance
probabilities, replace the precipitation estimates published in Technical Paper No. 40 Rainfall Frequency
Atlas of the United States (“TP 40”). The Atlas 14 rainfall frequency estimates indicate a significant increase
in the depth of the 50-year and 100-year frequency rainfall events (i.e., rainfall events with exceedance
probabilities of 2% and 1%, respectively) across Minnesota and neighboring states, as compared with
TP 40 estimates. For the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, the increases in 24-hour duration precipitation depths
over TP 40 are as high 25% (Figure 2-1). These precipitation depth increases are of concern, as they can
have serious implications for how stormwater systems are designed and managed.
Figure 2-1 Atlas 14 percent of change in precipitation depth for the 24-hour duration storm, as
compared to TP 40
The hydrologic and hydraulic modeling conducted for and summarized in the CWRMP used a 24-hour
rainfall depth of 6.0 inches based on TP 40, and the SCS Type II nested distribution. For this project, the
rainfall depths used in the models were updated based on Atlas 14 precipitation estimates for Edina
(Table 2-1). A nested rainfall distribution was developed using precipitation frequency estimates for Edina
(Coordinates: 44.8716, -93.3762). The depth-duration data were downloaded from NOAA’s Precipitation
Frequency Data Server (PFDS) at http://dipper.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/. Nested distributions for selected
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2013\STS_406\Final Reports\Project Areas 4-5\Project Areas 4 and 5 Final Report.docx 2
recurrence intervals events were created by using the Frequency Storm utility found in the meteorological
modeling component of HEC-HMS to produce 24-hour hyetographs with 5-minute intervals.
Flood frequency data is often also described in terms of a percentage of risk, or annual exceedance
probability. For example, the 100-year frequency flood inundation area represents an area that has a
1 percent chance of flooding (1-percent-annual chance flood) for any given year. Structures located within
the 1-percent-annual chance flood inundation area have a 26 percent chance of flooding during the life of
a standard 30-year mortgage.
Table 2-1 24-hour duration rainfall depths using NOAA Atlas 14 for Edina, MN for a range of
storm recurrence intervals
Storm Recurrence
Interval
24-hour Rainfall
Depth (inches)
Annual Exceedance
Probability1
1-year 2.5 100%
2-year 2.9 50%
10-year 4.3 10%
25-year 5.4 4%
50-year 6.4 2%
100-year 7.5 1%
1 Annual Exceedance Probability refers to the percent chance of occurrence in
any given year
2.1.2 Updated Elevation Data
For each of the study areas, City staff conducted a topographic field survey of the flood inundation areas
within the targeted subwatersheds. The topographic survey data was combined with 2011 LiDAR elevation
data from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) to refine the elevation/storage
relationships used in the modeling analyses. The City’s survey also included low entry elevations for
structures adjacent to the flood inundation areas within the targeted subwatersheds. The low entry
elevations were used to define the flood improvement target elevations.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2013\STS_406\Final Reports\Project Areas 4-5\Project Areas 4 and 5 Final Report.docx 3
3.0 Project Area 4—Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road
(Southwest Ponds Catchment)
Project Area 4 is located near Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road (Figure 1-1) and is located within the
Southwest Ponds major drainage area. The Southwest Ponds watershed encompasses approximately
411 acres. The land use within the watershed is mainly low- and medium-density residential, in addition to
the commercial and industrial area on the eastern portion of the watershed along Cahill Road and Lewis
Park (located west of Cahill Road and north of Dewey Hill Road). The watershed is characterized by a
series of ponding basins, that ultimately outlet to the South Fork of Nine Mile Creek via a storm sewer
system that travels southward from the intersection of West 78th Street and Delaney Boulevard and
discharges into a detention pond north of Interstate 494. Discharge from this detention pond flows
beneath Interstate 494 and enters the South Fork of Nine Mile Creek.
3.1 Problem Description
The primary objective of this evaluation was to identify opportunities to reduce the potential for flooding
in the low area on Cahill Road just north of Dewey Hill Road and in the parking lot of 5400 Dewey Hill
Road, a FilmTec Corporation property (FilmTec). The ponds and ball fields within Lewis Park, located north
of Dewey Hill Road and west of Cahill Road, serve as regional flood storage for the Southwest Ponds
major drainage area. When water levels in the Lewis Park pond (SWP_35) and adjacent ball fields get high
enough, flood waters extend eastward onto Cahill Road and into the FilmTec parking lot, inundating the
parking lot and causing flooding problems in the loading dock area and lobby. Figure 3-1 is an image of
FilmTec, showing the loading docks at the west end of the parking lot and Figure 3-2 is an image of the
lobby at the east end of the parking lot. Anecdotal information from FilmTec staff indicates that in the
past 9 years that FilmTec Corporation has occupied this property, the lobby has flooded about once every
three or four years.
Figure 3-3 shows the subwatersheds and existing storm sewer within the study area. Stormwater runoff
from Cahill Road (subwatershed SWP_46) currently drains to the pond just north of Dewey Hill Road in
Lewis Park (SWP_35) via a 42-inch storm sewer system. A separate 24-inch storm sewer system conveys
runoff from the parking lot and low area of the FilmTec parking lot (subwatershed SWP_46X) to the Lewis
Park pond (SWP_35). The Lewis Park pond discharges southward under Dewey Hill Road and through a
subsequent series of ponds and wetlands. The normal water level of the Lewis Park Pond (SWP_35) is
currently controlled at 828 feet by the outlet structure of the pond on the south side of Dewey Hill Road
(SWP_5).
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2013\STS_406\Final Reports\Project Areas 4-5\Project Areas 4 and 5 Final Report.docx 4
Figure 3-1 The loading dock area of FilmTec Corporation’s (5400 Dewey Hill Road) parking lot
where flooding can occur frequently
Figure 3-2 The lobby area of FilmTec Corporation (5400 Dewey Hill Road) where flooding has
occurred
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2013\STS_406\Final Reports\Project Areas 4-5\Project Areas 4 and 5 Final Report.docx 5
3.2 Model Updates
The XP-SWMM hydrologic and hydraulic model for Project Area 4 was updated to reflect updated rainfall
depths as defined by NOAA Atlas 14. Because of the increase in rainfall depths, several additional
overflows were added to the model within and around the Project Area 4 study area. The City provided
topographic survey at the intersection of Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road, as well as within the parking
lot of FilmTec Corporation to define critical elevations. This information was used in conjunction with the
MNDNR’s 2011 LiDAR elevation dataset to update the stage-storage relationships in the model for
subwatersheds within and around the Project Area 4 study area. The storm sewer information in the
model, particularly regarding pipes from FilmTec’s parking lot, was also updated based on additional
information provided by the City.
3.3 Existing Conditions Flooding
Figure 3-3 shows the predicted inundation areas throughout the Project Area 4 study area for the
100-year, 24-hour rainfall event. As shown in the figure, nearly all of Lewis Park becomes inundated, along
with nearby Cahill and Dewey Hill Roads and the FilmTec parking lot. The predicted 100-year, 24-hour
water surface elevation within the Lewis Park storage area and the surrounding hydraulically connected
areas, including the FilmTec property, is 834.3 feet. This peak water surface elevation exceeds the surveyed
low-entry elevation of 832.8 feet at FilmTec. This is the elevation at which stormwater reaches: (a) the
loading docks at FilmTec (Figure 3-1), potentially causing inflow and infiltration (I/I) into the City sanitary
sewer system via the floor drains of the loading dock area, and (b) FilmTec’s lobby area located at the
southeast corner of the building (Figure 3-2).
Review of the modeling results indicate potential flooding in subwatershed SWP_60 as a result of the
updated precipitation depths and resulting increased flood elevations in the SWP_40 pond and adjacent
SWP_60 low area. The 100-year, 24-hour maximum water surface elevation in both SWP_40 and SWP_60 is
837.8 feet, which appears to potentially impact townhome structures along Oak Glen Road west of Cahill
Road.
3.4 Improvement Options
Multiple improvement options were evaluated for their ability to provide a 100-year level of protection to
the FilmTec property. As mentioned above, the ponds and ball fields within and near Lewis Park serve as
regional flood storage for the Southwest Ponds drainage area. Figure 3-4 shows the relationship between
elevation and flood storage volume in the Lewis Park storage area (subwatersheds SWP_34, SWP_35,
SWP_46, SWP_46X, SWP_21, SWP_48, SWP_17, SWP_5, and SWP_14). Under existing conditions,
approximately 81 acre-feet of flood storage is provided in the Lewis Park storage area between the
100-year flood elevation of 834.3 feet and the control elevation of 828 feet. Reducing the 100-year flood
elevation of the Lewis Park storage area to an elevation below the low-entry elevation at FilmTec
(832.8 feet) would result in a loss of approximately 36 acre-feet of flood storage, requiring that volume of
water to be managed some other way (Figure 3-4).
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2013\STS_406\Final Reports\Project Areas 4-5\Project Areas 4 and 5 Final Report.docx 6
Figure 3-4 The relationship between elevation and flood storage volume in the Lewis Park storage
area (subwatersheds SWP_34, SWP_35, SWP_46, SWP_46X, SWP_21, SWP_48,
SWP_17, SWP_5, and SWP_14)
The improvement options evaluated were selected to help mitigate or replace the potential loss of flood
storage and included providing additional storage within Lewis Park below the target elevation of
832.8 feet, providing additional storage upstream of the Lewis Park storage area, and increasing discharge
from the Lewis Park storage area (moving water downstream more quickly). These improvement options
are discussed in further detail below.
3.4.1 Option A: Providing Additional Flood Storage in Lewis Park Storage Area
Option A involves providing additional flood storage below the target flood elevation of 832.8 feet
(FilmTec low entry elevation) by significantly lowering the ground surface of Lewis Park. While this option
is the only evaluated option that effectively reduces the 100-year flood elevation below the target
elevation, the lowered ground surface may result in wet conditions in the park and parking lot due to
proximity to groundwater. Improvement Option A includes several components, which are described
below and shown in Figure 3-5.
• Provide approximately 60 acre-feet of additional storage below 832.8 feet at Lewis Park to
compensate both for lost storage above elevation 832.8 feet and resulting changes in system
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2013\STS_406\Final Reports\Project Areas 4-5\Project Areas 4 and 5 Final Report.docx 7
hydraulics. This area is currently made up of three soccer fields, parking lots and general park
area. The additional storage would require lowering the elevation of these features (all features
would retain existing functionality, after construction). For modeling purposes, the ground
elevation within the park (shown in Figure 3-5) was lowered to 827.4 feet.
• Provide additional flow capacity from the parking lot of FilmTec (SWP_46X) to the Lewis Park
pond (SWP_35). The main purpose of the increased pipe capacity is to convey the initial peak flow
from Cahill Road and other impervious areas of SWP_46X out of FilmTec’s parking lot before the
water level in SWP_35 rises due to inflows from the subwatersheds to the north and west. The
modeling analysis assumed an additional 36-inch diameter RCP, with upstream and downstream
invert elevations of 828.2 feet and 827.0 feet, respectively, and a peak 100-year flow of 21 cfs,
• Lower the outlet of the pond immediately south of Dewey Hill Road (SWP_5) from 828 feet to
827 feet, effectively lowering the normal water level of this pond and the ponds in Lewis Park by
1 foot.
• Replace the outlet pipe from SWP_2 to SWP_1 with an equal diameter (24-inch) RCP, with the
control elevation at or below 827.0 feet. The existing CMP outlet pipe is in disrepair and in need
of maintenance or replacement.
Improvement Option A results in a 100-year water surface elevation of 832.6 feet in the FilmTec parking
lot (SWP_46X), which is 0.2 feet lower than the FilmTec low entry elevation, thus providing a 100-year level
of protection. Additionally, this improvement option does not have adverse impacts to nearby or
downstream flood elevations. However, lowering the ground elevation of the park will require significant
excavation, which is likely cost prohibitive. Lowering the soccer fields and other park amenities (tennis
courts and parking lot) may also result in frequent wet conditions and difficult constructability and/or
longevity due to close proximity to groundwater.
3.4.2 Option B: Providing Additional Upstream Storage
Due to the fully-developed nature of the area upstream of Lewis Park, the availability of land for upstream
storage was limited. Increasing the flood storage in the currently wooded area in SWP_47 was evaluated.
The resulting decrease in 100-year flood elevation in the Lewis Park storage area was minimal and did not
alleviate the flooding at FilmTec. Therefore, this improvement option was not pursued further.
3.4.3 Option C: Increasing Flow from Lewis Park Storage Area
One way to decrease the required flood storage is to increase the discharge to downstream
subwatersheds. Increased flow capacity from the Lewis Park storage area was evaluated (assuming the
flow capacity from SWP_5 was increased from about 20 cfs to over 200 cfs), which resulted in decreased
100-year flood elevations in the Lewis Park storage area. However, the decrease was not sufficient to
alleviate the flooding at FilmTec and resulted in increased flood elevations in downstream waterbodies.
Given these reasons, this improvement option was not pursued further.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2013\STS_406\Final Reports\Project Areas 4-5\Project Areas 4 and 5 Final Report.docx 8
3.4.4 Option D: Localized Flood Proofing
Given the high costs of Option A and the potential detriments to the soccer fields and other park
amenities resulting from lowering the park, we recommend that the City and/or FilmTec consider
retrofitting the flood-prone structure and parking lot as an alternative option to reduce the frequency of
flooding. Retrofitting efforts could include relocating the entryway and lobby at FilmTec to minimize the
flooding potential. Retrofitting efforts could also include grading modifications in the parking lot to help
keep flood waters from reaching the loading dock and lobby areas during the more frequent, less severe
events.
The loading dock area at FilmTec has several floor drains that are currently served by the City’s sanitary
sewer service. When flood waters reach the loading dock area, water enters the sanitary sewer through
these drains, adding to the City’s I/I problem. Modifications to the FilmTec sanitary drains in the loading
dock area should be considered to minimize or prevent flow to the sanitary system during times of
stormwater inundation. Modifications may include installation of a manual or automated valve system
(float valve/float control) or installation of a low-flow/high-flow diversion structure with pipes connecting
the drains to the stormwater system, or some combination thereof. The feasibility of this type of retrofit to
reduce I/I at FilmTec is dependent on several factors, including local plumbing code restrictions and the
connectedness of the loading dock drains to the main sanitary line serving FilmTec.
Retrofitting options and costs will vary considerably depending on the specific design modifications.
3.4.5 Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost
A planning level engineer’s opinion of probable cost was prepared for Option A- Providing Additional
Flood Storage in the Lewis Park storage area. The opinion of probable cost, summarized in Table 3-1 was
based on our experience on similar construction projects and the level of information available to
determine cost for the proposed project. Given that the cost is based on planning-level design, a
contingency of 30% was applied to the estimated construction cost. A significant portion of the estimated
cost is related to excavation and disposal, which can vary significantly depending on site soil conditions.
The assumed unit cost of $15 per cubic yard for excavation and disposal was used as a conservative
estimate assuming clean soil. See Appendix A for a detailed summary of the cost associated with
Option A.
Table 3-1 Estimated cost for Cahill and Dewey (Project Area 4) improvement Option A
Improvement Option Estimated Cost1
Option A- Providing Additional Flood Storage in Lewis Park Storage Area
$3,980,000
1Costs rounded up to the nearest $10,000.
3.4.6 Water Quality Considerations
Although flood risk reduction is the primary objective of this analysis, the water quality benefits or
detriments from the evaluated improvement option were also considered. Currently, runoff from Project
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2013\STS_406\Final Reports\Project Areas 4-5\Project Areas 4 and 5 Final Report.docx 9
Area 4 receives treatment through sedimentation, as the stormwater flows through the series of ponds
and wetlands downstream of the park. P8 modeling conducted as part of the CWRMP indicates that the
Lewis Park Pond (SWP_35) achieves 52% and 88% removal of total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended
sediment (TSS), respectively, during an average water year (based on 1994-1995 water year). One
component of Option A is to lower the normal water levels of the ponds in SWP_5 and SWP_35 by 1 foot.
Lowering the normal water levels will reduce the amount of dead storage (storage below the normal
water level) available in these ponds, which can reduce sedimentation. The P8 model was revised to reflect
the proposed change in normal water levels. Results indicate that the decreased effectiveness of these
ponds due to the proposed change in normal water level was minimal (predicted removal efficiencies
were reduced to 51% and 87% for TP and TSS, respectively).
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2013\STS_406\Final Reports\Project Areas 4-5\Project Areas 4 and 5 Final Report.docx 10
4.0 Project Area 5—Sally Lane and Paiute Pass
Project Area 5 encompasses the area that drains to the intersection of Sally Lane and Paiute Pass which
includes Nine Mile South Branch Catchments NMSB_70, _83, and _84 (Figure 1-1). The stormwater model
for this area indicates potential flooding at this intersection as well as in a backyard depression area
located at 7005 and 7009 Sally Lane. The City provided a detailed topographic survey of this intersection
and backyard depression area, allowing available storage to be quantified more accurately, low entry
elevations to be determined for the structures adjacent to the low areas, and overflow elevations between
the street and nearby low areas to be identified.
4.1 Problem Description
Hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of Project Area 5 suggests that flooding will occur in the low area
surrounding the intersection of Sally Lane and Paiute Pass (NMSB_83 and _84) and the backyard
depression area behind 7009 and 7013 Sally Lane (NMSB_70) during a 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event.
The low area at the intersection of Sally Lane and Paiute Pass is currently drained by two storm sewer
pipes that flow westward, discharging to the drainageway behind the homes on the west side of Sally
Lane (Braemar Branch of Nine Mile Creek). The backyard depression area is currently drained by a storm
sewer pipe that ties into the existing system at Sally Lane and Paiute Pass. The flooding in these areas
appears to be primarily a result of localized storm sewer capacity limitations.
4.1.1 Sally Lane and Paiute Pass Intersection (NMSB_83, NMSB_84)
The storm sewer system at the Sally Lane and Paiute Pass intersection collects stormwater from a total
drainage area of approximately 27 acres. The existing system discharges into the Braemar Branch via two
24-inch pipes. During the 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event, the Paiute Pass/Sally Lane intersection is
inundated with stormwater and ponding occurs. Based on the topographic survey information, ponding
will occur in this intersection and onto nearby properties. Two overland flow paths have been identified
where water will flow westward to the Braemar Branch. The north overland flow path conveys water
between properties 6836 and 7000 Sally Lane. The south overland flow path conveys water between 7000
and 7004 Sally Lane. The upstream invert for the north overland flow path is 862.0 feet and the upstream
invert for the south overland flow path is 861.3 feet. The surveyed low entry elevations in this area are
861.6 feet, 861.5 feet, and 862.0 feet at 7000, 7004, and 6845 Sally Lane, respectively.
4.1.2 7009 and 7013 Sally Lane Backyard Depression Area (NMSB_70)
A backyard depression area exists behind the homes along Sally Lane and Paiute Pass. A 12-inch piped
outlet exists from this area, draining northward and connecting to the system along Paiute Pass. During
large rainfall events such as the 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event, the piped outlet does not provide
sufficient capacity, and ponding will occur. Two overland flow paths exist which convey flow westward to
Sally Lane. The north overland flow path conveys water between properties 7009 and 7013 Sally Lane. The
south overland flow path conveys water between 7013 and 7017 Sally Lane. The upstream invert for the
north overland flow path is 863.0 feet and the upstream invert for the south overland flow path is 862.9
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2013\STS_406\Final Reports\Project Areas 4-5\Project Areas 4 and 5 Final Report.docx 11
feet. Based on the topographic survey information, the low entry elevations in this area are 862.9 feet and
863.1 feet at 7009 and 7005 Sally Lane, respectively.
4.2 Model Updates
The XP-SWMM hydrologic and hydraulic model for Project Area 5 was updated to reflect new rainfall
depths as defined by NOAA Atlas 14. Because of the increase in rainfall depths, additional surface
overflows were added to the model within the Project Area 5 study area, as needed. The City provided
topographic survey at the intersection of Sally Lane and Paiute Pass, as well as the Sally Lane backyard
depression area. This information was used in conjunction with the MNDNR’s 2011 LiDAR elevation
dataset to update the stage-storage relationships in the model for subwatersheds within the Project
Area 5 study area. The storm sewer information in the model was also updated based on a survey
conducted by the City.
4.3 Existing Conditions Flooding
Table 4-1 summarizes the predicted 100-year, 24-hour water surface elevations under existing conditions
for the subwatersheds within the Project Area 5 study. The 100-year flood elevation for the intersection of
Sally Lane and Paiute Pass is 862.0 (subwatersheds NMSB_83 and NMSB_84), which exceeds the low entry
elevation of three structures (6845, 7000, and 7004 Sally Lane). The 100-year flood elevation for the
backyard depression area (subwatershed NMSB_70) is 863.2 feet, which exceeds the surveyed low entry
elevation of two structures (7005 and 7009 Sally Lane). The inundation areas corresponding to these
two flood elevations are shown in Figure 4-1.
Table 4-1 Maximum water surface elevations (feet, MSL) under existing conditions and the
number of dwellings (shown in parentheses) that are inundated at the
corresponding elevation
Flooding Area
Water Surface Elevation1,
100-year, 24-hour Rainfall
Recurrence Interval
Lowest Low Entry
Elevation
Intersection of Sally Lane and Paiute Pass
(NMSB_83 and _84) 862.0 (3) 861.52
7009 and 7013 Sally Lane Backyard Depression
Area (NMSB_70) 863.2 (2) 862.93
1 Elevations based on Atlas 14 precipitation depths
2 7004 Sally Lane
3 7009 Sally Lane
4.4 Improvement Options
Three flood improvement options were evaluated to reduce flood risk in the low area at Sally Lane and
Paiute Pass and the backyard depression area. These three options are being considered separately for
the purpose of identifying component costs, but the final alternative will be a combination of either
Option A with Option B or Option A with Option C. The three options include:
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2013\STS_406\Final Reports\Project Areas 4-5\Project Areas 4 and 5 Final Report.docx 12
Option A: Installation of a 24-inch diameter corrugated polyethylene storm sewer pipe to drain the
backyard area behind homes on the south side of Paiute Pass and the east side of Sally
Lane. The proposed 930 lineal feet of pipe would discharge to the Braemar Branch just
downstream of the Valley View Road crossing.
Option B: Increasing the capacity of the existing north outfall pipe from Sally Lane to the Braemar
Branch by replacing the existing 24-inch diameter CMP with a 36-inch diameter
corrugated polyethylene pipe. In addition, increasing the capacity of the existing south
outfall pipe from Sally Lane to the Braemar Branch by replacing the existing 24-inch
diameter CMP with a 48-inch diameter corrugated polyethylene pipe.
Option C: Constructing two gravity overflow channels to convey overland flow from Sally Lane to
the Braemar Branch. One proposed overflow channel is to be located between 6836 Sally
Lane and 7000 Sally Lane. The second overflow channel is to be located between
7000 Sally Lane and 7004 Sally Lane. The overflow channels will be controlled positive
overflow paths which will ensure the homes are protected from flood waters and not
altered in the future by private property owners.
4.4.1 Option A: Install Additional Pipe from Backyard Depression Area
As described in Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3, Option A encompasses installation of 930 lineal feet of 24-inch
diameter corrugated polyethylene storm sewer pipe from the backyard area south and east of Paiute Pass
and Sally Lane. The existing pipe which directs runoff to the north will continue to service the backyard
area. The proposed pipe exits the existing catch basin in the backyard area and runs south before it turns
90 degrees to the west and passes between 7009 Sally Lane and 7013 Sally Lane. The pipe then runs to
the south under Sally Lane, crosses Valley View Road, and discharges into the Braemar Branch
downstream of the culvert crossing with Valley View Road. An easement and careful coordination with the
affected property owners will be required for the properties crossed by this new pipe.
Throughout this analysis, careful consideration was given to preventing adverse downstream impacts as a
result of proposed flood improvements. The proposed pipe from the backyard area discharges to the
Braemar Branch downstream of Valley View Road, which is a modification to current drainage patterns. To
ensure that installation of the new pipe would not cause flood concerns downstream of Valley View Road,
the proposed pipe was added to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District’s XP-SWMM model and run for
the 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event. Model results indicate a negligible change in maximum surface water
elevation downstream of Valley View Road.
The City may wish to consider further optimization of Option A (upsizing the proposed pipe and
extending it northward along Sally Lane- described in more detail in Section 4.4.4) to collect runoff from
the low intersection of Sally Lane and Paiute Pass. While not evaluated in detail as part of this analysis, this
option may have the potential to reduce or eliminate the need for additional pipe capacity as outlined in
Option B. Further analysis as part of final design would be required to evaluate detailed design
considerations and assess cost implications and potential downstream impacts of more significant
drainage pattern modifications.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2013\STS_406\Final Reports\Project Areas 4-5\Project Areas 4 and 5 Final Report.docx 13
4.4.2 Option B: Increase Capacity of Sally Lane Storm Sewer
As described in Figure 4-2, Option B includes increasing the capacity of the north outfall pipe from Sally
Lane to the Braemar Branch by replacing the 24-inch pipe with a 36-inch diameter corrugated
polyethylene pipe. The capacity of the south outfall pipe from Sally Lane to the Braemar Branch will also
be increased by replacing the 24-inch pipe with a 48-inch diameter corrugated polyethylene pipe. The
pipes will follow their existing alignment between 6836 and 7000 Sally Lane. The available installation
space will be tight in this area and will require careful coordination with the contractor and the
homeowners. The current easement may need to be widened due to the increased size of these pipes.
Careful coordination and communication with the property owners affected by this option will be
necessary.
4.4.3 Option C: Construct Surface Overflow Channels from Sally Lane
As described in Figure 4-3, Option C includes construction of two gravity surface overflow channels from
Sally Lane to the Braemar Branch. The northern channel having an upstream invert of 860.1 feet will pass
between 6836 Sally Lane and 7000 Sally Lane. The southern channel will pass between 7000 Sally Lane
and 7004 Sally Lane and will have an upstream invert of 860.3 feet. Both of the channels are being
proposed with vertical retaining walls and riprap bottoms due to the high design flows and velocities
associated with the 100 year, 24-hour rainfall event and the narrow space available between the homes.
The easement located between 6836 Sally Lane and 7000 Sally Lane may need to be widened for the
north overflow channel. The south overflow will require the creation of an easement between 7000 and
7004 Sally Lane. Careful coordination and communication with the property owners affected by this
option will be necessary.
4.4.4 Flood Benefits
Table 4-2 summarizes the water surface elevations in the two low areas near the intersection of Sally Lane
and Paiute Pass for the 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event. The number of dwellings impacted for each
scenario is also included in Table 4-2. Option A lowers the 100-year maximum water surface elevation
below the low entry elevations at 7005 and 7009 Sally Lane. Inundation will still occur in the backyard area
during the 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event; however, it should not directly impact any structures.
Options B and C provide similar benefits, with respect to both the reduction in the maximum water
surface elevation and the number of dwellings protected. Implementing either Option B or C would result
in lowering the maximum water surface elevation below the low entry elevations of the three impacted
dwellings (6845, 7000, and 7004 Sally Lane). There will still be isolated flooding on the street during the
100-year, 24-hour rainfall event; however, it should not directly impact any structures.
None of the three improvement options evaluated have an impact on the 100-year flood elevation in the
Braemar Branch.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2013\STS_406\Final Reports\Project Areas 4-5\Project Areas 4 and 5 Final Report.docx 14
As described in Section 4.4.1, a potential alternative to combining Options A and B would be to upsize
and extend the Option A pipe northward along Sally Lane to collect additional flow from the low area at
Sally Lane and Paiute Pass and reduce or eliminate the need for additional pipe capacity as outlined in
Option B. This option would require installation of a larger and longer pipe that would convey flow from
the intersection of Sally Lane and Paiute Pass south to the downstream side of Valley View Road. An
increased depth of excavation along Sally Lane would be required to allow for tie-in of the low area of the
Sally Lane and Paiute Pass intersection. Depth of cover near the low area, a less than desirable pipe slope
along Sally Lane (less than 0.5%), and potential adverse downstream impacts due to redirection of
significantly higher flows may also pose design concerns and/or challenges.
Table 4-2 100-year, 24-hour maximum water surface elevations (feet, MSL) under proposed
conditions and the number of dwellings (shown in parentheses) that are
inundated at that corresponding elevation
Flooding Area
Existing
Conditions1
Option A1
(2-ft Dia. Pipe to
Braemar Branch)
Option B1
(Increased
Outflow Pipes)
Option C1
(Constructed
Overflows)
Intersection of Sally Lane and Paiute
Pass (NMSB_83 and _84) 862.0 (3) NA 861.3 (0) 861.4 (0)
7009 and 7013 Sally Lane Backyard
Depression Area (NMSB_70) 863.2 (2) 862.2 (0) NA NA
1 Elevations based on Atlas 14 precipitation depths
Table 4-3 summarizes the 100-year, 24-hour peak discharge rates through the proposed storm sewer
pipes and overflows for Options A, B, and C.
Table 4-3 100-year, 24-hour peak flow rates through the proposed pipes for Sally Lane
improvement Options A, B, and C
24-hour Storm
Recurrence
Interval
Option A
(2-ft Pipe to
Braemar
Branch)
Option B
(North Outflow
Pipe)
Option B
(South Outflow
Pipe)
Option C
(North
Overflow)
Option C
(South
Overflow)
100-year 20 cfs 51 cfs 103 cfs 76 cfs 84 cfs
4.4.5 Engineer’s Opinions of Probable Costs
Planning level engineer’s opinions of probable costs were prepared for Options A, B, and C. The opinions
of probable cost, summarized in Table 4-4, are based on our experience on similar construction projects
and the level of information available to determine costs for the proposed projects. Given that the costs
are based on planning-level designs, a contingency of 30% was applied to the estimated construction
costs. The cost associated with the purchase of easements or the widening of existing easements has not
been included in this estimate. See Appendix B for detailed summaries of the costs for Options A, B,
and C.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2013\STS_406\Final Reports\Project Areas 4-5\Project Areas 4 and 5 Final Report.docx 15
Table 4-4 Estimated costs for Sally Lane and Paiute Pass (Project Area 5) improvement
Options A, B, and C
Improvement Option Estimated Cost1
Option A: 24” RCP draining Sally Lane
backyard depression area to existing storm
sewer
$210,000
Option B: increasing the pipe sizes for the
north and south outfalls from Sally Lane to
the Braemar Branch of Nine Mile Creek
$150,000
Option C: construction of two overflow
channels from Sally Lane to the Braemar
Branch of Nine Mile Creek
$160,000
Combined Option A +B $360,000
Combined Option A + C $370,000
1 Costs rounded up to the nearest $10,000.
4.4.6 Water Quality Benefits
Although flood risk reduction was the primary objective of this analysis, opportunities to implement water
quality improvements within the study area were also considered. Due to the limited availability of
undeveloped or publicly-owned land within the direct study area, construction of water quality BMPs is
difficult. However, we recommend that the City consider installation of rainwater gardens in the City right-
of-way or installation of sump manholes with SAFL Baffles (or other underground hydrodynamic
treatment structures) to provide opportunity for settling of sediment prior to discharge of stormwater to
the Braemar Branch.
Although somewhat beyond the study area, a wooded area at the north end of the Braemar Branch was
identified as a potential site for stormwater management. The low area (approximately 2.4 acres), which is
located west of 6800 through 6812 Sally Lane and south of Sioux Trail in subwatershed NMSB_77, receives
stormwater from portions of Edina and Eden Prairie. Review of the National Wetland Inventory indicates
that the low area may not be classified as a wetland. The City may want to consider this site for future
stormwater management efforts given the high proportion of previously untreated flows to this location.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327354\WorkFiles\2013\STS_406\Final Reports\Project Areas 4-5\Project Areas 4 and 5 Final Report.docx 16
Figures
^_
^_
Project Area 4 - Cahill and Dewey Hill Road
Project Area 5 - Sally Lane and Paiute Pass
§¨¦494
£¤169
£¤169
62
100
7
100
7
62
Figure 1-1
PROJECT STUDY AREAS
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.2.1, 2014-05-28 08:36 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\STS406\Maps\Reports\Final_Memo_PA4_5\Figure 1-1 - Project Study Areas.mxd User: jrv
0 2,500 5,000Feet
!;N
Imagery: Microsoft; 2012
^_Project Areas
City of Edina Boundary
0 400 800Feet
Figure 3-3
EXISTING CONDITIONS100-YEAR INUNDATIONProject Area 4 -Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.2.1, 2014-05-28 08:37 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\STS406\Maps\Reports\Final_Memo_PA4_5\Figure 3-3 - Existing Conditions 100-Year Inundation, Project Area 4 - Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road.mxd User: jrv
!>Existing Manhole/Catch Basin
Existing Storm Sewer
100-Year 24-Hour EventInundation Area*
Subwatersheds
Parcels !;N
Imagery: Microsoft; 2012
*Vertical Datum: NGVD 29, Feet
Vertical accuracy of the MNDNR 2011 LiDAR data u se d for mapp ing the inundation area is +/- 5 cm (0.1 6 ft) fo r the p ro ject areas within the City o f Ed ina (Source: h ttp://www.mngeo.state.mn .us/ch ouse/metadata/lidar_metro2011.html).
SWP_46X
Lewis Park
456728
Dublin Road
Cahill Road
A
n
t
r
i
m
C
o
u
r
t
Gleason Road
Dewey Hill Road
Gleason Road
HydePark Circle
A ntri m T e rr a c e
H y d e P a r k L a n e
Lee Valley Road
S hannon Circle
W 7 8 th S tre e t
Antrim Road
Dewy Hill Road
Tara Road
Long Brake Circle
Bonnie Brae Drive
Kemrich Drive
Shaughnessy Road
Stonewood Court
H
y
d
e
P
a
r
k
D
r
i
v
e
Creek Ridge Circle
C
e
c
i
l
i
a
C
i
r
c
l
e
Marth Court
Lochmere Terrace
Lanham Lane
Glasgow Drive
Coventry Way
Tanglewood Court
S
h
a
n
n
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
Tralee Drive
D
o
w
n R
o
a
d
C
la
r
e
d
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
E Bush
Lake Road
Amundson Avenue
S
ha
n
no
n
D
r
iv
e
S
c
h
e
y
D
riv
e
Delaney Blvd
Fleetwood Drive
Long Brake Trail
NMC_31NMC_39
NMS_37
NMS_26
NMS_25
NMS_60
NMS_29
NMS_14
NMS_39
NMS_32
NMSB_25
NMSB_14
NMSB_15
NMSB_16
NMSB_16
NMSB_17
NMSB_59
NMSB_58
NMSB_30
NMSB_13
SWP_24
SWP_25
SWP_26
SWP_49
SWP_50
SWP_56
SWP_55
SWP_54
SWP_18
SWP_23
SWP_19
NM494_4
SWP_6
NM494_1
SWP_8
SWP_9
SWP_41
SWP_57
SWP_43
SWP_44
SWP_14
SWP_15
SWP_20
SWP_28
SWP_27
SWP_30
SWP_29
SWP_5
SWP_16
SWP_17
SWP_21 SWP_48
SWP_10
SWP_11
SWP_58
SWP_33
SWP_7
SWP_53
NM494_5
SWP_52
SWP_3 SWP_4
SWP_31
SWP_1
SWP_2
SWP_35
SWP_36
SWP_12
SWP_60
SWP_40
NM494_3
NM494_6
SWP_38
SWP_39
SWP_61
SWP_13
SWP_62 SWP_22
SWP_63
SWP_42
SWP_59
SWP_64
SWP_32
NM494_7
NM494_2
SWP_37
SWP_34
SWP_47
SWP_45
SWP_46
SWP_66
SWP_51
Vertical accuracy of the MNDNR 2011 LiDAR data u se d for mapp ing the inundation area is +/- 5 cm (0.1 6 ft) fo r the p ro ject areas within the City o f Ed ina (Source: h ttp://www.mngeo.state.mn .us/ch ouse/metadata/lidar_metro2011.html).Imagery: Microsoft; 2012
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>!>
!>!>!>!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
SWP_46X
SWP_46
NMS_32
SWP_34
NMS_29
SWP_35
NMS_39
SWP_45SWP_48
NMS_14
NMS_26
SWP_17 SWP_64SWP_5
SWP_44
Cahill Road
Dewey Hill Road
0 400 800Feet
Figure 3-5
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTOPTION AProject Area 4 -Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.2.1, 2014-05-28 08:40 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\STS406\Maps\Reports\Final_Memo_PA4_5\Figure 3-5 - Proposed Improvement Option A, Project Area 4 - Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road.mxd User: jrv
!>Existing Manhole/Catch Basin
Surface Overflow
Existing Storm Sewer
Option A:100-Year 24-Hour EventInundation Area*
Option A: Soil Removal
Subwatersheds
Parcels
!;N
Imagery: Microsoft; 2012
*Vertical Datum: NGVD 29, Feet
Vertical accuracy of the MNDNR 2011 LiDAR data u se d for mapp ing the inundation area is +/- 5 cm (0.1 6 ft) fo r the p ro ject areas within the City o f Ed ina (Source: h ttp://www.mngeo.state.mn .us/ch ouse/metadata/lidar_metro2011.html).
SWP_46X
Lewis Park
Drop outlet to827 feet.
Replace with 24-inch RCP, control elevation at 827 feet.
Install new 36-inchRCP for additionalcapacity.
456728
Dublin Road
Cahill Road
A
n
t
r
i
m
C
o
u
r
t
Gleason Road
Dewey Hill Road
Gleason Road
HydePark Circle
A ntri m T e rr a c e
H y d e P a r k L a n e
Lee Valley Road
S hannon Circle
W 7 8 th S tre e t
Antrim Road
Dewy Hill Road
Tara Road
Long Brake Circle
Bonnie Brae Drive
Kemrich Drive
Shaughnessy Road
Stonewood Court
H
y
d
e
P
a
r
k
D
r
i
v
e
Creek Ridge Circle
C
e
c
i
l
i
a
C
i
r
c
l
e
Marth Court
Lochmere Terrace
Lanham Lane
Glasgow Drive
Coventry Way
Tanglewood Court
S
h
a
n
n
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
Tralee Drive
D
o
w
n R
o
a
d
C
la
r
e
d
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
E Bush
Lake Road
Amundson Avenue
S
ha
n
no
n
D
r
iv
e
S
c
h
e
y
D
riv
e
Delaney Blvd
Fleetwood Drive
Long Brake Trail
NMC_31NMC_39
NMS_37
NMS_26
NMS_25
NMS_60
NMS_29
NMS_14
NMSB_25
NMSB_14
NMSB_15
NMSB_16
NMSB_16
NMSB_17
NMSB_59
NMSB_58
NMSB_30
NMSB_13
SWP_24
SWP_25
SWP_26
SWP_49
SWP_50
SWP_56
SWP_55
SWP_54
SWP_18
SWP_23
SWP_19
NM494_4
SWP_6
NM494_1
SWP_8
SWP_9
SWP_41
SWP_57
SWP_43
SWP_44
SWP_14
SWP_15
SWP_20
SWP_28
SWP_27
SWP_30
SWP_29
SWP_5
SWP_16
SWP_17
SWP_21 SWP_48
SWP_10
SWP_11
SWP_58
SWP_33
SWP_7
SWP_53
NM494_5
SWP_52
SWP_3 SWP_4
SWP_31
SWP_1
SWP_2
SWP_35
SWP_36
SWP_12
SWP_60
SWP_40
NM494_3
NM494_6
SWP_38
SWP_39
SWP_61
SWP_13
SWP_62 SWP_22
SWP_63
SWP_42
SWP_59
SWP_64
SWP_32
NM494_7
NM494_2
SWP_37
SWP_34
SWP_47
SWP_45
SWP_46
SWP_66
SWP_51
Vertical accuracy of the MNDNR 2011 LiDAR data u se d for mapp ing the inundation area is +/- 5 cm (0.1 6 ft) fo r the p ro ject areas within the City o f Ed ina (Source: h ttp://www.mngeo.state.mn .us/ch ouse/metadata/lidar_metro2011.html).Imagery: Microsoft; 2012
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>!>
!>!>!>!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
SWP_46X
SWP_46
NMS_32
NMS_29
SWP_34
NMS_39
SWP_35
SWP_45SWP_48
NMS_26
NMS_14SWP_17 SWP_64SWP_44
Cahill Road
Dewey Hill Road
Install new 36-InchRCP for additionalcapacity.
0 100 200Feet
Figure 4-1
EXISTING CONDITIONS100-YEAR INUNDATIONProject Area 5 -Sally Lane and Paiute Pass
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.2.1, 2014-05-28 08:42 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\STS406\Maps\Reports\Final_Memo_PA4_5\Figure 4-1 - Existing Conditions 100-Year Inundation, Project Area 5 - Sally Lane and Paiute Pass.mxd User: jrv
!>Existing Manhole/Catch Basin
Surface Overflow
Existing Storm Sewer
100-Year 24-Hour EventInundation Area*
Subwatersheds
Parcels
!;N
Imagery: Microsoft; 2012
*Vertical Datum: NGVD 29, Feet
Vertical accuracy of the MNDNR 2011 LiDAR data u se d for mapp ing the inundation area is +/- 5 cm (0.1 6 ft) fo r the p ro ject areas within the City o f Ed ina (Source: h ttp://www.mngeo.state.mn .us/ch ouse/metadata/lidar_metro2011.html).
V a l l e y V i e w R o a d
£¤169
Paiute Dr
C
o
m
m
a
n
c
h
e
C
o
u
r
t
P a i u t e P a s s
Sally Lane
V
a
ll
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
d
M
c
c
a
u
l
e
y
T
r
a
i
l
6908 6910
6912
6914
69166604
66086612
6824
6828
6832
6833
6837
6841
68456836
6913
6909
24
6921
6923
6917
6919
7146
7144
7142
7005
7009
7013
6625 6621
6617
6613
7017
7143
7141
7138
7136
7134
7132
24
6609
7021
7025
7029
7033
7137
7149 7147 7145
24
7001
7005
7009
7013
7017
7021
7025
7000
7004
7008
7012
7016
7020
7024
7028
7013
7009
7005
7021
24
7003
7001
7025
7027
7017
7019
NMSB_75
NMSB_72
NMSB_72
NMSB_70
NMSB_42
NMSB_43
NMSB_65
NMSB_76
NMSB_79
NMSB_49
NMSB_81
NMSB_71
NMSB_84
NMSB_83
NMSB_46
NMSB_52
NMSB_69
NMSB_4
Vertical accuracy of the MNDNR 2011 LiDAR data u se d for mapp ing the inundation area is +/- 5 cm (0.1 6 ft) fo r the p ro ject areas within the City o f Ed ina (Source: h ttp://www.mngeo.state.mn .us/ch ouse/metadata/lidar_metro2011.html).Imagery: Microsoft; 2012
0 100 200Feet
Figure 4-2
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTOPTIONS A AND BProject Area 5 -Sally Lane and Paiute Pass
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.2.1, 2014-05-28 08:43 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\STS406\Maps\Reports\Final_Memo_PA4_5\Figure 4-2 - Proposed Improvement Option A and B, Project Area 5 - Sally Lane and Paiute Pass.mxd User: jrv
!>Existing Manhole/Catch Basin
Existing Storm Sewer
Option A and B:100-Year 24-Hour EventInundation Area*
Option A: Proposed Storm Sewer (2' pipe)
Option B: North Pipe (3' Pipe)
Option B: South Pipe (4' Pipe)
Subwatersheds
Parcels
!;N
Imagery: Microsoft; 2012
*Vertical Datum: NGVD 29, Feet
Vertical accuracy of the MNDNR 2011 LiDAR data u se d for mapp ing the inundation area is +/- 5 cm (0.1 6 ft) fo r the p ro ject areas within the City o f Ed ina (Source: h ttp://www.mngeo.state.mn .us/ch ouse/metadata/lidar_metro2011.html).
!>
!>
!>!>
!>
!>
!>
!>!>!>
!>
!>
!>!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>!>
V a l l e y V i e w R o a d
£¤169
Paiute Dr
C
o
m
m
a
n
c
h
e
C
o
u
r
t
P a i u t e P a s s
Sally Lane
V
a
ll
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
d
M
c
c
a
u
l
e
y
T
r
a
i
l
6908 6910
6912
6914
69166604
66086612
6824
6828
6832
6833
6837
6841
68456836
6913
6909
24
6921
6923
6917
6919
7146
7144
7142
7005
7009
7013
6625 6621
6617
6613
7017
7143
7141
7138
7136
7134
7132
24
6609
7021
7025
7029
7033
7137
7149 7147 7145
24
7001
7005
7009
7013
7017
7021
7025
7000
7004
7008
7012
7016
7020
7024
7028
7013
7009
7005
7021
24
7003
7001
7025
7027
7017
7019
NMSB_75
NMSB_72
NMSB_72
NMSB_70
NMSB_42
NMSB_43
NMSB_65
NMSB_76
NMSB_79
NMSB_49
NMSB_81
NMSB_71
NMSB_84
NMSB_83
NMSB_46
NMSB_52
NMSB_69
NMSB_4
Vertical accuracy of the MNDNR 2011 LiDAR data u se d for mapp ing the inundation area is +/- 5 cm (0.1 6 ft) fo r the p ro ject areas within the City o f Ed ina (Source: h ttp://www.mngeo.state.mn .us/ch ouse/metadata/lidar_metro2011.html).Imagery: Microsoft; 2012
0 100 200Feet
Figure 4-3
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTOPTIONS A AND CProject Area 5 -Sally Lane and Paiute Pass
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.2.1, 2014-05-28 08:44 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\STS406\Maps\Reports\Final_Memo_PA4_5\Figure 4-3 - Proposed Improvement Option A and C, Project Area 5 - Sally Lane and Paiute Pass.mxd User: jrv
!>Existing Manhole/Catch Basin
Existing Storm Sewer
Option A and C:100-Year 24-Hour EventInundation Area*
Option A: Proposed Storm Sewer (2' pipe)
Option C: Overflow Channels
Subwatersheds
Parcels
!;N
Imagery: Microsoft; 2012
*Vertical Datum: NGVD 29, Feet
Vertical accuracy of the MNDNR 2011 LiDAR data u se d for mapp ing the inundation area is +/- 5 cm (0.1 6 ft) fo r the p ro ject areas within the City o f Ed ina (Source: h ttp://www.mngeo.state.mn .us/ch ouse/metadata/lidar_metro2011.html).
!>
!>
!>!>
!>
!>
!>
!>!>!>
!>
!>
!>!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>!>
V a l l e y V i e w R o a d
£¤169
Paiute Dr
C
o
m
m
a
n
c
h
e
C
o
u
r
t
P a i u t e P a s s
Sally Lane
V
a
ll
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
d
M
c
c
a
u
l
e
y
T
r
a
i
l
6908 6910
6912
6914
69166604
66086612
6824
6828
6832
6833
6837
6841
68456836
6913
6909
24
6921
6923
6917
6919
7146
7144
7142
7005
7009
7013
6625 6621
6617
6613
7017
7143
7141
7138
7136
7134
7132
24
6609
7021
7025
7029
7033
7137
7149 7147 7145
24
7001
7005
7009
7013
7017
7021
7025
7000
7004
7008
7012
7016
7020
7024
7028
7013
7009
7005
7021
24
7003
7001
7025
7027
7017
7019
NMSB_75
NMSB_72
NMSB_72
NMSB_70
NMSB_42
NMSB_43
NMSB_65
NMSB_76
NMSB_79
NMSB_49
NMSB_81
NMSB_71
NMSB_84
NMSB_83
NMSB_46
NMSB_52
NMSB_69
NMSB_4
Vertical accuracy of the MNDNR 2011 LiDAR data u se d for mapp ing the inundation area is +/- 5 cm (0.1 6 ft) fo r the p ro ject areas within the City o f Ed ina (Source: h ttp://www.mngeo.state.mn .us/ch ouse/metadata/lidar_metro2011.html).Imagery: Microsoft; 2012
Appendices
Appendix A
Cost Estimate
Project Area 4—Cahill Road and Dewey Hill Road
May 15, 2014
ITEM DESCRIPTIONUNITAMOUNTUNIT COSTTOTAL COST
MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATIONLS133,000.00$ 33,000.00$
TRAFFIC CONTROLLS15,000.00$ 5,000.00$
EROSION CONTROLLS17,000.00$ 7,000.00$
REMOVALS AND EARTHWORK
SAW CUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTLN FT3003.50$ 1,050.00$
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTSQ YD75152.00$ 15,030.00$
REMOVE CONC. CURB & GUTTER (B-618)LN FT16805.00$ 8,400.00$
REMOVE TENNIS COURTSSQ YD18502.00$ 3,700.00$
REMOVE TENNIS COURT FENCELS1500.00$ 500.00$
EARTHWORK CUT AND DISPOSALCY11300015.00$ 1,695,000.00$
FINAL GRADINGACRE147,000.00$ 98,000.00$
STORM SEWER
36" CPEP STORM SEWER, 4 to 12' DEPTHLN FT20052.00$ 10,400.00$
60" DIA RC CATCH BASINEACH13,500.00$ 3,500.00$
36" END SECTIONEACH1400.00$ 400.00$
MODIFY OUTLET GRATEEACH13,000.00$ 3,000.00$
STREET PAVEMENT
8" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5CU YD209034.00$ 71,060.00$
TOP SOIL BORROWCU YD1130020.00$ 226,000.00$
REPLACE B618 CONC. CURB & GUTTERLN FT168013.50$ 22,680.00$
2" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSESQ YD93657.50$ 70,237.50$
2" BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE W/TACKSQ YD93658.50$ 79,602.50$
TENNIS COURT PAVEMENTSQ YD185015.00$ 27,750.00$
TENNIS COURT FENCELN FT52090.00$ 46,800.00$
SEEDING TURF GRASSESAC145,000.00$ 70,000.00$
SITE RESTORATIONLS110,000.00$10,000.00$
2,508,110.00$
OTHER
CONTINGENCY30%752,433.00$
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN15%489,081.45$
7%228,238.01$
AREA 4, OPTION A TOTAL COST 3,977,862.46$
Cahill and Dewey
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST: AREA 4, OPTION "A"
SUB TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION AND OBSERVATION
Appendix B
Cost Estimates
Project Area 5—Sally Lane and Paiute Pass
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST: AREA 5 OPTION "A"
May 15, 2014
ITEM DESCRIPTIONUNITAMOUNTUNIT COSTTOTAL COST
MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATIONLS117,000.00$ 17,000.00$
TRAFFIC CONTROLLS15,000.00$ 5,000.00$
SEEDING TURF GRASSESAC0.1312,500.00$ 1,625.00$
SITE RESTORATIONLS15,000.00$ 5,000.00$
TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL
SILT FENCELN FT5003.50$ 1,750.00$
INLET PROTECTIONEACH10350.00$ 3,500.00$
CAT. 4 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSQ YD6001.85$ 1,110.00$
REMOVALS
SAW CUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTLN FT6003.50$ 2,100.00$
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTSQ YD9352.00$ 1,870.00$
REMOVE CONC. CURB & GUTTER (B-618)LN FT4105.00$ 2,050.00$
STORM AND SANITARY SEWER
24" CPEP - 4 TO 12' DEPTHLN FT93030.00$ 27,900.00$
24" FESEACH1500.00$ 500.00$
CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWEREACH1500.00$ 500.00$
48" DIA. RC CATCH BASIN, COMPLETELN FT30300.00$ 9,000.00$
60" DIA. RC CATCH BASIN, COMPLETELN FT30650.00$ 19,500.00$
STREET PAVEMENT/RESTORATION
8" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5CU YD21034.00$ 7,140.00$
REPLACE B618 CONC. CURB & GUTTERLN FT41013.50$ 5,535.00$
2" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSESQ YD9357.50$ 7,012.50$
2" BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE W/TACKSQ YD9358.50$ 7,947.50$
TOP SOIL BORROWCU YD10020.00$ 2,000.00$
SUBTOTAL 128,040.00$
OTHER
CONTINGENCY30%38,412.00$
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN15%24,968.00$
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION AND OBSERVATION7%11,652.00$
AREA 5, SALLY LANE, OPTION A TOTAL COST 203,072.00$
Sally Lane and Paiute Pass, Outflow Pipe
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST: AREA 5 OPTION "B"
May 15, 2014
ITEM DESCRIPTIONUNITAMOUNTUNIT COSTTOTAL COST
MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATIONLS113,000.00$ 13,000.00$
TRAFFIC CONTROLLS12,000.00$ 2,000.00$
SEEDING TURF GRASSESAC0.112,500.00$ 1,250.00$
SITE RESTORATIONLS14,000.00$ 4,000.00$
TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL
SILT FENCELN FT4503.50$ 1,575.00$
INLET PROTECTIONEACH7350.00$ 2,450.00$
CAT. 4 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSQ YD4701.85$ 869.50$
REMOVALS
SAW CUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTLN FT4010.00$ 400.00$
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTSQ YD405.00$ 200.00$
REMOVE CONC. CURB & GUTTER (B-618)LN FT405.00$ 200.00$
REMOVE 24" RCPLN FT39010.00$ 3,900.00$
STORM AND SANITARY SEWER
36" CPEP - 4 TO 12' DEPTHLN FT21052.00$ 10,920.00$
36" FESEACH1500.00$ 500.00$
48" CPEP - 6 TO 12' DEPTHLN FT19073.00$ 13,870.00$
48" FESEACH1800.00$ 800.00$
CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWEREACH2500.00$ 1,000.00$
60" DIA. RC CATCH BASIN, COMPLETELN FT36650.00$ 23,400.00$
CLASS 5 RIPRAP WITH FILTERTON6075.00$ 4,500.00$
STREET PAVEMENT
8" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5CU YD8034.00$ 2,720.00$
REPLACE B618 CONC. CURB & GUTTERLN FT4013.50$ 540.00$
2" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSESQ YD407.50$ 300.00$
2" BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE W/TACKSQ YD408.50$ 340.00$
TOP SOIL BORROWCU YD8020.00$ 1,600.00$
SUBTOTAL 90,334.50$
OTHER
CONTINGENCY30%27,100.00$
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN15%17,615.00$
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION AND OBSERVATION7%8,220.00$
AREA 5, SALLY LANE, OPTION B TOTAL COST 143,270.00$
Sally Lane and Paiute Pass - Increased Pipe Size at Overflow
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST: AREA 5 OPTION "C"
May 15, 2014
ITEM DESCRIPTIONUNITAMOUNTUNIT COSTTOTAL COST
MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATIONLS112,500.00$ 12,500.00$
TRAFFIC CONTROLLS12,000.00$ 2,000.00$
SEEDING TURF GRASSESAC0.112,500.00$ 1,250.00$
SITE RESTORATIONLS14,000.00$ 4,000.00$
TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL
SILT FENCELN FT4503.50$ 1,575.00$
INLET PROTECTIONEACH7350.00$ 2,450.00$
CAT. 4 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETSQ YD1201.85$ 222.00$
REMOVALS
SAW CUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTLN FT4010.00$ 400.00$
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTSQ YD405.00$ 200.00$
REMOVE CONC. CURB & GUTTER (B-618)LN FT405.00$ 200.00$
REMOVE 24" RCPLN FT39010.00$ 3,900.00$
STORM SEWER AND WALLS
CONCRETE SLABCY23.5390.00$ 9,165.00$
CONCRETE VERTICAL WALLSCY17.8490.00$ 8,722.00$
DECORATIVE CONCRETESF72012.00$ 8,640.00$
RAILINGLF190150.00$ 28,500.00$
CLASS 5 RIPRAP WITH FILTERTON10075.00$ 7,500.00$
STREET PAVEMENT
8" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5CU YD8034.00$ 2,720.00$
REPLACE B618 CONC. CURB & GUTTERLN FT4013.50$ 540.00$
2" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSESQ YD407.50$ 300.00$
2" BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE W/TACKSQ YD408.50$ 340.00$
TOP SOIL BORROWCU YD2020.00$ 400.00$
SUBTOTAL 95,524.00$
OTHER
CONTINGENCY30%28,657.00$
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN15%18,627.00$
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION AND OBSERVATION7%8,693.00$
AREA 5, SALLY LANE, OPTION C TOTAL COST 151,501.00$
Sally Lane and Paiute Pass - Channel with Walls at Overflow
FEASIBILITY STUDY – BA 377
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDINA
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Valley View Road (MSAS 151) – McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive
September 10, 2014
Appendix B
City Comprehensive Plan Update-Sidewalk and Bicycle
Facilities (Fig. 7.10 and Fig. 7.11)
FEASIBILITY STUDY – BA 377
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDINA
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Valley View Road (MSAS 151) – McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive
September 10, 2014
Appendix C
Informational Letter and Questionnaire
-XQH
1HLJKERUKRRG5RDGZD\5HFRQVWUXFWLRQ
9DOOH\9LHZ5RDG5HFRQVWUXFWLRQ
'HDU5HVLGHQW
9DOOH\9LHZ5RDGDVWUHHWLQ\RXUQHLJKERUKRRGLVRQDOLVWRIURDGZD\UHFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGXWLOLW\LPSURYHPHQWSURMHFWV
EHLQJFRQVLGHUHGE\WKH&LW\RI(GLQDIRUWKHVXPPHURI6HHWKHDWWDFKHGPDSLGHQWLI\LQJ\RXUSURMHFWDUHD
7KH&LW\ZRXOGOLNH\RXULQSXWUHJDUGLQJNH\FRPSRQHQWVRIWKHSURMHFWYLDWKHDWWDFKHGTXHVWLRQQDLUH3OHDVHUHDGWKH
LQVWUXFWLRQVILOORXWWKHTXHVWLRQQDLUHDQGUHWXUQLWWRXVLQWKHHQFORVHGHQYHORSHE\-XQH
+RZWKH&LW\ZLOOXVH\RXULQSXW
• <RXUUHVSRQVHVKHOSXVGHVLJQWKHSURMHFW&RPSRQHQWVRIDSURMHFWYDU\DQGDUHEDVHGRQERWKWKHFRQGLWLRQRIWKH
LQIUDVWUXFWXUHDQGTXHVWLRQQDLUHUHVSRQVHV2QHQHZFRPSRQHQWWKDWVWDIILVFRQVLGHULQJLVLQFRUSRUDWLQJHOHPHQWVRI
WKH&LW\·V/LYLQJ6WUHHWV3ROLF\7KHGUDIWSODQJXLGHVWKH&LW\LQGHVLJQLQJVDIHVWUHHWVWKDWEDODQFHVWKHQHHGVRI
GULYHUVSHGHVWULDQVELF\FOLVWVDQGWUDQVLWXVHUVLQZD\VWKDWSURPRWHVDIHW\DQGFRQYHQLHQFHHQKDQFHFRPPXQLW\
LGHQWLW\FUHDWHHFRQRPLFYLWDOLW\LPSURYHHQYLURQPHQWDOVXVWDLQDELOLW\DQGSURYLGHPHDQLQJIXORSSRUWXQLWLHVIRU
DFWLYHOLYLQJDQGEHWWHUKHDOWK
• 3URSHUW\RZQHUVSD\DSRUWLRQRIWKHRYHUDOOSURMHFWFRVWLQWKHIRUPRIDVSHFLDODVVHVVPHQW7KHHVWLPDWHGVSHFLDO
DVVHVVPHQWIRU9DOOH\9LHZ5RDGZLOOQRWEHGHWHUPLQHGXQWLOLQIRUPDWLRQLVJDWKHUHGIURPWKHTXHVWLRQQDLUHVDQGD
IHDVLELOLW\UHSRUWLVFRPSOHWHGLQHDUO\6HSWHPEHU<RXZLOOQRWEHELOOHGIRUWKHVSHFLDODVVHVVPHQWXQWLOIDOO7KH
VSHFLDODVVHVVPHQWLVSD\DEOHRYHU\HDUV
• 7KHVSHFLDODVVHVVPHQWLVIRUDSRUWLRQRIWKHFRVWRIWKHQHZURDGZD\9DOOH\9LHZ5RDGLVD0XQLFLSDO6WDWH$LG
VWUHHW WKHUHIRUH6WDWH$LGIXQGVFRYHURIWKHURDGZD\FRVWDQGWKHRWKHULVFRYHUHGE\VSHFLDODVVHVVPHQW
6LGHZDONVDUHIXQGHGWKURXJKWKH3HGHVWULDQDQG&\FOLVW6DIHW\)XQGDQGWKXVDUHQRWDVVHVVHGWRSURSHUW\RZQHUV
7KHTXHVWLRQQDLUHKHOSVXVHYDOXDWHWKHQHHGIRUWKHVHLWHPV8WLOLW\XSJUDGHVVXFKDVZDWHUPDLQVDQLWDU\VHZHU
VWRUPVHZHUDQGFRQFUHWHFXUEDQGJXWWHUDUHIXQGHGWKURXJKWKHXWLOLW\IXQGDQGDUHQRWDVVHVVHGWRSURSHUW\
RZQHUV
$IWHUZHUHYLHZTXHVWLRQQDLUHUHVSRQVHVZHZLOOFRQWLQXHWKHSURMHFWGHVLJQSURFHVV:HZLOOSUHVHQWWKHIHDVLELOLW\
UHSRUWDWDSXEOLFKHDULQJLQ'HFHPEHU&RQVWUXFWLRQZLOOEHJLQLQVSULQJHDUO\VXPPHUDQGHQGLQODWHIDOORI
,I\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVSOHDVHFRQWDFW:6%3URMHFW0DQDJHU$QGUHZ3ORZPDQDW RU
DSORZPDQ#ZVEHQJFRPRU'LUHFWRURI(QJLQHHULQJ&KDG0LOOQHUDW RUFPLOOQHU#(GLQD01JRY
6LQFHUHO\
&KDG0LOOQHU3(
'LUHFWRURI(QJLQHHULQJ
(QF 3URMHFW0DS4XHVWLRQQDLUH,QVWUXFWLRQV4XHVWLRQQDLUH5HWXUQ(QYHORSH
/
Engineering Dept
May, 2014
Preliminary Project Area
Valley View Road Neighborhood
Improvement No: BA-377C
I
T
Y
OF
E D I N A MI
N
N
E
S
OTA
IN CO R P O R A T E D
1 8 8 8
,
e
1
16
6915
6917
7225
6505
6629
7120
6621
6821
7175-89
6625
6925-53
6907
6911
7005-35
6725
6955-73
14
7115-33
7
8
6625
6865-
89
6975-89
7101
6621
6629
7251-79
42
7137
6621
7108
17
33
25
6617
7029
6625
6808
7100
7116
7201
6617
7009
6628
6804
693
6624
7135
6624
6801
6817
6620
6813
12
7104
6809
6817
6900
6940
6805
7017
6805
6904
7133
7011
6909
7021
6905
6908 6936
7005-07
6912
6906
6915
7009-11
6700
6916
6800
6801
7
6825
6829
6621
7013-15
6901
7021-23
6705
6920
6817
6901
6509
6919
6620
7013
6910
6801
6815
7019
6821
6808
7009
6833
6700
6813
6913
7017
6905
6812
6612
6941
6904
6609
6909
6809
70
694
6804
6800
6701
6720
6837
6813
6724
6921
7033
7128
6504
6704
712
6725
7136
7132
6716
6608
6905
7005
7033
6712
6708
6713
6708
6908
6725
67136721
7143
6500
6717
6928
7149
67096717
6804
6801
7128
6717
6604
6705
6705
6721
6820
6800
67136709
6709
6712
6701
6808
7132
6804
6816
6936
6721
6909
6832
6824
6725
6916
6932
7013
7025
7141
7001
7147
6901
6828
7037
6917
6716
7142
6913
6841
6845
6700
6800
6705
6720
7138
6902
6708
7145
6709
7028
7021
6809
7140
7130
6809
6704
7005
7001
6921
6836
6914
7005
6912
6625
7136
7017
7025
6812
6801
7134
6805
7029
6808
661366176621
7003 7000
6805
7009
7024
7016
7
1
4
4
6900
7019
7004
7020
7008
6923
7017
7012
7126
6812
7001
7
1
4
6
6903
7025
7027
6803
73517347
VALLEYVIE
W
R
D
SA
L
L
Y
L
N
CO
M
A
N
C
H
E
C
T
HW
Y
1
6
9
Project Limits
Indian
Trails
5HVLGHQW4XHVWLRQQDLUH,QVWUXFWLRQV
1HLJKERUKRRG5RDGZD\5HFRQVWUXFWLRQ
9DOOH\9LHZ5RDG5HFRQVWUXFWLRQ
7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUWLPH<RXUUHVSRQVHVWRWKHDWWDFKHGTXHVWLRQQDLUHZLOOKHOSXVGHVLJQ\RXUURDGZD\
SURMHFW+HUHLVEDFNJURXQGLQIRUPDWLRQWKDWZLOODLG\RXLQILOOLQJRXWWKHTXHVWLRQQDLUH(DFKQXPHUDOUHODWHV
WRWKHFRUUHVSRQGLQJVXUYH\TXHVWLRQ
,'UDLQDJH6HUYLFH&RQQHFWLRQ
$W\SLFDOVXPSSXPSGLVFKDUJHVRQWRDKRPHRZQHU·VODZQ7KHUHDUHVHYHUDOVXPSSXPSGUDLQDJHLVVXHVWR
ORRNIRU)LUVWLI\RXUODZQGUDLQVEDFNWR\RXUKRXVHVXPSSXPSGLVFKDUJHVFDQFDXVHSUREOHPVZLWK\RXU
ODZQ\RXUQHLJKERU·VODZQRU\RXUEDVHPHQW,IWKHVXPSSXPSGLVFKDUJHUXQVGRZQWKHJXWWHUOLQHLWFDQ
SURPRWHDOJDHJURZWKLQWKHVWUHHW)LQDOO\GLVFKDUJLQJWKHVXPSSXPSLQWRWKHVDQLWDU\VHZHUV\VWHPXVLQJ
IORRUGUDLQVRUODXQGU\WXEVLVDJDLQVWWKHODZERWKE\&LW\2UGLQDQFHDQG6WDWH6WDWXWH
7RSUHYHQWWKHLVVXHVPHQWLRQHGDERYH\RXUVWUHHWUHFRQVWUXFWLRQSURMHFWFRXOGLQFOXGHD&LW\VXPSGUDLQ
V\VWHPDORQJWKHURDGZD\WRFROOHFWJURXQGZDWHUVWRUPZDWHUUXQRIIDQGGLVFKDUJHVIURPSULYDWHVXPS
SXPSVURRIGUDLQVRUDQ\RWKHUUXQRIIIURPSULYDWHSURSHUW\,IWKHWRSRJUDSK\DQGILQDOVWUHHWGHVLJQVIDYRUD
VXPSGUDLQV\VWHP\RXFRXOGFRQQHFWWRLW7KDWLVZK\VXUYH\TXHVWLRQV,&DQG,'DVNDERXW\RXUVXPS
SXPSSUHIHUHQFHV.HHSLQPLQGWKDWLQVWDOODWLRQRIWKHSLSHIURP\RXUKRXVHWRWKH&LW\VXPSGUDLQV\VWHP
ZRXOGEH\RXUUHVSRQVLELOLW\LQFOXGLQJSOXPELQJPRGLILFDWLRQV+RZHYHUWKH&LW\VXPSGUDLQV\VWHPLVIXQGHG
WKURXJKWKHVWRUPVHZHUXWLOLW\IXQG
,,/RFDO'UDLQDJH3UREOHPV
$VSDUWRIWKHVWRUPVHZHUDQGVXPSGUDLQGHVLJQSURFHVVZHZRXOGOLNHWRNQRZLIVWRUPZDWHUUXQRII
VWDQGVLQWKHVWUHHWRUVLGHZDONLQIURQWRI\RXUKRXVH,IWKLVRUVLPLODUVLWXDWLRQVDUHRFFXUULQJLQ\RXUDUHD
SOHDVHGHVFULEHLWLQWKLVVHFWLRQRIWKHTXHVWLRQQDLUH:HZLOOUHYLHZIRUSRVVLEOHFRUUHFWLYHDFWLRQ
,,,3ULYDWH8QGHUJURXQG8WLOLWLHV
,WLVYHU\LPSRUWDQWWKDW\RXILOORXWWKLVVHFWLRQ6RPHUHVLGHQWVLQVWDOOSULYDWHXQGHUJURXQGXWLOLWLHVLQWKH
URDGZD\ULJKWRIZD\ WKHDUHDIURPWKHHGJHRIWKHURDGZD\WR\RXUSURSHUW\OLQH 7KHPRVWFRPPRQ
SULYDWHXWLOLWLHVLQFOXGHODZQLUULJDWLRQDQGSHWFRQWDLQPHQWV\VWHPV8WLOLW\DQGURDGZD\UHFRQVWUXFWLRQFDQ
GDPDJHWKHVHXWLOLWLHV,IWKH\DUHGDPDJHGGXULQJWKHVWUHHWUHFRQVWUXFWLRQSURMHFWWKH\ZLOOEHUHSDLUHG
+RZHYHULIWKHFRQWUDFWRUNQRZVWKHORFDWLRQRIWKHVHSULYDWHXWLOLWLHVFUHZVFDQDWWHPSWWRDYRLGGDPDJLQJ
WKHPGXULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ
,95HVLGHQWLDO6WUHHWOLJKWV
$VSDUWRIDOOUHFRQVWUXFWLRQSURMHFWVVWDIIW\SLFDOO\DVNVUHVLGHQWVIRUWKHLULQSXWRQQHLJKERUKRRGVWUHHWOLJKW
V\VWHPV6WDIILVWU\LQJWRXQGHUVWDQGLIWKHQHLJKERUKRRGIDYRUVXSJUDGLQJWKHVWUHHWOLJKWV\VWHPRULIWKH
H[LVWLQJVWUHHWOLJKWV\VWHPPHHWVWKHQHHGVRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG
9/LYLQJ6WUHHWV(OHPHQWV
$VSDUWRIWKLVURDGZD\UHFRQVWUXFWLRQSURMHFWVWDIIZLOOVHHNWRLQFRUSRUDWHGHVLJQHOHPHQWVIURPWKH&LW\·V
/LYLQJ6WUHHWV3ROLF\ KWWS HGLQDPQJRY/LYLQJ6WUHHWV DQGGUDIW/LYLQJ6WUHHWV3ODQ7KLVSODQJXLGHVWKH&LW\
LQKRZLWGHVLJQVQHZVWUHHWVWREHVDIHUDQGPRUHDFFHVVLEOHE\VHHNLQJWREDODQFHWKHQHHGVRIPRWRULVWV
SHGHVWULDQVELF\FOLVWVDQGWUDQVLWULGHUVLQZD\VWKDWSURPRWHVDIHW\DQGFRQYHQLHQFHHQKDQFHFRPPXQLW\
LGHQWLW\FUHDWHHFRQRPLFYLWDOLW\LPSURYHHQYLURQPHQWDOVXVWDLQDELOLW\DQGSURYLGHPHDQLQJIXORSSRUWXQLWLHV
IRUDFWLYHOLYLQJDQGEHWWHUKHDOWK
5HVLGHQW4XHVWLRQQDLUH,QVWUXFWLRQV
-XQH
3DJHRI
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ
$FFRUGLQJWRWKHGUDIW/LYLQJ6WUHHWV3ODQ9DOOH\9LHZ5RDGLVFRQVLGHUHGD&ROOHFWRUVWUHHW7KHSURSRVHG
W\SLFDOVHFWLRQIRUWKHVHW\SHVRIVWUHHWVLVVKRZQLQ)LJXUH3OHDVHQRWHWKDWDFFRUGLQJWRWKHGUDIW3ODQ
VLGHZDONVDUHUHTXLUHGRQ&ROOHFWRUVRQDWOHDVWRQHVLGHRIWKHVWUHHW$GGLWLRQDOO\ELF\FOHODQHVDUHUHTXLUHG
RQDOO3ULPDU\%LNH5RXWHVZKLFKLVWKHFDVHZLWK9DOOH\9LHZ5RDG7KHSDUNLQJODQHLVQRWSURSRVHGLQWKLV
ORFDWLRQ
),*85(²352326('&2//(&725675((77<3,&$/6(&7,21
6WRUP:DWHU0DQDJHPHQW
2QHRIWKHSULPDU\FRPSRQHQWVRI(GLQD·V/LYLQJ6WUHHWVYLVLRQLVWKHDFWLYHSXUVXLWRIHQYLURQPHQWDO
VWHZDUGVKLSLQFOXGLQJVHWWLQJJRDOVIRUWKHUHGXFWLRQRIVWRUPZDWHUYROXPHDQGXQILOWHUHGVWUHHWZDWHUIORZV
LQWRRXUORFDOZDWHUZD\V/LYLQJ6WUHHWDSSOLHVWHFKQLTXHVVXFKDVLPSHUYLRXVVXUIDFHUHGXFWLRQELRUHWHQWLRQ
ILOWUDWLRQVHGLPHQWFDSWXUHDQGLQILOWUDWLRQDQGUHXVHRIVWRUPZDWHU7KHVHVWRUPZDWHUWUHDWPHQWVVKRXOGEH
DSSOLHGLQDFRVWHIIHFWLYHDQGVWUDWHJLFZD\WREHVWLQWHJUDWHZLWKYDULRXVWUDQVSRUWDWLRQPRGHVDQGWKH
QHLJKERUKRRGDHVWKHWLF
,QWKHTXHVWLRQQDLUHSOHDVHGHVFULEHWKHTXDOLW\RIQHDUE\QDWXUDOUHVRXUFHVDQGVXUIDFHZDWHUV
9,7UDIILF0DQDJHPHQW
:HZRXOGOLNHWRNQRZLI\RXIHHOWKDW\RXUURDGZD\KDVDQ\WUDIILFLVVXHV
9,,(PDLO8SGDWHV
2QHRIWKHSULPDU\WRROVIRUFRPPXQLFDWLQJZLWK\RXGXULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQLVWKH&LW\([WUDHPDLOQRWLILFDWLRQ
VHUYLFH7KH&LW\([WUDVHUYLFHLVIUHHDQGDOORZV\RXWRVLJQXSWRUHFHLYHHPDLOPHVVDJHVIURPWKH&LW\
UHJDUGLQJWKLVSURMHFW
5HVLGHQW4XHVWLRQQDLUH,QVWUXFWLRQV
-XQH
3DJHRI
%\VLJQLQJXSIRU&LW\([WUDHPDLOQRWLILFDWLRQVHUYLFH\RXZLOOUHFHLYHSURMHFWXSGDWHVDVWKH\RFFXU7KH
XSGDWHVZLOOLQFOXGHLQIRUPDWLRQVXFKDVZKHQDFFHVVWR\RXUGULYHZD\PLJKWEHOLPLWHGZKHQ\RXUZDWHUPD\
EHVKXWRIIIRUZDWHUPDLQUHSODFHPHQWDQGZKHQWRKDYH\RXUFRQWUDFWRUUHSDLU\RXULUULJDWLRQV\VWHPLILW
ZDVGDPDJHGGXULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ
7RUHFHLYHHPDLOXSGDWHVVLJQXSRQOLQHDWZZZ(GLQD01JRY2QWKHPDLQSDJHQHDUWKHXSSHUULJKW
FRUQHUSODFH\RXUFXUVRURYHUWKH)RU5HVLGHQWVWDEDQGFOLFNRQ&LW\([WUD(QWHU\RXUHPDLODGGUHVVDQG
DSDVVZRUG QHZXVHUZLOOQHHGWRFUHDWHDSDVVZRUG &OLFNRQ(PDLO6XEVFULSWLRQV8QGHUWKH
(QJLQHHULQJVHFWLRQSODFHDFKHFNPDUNLQWKHER[QH[WWR9DOOH\9LHZ5RDG5HFRQVWUXFWLRQ&OLFNWKH
´XSGDWHµEXWWRQDWWKHERWWRPOHIWKDQGFRUQHURIWKHZHESDJH
1HHG+HOS"
,I\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVDERXWKRZWRILOORXWWKHTXHVWLRQQDLUHSOHDVHFRQWDFW:6%3URMHFW0DQDJHU
$QGUHZ3ORZPDQDW RUDSORZPDQ#ZVEHQJFRPRU'LUHFWRURI(QJLQHHULQJ&KDG0LOOQHUDW
RUFPLOOQHU#(GLQD01JRY
3URSHUW\DGGUHVV
YOUR HOUSE
CURB LINE
ROW ROW
CURB LINE
EXAMPLE
HOUSE
GARAGE
X
SERVICE
CONNECTION
PIPE HERE
5HVLGHQW4XHVWLRQQDLUH
9DOOH\9LHZ5RDG5HFRQVWUXFWLRQ
7KDQN\RXLQDGYDQFHIRU\RXUWLPH<RXULQSXWLVLPSRUWDQWWRXV3OHDVHUHDGWKH4XHVWLRQQDLUH
,QVWUXFWLRQVEHIRUHFRPSOHWLQJWKLVTXHVWLRQQDLUH
, 'UDLQDJH6HUYLFH&RQQHFWLRQ
$'RHV\RXUKRPHKDYHDGUDLQWLOHIRRWLQJGUDLQ"<HV1R8QNQRZQ
%'RHV\RXUKRPHKDYHDVXPSSXPS"<HV1R8QNQRZQ
&:RXOG\RXEHZLOOLQJWRFRQQHFW\RXUVXPSSXPS<HV1R
XSWRD&LW\GUDLQLISURYLGHG DW\RXURZQFRVW "
':RXOG\RXEHZLOOLQJWRFRQQHFW\RXUURRIGUDLQV<HV1R
XSWRD&LW\GUDLQLISURYLGHG DW\RXURZQFRVW "
3OHDVHVNHWFKLQWKHVSDFHWRWKHULJKW
\RXUKRXVHJDUDJHGULYHZD\VXPSSXPS
GLVFKDUJHORFDWLRQDQGDSSUR[LPDWHO\
ZKHUHDORQJWKHULJKWRI²ZD\ 52: OLQH
\RXZRXOGOLNHWKHVHUYLFHFRQQHFWLRQ
SLSHORFDWHG
,, /RFDO'UDLQDJH3UREOHPV
3OHDVHGHVFULEHVSHFLILFVXUIDFHZDWHUGUDLQDJHSUREOHPVLQ\RXUQHLJKERUKRRG
,,, 3ULYDWH8QGHUJURXQG8WLOLWLHV
$ 'R\RXKDYHDQXQGHUJURXQGODZQLUULJDWLRQV\VWHPLQWKH&LW\·VULJKWRIZD\" 7KHULJKWRI
ZD\LVW\SLFDOO\·WR·EHKLQGWKHURDGZD\
<HV1R
%'R\RXKDYHDQXQGHUJURXQGHOHFWULFSHWFRQWDLQPHQWV\VWHPLQWKH&LW\·VULJKWRIZD\"
<HV1R
3URSHUW\DGGUHVV
,9 5HVLGHQWLDO6WUHHWOLJKWV
,VWKHH[LVWLQJVWUHHWOLJKWV\VWHPPHHWLQJWKHQHHGVRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG"
<HV1R
'R\RXIDYRULPSURYLQJ\RXUVWUHHWOLJKWV"
<HV1R
V. Living Streets Elements:
$ 3OHDVHGHVFULEHVSHFLILFQHLJKERUKRRGSHGHVWULDQLVVXHVEHORZ
% 3OHDVHGHVFULEHKRZ\RXSHUFHLYHWKHTXDOLW\RIQHDUE\QDWXUDOUHVRXUFHVDQGVXUIDFHZDWHUV
([DPSOH JRRGSRRUDHVWKHWLFVYHJHWDWLRQZLOGOLIHKDELWDWRUUHFUHDWLRQXVH
9, 7UDIILF0DQDJHPHQW
$ 'R\RXIHHO\RXUQHLJKERUKRRGRUURDGZD\KDVDQ\WUDIILFLVVXHV"
<HV1R
%,I\HVZKDWLVLWDQGZKHUHGRHVLWRFFXU"
9,, (PDLO8SGDWHV
$ 'R\RXKDYHDFFHVVWRHPDLOWRSDUWLFLSDWHLQWKH&LW\([WUDHPDLOQRWLILFDWLRQVHUYLFH"
<HV1R
7KDQN\RXIRUFRPSOHWLQJWKHTXHVWLRQQDLUH3OHDVHUHWXUQLWWRWKH&LW\LQWKHHQFORVHGHQYHORSHE\-XQH
FEASIBILITY STUDY – BA 377
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDINA
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Valley View Road (MSAS 151) – McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive
September 10, 2014
Appendix D
Questionnaire Results
Va
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Da
t
a
E
n
t
e
r
e
d
B
y
:
An
d
r
e
w
P
l
o
w
m
La
s
t
D
a
t
e
D
a
t
a
E
n
t
e
r
e
d
:
Du
e
D
a
t
e
:
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
S
e
n
t
O
u
t
:
27
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
R
e
t
u
r
n
e
d
1
3
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
R
e
t
u
r
n
e
d
:
II
.
L
o
c
a
l
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
Pr
o
b
l
e
m
s
Ye
s
N
o
Y
e
s
N
o
Y
e
s
N
o
Y
e
s
N
o
Y
e
s
N
o
Ye
s
N
o
Y
e
s
N
o
YesIf Yes, ExplainNo
71
4
2
Va
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
1
X
X
X
N
o
n
e
X
X
X
X
X
70
3
3
Co
m
a
n
c
h
e
C
o
u
r
t
1
X
X
N
o
X
N
o
n
e
X
X
X
X
X
71
4
4
Va
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
1
XX
X
No
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
,
w
e
n
e
e
d
cu
r
b
s
t
o
m
a
k
e
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
lo
o
k
f
i
n
i
s
h
e
d
.
X
X
X
X
XCars Travel Too Fast
71
3
8
Va
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
1
X
X
X
N
o
n
e
,
a
t
o
u
r
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
X
X
X
X
XToo much traffic, Travel Too Fast on Valley View Road
71
3
6
Va
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
1
XX
X
No
n
e
s
i
n
c
e
9
M
i
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
10
0
y
e
a
r
f
l
o
o
d
X
X
X
X
XThe entire Valley View Road is a speedway!
71
2
0
Va
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
1
?
X
Y
e
s
X
Ma
i
n
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
ar
o
u
n
d
u
s
o
c
c
u
r
b
y
t
h
e
go
l
f
c
o
u
r
s
e
.
W
e
h
a
v
e
n
o
is
s
u
e
s
.
X
X
X
X
XValley View Road people drive too fast, especially in the morning and evening (from Gleason to Sally).
70
2
8
Sa
l
l
y
L
a
n
e
1
XX
X
X
X
X
X
XTraffic is too fast! By making the road wider, we encourage faster traffic!
70
2
5
Sa
l
l
y
L
a
n
e
1
X
X
X
N
o
n
e
K
n
o
w
n
X
X
X
X
XDuring rush hours the traffic gets heavy and people speed on Tracy.
Ro
o
f
D
r
a
i
n
Co
n
n
e
c
t
t
o
C
i
t
y
Sy
s
t
e
m
?
Ar
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Li
g
h
t
s
Ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
?
Do
y
o
u
F
a
v
o
r
Im
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
Li
g
h
t
s
?
VI. Traffic Management
I.
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
IV
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
s
II
I
.
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Sp
e
e
d
i
n
g
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
i
s
a
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
!
We
n
e
e
d
a
s
p
e
e
d
b
u
m
p
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
Dr
a
i
n
Ti
l
e
/
F
o
o
t
i
n
g
Dr
a
i
n
S
u
m
p
P
u
m
p
If
Y
e
s
,
w
o
u
l
d
yo
u
l
i
k
e
t
o
co
n
n
e
c
t
t
o
Ci
t
y
'
s
s
y
s
t
e
m
NoneGood
Ve
r
y
L
i
g
h
t
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Hu
g
e
P
o
t
H
o
l
e
s
i
n
R
o
a
d
w
i
t
h
No SidewalksOK
AD
D
R
E
S
S
Re
t
u
r
n
e
d
Su
r
v
e
y
V. Living Streets No SidewalksGood
7-
J
u
l
-
1
4
27
-
J
u
n
-
1
4
48
%
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Pedestrian IssuesQuality of Natural Resources and Surface Waters
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
.
i
n
r/
w
Pe
t
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
sy
s
t
e
m
Do you feel your neighborhood or roadway has traffic issues
Ma
j
o
r
i
s
s
u
e
a
l
o
n
g
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
Ro
a
d
.
N
o
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
a
n
d
c
a
r
s
of
t
e
n
s
p
e
e
d
i
n
g
m
a
k
e
i
t
a
v
e
r
y
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
a
r
e
a
f
o
r
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
n
d
pets.Good, no issues
No
n
e
k
n
o
w
n
.
W
e
w
a
l
k
o
u
r
d
o
g
da
i
l
y
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
.
W
e
a
r
e
op
p
o
s
e
d
t
o
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
,
n
e
w
asphalt only.Click Here for Writeup 1
K:
\
0
1
6
8
6
-
5
6
0
\
A
d
m
i
n
\
D
o
c
s
\
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
R
e
t
u
r
n
e
d
\
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
T
a
b
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
F
i
n
a
l
)
.
x
l
s
x
9/
1
0
/
2
0
1
4
1 of 2
Va
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Da
t
a
E
n
t
e
r
e
d
B
y
:
An
d
r
e
w
P
l
o
w
m
La
s
t
D
a
t
e
D
a
t
a
E
n
t
e
r
e
d
:
Du
e
D
a
t
e
:
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
S
e
n
t
O
u
t
:
27
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
R
e
t
u
r
n
e
d
1
3
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
R
e
t
u
r
n
e
d
:
II
.
L
o
c
a
l
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
Pr
o
b
l
e
m
s
Ye
s
N
o
Y
e
s
N
o
Y
e
s
N
o
Y
e
s
N
o
Y
e
s
N
o
Ye
s
N
o
Y
e
s
N
o
YesIf Yes, ExplainNo
Ro
o
f
D
r
a
i
n
Co
n
n
e
c
t
t
o
C
i
t
y
Sy
s
t
e
m
?
Ar
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Li
g
h
t
s
Ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
?
Do
y
o
u
F
a
v
o
r
Im
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
Li
g
h
t
s
?
VI. Traffic Management
I.
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
IV
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
s
II
I
.
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
Dr
a
i
n
Ti
l
e
/
F
o
o
t
i
n
g
Dr
a
i
n
S
u
m
p
P
u
m
p
If
Y
e
s
,
w
o
u
l
d
yo
u
l
i
k
e
t
o
co
n
n
e
c
t
t
o
Ci
t
y
'
s
s
y
s
t
e
m
AD
D
R
E
S
S
Re
t
u
r
n
e
d
Su
r
v
e
y
V. Living Streets
7-
J
u
l
-
1
4
27
-
J
u
n
-
1
4
48
%
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Pedestrian IssuesQuality of Natural Resources and Surface Waters
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
.
i
n
r/
w
Pe
t
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
sy
s
t
e
m
Do you feel your neighborhood or roadway has traffic issues
71
3
2
Va
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
1
XX
X
We
c
l
e
a
n
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
se
w
e
r
d
r
a
i
n
a
t
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
ou
r
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
(
l
e
a
v
e
s
,
st
i
c
k
s
,
e
t
c
.
)
.
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
wa
t
e
r
l
e
f
t
i
n
t
h
e
s
p
a
c
e
fr
o
m
t
e
h
s
t
a
r
t
t
o
o
u
r
l
a
w
n
af
t
e
r
a
r
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
.
X
X
X
X
XRush hour traffic uses excessive speed on curves.
71
4
3
Va
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
1
XX
X
No
,
i
s
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
i
n
g
r
a
i
n
g
a
r
d
e
n
s
to
h
e
l
p
w
i
t
h
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
pr
o
b
l
e
m
s
?
X
X
X
X
X
71
4
7
Va
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
1
XX
X
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
h
a
s
n
'
t
b
e
e
n
a
n
is
s
u
e
.
X
X
X
X
XPulling out on Valley View Road from Sally Lane is very dangerous. It is a long standing problem known by the City. You can't see when turning both ways onto Valley View Road from Sally. You must fix the problem!
71
2
8
Va
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
1
XX
X
X
X
X
X
XSpeeding along Valley View Road
71
4
9
Va
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
1
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
6
7
1
1
2
6
7
7
6
94Click Here for Writeup 2
We
h
a
v
e
n
o
i
s
s
u
e
s
w
i
t
h
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
n
d
d
o
n
o
t
t
h
i
n
k
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
a
r
e
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
(
c
u
r
b
s
yes)Good Aesthetics
Th
e
r
e
a
r
e
m
a
n
y
w
o
n
d
e
r
f
u
l
areas to walk in our
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
W
e
w
a
l
k
e
v
e
r
y
day safely.Having greenery, trees, flowers enhances the aesthetics of our neighborhood. Preserving greenery is essential to the health of the neighborhood.
Da
n
g
e
r
o
u
s
t
o
w
a
l
k
o
n
V
a
l
l
e
y
View Road!Good on all fronts
Ma
n
y
m
o
t
o
r
i
s
t
s
s
p
e
e
d
a
n
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
r
i
s
k
.
V
e
r
y
Da
n
g
e
r
o
u
s
.
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
n
e
e
d
to
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
a
l
l
y
l
o
o
k
o
v
e
r
t
h
e
i
r
sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
f
o
r
o
n
c
o
m
i
n
g
c
a
r
s
,
th
e
n
a
r
e
f
o
r
c
e
d
o
n
t
o
l
a
w
n
s
o
r
in
t
o
b
r
u
s
h
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
t
h
e
m
t
o
pa
s
s
.
I
m
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
t
o
w
a
l
k
w
i
t
h
a
yo
u
n
g
c
h
i
l
d
s
i
d
e
b
y
s
i
d
e
.
I enjoy the creek as it runs along the connector of Valley View and Hilary Lane
K:
\
0
1
6
8
6
-
5
6
0
\
A
d
m
i
n
\
D
o
c
s
\
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
R
e
t
u
r
n
e
d
\
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
T
a
b
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
F
i
n
a
l
)
.
x
l
s
x
9/
1
0
/
2
0
1
4
2 of 2
Questionnaire Results: Writeup #1
Good. We moved into our home because we like the way trees
grow next to the road. Indian Hils/Trails is a unique neighborhood in
our community. It is a natural setting, aesthetically pleasing to those
of us who have chosen to live here rather than Edina's more urban
neighborhoods because we appreciate the serenity provided by the
vegetation. We do not need sidewalks along this stretch of Valley
View as it is out of the walk distance to school. Those utilizing
Braemar for Golf, Baseball and hockey are most likely to drive to
transport their sporting equipment. Widening the road to
accommodate your plans will increase traffic volume, noise, and
possibly crime. It will most certainly devalue our properties and at
the same time destroy the character of this unique neighborhood.
Questionnaire Writeup #2
FEASIBILITY STUDY – BA 377
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDINA
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Valley View Road (MSAS 151) – McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive
September 10, 2014
Appendix E
Neighborhood Meeting Presentation
www.EdinaMN.gov
Va
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
Re
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
(
B
A
–
3
7
7
)
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
Ju
l
y
7
,
2
0
1
4
CM
www.EdinaMN.gov
Ag
e
n
d
a
•
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
•
Ti
m
e
l
i
n
e
•
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
•
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
•
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
•
Wh
a
t
Y
o
u
C
a
n
E
x
p
e
c
t
•
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
•
Ho
w
t
o
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
•
Q&
A
CM
www.EdinaMN.gov
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
WS
B
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
:
E
n
g
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
An
d
r
e
w
P
l
o
w
m
a
n
&
C
h
u
c
k
R
i
c
k
a
r
t
S
h
a
r
o
n
A
l
l
i
s
o
n
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
o
f
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
P
l
a
n
n
e
r
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Ro
s
s
B
i
n
t
n
e
r
M
a
r
k
N
o
l
a
n
C
h
a
d
M
i
l
l
n
e
r
CM
www.EdinaMN.gov
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
CM
www.EdinaMN.gov
Ty
p
i
c
a
l
T
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
Ju
n
e
-
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
r
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
/
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
P
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
-
M
a
r
c
h
P
l
a
n
p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
b
i
d
d
i
n
g
Ap
r
i
l
/
M
a
y
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
b
e
g
i
n
s
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
/
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
Sp
r
i
n
g
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
y
w
o
r
k
Fa
l
l
2
0
1
6
F
i
n
a
l
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
CM
www.EdinaMN.gov
Wh
y
M
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
?
•
St
r
e
e
t
s
t
h
a
t
m
e
e
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
r
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
re
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
•
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
i
s
g
i
v
e
n
t
o
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
h
i
g
h
e
s
t
n
e
e
d
.
•
Re
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
u
s
u
a
l
l
y
m
o
r
e
c
o
s
t
-
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
i
n
t
h
e
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
th
a
n
p
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
o
r
s
e
a
l
-
c
o
a
t
i
n
g
.
•
St
r
e
e
t
s
a
r
e
g
r
o
u
p
e
d
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
h
e
l
p
p
r
o
l
o
n
g
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
l
i
f
e
a
n
d
ma
x
i
m
i
z
e
t
h
e
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
o
f
s
c
a
l
e
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Wh
a
t
i
s
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
?
•
Al
w
a
y
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
:
–
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
–
r
e
p
l
a
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
r
o
a
d
b
e
d
–
Cu
r
b
a
n
d
g
u
t
t
e
r
–
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
–
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
•
So
m
e
t
i
m
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
:
–
Su
m
p
p
u
m
p
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
–
St
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
s
–
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
•
Fu
l
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
o
p
e
i
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
•
Va
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
(M
S
A
S
1
5
1
)
•
Mc
C
a
u
l
e
y
T
r
a
i
l
t
o
Ma
r
k
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
Dr
i
v
e
•
0.
5
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
ro
a
d
w
a
y
re
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Ed
i
n
a
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
S
t
a
t
e
A
i
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
•
S
t
a
t
e
A
i
d
F
u
n
d
s
•
C
o
v
e
r
s
8
0
%
o
f
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
C
o
s
t
s
•
S
t
a
t
e
A
i
d
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
•
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
p
e
e
d
s
•
L
a
n
e
W
i
d
t
h
s
•
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
D
e
s
i
g
n
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
•
No
C
u
r
b
a
n
d
G
u
t
t
e
r
•
No
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
r
B
i
k
e
L
a
n
e
s
•
No
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
a
n
e
s
•
28
’
–
3
0
’
L
a
n
e
W
i
d
t
h
s
•
2,
5
0
0
A
D
T
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
•
St
a
t
e
A
i
d
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
p
e
e
d
=
3
0
m
p
h
20
m
p
h
C
u
r
v
e
15
m
p
h
C
u
r
v
e
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
•
Br
a
e
m
a
r
B
l
v
d
/
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
Ro
a
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
•
13
o
f
2
7
(
4
8
%
)
o
f
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
R
e
t
u
r
n
e
d
•
7
o
f
1
3
f
e
l
t
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
w
a
s
i
n
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
a
n
d
f
a
v
o
r
e
d
up
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
•
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
–
5
i
n
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
,
4
O
p
p
o
s
e
d
•
Sp
e
e
d
–
8
f
e
l
t
t
h
a
t
s
p
e
e
d
w
a
s
a
n
i
s
s
u
e
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
•
N
e
w
f
i
r
e
h
y
d
r
a
n
t
s
a
n
d
g
a
t
e
v
a
l
v
e
s
•
S
a
n
i
t
a
r
y
s
e
w
e
r
s
p
o
t
r
e
p
a
i
r
s
a
n
d
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
•
S
t
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
•
Ne
w
C
u
r
b
&
G
u
t
t
e
r
,
I
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
B
i
k
e
L
a
n
e
s
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
•
Wh
y
B
i
k
e
L
a
n
e
s
?
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
•
Wh
y
B
i
k
e
L
a
n
e
s
?
–
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
i
s
a
P
r
i
m
a
r
y
B
i
k
e
Ro
u
t
e
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
•
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
A
p
r
o
n
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
•
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
O
n
O
n
e
S
i
d
e
•
So
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
v
e
r
s
u
s
N
o
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
Co
n
’
s
No
r
t
h
Si
d
e
•
St
e
e
p
Gr
a
d
e
•
Tr
e
e
Im
p
a
c
t
s
•
Re
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
Wa
l
l
s
•
St
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Is
s
u
e
s
•
Co
s
t
So
u
t
h
Si
d
e
•
Mo
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
•
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
Im
p
a
c
t
s
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
•
Ty
p
i
c
a
l
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
2
:
1
4
’
–
1
5
’
L
a
n
e
s
)
2
8
’
–
3
0
’
T
o
t
a
l
•
St
a
t
e
A
i
d
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
-
2
–
1
1
f
t
T
h
r
u
L
a
n
e
s
-
2
–
5
f
t
B
i
k
e
L
a
n
e
s
-
5
’
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
-
5
’
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
(
S
o
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
)
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
•
Va
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
/
B
r
a
e
m
a
r
Ro
a
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
•
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
–
R
e
d
u
c
e
s
C
o
n
f
u
s
i
o
n
–
E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
s
l
a
r
g
e
C
u
r
v
e
F
i
x
or
V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
–
S
a
f
e
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
–
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
:
A
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
Bl
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
Su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
w
h
i
l
e
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
t
a
t
e
A
i
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
•
Cu
r
v
e
a
t
C
o
m
a
n
c
h
e
C
o
u
r
t
–
3
0
m
p
h
C
a
n
N
o
t
b
e
M
e
t
wi
t
h
o
u
t
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
–
C
a
n
o
n
l
y
M
e
e
t
2
5
m
p
h
wi
t
h
o
u
t
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
–
W
i
l
l
A
p
p
l
y
f
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
A
i
d
Va
r
i
a
n
c
e
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
•
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
a
r
e
f
u
n
d
e
d
b
y
a
c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
t
a
t
e
A
i
d
F
u
n
d
s
,
sp
e
c
i
a
l
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
•
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
s
t
a
n
d
t
o
be
n
e
f
i
t
f
r
o
m
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
•
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
U
n
i
t
(
R
E
U
)
–
1
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
H
o
m
e
CM
www.EdinaMN.gov
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
•
St
a
t
e
A
i
d
M
o
n
e
y
(
G
a
s
T
a
x
)
C
o
v
e
r
s
8
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
•
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
c
o
v
e
r
2
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
co
s
t
s
.
(
C
i
t
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
–
1
0
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
)
•
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
.
CM
www.EdinaMN.gov
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
•
Th
e
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
i
s
a
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
p
a
i
d
to
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
•
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
c
o
v
e
r
s
1
0
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
:
–
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
c
u
r
b
a
n
d
g
u
t
t
e
r
–
Sa
n
i
t
a
r
y
s
e
w
e
r
–
St
o
r
m
s
e
w
e
r
–
Wa
t
e
r
m
a
i
n
–
Su
m
p
p
u
m
p
p
i
p
e
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Ot
h
e
r
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
•
Ou
r
g
o
a
l
i
s
t
o
s
t
r
e
a
m
l
i
n
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
a
n
d
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
.
•
Th
e
C
i
t
y
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
(
g
a
s
,
e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
,
te
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
a
n
d
c
a
b
l
e
T
V
)
t
o
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
o
r
r
e
p
a
i
r
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
.
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Do
T
a
x
e
s
C
o
v
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
?
•
Ro
u
g
h
l
y
2
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
y
o
u
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
a
x
e
s
g
o
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
f
o
r
ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
P
o
l
i
c
e
,
F
i
r
e
,
P
a
r
k
s
a
n
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
(s
n
o
w
p
l
o
w
i
n
g
,
p
o
t
h
o
l
e
r
e
p
a
i
r
s
,
s
e
a
l
c
o
a
t
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
)
.
•
Yo
u
r
t
a
x
e
s
d
o
n
o
t
p
a
y
f
o
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
r
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
•
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
2
0
%
o
f
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
C
o
s
t
•
Di
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
U
n
i
t
s
(
R
E
U
)
•
Va
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
o
a
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
:
1
R
E
U
p
e
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
•
Re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
b
o
r
d
e
r
i
n
g
S
a
l
l
y
L
a
n
e
o
r
C
o
m
a
n
c
h
e
C
o
u
r
t
:
1
/
3
R
E
U
pe
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
•
To
t
a
l
=
3
0
.
3
2
R
E
U
’
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
•
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
a
n
g
e
=
$
6
,
3
0
0
-
$
7
,
5
0
0
/
R
E
U
•
St
a
t
e
A
i
d
F
u
n
d
s
o
r
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
AP
www.EdinaMN.gov
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
O
p
t
i
o
n
s
•
Yo
u
w
i
l
l
b
e
b
i
l
l
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
o
n
e
y
e
a
r
a
f
t
e
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
•
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
p
a
y
a
b
l
e
o
v
e
r
1
5
y
e
a
r
s
•
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
:
1.
P
a
y
e
n
t
i
r
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
u
p
o
n
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
b
i
l
l
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
f
i
n
a
n
c
e
ch
a
r
g
e
s
2.
P
a
y
2
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
;
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
r
o
l
l
s
t
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
a
x
e
s
3.
R
o
l
l
e
n
t
i
r
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
t
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
a
x
e
s
4.
D
e
f
e
r
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
i
f
6
5
y
e
a
r
s
o
l
d
o
r
o
l
d
e
r
CM
www.EdinaMN.gov
•
We
w
i
l
l
k
e
e
p
y
o
u
i
n
f
o
r
m
e
d
.
•
Yo
u
w
i
l
l
h
a
v
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
i
n
p
u
t
.
•
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
w
o
r
k
i
s
t
o
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
b
e
f
o
r
e
C
i
t
y
w
o
r
k
.
•
We
w
i
l
l
d
o
o
u
r
b
e
s
t
t
o
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
i
n
c
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e
s
,
b
u
t
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
c
o
m
e
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
p
a
i
n
p
o
i
n
t
s
.
Wh
a
t
Y
o
u
C
a
n
E
x
p
e
c
t
CM
www.EdinaMN.gov
•
Du
s
t
,
n
o
i
s
e
,
v
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
m
u
d
.
•
Lo
c
a
l
i
z
e
d
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
d
u
r
i
n
g
ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
.
•
Ti
m
e
l
i
n
e
s
s
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s
d
e
l
a
y
e
d
du
e
t
o
w
e
a
t
h
e
r
.
•
Yo
u
m
a
y
b
e
a
s
k
e
d
t
o
l
i
m
i
t
w
a
t
e
r
us
e
.
•
Yo
u
r
h
o
m
e
m
a
y
b
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
a
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
w
a
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
.
Wh
a
t
Y
o
u
C
a
n
E
x
p
e
c
t
CM
www.EdinaMN.gov
•
Yo
u
r
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
m
a
y
b
e
in
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
3
-
5
d
a
y
s
.
•
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
t
o
y
o
u
r
h
o
m
e
m
a
y
be
p
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
a
l
l
y
i
n
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
•
Th
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
w
i
l
l
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
ne
e
d
s
.
•
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
e
t
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
sy
s
t
e
m
s
m
o
s
t
l
y
l
i
k
e
l
y
w
i
l
l
b
e
da
m
a
g
e
d
.
Wh
a
t
Y
o
u
C
a
n
E
x
p
e
c
t
CM
www.EdinaMN.gov
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
•
It
e
m
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
m
a
y
b
e
d
a
m
a
g
e
d
–
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
e
t
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
p
a
i
r
e
d
.
–
Yo
u
c
a
n
r
e
m
o
v
e
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
be
f
o
r
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
–
Th
e
C
i
t
y
w
i
l
l
s
e
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
.
CM
www.EdinaMN.gov
Pr
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
I
n
p
u
t
•
Pu
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
m
a
i
l
e
d
t
o
y
o
u
r
h
o
m
e
•
We
i
g
h
i
n
o
n
:
–
Su
m
p
p
u
m
p
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
–
Ar
e
t
h
e
r
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
o
r
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
i
s
s
u
e
s
i
n
y
o
u
r
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
?
CM
www.EdinaMN.gov
Pu
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
•
Pu
b
l
i
c
h
a
s
r
i
g
h
t
t
o
s
p
e
a
k
a
t
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
•
Tw
o
V
o
t
e
s
:
–
1st
Vo
t
e
–
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
n
e
e
d
4
:
1
i
n
f
a
v
o
r
–
2nd
Vo
t
e
–
P
A
C
S
*
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
n
e
e
d
3
:
2
i
n
f
a
v
o
r
\
*
P
A
C
S
=
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
C
y
c
l
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
CM
www.EdinaMN.gov
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
T
o
o
l
s
•
Be
c
o
m
e
a
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
c
a
p
t
a
i
n
t
o
h
e
l
p
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
–
Le
t
u
s
k
n
o
w
o
f
s
o
m
e
o
n
e
i
n
y
o
u
r
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
w
h
o
m
i
g
h
t
fi
t
t
h
i
s
r
o
l
e
.
•
Yo
u
w
i
l
l
b
e
n
o
t
i
f
i
e
d
o
f
a
l
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
,
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
s
,
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
s
a
n
d
qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
v
i
a
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
m
a
i
l
.
•
Pu
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
n
o
t
i
c
e
s
a
r
e
a
l
s
o
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
i
n
Ed
i
n
a
S
u
n
-
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
.
•
Do
o
r
h
a
n
g
e
r
s
a
r
e
h
u
n
g
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
r
e
t
i
m
e
-
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
•
Fi
n
a
l
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
n
o
t
i
c
e
s
a
r
e
m
a
i
l
e
d
o
n
e
y
e
a
r
a
f
t
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
CM
www.EdinaMN.gov
Ci
t
y
E
x
t
r
a
“C
i
t
y
E
x
t
r
a
”
e
m
a
i
l
s
a
r
e
t
h
e
b
e
s
t
w
a
y
t
o
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
u
p
d
a
t
e
s
on
c
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
b
e
g
i
n
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
a
r
e
f
r
e
e
w
e
e
k
l
y
e
m
a
i
l
u
p
d
a
t
e
s
ab
o
u
t
y
o
u
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
•
Si
g
n
u
p
o
n
C
i
t
y
o
f
E
d
i
n
a
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
,
w
w
w
.
E
d
i
n
a
M
N
.
g
o
v
.
–
Ch
e
c
k
t
h
e
b
o
x
n
e
x
t
t
o
y
o
u
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
n
a
m
e
.
•
If
y
o
u
c
a
n
n
o
t
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
e
m
a
i
l
,
w
e
w
i
l
l
m
a
i
l
y
o
u
C
i
t
y
E
x
t
r
a
up
d
a
t
e
s
u
p
o
n
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
.
•
It
’
s
t
h
e
b
e
s
t
w
a
y
t
o
s
t
a
y
i
n
f
o
r
m
e
d
.
CM
www.EdinaMN.gov
Ho
w
t
o
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
•
Si
g
n
u
p
f
o
r
C
i
t
y
E
x
t
r
a
•
Be
g
i
n
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
•
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
•
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
h
o
m
e
a
n
d
y
a
r
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
st
r
e
e
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
•
As
k
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
;
s
t
a
y
i
n
f
o
r
m
e
d
CM
www.EdinaMN.gov
Co
n
t
a
c
t
U
s
Em
a
i
l
:
ma
i
l
@
e
d
i
n
a
m
n
.
g
o
v
Ca
l
l
:
9
5
2
-
8
2
6
-
0
3
7
1
Vi
s
i
t
:
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
74
5
0
M
e
t
r
o
B
l
v
d
.
CM
www.EdinaMN.gov
Th
a
n
k
s
f
o
r
y
o
u
r
t
i
m
e
!
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
?
FEASIBILITY STUDY – BA 377
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDINA
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Valley View Road (MSAS 151) – McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive
September 10, 2014
Appendix F
Sign-In Sheet and Comment Card
FEASIBILITY STUDY – BA 377
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDINA
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Valley View Road (MSAS 151) – McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive
September 10, 2014
Appendix G
Follow-up Newsletter
Valley View Road Reconstruction
(McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive)
July 21, 2014
Dear Resident:
We had a very encouraging turnout for the July 7 open house. We appreciated the feedback which is helping to
shape the project. Based on your feedback, we are proposing changes to the 5-ft boulevard and the curve near
Comanche Court.
Boulevard Treatment
We heard concerns regarding the width of the 5-ft boulevard and the 5-ft sidewalk proposed for the south side
of Valley View Road. We prefer a 5-ft boulevard because it creates a buffer between the roadway and
pedestrians; however, we could reduce it to 3-ft without minimizing safety. Typically, the boulevard is hydro-
seeded but we’ve found it difficult to grow grass in narrow boulevard areas; on the other hand, daylilies seem
to thrive in narrow boulevard areas. Therefore, we are looking at the option of a 3-ft boulevard planted with
daylilies. An example of a daylily planted boulevard can be seen on 70th Street, west of West Shore Drive (see
Figure 1). The daylilies do not require as much maintenance as grass and the contractor would be responsible
for a 3-year maintenance period.
Figure 1. Photo of 70th Street
Curve near Comanche Court
As we discussed, the horizontal curve near Comanche Court is substandard based on State Aid standards. The
minimum design speed on a State Aid roadway is 30 mph. The existing curve meets a 20 mph design speed. To
be eligible for State Aid funding, the roadway must be brought up to the minimum standard or we request a
variance for a lower design speed.
After hearing concerns about speed and safety and analyzing the impacts, we believe we can show that anything
higher than 20 mph causes undue hardship. We feel a properly signed 20 mph curve with pavement markings
will create a safer facility than the one that exists today for the following reasons:
1. Curb and gutter creates a more defined edge to the road and makes it feel narrower. This typically
causes motorists to slow down.
2. This area will have advisory speed signs prior to the curve which will help to reduce confusion on
appropriate speed.
3. This area will have pavement markings that meet State Aid standards. The pavement markings will help
to reduce confusion and create a narrower feel to the roadway thus providing information to motorists
on appropriate speed.
A 20 mph design curve will have less impact on the right-of-way than the 25 mph curve that was originally
presented.
If you live on the south side of Valley View Road, we would like your feedback about a narrower boulevard
with daylilies. Please email Andrew Plowman at aplowman@wsbeng.com or call 763-287-7149. Or, you can
email me at cmillner@edinamn.gov or call 952-826-0318. Please include your address on any email
correspondence to help us track the comments.
Sincerely,
Chad Millner, P.E.
Director of Engineering
FEASIBILITY STUDY – BA 377
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDINA
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Valley View Road (MSAS 151) – McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive
September 10, 2014
Appendix H
Resident Correspondence
1
Andrew Plowman
From:Midge Elder <midge821@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:13 PM
To:Andrew Plowman
Subject:Valley View Rd
Thank you for listening to our concerns re the road project. The narrower boulevard and day lilies are certainly a better
option but we remain opposed to the addition of sidewalks. Those of us who have lived here for over 40 years see no
good reason for both sidewalks and bike paths, we are greatfull for curbs as our lawns and mailboxes have taken a
beating. I walk a small dog every day and will be very happy to have EITHER sidewalks or curbs,but please don't destroy
our yards, landscaping and neighborhood by insisting on both. I am the 'house on the curb' and will welcome
maintaining a 20 mpr speed limit,hopefully with some enforcement.
Sent from my iPad
1
Andrew Plowman
From:Chad Millner <cmillner@EdinaMN.gov>
Sent:Friday, August 01, 2014 3:29 PM
To:Andrew Plowman
Subject:20140728 7141 Valley View Road
Andy,
Please note I had a telephone conversation with the resident at 7141 Valley View Road. They asked about the possibility
of landscaping the boulevard instead of day lilies if that is the direction we decide for the project. I stated this may be
possible and that we can continue the discussion as the project is developed.
The individual also preferred curbs along the road but doesn’t see the need for sidewalks.
Thanks,
Chad
Chad Millner, Director of Engineering
952-826-0318 | Fax 952-826-0392
cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | www.EdinaMN.gov
...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business
1
Andrew Plowman
From:Chad Millner <cmillner@EdinaMN.gov>
Sent:Friday, August 01, 2014 2:39 PM
To:'Hannah and Robert'
Cc:Andrew Plowman
Subject:20140801 7143 VV Rd RE: Valley View Road Reconstruction Project
Thanks for your questions and comments. Please find below answers to your questions.
Thanks,
Chad
Chad Millner, Director of Engineering
952-826-0318 | Fax 952-826-0392
cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | www.EdinaMN.gov
...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business
From: Hannah and Robert [mailto:rtolles@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 5:05 PM
To: Chad Millner
Subject: Valley View Road Reconstruction Project
Dear Mr. Millner,
After attending the open house and reviewing the presentation, we have a number of questions regarding the
Valley View Road project.
Given the revised plan for boulevards and the varying size of the current road, exactly how much will be
taken off of each property along the road?
The letter stated we were looking at alternatives to narrow the boulevards that included day lilies. We are gathering
input from residents about this so a final decision has not been made yet. But if we did use that idea, the area needed for
the sidewalk and boulevard would be 8‐ft from the back of curb (instead of the 10‐ft we discussed at the meeting).
Will more be taken from the south side lots across from the steep hill?
We are trying to balance impacts across both sides the street. Our initial design shows with the sidewalk on the south
side, we will be further on the south side right‐of‐way.
Why were the 24 mature trees on the south side not listed as a "con" factor for using that right of way for
sidewalks and boulevards?
The initial design showed removal of those were NOT needed.
If these trees have to be removed, who will bear the cost?
If during final design a tree impact is identified we will work with the homeowner on how to provide a new tree or
landscaping in the area. The project would bear the cost of any tree removals. We typically do not remove trees as part
of our projects.
We were assured that the city would be responsible for plowing the sidewalks, yet this is not listed
anywhere on the city website. In fact, it says that residents are responsible. Please clarify.
2
Residents are required to plow snow on local streets. This is a state aid designated route and the City clears snow from
those routes. I have already discussed this with public works and they agreed.
What does the intersection of the sidewalks and the driveways look like, especially on sloped lots?
There are many examples of this around Edina. Some examples include School Road, Valley View Road and Concord Ave
near Concord Elementary. I can provide others if you have trouble finding comparable sidewalk examples.
How will the proposed sidewalks deal with the utility manholes in their path?
Utility related items may be relocated or built into the sidewalk. We try to avoid those if possible. We will know more as
we complete final design.
It is our understanding from the oral presentation that sidewalks are not required. Please clarify.
Sidewalks are required per our City planning documents such as our comprehensive plan. This corridor is an important
piece of the overall sidewalk network that we are trying to build out when the opportunity during street reconstruction
occurs. Ultimately the City Council has the final say at the Public Hearing on what is and is not included in the project.
Is the traffic data collected broken down by hours?
It depends on the method of measurement that was used.
What are the plans for improving lighting, if any? How will this impact the final cost?
The survey results for street lighting were split. We are still analyzing the need for this. Our focus for lighting at this point
is at intersections and with pedestrians crossing the road. These may be areas of lighting improvements. If lighting is
included, the costs are funded by a combination of state aid funds and special assessments.
Thank you for your time.
Bob and Hannah Tolles
7143 Valley View Rd.
1
Andrew Plowman
From:glenn haller <us029376@mindspring.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 4:11 PM
To:cmillner@edinamn.gov
Cc:Andrew Plowman
Subject:Re: valley view rd project
On Aug 6, 2014, at 7:46 PM, glenn haller wrote:
> chad:
>
> my name is glenn haller. i reside at 7141 valley view rd. i am opposed to a sidewalk and boulevard. i would prefer a
newly paved street with curbs and one bike path that could double as a walkway for pedestrians.
>
> if a sidewalk is absolutely imperative, i would prefer a three foot boulevard rather than a five foot boulevard.
>
> thank you,
>
>
> glenn haller
1
Andrew Plowman
From:Hannah and Robert <rtolles@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, August 13, 2014 5:29 PM
To:Chad Millner
Cc:Jill Benner; Kari Jakobe; daniel bryant; Midge Elder; Mark K. Nolan; Andrew Plowman
Subject:Re: Valley View Reconstruction
Chad,
The city calendar shows the Transportation Commission meeting for Thursday, the 14th and the 21st.
Hannah Tolles
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Chad Millner <cmillner@edinamn.gov> wrote:
Thanks for the input. I have copied our consultant, Andy Plowman and our Transportation Planner Mark Nolan on this e‐
mail.
FYI – The ETC meets next Thursday, Aug 21.
Thanks,
Chad
Chad Millner, Director of Engineering
952-826-0318 | Fax 952-826-0392
cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | www.EdinaMN.gov
...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business
From: Hannah and Robert [mailto:rtolles@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 4:44 PM
To: Chad Millner
Cc: Jill Benner; Kari Jakobe; daniel bryant; Midge Elder
Subject: Valley View Reconstruction
Chad,
2
In light of the fact that you are currently working on the final design and that the Transportation Commission
meets tomorrow, August 14, here is our input on the draft plan:
We are opposed to the sidewalk due to its impact and risks to the 24 mature trees on the south side of
Valley View caused by root cutting and soil compaction during construction.
We see no need for a boulevard which significantly impacts property and therefore property values.
There is no legal reason why walkers and bikers can not share the bike paths.
There is no need for additional lighting since it would not improve safety and have a negative impact on
the environment.
Thank you.
Hannah and Bob Tolles
1
Andrew Plowman
From:Chad Millner <cmillner@EdinaMN.gov>
Sent:Thursday, August 14, 2014 9:03 AM
To:Mark K. Nolan; Andrew Plowman
Subject:FW: Valley View Reconstruction
Chad Millner, Director of Engineering
952-826-0318 | Fax 952-826-0392
cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | www.EdinaMN.gov
...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business
From: Daniel Bryant [mailto:peepdmb1@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 7:23 AM
To: Chad Millner
Subject: Re: Valley View Reconstruction
A side walk to no where. I think the city wants the states money ?
On Aug 13, 2014, at 4:53 PM, Chad Millner <cmillner@EdinaMN.gov> wrote:
Thanks for the input. I have copied our consultant, Andy Plowman and our Transportation Planner Mark Nolan on this e‐
mail.
FYI – The ETC meets next Thursday, Aug 21.
Thanks,
Chad
<image001.gif>
Chad Millner, Director of Engineering
952-826-0318 | Fax 952-826-0392
cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | www.EdinaMN.gov
...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business
From: Hannah and Robert [mailto:rtolles@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 4:44 PM
To: Chad Millner
Cc: Jill Benner; Kari Jakobe; daniel bryant; Midge Elder
Subject: Valley View Reconstruction
Chad,
In light of the fact that you are currently working on the final design and that the Transportation Commission
meets tomorrow, August 14, here is our input on the draft plan:
We are opposed to the sidewalk due to its impact and risks to the 24 mature trees on the south side of
Valley View caused by root cutting and soil compaction during construction.
We see no need for a boulevard which significantly impacts property and therefore property values.
There is no legal reason why walkers and bikers can not share the bike paths.
There is no need for additional lighting since it would not improve safety and have a negative impact on
the environment.
Thank you.
Hannah and Bob Tolles
1
Andrew Plowman
From:Chad Millner <cmillner@EdinaMN.gov>
Sent:Friday, August 15, 2014 12:58 PM
To:'Jill Benner'
Cc:Andrew Plowman
Subject:RE: Valley View Road Reconstruction
Benner's,
Thanks for the comments. We appreciate the feedback. I have copied our consultant on this e‐mail so we can note the
drainage pipe.
In regards to a few of your comments, we do not intend to remove any trees. If there is a specific utility related or
project related issue that we cannot find an alternate solution, we will work directly with that property owner to replace
the tree. We very rarely remove trees during construction. And we never remove them without discussion with the
property owner.
As we discussed at the neighborhood meeting, we look at the project within the City wide network for transportation
options. We reference our comprehensive plan for transportation facilities that were identified as important to the
community groups and council that developed that plan. All input is welcome and we will make a recommendation to
the council at a public hearing later this fall/winter.
Traffic counts are measured using a traffic counter machine. Tubes are installed across the roadway to count vehicles as
they travel over the tubes. Valley View is a State Aid road so we are required to measure traffic every 4‐years on that
road.
Our tentative schedule going forward is the following. Receive comments from the Edina Transportation Commission on
August 21. Use those comments and resident comments to complete our preliminary design. Notify residents of the
preliminary design that will be presented to the council. Submit the study to council for their review prior to the public
hearing. The council will conduct the public hearing and determine the exact scope of the project. Input can always be
sent to me or the council via e‐mail or letter. During the public hearing, you have the opportunity to speak for 3 minutes
concerning the project.
Thanks,
Chad
Chad Millner, Director of Engineering
952‐826‐0318 | Fax 952‐826‐0392
cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | www.EdinaMN.gov
...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Jill Benner [mailto:bennerjd@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 3:02 PM
To: Chad Millner
Subject: Valley View Road Reconstruction
Mr. Millner: We have a low spot in our back yard (and under our deck) that has a simple drainage system (PVC Pipe)
underground. It runs from our back yard to the south side of our property and drains out onto Valley View Rd. It does
not produce noticeable standing water on the road, but never‐ the‐ less, we wanted you to be aware of the pipes for
2
road construction purposes. Not to have this system would most likely create water a issue for our property, and
possibly adjoining properties.
With respect to the preliminary plan presented to residents on July 7, we are only in favor of curb, gutter and necessary
sewer upgrades.
We are not in favor of a sidewalk on either side, nor are we in favor of a dedicated bike lane. A dedicated bike lane
would be more appropriate on Hillary Lane/Braemar Blvd connecting to the bike lane on Cahill. It should continue
around the golf course on Braemar Blvd to Ikola to access the golf dome/arena/ sports dome through city owned
property and connect with businesses on the other side of HWY 169 via the frontage road and McCauley Trail. This
should be the same route that golfers would arrive at Braemar Golf Course rather than routing all this traffic through our
residential neighborhood. It would also decrease commuter traffic from Bloomington and Richfield from cutting through
our residential neighborhood and would greatly calm traffic on this portion of Valley View where the homes are so close
to the street.
"Share the road" bike painting on the pavement would suffice for Valley View from McCauley Trail to Hillary Lane. It
makes more sense to have a dedicated bike lane on Valley View only from Antrim/Tracy west to the curve that dips
down (to the possible new round about) to Hillary Lane/Braemar Blvd. Valley View is wider from Mark Terrace east to
Gleason and could more easily accommodate a dedicated bike lane. Additionally, most walkers and bikers to the middle
and high school come from Mark Terrace and east up to Gleason and not from Indian Trails.
We are not in favor of any plan that removes trees and privacy screening from Valley View Road.
Please clarify (and be specific) the methodology you used to arrive at the car count of 2500 per day.
As you continue to develop a plan for this road, we would appreciate that you consider options that would preserve
property values, the environment, characteristics of our neighborhood, and those which express the desires of the
residents who live here. Please communicate the complete process for developing a final plan, including the timeline to
public hearing, and make every effort to meet with and engage Valley View residents in the process leading up to the
public hearing.
Thank you,
Doug and Jill Benner
7025 Sally Lane
1
Andrew Plowman
From:Kari Jakobe <kari.jakobe@milliman.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:19 AM
To:Chad Millner (cmillner@EdinaMN.gov) (cmillner@EdinaMN.gov); Andrew Plowman
Subject:FW: Valley View Reconstruction
Good Morning,
After reviewing the original and then updated proposed plan for Valley View I would like to offer feedback.
We do not need a designated bike path. There is no need to designate a primary bike path through a residential
neighborhood when you can instead designate the frontage and property surrounding Braemar Ice Arena and Golf
Course. See the solid red line for a better option for the primary bike path.
Even as the mother of 2 young children I would also like to say that we do not need a sidewalk. I am more worried
about increased commuter traffic than anything. Instead of a boulevard and sidewalk which would consume up to 10
feet of my already shallow front yard (we live on the south side) you could paint a shoulder on one side of the road
similar to what is currently in place on Hillary Lane (the section of Hillary Lance closest to the Valley View turn off). This
won’t interfere with plows, won’t cause the need to shovel by residents or maintain more sidewalk by the city and
would have a minimal impact on the width of the road.
The boulevard is unnecessary and only makes the sting of losing use of my property more painful. If there has to be a
sidewalk, please put it next to the curb.
2
I do appreciate that the city has a plan and is eager to make changes that the council views as improvements. The
addition of curb, gutters and any necessary sewer repair is welcome.
I hope you’ll consider the above feedback and suggestions from someone who lives on Valley View.
Thank you,
Kari and Nick Jakobe
7149 Valley View
Kari N Jakobe, CPC, ERPA | Principal | kari.jakobe@milliman.com
Milliman | 8500 Normandale Lake Blvd. | Suite 1850 | Minneapolis, MN 55437‐3830 | USA
Tel +1 952 820 2423 | Fax +1 952 897 5301 | milliman.com
Milliman, Inc. is not a law firm. Nothing in this correspondence should be construed as legal advice. In the event a legal interpretation is required, we recommend review by your legal counsel
.
******************************************************************
This communication is intended solely for the addressee and is confidential. If you
are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken
or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Unless
indicated to the contrary: it does not constitute professional advice or opinions upon
which reliance may be made by the addressee or any other party, and it should be
considered to be a work in progress.
******************************************************************
1
Andrew Plowman
From:Chad Millner <cmillner@EdinaMN.gov>
Sent:Monday, August 25, 2014 9:47 AM
To:'Kari Jakobe'; Andrew Plowman
Subject:RE: Valley View Reconstruction
Kari,
Thanks for taking the time to comment on the project. We continue to review the project and input to determine the
design that meets the needs of the project area.
Thanks,
Chad
Chad Millner, Director of Engineering
952-826-0318 | Fax 952-826-0392
cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | www.EdinaMN.gov
...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business
From: Kari Jakobe [mailto:kari.jakobe@milliman.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:19 AM
To: Chad Millner; APlowman@wsbeng.com
Subject: FW: Valley View Reconstruction
Good Morning,
After reviewing the original and then updated proposed plan for Valley View I would like to offer feedback.
We do not need a designated bike path. There is no need to designate a primary bike path through a residential
neighborhood when you can instead designate the frontage and property surrounding Braemar Ice Arena and Golf
Course. See the solid red line for a better option for the primary bike path.
Even as the mother of 2 young children I would also like to say that we do not need a sidewalk. I am more worried
about increased commuter traffic than anything. Instead of a boulevard and sidewalk which would consume up to 10
feet of my already shallow front yard (we live on the south side) you could paint a shoulder on one side of the road
similar to what is currently in place on Hillary Lane (the section of Hillary Lance closest to the Valley View turn off). This
2
won’t interfere with plows, won’t cause the need to shovel by residents or maintain more sidewalk by the city and
would have a minimal impact on the width of the road.
The boulevard is unnecessary and only makes the sting of losing use of my property more painful. If there has to be a
sidewalk, please put it next to the curb.
I do appreciate that the city has a plan and is eager to make changes that the council views as improvements. The
addition of curb, gutters and any necessary sewer repair is welcome.
I hope you’ll consider the above feedback and suggestions from someone who lives on Valley View.
Thank you,
Kari and Nick Jakobe
7149 Valley View
Kari N Jakobe, CPC, ERPA | Principal | kari.jakobe@milliman.com
Milliman | 8500 Normandale Lake Blvd. | Suite 1850 | Minneapolis, MN 55437‐3830 | USA
Tel +1 952 820 2423 | Fax +1 952 897 5301 | milliman.com
Milliman, Inc. is not a law firm. Nothing in this correspondence should be construed as legal advice. In the event a legal interpretation is required, we recommend review by your legal counsel
.
******************************************************************
This communication is intended solely for the addressee and is confidential. If you
are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken
or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Unless
indicated to the contrary: it does not constitute professional advice or opinions upon
which reliance may be made by the addressee or any other party, and it should be
considered to be a work in progress.
******************************************************************
1
Andrew Plowman
From:Andrew Plowman
Sent:Monday, September 08, 2014 11:32 AM
To:'Kari Jakobe'
Subject:RE: Valley View (McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive)
Attachments:7149r.pdf
Kari,
Regarding your last comment, I think the line you may be seeing is the R/W line. I have actually circled the proposed
sidewalk, which is 10’‐13’ away from the locust and ash trees, respectively. The roadway right of way splits between the
two trees.
If I am not interpreting your comment correctly, please let me know.
From: Kari Jakobe [mailto:kari.jakobe@milliman.com]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 11:24 AM
To: Andrew Plowman
Subject: RE: Valley View (McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive)
Thank you so much for your time on this today.
It’s great to hear our Locust and Ash won’t be disturbed. I am assuming that the sidewalk would adjust for these two
trees even though the drawing shows otherwise.
Kari N Jakobe, CPC, ERPA | Principal | kari.jakobe@milliman.com
Milliman | 8500 Normandale Lake Blvd. | Suite 1850 | Minneapolis, MN 55437‐3830 | USA
Tel +1 952 820 2423 | Fax +1 952 897 5301 | milliman.com
Milliman, Inc. is not a law firm. Nothing in this correspondence should be construed as legal advice. In the event a legal interpretation is required, we recommend review by your legal counsel
.
From: Andrew Plowman [mailto:APlowman@wsbeng.com]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 11:14 AM
To: Kari Jakobe
Cc: Chad Millner (cmillner@EdinaMN.gov)
Subject: RE: Valley View (McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive)
Kari,
I do have some information regarding your site. The sidewalk will be ~8’ from the current edge of pavement near your
house. Basically, it is the area we need to put in the sidewalk.
The large locust and ash trees will definitely not be an issue. The area where the pine trees come out may need to be
removed, and that could be mostly from how we outlet a pipe near the existing box culvert, just west of your
house. There will be another memo coming out regarding the proposed storm sewer improvements. In general, there
are significant drainage issues at Sally Lane and Pauite Pass. We are analyzing what to do, and one of those options is to
place a larger pipe and direct it down to where it currently outlets near the box culvert. In addition, we don’t want the
trees to overhang onto the sidewalk, so some of those near the edge may need to come out or at least trimmed.
2
Regarding trees that are removed, the City has replaced trees that are removed in past projects. I would imagine that
would be the case with this project as well.
Let me know if you have additional questions.
Thank you,
Andy
Andrew Plowman, PE
Transportation Project Manager
d: 763-287-7149 | c: 612-360-1311
WSB & Associates, Inc. | 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416
This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are
not the addressee, please delete this email from your system. Any use of this email by unintended recipients is strictly
prohibited. WSB & Associates, Inc. does not accept liability for any errors or omissions which arise as a result of
electronic transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard copy.
From: Kari Jakobe [mailto:kari.jakobe@milliman.com]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:33 AM
To: Andrew Plowman
Subject: RE: Valley View (McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive)
Do you have information on how much from each property will be consumed with this proposal by any chance?
The road is under 30’ wide by my house currently, the property across the street drops down in a hill so I’m curious how
much of the space will be taken from my yard. I do have some mature trees near the edge.
7149 Valley View
Thank you,
Kari N Jakobe, CPC, ERPA | Principal | kari.jakobe@milliman.com
Milliman | 8500 Normandale Lake Blvd. | Suite 1850 | Minneapolis, MN 55437‐3830 | USA
Tel +1 952 820 2423 | Fax +1 952 897 5301 | milliman.com
Milliman, Inc. is not a law firm. Nothing in this correspondence should be construed as legal advice. In the event a legal interpretation is required, we recommend review by your legal counsel
.
From: Andrew Plowman [mailto:APlowman@wsbeng.com]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:20 AM
To: Kari Jakobe
Subject: RE: Valley View (McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive)
3
Kari,
The bike path is still in the plan, the brown section is the bike path. It accidentally was dropped from the legend, thank
you for alerting me to that.
The total width of the improvements is 40’, comprised of 2 – 11’ thru lane, 2‐5’ bike lanes, 1‐3’ Boulevard, 1‐5’ sidewalk.
Andrew Plowman, PE
Transportation Project Manager
d: 763-287-7149 | c: 612-360-1311
WSB & Associates, Inc. | 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416
This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are
not the addressee, please delete this email from your system. Any use of this email by unintended recipients is strictly
prohibited. WSB & Associates, Inc. does not accept liability for any errors or omissions which arise as a result of
electronic transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard copy.
From: Kari Jakobe [mailto:kari.jakobe@milliman.com]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:15 AM
To: Andrew Plowman
Subject: Valley View (McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive)
Good Morning,
Thank you for the updated plan for our roadway. Can you please clarify for me the following?
1. I noticed the legend doesn’t have a code for a bike path, has that been scratched from the plan?
2. What is the total width? Roadway, landscaping and sidewalk?
Thank you for your time.
Kari N Jakobe, CPC, ERPA | Principal | kari.jakobe@milliman.com
Milliman | 8500 Normandale Lake Blvd. | Suite 1850 | Minneapolis, MN 55437‐3830 | USA
Tel +1 952 820 2423 | Fax +1 952 897 5301 | milliman.com
This communication is intended solely for the addressee and is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Milliman is not a
law firm. Nothing in this correspondence should be construed as legal advice.
Want to know more about what we do? Click here
FEASIBILITY STUDY – BA 377
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDINA
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Valley View Road (MSAS 151) – McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive
September 10, 2014
Appendix I
Crash Data
20092010201120122013Total
K ‐ Fatal 000000
A ‐ Incapacitating Injury 000000
B ‐ Non‐Incapacitating Injury 000000
C ‐ Possible Injury 000000
N ‐ Property Damage Only 010001
Total 010001
07 ‐ Ran Off Road ‐ Right Side 010001
Total 010001
30 ‐ Collision with Tree/Shrubbery 010001
Total 010001
Type
Valley View Road between Commanche Ct and Braemer Blvd (2009‐2013)
Severity
Diagram
FEASIBILITY STUDY – BA 377
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDINA
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Valley View Road (MSAS 151) – McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive
September 10, 2014
Appendix J
Lighting Newsletter and Questionnaire
Valley View Road Reconstruction
(McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive)
September 4, 2014
Dear Resident:
We are continuing to work through the design components for the Valley View Road Reconstruction project
to begin next year. Thank you for all your input and we look forward to your responses related to the
enclosed questionnaire.
We have reviewed your input, input from the Edina Transportation Commission and facility planning
documents within the Comprehensive Plan in regards to the preliminary sidewalk along the south side of Valley
View Road. Based on those and considering impacts of construction, we will be recommending a 5-foot
sidewalk with a 3-foot boulevard and day lilies to the City Council for consideration at the public improvement
hearing. A specific date has not been determined yet but you will be notified when it is.
We received feedback from a majority of those that completed the questionnaire that the existing lighting
levels along the corridor were considered inadequate and upgrading the lighting was preferred. In addition, we
received suggestions from the Edina Transportation Commission that lighting improvements should be
accommodated with this design.
Lighting is already proposed at the roundabout at Braemar Boulevard and Mark Terrace Drive. Additional
decorative lights would be placed along the sidewalk on the south side of the roadway. We believe this lighting
is important to provide pedestrians added safety for navigation along the sidewalk. Attached is a conceptual
plan of where the lights may be placed. In general, the lighting would be placed at 200-foot intervals and at
pedestrian crossings. All decorative lighting fixtures are downward facing and can be shielded from diffusing
light towards residential properties.
Please feel free to email Andrew Plowman at aplowman@wsbeng.com or call at 763-287-7149. Or, you can
email me at cmillner@edinamn.gov or call at 952-826-0318. Please include your street address on any email
correspondence to help us track the comments.
Sincerely,
Chad Millner, P.E.
Director of Engineering
7100
7104
7116
7145
7027
7028
7149
7147
7025
7146
7143
7142 7033
7135
7138
7136
7134
7132
7130
7128
7126
7133
7120
7144
7141
7108
7106
D
a
t
e
:
P
r
i
n
t
e
d
:
W
S
B
F
i
l
e
n
a
m
e
:
K
:
\
0
1
6
8
6
-
5
6
0
\
C
a
d
\
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
\
16
8
6
-
5
6
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
p
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
.
d
g
n
9
/
2
/
2
0
1
4
City of Edina, Minnesota
Valley View Road Improvements
LEGEND
Proposed Concrete Sidewalk
Driveway Replacement
Proposed Curb & Gutter
Proposed Landscape Area
Proposed Roadway Reconstruction
Valley View Road
V
a
lle
y
V
ie
w
R
o
a
d
M
c
C
a
u
le
y
T
r
a
il
Blvd.Brae
mar
Mark Terrace Drive
September 2, 2014
Roundabout Lighting
Decorative Lighting
Lighting Layout
169
N
0 75 ft 150 ft
Valley View Road Reconstruction
Resident Questionnaire
Valley View Road Reconstruction
Lighting Preferences
Please do not answer these questions until after you have read the entire newsletter. Please complete
and return this survey by September 12, using the self-addressed stamped-envelope.
Which pedestrian lighting style do you prefer? Please check the 2 most appealing luminaire styles.
Washington Acorn Arlington Lantern
Postop Lantern Coach Lantern
FEASIBILITY STUDY – BA 377
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDINA
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Valley View Road (MSAS 151) – McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace Drive
September 10, 2014
Appendix K
Preliminary Assessment Roll and Map
Pending Assessment Roll
Valley View Road (BA‐377)
StreetPIDHouse No.OwnerAssessable REUAssessment Amount
Comanche Court
10711621210044 7033Katherine Fochler0.332,786.28$
McCauley Trail S
20711621220047 7027Derrell & Carol Deming0.332,786.28$
Sally Lane
30711621220016 7025Douglas & Jill Benner0.332,786.28$
40711621220024 7028Wayne Alexander0.332,786.28$
Valley View Road
50711621210049 7100Katherine Cross‐Berard & William Berard18,443.27$
60711621210067 7104Charles Kim & Jocelin Huang18,443.27$
70711621210066 7106*Elmer Salovich18,443.27$
80711621210065 7108John & Alexandra Demello*18,443.27$
90711621210063 7116Clayton Schwerin18,443.27$
100711621210064 7120Gregory & Susan Konezny18,443.27$
110711621210031 7126Jason Suby18,443.27$
120711621210029 7128Lucille Speeter‐Belden18,443.27$
130711621210028 7130Giovanna Angelats & Jamie Konopacky18,443.27$
140711621210027 7132Larry & H Louise Nesbitt18,443.27$
150711621210047 7133Lyubov & Edward Yamnik18,443.27$
160711621210026 7134Basu Hurkadi18,443.27$
170711621210046 7135Buddy & Marjorie Howell18,443.27$
180711621210025 7136Daniel & Chrys Bryant18,443.27$
190711621210045 7137James Fingerman & Elizabeth Williams18,443.27$
200711621210024 7138Dennis & Margaret Elder18,443.27$
210711621210023 7141Glenn Haller18,443.27$
220711621210008 7142Neil & Lorraine Potts18,443.27$
230711621210022 7143Robert & Hannah Tolles18,443.27$
240711621210007 7144Robert & Judith Darwin18,443.27$
250711621220008 7145Alexander Lucas & Christa Canakes18,443.27$
260711621210006 7146Patrick Cronan18,443.27$
270711621220007 7147Gregory & Mary Hirsch18,443.27$
280711621220006 7149Nicholas & Kari Jakobe18,443.27$
290711621210039 ‐City of Edina ‐ Braemar Golf Course**542,216.36$
TOTAL30.32256,000.00$
*Mailing address is 12 Overholt Pass, 55439
**0711621130001 is the secondary PID; for assessing purposes, only the primary PID is used.
Preliminary Assessable Roadway Cost 1,280,000.00$
Total Assessment REU30.32
Assessment Cost (Non‐State Aid)256,000.00$
Cost Per REU8,443.27$
/
En g in e e r in g De p tSeptember, 2014
Preli min ary As ses smen tsValley View Road Nei ghborhood Roa dwa y Rec onst ructi onImprovement No: BA-3 77C
I
T
Y
OF
E D I N A MIN
N
E
S
OTAINCORPORATED
1 8 8 8
,
e
16
6915
6917
6505
7120
14
42
7137
7108
17
33
25
7029
7100
7116
7135
12
7104
7133
7021
7005-07
6912 6915
7009-11
6916
7013-15
7021-23
69206509
6919
7013
7019
7009
7017
6612 6941
6609
6837
6921
7033
7136
7132
6608
7005
7033
71437149
7128
6604
7132
6832 6916
7013
7025
7141
7001
7147
6828
7037
6917
7142
6913
6841
6845
71387145
7028
7021
7140
7130
7005
7001
6921 6836
6914
7005
6625
7136
7017
7025
7134
7029
66136617662170037000
7009
7024
7016
7
1
4
4
7019
7004
7020
7008
6923
7017
7012
7126
7001
7
1
4
6
70257027
73517347
V A L L E Y V I E W R D
SA
LL
Y
LN
C
OM
A
N
C
H
E
C
TProject L i m i ts
Prel i mi nar y A ss essm ent
1/3 R EU
1 R EU
5 R EU
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
To: Edina Transportation Commission
From: Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Date: September 18, 2014
Subject: Sidewalk Facilities Plan
Agenda Item #: VI. A.
Action El
Discussion MI
Information El
Action Requested:
Recommend attached Sidewalk Facilities Plan to be forwarded to City Council and the Planning
Commission for an October 22 Public Hearing regarding its amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Information / Background:
Please recall that as part of the overall Living Streets Plan, staff has been preparing a new Sidewalk Facilities
Plan based in part on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, Living Streets principles/recommendations and input
from City staff, officials and residents. The ETC considered a draft Sidewalk Facilities Plan as part of the
Draft Living Streets Plan discussion at its July 17 meeting.
At their July I Work Session, City Council expressed a desire to approve an updated Sidewalk Facilities Plan
prior to the approval of the overall Living Streets Plan (anticipated by end of 2014). Council also directed
staff to bring the Sidewalk Facilities Plan to them for approval and amendment into the Comprehensive Plan,
so that an approved sidewalk network can be considered during the planning and design of current and
future roadway reconstruction projects.
The following is the anticipated timeline for approvals and amendment to the City of Edina Comprehensive
Plan:
• ETC recommendations and approval September 18
• Informational packet received by Council October 7
• Sidewalk Facilities Plan posted for public comment October 7
• Planning Commission Public Hearing October 22
• Council approval of Comprehensive Plan amendment November 3
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
Page 2
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Pedestrian Facilities
Attached is the Sidewalk Facilities Map, which will replace Figure 7.10 in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, and
below is content that is recommended to replace the "Pedestrian Facilities" section of that Plan (Chapter 7,
pages 7-33 to 7-36: "Pedestrian and Bike Facilities").
Pedestrian Facilities
The goal of this section is to build upon the current City practices to create a framework for planning
and implementation of future sidewalks. Sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities are an important
component of the City's transportation infrastructure.
Sidewalks and paths provide safe movement for individuals of all ages, decrease the dependency
on motor vehicles, and encourage active lifestyles. An effective municipal sidewalk system
provides network continuity such that there is broad geographic coverage for a range of users and
uses, without notable gaps.
Sidewalks should provide a comfortable space for pedestrians between the roadway and adjacent
land uses. Sidewalks are the most important component of pedestrian mobility. They provide
opportunities for active living and access to destinations and critical connections between multiple
modes of travel, as users of motor vehicles, transit and bicycles all must walk at some time during
their trip.
Refer to the Sidewalk Facilities Map (Figure 7.10) for locations of existing and proposed future
sidewalks.
Sidewalks are required:
• Where a street abuts or is in the vicinity of a public school, public building, community
playfield, or neighborhood park. Termini to be determined by context.
• On both sides of minor arterial streets.
• On one or both sides of collector streets.
• As required by zoning code or condition of plan approval.
• When one or more of the context criteria are met (see below).
The following context criteria may be used when determining whether an otherwise optional
sidewalk should be required. The criteria may be applied in any combination, using engineering
judgment. An optional sidewalk may be required when:
• A sidewalk is recommended by the Edina Active (Safe) Routes to School Comprehensive
Plan.
• The street is identified as a park or commercial destination.
• Average daily traffic is greater than 500 vehicles.
• 85th percentile speed is greater than 30 mph.
• There is a history of crashes involving pedestrians walking along the roadway.
• Transit stop(s) are present.
• A sidewalk would create a logical connection between destinations.
• Site lines, roadway geometry, or insufficient lighting makes it difficult for motorists to see
pedestrians walking along the roadway.
• The street width is less than 27 feet.
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
Page 3
Citizen- and/or business-petitioned sidewalk locations will also receive important consideration as
they are brought forward for City review.
Sidewalks within the City are divided into the following thee categories. It is possible that a sidewalk
may fit into more than one category:
State-Aid sidewalks are located adjacent to Municipal State-Aid Streets (MSAS) and are
funded from MSAS funds.
Active Routes to School sidewalks are identified by the Edina Active Routes to School
Comprehensive Plan (approved on Feb 3, 2014) as recommended to improve connectivity
and safe routes to schools.
City sidewalks are sidewalks that meet the requirements and/or context criteria above.
Sidewalks shall be a minimum of 5 feet wide to provide adequate space for two pedestrians to
comfortably pass side-by-side. Wider sidewalks (8 to 12 feet) are recommended where pedestrians
are likely to travel in groups, such as near schools and in shopping districts, or where adjacent to
transit stops.
A standard minimum 5-foot boulevard (the space between the sidewalk and the curb or edge of
pavement) shall be provided whenever possible to increase pedestrian safety and comfort, as well
as providing space for snow storage. Minimum planted boulevard widths may be two feet (see
following paragraph).
In shopping districts characterized by zero-lot lines, street furniture and/or on-street parking,
sidewalks may be wider with no boulevard. Additionally, a shallower boulevard or curbside sidewalk
may be constructed when the cost of constructing a five-foot boulevard would be excessively
disproportionate due to existing right-of-way or topographical constraints. Curbside sidewalks shall
have a minimum width of 6 feet unobstructed for travel (5 feet clear of sign posts, traffic signals,
utility poles, etc., plus one foot for snow storage/clearing operations).
Financing of the future sidewalks are separated into two categories:
1. State-Aid Costs cover any proposed sidewalk located adjacent to a State-Aid designated
roadway and are paid 100 percent by State-Aid funds.
2. Active Routes to School and City Costs cover any proposed sidewalk located adjacent to
a non-State-Aid designated roadway and are paid 100 percent by the Pedestrian and Cyclist
Safety (PACS) Fund.
The City should search out additional funding sources, such as grants or partnering with other
agencies, for larger projects that have regional significance. One potential important source is the
Safe Routes to School Program in which Mn/DOT allocates federal funds to projects of merit
selected on a competitive basis.
Sidewalks located on State-Aid roads or within the Public School Zones will be maintained by the
City of Edina. Typical City maintenance includes snow removal and repair of broken or shifted
sidewalks. Sidewalks located in other areas must be maintained by the property owners.
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
Page 4
Attachments:
Figure 7.10: Sidewalk Facilities
G: \ Engineering \ Infrastructure \Streets \ Traffic \ TRANSP COMM \Agendas & RR's\ 2014 R&R \ 20140918 \Item VLA. Edina Sidewalk Facilities Plan.docx
MT RLAC HEN BLVD
1..n •n • P.%
4 ,
Corrcl ia
School
ST or I
DEWS Y HILL RD
Public Works
Park Ma intc ice
Li. so 1r —lJIrI-- 1,„„mitccrc'‘'
Calvin
ch Christian
School
, Golden
_
OMontetnar
;
Ediro
J. Morn ingside
Church
1. AVE
IR1
Own
Gra cc I
Church
54TH ST W
Highland
Sot
Southvicii
Good
Sam alila
Methodist
Countryside
School
:`,15"
66TH ST W
Cornelia
tit
Lt" •
Chest
Presby teria n
Church
.. ff fff
Lut
the
v
er,
S'an
• atm* '64•
•
144
(Cl
ills1
ongregtel
Mud Lake
11
lir
62 Chum
Crce;"'V":11 cy 1 C,00k
School .6 ----Tie;
169
M
Sl Allam mi .5co-R""
I !.
.1SctaPatric
• 116 k High
di
tholic
...... pti4
Win
High 4
schcot
Immo.
Valley Vicw
ALLEY VIEW It
•
70TH ST W
11.
School
St S tcptcn
75TH ST W
crs L utile an
h & Sc
ItT r I '16s
fffffffffff
• <
'7Fire
'Ararl ce
Existing — - Future Future
Sidewalk State-Aid Sidewalk Active Routes
To School Sidewalk
City of Edina
2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
r, Future
Nine Mile Creek
Regional Trail
Sidewalk Facilities
Figure 7.10
- Future
City Sidewalk
WE
Engineering Dept
September 2014
Legend
1
MINUTES OF
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
COMMUNITY ROOM
AUGUST 21, 2014
6:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL Answering roll call were members Bass, Boettge, Iyer, Janovy, LaForce, Olson, and Whited.
ABSENT Members Nelson, Sierks, Spanhake, and Van Dyke.
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Motion was made by member Janovy and seconded by member LaForce to approve the meeting agenda. All voted
aye. Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 17, 2014
Motion was made by member LaForce and seconded by member Whited to approve the amended minutes of July
21, 2014. All voted aye. Motion carried.
COMMUNITY COMMENT
Mr. Troy Paulsen, 5116 Juanita Avenue, spoke regarding the proposed Arden Park D Neighborhood Roadway
Reconstruction scheduled for 2015. Mr. Paulsen said he did not want the road diet which includes narrowing the
road width, traffic calming measures, pedestrian network (sidewalk), streetscape enhancements, stormwater best
management practice is too soon to know, premature to Living Streets concepts in 2015 because the plan is still
being developed. He asked why some elements of Living Streets were being applied to Arden Park D but not to other
neighborhoods. He said there is an element of risk in developing and applying the plan at the same time and City
Council pulling the sidewalks is a good example. Regarding resident engagement, he said there was a questionnaire
but it does not appear that residents are being included.
REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
2015 Valley View Road Reconstruction Update
Mr. Andy Plowman with WSB presented the Valley View Road Reconstruction plan. Mr. Plowman said the project
limit from McCauley Trail to Mark Terrace is a section of State Aid roadway and currently there are no curb and
gutter, sidewalk, bike lanes, or parking lane. The road width is 28-30-ft. and it has two curves signed for 15 mph and
20 mph, respectively that do not meet State Aid standards.
Mr. Plowman said the proposed design includes adding curb and gutter, two 5-ft. bike lanes (designated a primary
bike route), sidewalk on one side with a 3-ft. boulevard planted with daylilies because they are drought tolerant, and
two 11-ft. driving lanes. At Valley View Road and Braemar Blvd, the curve would become a roundabout without
needing additional right-of-way. The other curve will remain a curve and properly signed at 20 mph because of right-
of-way impacts (a variance will be needed for the 20 mph).
Resident engagement included an open house and questionnaire.
Discussion
Regarding adding streetlights, Mr. Plowman said streetlights would be installed at the roundabout and intersections.
He said they could consider surveying residents again but some residents do not want streetlights in their yard.
Member Janovy said if adding sidewalk it is generally nice to add streetlights. Mr. Plowman was asked how the
roundabout would be delineated for cyclists and he said it would be signed ‘share-the-road’ with colored pavement
to delineate where cyclists should be. Mr. Plowman was asked if stop signs could be used in place of the roundabout
2
and he said the current configuration has a stop sign and it does not meet State Aid standard. Chair Bass added that
the intersection currently functions like a roundabout so adding one would be a safety improvement.
It was suggested that staff consider revising the questionnaire that is sent to residents to include an explanation why
sidewalk was being recommended in hopes of getting better responses. Seeking input from a broader area was also
suggested (input is currently sought from residents directly on the street where the sidewalk is to be added).
Chair Bass said she lives in the area and is pleased with the upgrades. She said there are many pedestrians and while
the roadway is dark and curvy she is sensitive to adding too much ambient light but pedestrian scale lighting would
not infringe. She added that if the Southwest Light Rail is constructed she believe traffic volume will increase in the
area because the only station is close by so the upgrades for all modes of transportation is good. She asked if the
existing tree in the middle of the intersection would be preserved and city engineer Millner said according to the
City’s forester it is declining so probably not. She suggested planting a replacement tree.
Continuing, chair Bass said traveling down Dewey Hill Road, the sidewalk will be a big improvement and she asked
planner Nolan if money could be budgeted in the PACS Fund in a future year for adding a crossing aid of some type at
Dewey Hill Road and Valley View Road. She asked if any consideration was given to a protected bike facility like a bi-
directional lane separated by a rumble strip (instead of the bike lanes) because this route is used by many students
going to Valley View Middle School. Mr. Plowman said they did not look at this and city engineer Millner added that
the footprint would need to be wider because they would need to include a reaction lane which is an extra 10-ft and
this would require a variance. She recommended that in the future, they consider all options especially in areas that
are close to schools and Planner Nolan added that what they install now should be envisioned for the future which
would mean looking at Valley View Road all the way to Gleason Road.
Member Janovy said they did not see the questionnaire results or residents’ correspondences and they’ve talked
about making revisions to the questionnaire to make sure they are hearing sooner and more fully from residents.
Member Iyer asked if staff would be showing them the streetlights’ styles at a later date. City engineer Millner said
everything will be in the feasibility report that they will receive in a couple months.
2015 Neighborhood Reconstruction Projects
Assistant city engineer Patrick Wrase was introduced to the ETC and he presented the 2015 neighborhood
reconstruction projects. The neighborhood projects presented were Countryside H, Prospect Knolls B and Dewey Hill
G. He said Arden Park D is also scheduled for 2015 but is being handled by a consultant and would be presented at a
later date.
Assistant city engineer Wrase said improvements will include the asphalt pavement, selective replacement of curb
and gutter, new hydrants and gate valves, sanitary sewer spot repairs, storm sewer repairs, and new sump pump
drain line. Sidewalk is proposed for Countryside H based on the Active Routes to School (ARTS) plan.
Regarding selective replacement of curb and gutter, member Olson said the old and new looks like patch work when
it is completed and asked what the savings was from doing it this way. City engineer Millner said their rule of thumb
is if 50% or more of the curb and gutter is in bad shape everything is replaced or if it is a watermain driven project,
otherwise it would be expensive to replace everything. Member Janovy said residents’ value aesthetics so staff
should consider replacing everything if cost is not too unreasonable. He said curb and gutter is funded from the
Storm Sewer Fund and it would be very costly.
Discussion ensued about the placement of the sidewalk in the Countryside H project area. Member Janovy thought
they had prior discussion about adding the sidewalk to the school or park side. Planner Nolan said there are fewer
impacts on the school and park side but the trips are generated on the side where the houses are. A combination of
east/west sidewalk might be better. Staff is still evaluating placement.
Member Bass asked if staff knew where the children on Vernon Lane attended school. She said the ETC talked about
making connections when possible to make it easier for students to be able to walk/bike and since Merold Drive is
3
being constructed she asked if it would be possible to create a path to Vernon Lane. Member LaForce said the
connection would be good for all pedestrians in the area to be able access Bredesen Park. Staff will check to see if
there is an existing easement.
Member LaForce asked why Arden Park D was not presented and city engineer Millner said they are still looking at
utility design, sidewalks and another public meeting. Member LaForce asked why the sidewalks went to City Council
and bypassed the ETC and Mr. Millner said City Council asked about the sidewalks at last council meeting and current
vehicle counts does not warrant sidewalks so they voted to remove them. Staff is still planning to reduce the
roadway width from 30-ft to 27-ft (the standard width). He said this neighborhood is a watermain driven project so
the entire curb and gutter will be replaced and this gives them the opportunity to narrow the roadway width.
Member Janovy said it was brought up earlier that this neighborhood is being treated differently and it seems like it
is because the curb and gutter is being replaced. Mr. Millner agreed and added that it is also because they knew the
Living Streets policy would be approved and at an earlier workshop they sought City Council’s input to implement
elements of the plan and they were in favor.
2015 Transportation Commission Work Plan
Chair Bass said they plan to approve the work plan in September. After review and discussion, survey/questionnaire
will be added to the ETC’s work plan for standardization, creating a comprehensive way of getting feedback,
surveying a broader area and determining how the feedback will be used.
“Respect is a Two-Way Street” Street Safety Campaign
Planner Nolan said the campaign proposal was developed by staff that included engineering, police, communications
and administration, and they would like the ETC’s feedback.
Discussion
Member Boettge liked the idea of involving everyone – pedestrians, bikers, and drivers; and suggested using positive
slogans like “Try It, You’ll Like It,” “Explore Edina,” and “Love Your City” instead of teaching slogans.
Member LaForce said respect goes both ways but there seem to be an emphasis on bikers starting immediately on
page one. He does not think they should be telling people how to fee or think; instead the focus should be on
behaviors.
Chair Bass said she appreciated the effort to respond to an identifiable need that is on their work plan and
agreement among staff that they need to create a culture of respect among motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians.
She also appreciated the steps taken by staff in breaking down silos and coming together to have this discussion.
However, she expressed disappointment because in June, the ETC delayed setting goals and instead discussed
identifying who should be involved and at a minimum, it should be a joint effort with the school district. She said the
ARTS plan that was recently approved recommends this and involvement by key stakeholders will help to create a
stronger campaign.
Additionally, she said the proposal states that it is for all users but there is no mention of pedestrians. She said there
seem to be a preoccupation with the interaction between motorists and bicyclists and while this is important,
pedestrians are the most vulnerable users. Finally, the principle focus of the proposal is educating on behavior, but it
seemed aligned with teaching everyone rules but this is not the stated goal. She said it is filled with messages and
tactics and no strategy and she is not able offer comments on the proposal because it is nowhere near what it should
be.
Member Olson said having been involved since 2008 with Bike Edina, it is tremendous progress that needs to be fine-
tuned.
Member Janovy agreed but said some of the information is inaccurate and does not reflect a clear understanding of
the law and expectations. She said if people do not know the subject matter they are trying to communicate, they
should not be communicating it. She said some messages are not in the law and they should not be teaching these
4
things. She agreed there seemed to be a preoccupation with bicyclists but not a good one and pedestrians are more
vulnerable. She said they are missing collaboration with the community who can contribute. Overall, she is happy
that something is being done but it needs to be different.
Member Iyer said this needs to be a big scale campaign involving the school district, Chamber of Commerce, etc. He
suggested using a consultant to develop it.
Motion was made by member Iyer and seconded by member LaForce to reassess the goals and collaborative effort
needed for an effective campaign and involve stakeholders including the ETC, school district, business community
and Bloomington Public Health in the reassessment and subsequent planning.
Member LaForce asked if they knew what would work. He said it is easy to say what they don’t want but are they
ready or able to say what they want. Chair Bass said other examples are available that they can review and then
decide if they need a consultant’s help, but for sure stakeholders need to be involved.
All vote aye. Motion carried.
Updates
Student Members - None
Bike Edina Working Group – Minutes of July 10, 2014
Member Janovy said the publisher of ‘Have Fun Biking’ attended their meeting and asked for feedback on best biking
routes and people can email her with their best routes. Biking in parking lots discussion will be added to the
September agenda.
Living Streets Working Group – None
Communications Committee – None
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
Member Janovy said the City Council receives transportation related communications that the ETC does not get. She
said residents assume they are getting them. Planner Nolan said he does not get them either unless addressed to
him directly or the ETC. She said this may put them at a disadvantage.
CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS
Member LaForce said he was surprised to see the Tracy Avenue Bridge over TH-62 under construction and he asked
where are cars to stop on France Avenue relative to the intersection improvements. Planner Nolan said the work is
near the bridge and its CenterPoint Energy doing emergency repairs to a gas line. Regarding the crossings on France
Avenue, he said stop bars were not planned but staff will analyze this.
Member Janovy said the France Avenue traffic signals are rusty and splattered with concrete. Mr. Plowman said
Hennepin County is responsible for painting. She asked if the City could partner with them to spruce them up.
Regarding planting daylilies in the boulevard, member Janovy asked if this would pose a problem for passengers
exiting vehicles next to plantings. She asked if the Garden Club could check to see if there are other planting options.
5
Member Boettge said member Janovy approached her about starting a Walk Edina Group and she is willing to do so
and asked the process to get started.
Member Whited asked about Xerxes Avenue and planner Nolan said he did not have an update but will check in with
Hennepin County.
Chair Bass reported that there is a section of sidewalk along Dewey Hill Road south of Lewis Park that is overgrown.
STAFF COMMENTS
2014 Project Update:
• Countryside F and Strachauer Park B Neighborhoods are completed;
• Morningside B Neighborhood Reconstruction – sidewalk is completed;
• Todd Park F Neighborhood Reconstruction – Edina portion has started;
• France Avenue Pedestrian Intersection Enhancement – stage 3 being constructed and street light contract
was awarded;
• Hazelton Road – the detour is still in place and sidewalk construction was started;
• 2014 Sidewalk Improvements – contract was awarded;
• Advisory Communication – City Council directed staff to revise ordinance;
• 60th & Chowen area traffic study was submitted to University of MN for consideration as a capstone project;
planner Nolan said member Spanhake is feels confident it will be picked and would be for the fall semester;
• Conducting research to see how other cities handles repeated traffic safety requests;
• Developing a Sign Reflective Policy to be completed by years end;
• Developing an ADA transition plan;
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned.
ATTENDANCE
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE - 2014
NAME TERM J
F
* M A M J J A S O N D SM
2/27
S
M
3/1
0
W
S
3/18
# of
Mtgs
Attendance
%
Meetings/Work
Sessions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 9
Bass, Katherine 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 78%
Boettge, Emily 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 100%
Iyer, Surya 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 89%
Janovy, Jennifer 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 100%
LaForce, Tom 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 100%
Nelson, Paul 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 89%
Olson, Larry 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100%
Sierks, Caroline student 1 1 1 3 33%
Spanhake, Dawn 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 5 71%
Van Dyke, Jackson student 1 1 2 22%
Whited, Courtney 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 78%
*Cancelled due to weather
6
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Allison, Secretary