HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-10-24 Meeting PacketAGENDA
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
October 24, 2013
6:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting of September 19, 2013
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. Safety in the Park Presentation
B. 2012 Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Survey - Results
C. Draft 2013 Street Reconstruction Survey
D. 2014 Neighborhood Reconstruction Projects - Updates
E. 54th Street Reconstruction and Arden Park Stormwater Management Plan
F. Traffic Safety Committee Report of October 8, 2013
G. Updates
i. Student Member
ii. Bike Edina Task Force — Minutes of September 12, 2013
iii. Living Streets Working Group
iv. Communications Committee
Agenda / Edina Transportation Commission
October 24, 2013
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 November 21 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday December 19 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday January 16 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Thursday February 20 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday March 20 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday April 17 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS
GAEngineering \ Infrastructure \Streets \Traffic VRANSP COMM \Agendas & RR's \ 2013 Agendas \ 20131024 Agenda.docx
Engineering Department • Phone 952-826-0371
Fax 952-826-0392 • www.CityofEdina.com
Engineering Department • 7450 Metro Blvd • Edina, MN 55439
Date: October 21, 2013
To: Edina Transportation Commission
From: Mark K. Nolan, AICP – Transportation Planner
Re: Traffic Safety Committee Report of October 8, 2013
Revised Page 2
Summary:
Please find attached an updated Page 2 of the Traffic Safety Committee Report of October 8, 2013. Changes were
made to item A2: Hennepin County Request for “No Parking” signs at 6124, 6128 and 6132 Xerxes Avenue, to
include “No Parking” signs at each curb extension location (see map).
Please replace this page for Page 2 of the report sent to you last week.
Attachments:
Revised Page 2 of Traffic Safety Committee Report of October 8, 2013.
Hennepin County Striping Plan for Xerxes Avenue (Crosstown to 60th St W)
Traffic Safety Committee Report Page 2 of 8
October 8, 2013
A2. Hennepin County Request for “No Parking”
signs on the 6000 and 6100 block of Xerxes
Avenue.
In 2014 Hennepin County will be doing a mill‐
and‐overlay of Xerxes Avenue South from
approximately 54th St W to the Crosstown
Highway. As part of this project the County is
currently planning on constructing curb
extensions (or “bumpouts”) at four locations
on the west side of Xerxes Ave (6000, 6026,
6040/6100 and 6116). This will delineate one
southbound lane of traffic until a point 170’
north of the Crosstown where a right‐hand
turn lane will be striped. The County is
requesting that “No Parking” signs be placed
at this location to provide for the turn lane, as well as at the curb extension locations.
Staff recommends approval of No Parking signs at 6124, 6128 and 6132 Xerxes Avenue and at curb
extension locations at 6000, 6026, 6040/6100 and 6116 Xerxes Avenue.
SECTION B:
Requests on which the Committee recommends denial:
B1. Request for a painted crosswalk at the intersection of Grimes Avenue and 45th Street West.
This request is from a resident who lives at
the intersection. The requestor states that it is
difficult and unsafe for pedestrians to cross
Grimes Avenue at 45th Street, noting that
“four or five” school buses stop there.
Requestor would like to see a marked
crosswalk at the intersection across Grimes
Avenue to increase the safety of pedestrians
in the area.
There is no relevant history of traffic requests
in this area. There are no reported crashes at
this intersection. A map and photos are
provided below.
The criterion for placement of crosswalks and type of control is outlined within the City of Edina Local
Traffic Control list. It states:
Map: 6100 block of Xerxes Avenue
Map: Grimes Avenue & 45th Street West
6009
6124
6021
6045
6125
6033
6020
6115
6005
6040
6036
6129
6116
6032
6128
6037
6017
6133
6012
6100
6016
6026
6101
6104
6132
6108
6000
6105
6121
6015
6041
6109
6117
6029
6025
6030
6007
31
XE
R
X
E
S
A
V
E
S
60TH ST W
STATE HWY NO 62
61ST ST W
11'
17
0
F
e
e
t
Hennepin County Transportation Department
Transportation Planning Division
1 inch = 50 feet
05025
Feet
XERXES AVE (CSAH 31) between:
T.H. 62 & 60TH ST W - with Bumpouts
BumpoutBumpout
Bumpout
Proposed Bus Stop
BumpoutBumpout
11'
13'3'
11'9'9'
13'
Created on: 9/17/2013
52'
11'11'9'9'
11'11'9'9'
Bumpout
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
To: Edina Transportation Commission
From: Mark Nolan — Transportation Planner
Date: August 15, 2013
Subject: Traffic Safety Committee Report of October 8, 2013
Agenda Item #: VI. F.
Action
Discussion
Information 111
Action Requested:
Review and recommend Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) Report of Tuesday, October 8, 2013, be
forwarded to City Council for approval.
Information / Background:
It is not anticipated that residents will be in attendance at the meeting regarding any of the attached issues.
An overview of the comments from the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) will be included in the staff
report provided to Council for their November 19, 2013, meeting.
Attachments:
Traffic Safety Committee Report for October 8, 2013.
G:\ Engineering\infrasiructure\Streets \Traffic\ TRANSP COMM\ Agendas & IRO's \ 2013 R&R\ 20131024 \Item VI.F. Traffic Safety Committee Report of October 8, 2013.docx
. . .. • . _ .
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Map: W 56th Street and Doncaster Way
Photo: W 56th Street and Doncaster Way looking south
Page I of 8
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on October 8. The Director of
Engineering, Public Works Director, Transportation Planner, Police Traffic Supervisor and Sign Coordinator were
in attendance for this meeting.
From these reviews, the recommendations below are provided. On each of the items, persons involved 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 be included on the October 24
Edina Transportation Commission and the November 19 City Council agenda.
SECTION A:
Requests on which the Committee recommends approval:
Al. Request for peak-hour parking restrictions at
W 56th Street and Doncaster Way.
This request comes from a resident who lives
in the area and whose children attend
Highlands School. Requestor states that the
curve at the intersection of W 56th Street and
Doncaster Way is very congested during
school pick-up and drop-off hours, because
parking is allowed on both sides of the
roadway and there is a great deal of school
bus and vehicle traffic during those times.
Requestor would like parking restrictions in
and near the curved intersection during the
hours of 8am-10am and 3pm-4pm. Pavement
width north of the curve is 28', within the
curve 33', and west of the curve 28.5'.
Staff recommends approval of No Parking
(8:00-4:30 on School Days) signage on the
outside of the curve at the intersection of W
56th St and Doncaster Way.
Traffic Safety Committee Report
October 8, 2013
A2. Hennepin County Request for "No Parking"
signs at 6124, 6128 and 6132 Xerxes Avenue.
In 2014 Hennepin County will be doing a mill-
and-overlay of Xerxes Avenue South from
approximately 54th St W to the Crosstown
Highway. As part of this project the County is
currently planning on constructing curb
extensions (or "bunnpouts") at four locations
on the west side of Xerxes Ave (6000, 6026,
6040/6100 and 6116). This will delineate one
southbound lane of traffic until a point 170'
north of the Crosstown where a right-hand
turn lane will be striped. The County is
requesting that "No Parking" signs be placed
at this location to provide for the turn lane..
Map: 6100 block of Xerxes Avenue
Staff recommends approval of No Parking signs at 6124, 6128 and 6132 Xerxes Avenue.
SECTION B:
Requests on which the Committee recommends denial:
B1. Request for a painted crosswalk at the intersection of Grimes Avenue and 45 th Street West.
Map: Grimes Avenue & 45 th Street West
The criterion for placement of crosswalks and type of control is outlined within the City of Edina Local
Traffic Control list. It states:
This request is from a resident who lives at
the intersection. The requestor states that it is
difficult and unsafe for pedestrians to cross
Grimes Avenue at 45th Street, noting that
"four or five" school buses stop there.
Requestor would like to see a marked
crosswalk at the intersection across Grimes
Avenue to increase the safety of pedestrians
in the area.
There is no relevant history of traffic requests
in this area. There are no reported crashes at
this intersection. A map and photos are
provided below.
Traffic Safety Committee Report Page 2 of 8
October 8, 2013
1,0
' .
4
Photo: Grimes Avenue and 45 th Street looking northwest
Marked Pedestrian Crosswalk
• Marked crosswalks are placed at
locations that are unusually hazardous
or at locations not readily apparent as
having pedestrian movement.
• Marked crosswalks will only be placed in
an area that has in excess of 20
pedestrians crossing for a minimum of
two hours during any eight hour period.
• Marking for crosswalks will be
established by measuring the "Vehicle
Gap Time". This is the total number of
gaps between vehicular traffic recorded
during the average five minute period in
the peak hour. Criteria for markings are:
• More than five gaps — pavement marking and signage only.
• Four to five gaps — add activated pedestal mounted flasher.
• Less than three gaps — add activated overhead mounted flasher
Counts of pedestrians were taken at the intersection. A maximum total of 15 pedestrians were recorded
crossing Grimes Ave at the intersection within a two-hour period. This is below the warrants for placing a
crosswalk.
Staff recommends denial of request for painted pedestrian crosswalk.
B2. Request for parking restrictions at the end of 53rd Street West.
This request comes from a resident who lives
on 53rd Street West. The resident previously
submitted a request for parking restrictions in
front of his residence (see Traffic Safety
Committee Report dated 9/4/13). As a result,
two no parking signs were placed in front of
the residence (on the north side of W 53rd St).
Requestor now states that vehicles continue to
turn around in the driveway and block the
driveway. Req uestor also states that vehicles
park on the south side of W 53rd st (both in the
street and on the grass) and it is difficult to
pull out of his driveway as a result.
Additionally, construction and maintenance
Map: 53rd Street West
Traffic Safety Committee Report Page 3 of 8
October 8, 2013
vehicles park in that location in the overnight
hours, resulting in vehicle noise. Req uestor
would like to see parking restrictions on the
south side of W 53rd St, west of Grandview Ln.
A map and picture are provided below.
Staff recommends denial of request for
parking restrictions.
Photo: 53rd Street West, looking west
SECTION C:
Requests that are deferred to a later date:
Cl. Request for a painted crosswalk at the intersection of Xerxes Avenue South and 54th Street West.
This request is from a resident who lives in
the southwest quadrant of the intersection.
The req uestor states that vehicles are not
stopping for pedestrians crossing Xerxes
Avenue at 54th Street. Requestor would like to
see some traffic control or marked crosswalk
at the intersection to increase the safety of
pedestrians in the area.
There is no relevant history of traffic requests
in this area. There are no reported crashes at
this intersection. A map and photos are
provided below.
The criterion for placement of crosswalks and
type of control is outlined within the City of
Edina Local Traffic Control list. It states:
Map: Xerxes Avenue South & 54th Street West
Marked Pedestrian Crosswalk
• Marked crosswalks are placed at locations that are unusually hazardous or at locations not readily
apparent as having pedestrian movement.
• Marked crosswalks will only be placed in an area that has in excess of 20 pedestrians crossing for a
minimum of two hours during any eight hour period.
Traffic Safety Committee Report Page 4 of 8
October 8, 2013
Photo: 54th Street and Xerxes Avenue looking north
Photo: 54th Street and Xerxes Avenue looking west
,
•
g
t A
ftwitorn
•
.
Map: 50th and France business district
Page 5 of 8
• Marking for crosswalks will be
established by measuring the "Vehicle
Gap Time". This is the total number of
gaps between vehicular traffic recorded
during the average five minute period
in the peak hour. Criteria for markings
are:
• More than five gaps — pavement
marking and signage only.
• Four to five gaps — add activated
pedestal mounted flasher.
• Less than three gaps — add activated
overhead mounted flasher
Counts of pedestrians were taken at the
intersection. A maximum total of 12
pedestrians were recorded crossing Xerxes
Avenue at the intersection within a two-hour
period. This is below the warrants for placing
a crosswalk.
After discussion, staff recommends
deferring decision until next year to allow
for additional analysis of approved
crosswalk at 55th Street West and Xerxes
Avenue (one block south), pending approval
from Hennepin County (see Traffic Safety
Committee Report dated 8/7/2013).
C2. Request for "No Bicycling" or "Please Walk
Your Bike" signage in the 50th and France
business district.
This request comes from a bicycling supporter
who states that families and children riding on
sidewalks in the 50th and France business
district may not be safe, given the zero-lot
lines and retail activities located there.
Requestor cited a child riding a bike into an
opening restaurant door, resulting in injury.
Traffic Safety Committee Report
October 8, 2013
Map: 50th St and France Ave looking north
Map: 4200 block of Grimes Ave
Requestor would like signage in the area to
prevent bicycle riding on the sidewalks.
After discussion, staff recommends deferring
decision one month to allow staff to research
potential sign types and locations.
C3. Request for parking restrictions in front of
4215-4219 Grimes Avenue.
This request comes from a resident who lives
in the area and often travels through this
section of Grimes Avenue. Requestor states
that vehicles travelling northbound on Grimes
have to swerve around vehicles parked on the
east side of the street, potentially ending up
in the southbound lane. Requestor states that
this section of Grimes (4215-4219) is on a hill
which could potentially block sightlines of
vehicles.
Requestor would like parking restrictions on
the east side of Grimes near these addresses.
Currently there is no parking allowed on the
west side of the street. Pavement at this
location is 25.5' (face to face).
After discussion, staff concluded that further
exploration is needed to determine vertical
sightline distance and existing traffic counts.
Photo: 4213 Grimes Ave, looking south
Traffic Safety Committee Report
Page 6 of 8
October 8, 2013
SECTION D:
Other traffic safety-related issues handled.
Dl. Call from a resident regarding traffic backing up on Arcadia Avenue from the coffee shop drive-through in
the Grandview area. Resident is concerned that this condition is a danger to motorists. The Director of
Engineering will draft a letter to the business owner regarding mitigation.
D2. Request for a curb extension at 5601 Tracy Avenue, similar to curb extensions south of the residence.
Caller stated that vehicles are entering the parking and bicycle lanes to maneuver around vehicles and
turn right onto Vernon Ave. Design consultant discussed this with the resident and her neighbor to the
south, who agreed that the curb extension is needed. Bids are being requested to construct the curb
extension this fall.
D3. Call from a resident stating that sightlines are obstructed at the intersection of Hawkes Terrace and
Hawkes Drive. Edina Police Department (EPD) visited the site and determined that there was a clear zone
violation on the property at the northwest corner of the intersection. EPD sent a notice to the property
owner.
D4. Request for "No Idling" sign from a resident at View Lane and Vernon Avenue. Resident stated that
vehicles — and in particular, school buses — are idling in front of her house, resulting in poor air quality and
exacerbating her health condition. Edina School District was notified, who determined that one of their
buses was idling at this location. The bus driver was notified not to do so.
D5. Call from a resident regarding traffic levels on Tracy Avenue north of Highway 62. Resident is concerned
that traffic will continue to increase, making it difficult for turning movements and potentially dangerous
for pedestrians. Resident was told that the City continues to monitor traffic levels on Tracy Avenue and
will consider traffic issues as the roadway is redesigned next year.
D6. Request for parking restrictions on Hillside Road east of Tracy Avenue. Resident states that vehicles are
parking on both sides of the street during baseball games at Countryside Park, making it difficult to
navigate the roadway and pull into/out of driveways. Request was forwarded to EDP, who installed
temporary No Parking signs on the north side of the roadway, between Tracy Ave and Crescent Dr.
D7. Request from a resident for existing ADT and speed data near the intersection of Glengarry Parkway and
Ayrshire Blvd. A voicemail was left with the resident with this data. No return call was received.
D8. Call from a business owner in the 5100 block of Industrial Boulevard (near its intersection with Metro
Blvd). Business owner requests that the curve in that area be striped for a single lane, and cited a recent
instance where a motorist was "forced" off of the road in the curve by another motorist. This issue was
addressed in the September Traffic Safety Committee Report, where it was determined to install signs at
both ends of the single-lane stretch of Industrial Blvd to indicate correct lane usage. A voicemail was left
with the business owner describing this. No return call has been received.
D9. Call from a resident stating that sightlines are obstructed at the intersection of 56th Street and France
Avenue. Specifically, the resident stated that pedestrians on the sidewalk on the west side of France
Avenue are difficult to see by motorists traveling eastbound on 56th Street. Edina Police Department
(EPD) visited the site and determined that there was a clear zone violation on the property at the
southwest corner of the intersection. EPD sent a notice to the property owner (building at that location is
currently vacant).
Traffic Safety Committee Report Page 7 of 8
October 8, 2013
D10. Call from Edina Public Schools requesting City approval for a crosswalk to be installed at the Edina
Community Center/Kuhlman Field parking lot entrance at 5701 Normandale Blvd. Staff approves and will
contact EPS to advise as to type and surface of crosswalk.
D11. Call from a resident stating that sightlines are obstructed at the southeast corner of the intersection of
Blake Road and Belmore Lane. Staff measured the height of the vegetation there at 40", which exceeds
the maximum clear zone height of 30". Edina Police Department (EPD) will visit the site and contact the
homeowner.
Traffic Safety Committee Report Page 8 of 8
October 8, 2013
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
To: Edina Transportation Commission
From: Chad A. Millner, PE, Assistant City Engineer
Date: October 24, 2013
Agenda Item #: VI. E.
Action El
Discussion
Information
Subject: 54th Street Reconstruction and Arden Park Stormwater Management Plan
Action Requested:
Review and comment on the 54th Street Reconstruction and Arden Park Stormwater Management Plan.
Information / Background:
Please recall that the project has been gathering input from a variety of stakeholders throughout the
summer and fall. More than 700 neighbors have provided input this far. The design will be based on the
input and MnDOT and City rules and policies.
Our consultant will give a short presentation on the draft design of 54th Street followed by discussion. The
public hearing will be scheduled for a special City Council Meeting on December 10.
Due to the short turnaround time between input sessions, a draft feasibility study is included with the ETC
packet. On Monday, October 2 I, an updated feasibility study will be delivered to commission members.
Attachments:
54th Street Reconstruction and Arden Park Stormwater Management Plan Draft Feasibility Study
G:\ Engineering \ Infrastructure\ Streets\Traffic \TRANSP COMM\ Agendas & RR's\ 2013 R&R\ 20131024 \Item VIE. 54th Street Reconstruction.docx
City of Edina ° 4801 W. 50th St. ° Edina, MN 55424
ii
SEH
Building a Better World
for All of Us° TRANSMITTAL
To: Members of the Edina Transportation Committee (ETC) Date: October 17, 2013
SEH File No.: EDINA 124747 14.00
Client No.: BA-416
Re: 54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA-416
We are:
El Enclosing 0 Sending under separate cover El Sending as requested
One (1) Preliminary Draft Feasibility Study for the subject project
For your:
CI Information/Records IM Review and comment CI Approval
0 Action CI Distribution LI Revision and resubmittal
Remarks:
The referenced feasibility study contains engineering staff recommendations pertaining to the project. Items not
addressed in the study are highlighted in gray.
A final draft feasibility study addressing the items in gray and the complete Feasibility Study Appendix will be
submitted to each member of the ETC on Monday, October 21, 2013.
By: Toby Muse, PE
c: Chad Millner, City of Edina
p:\ae\e\ edina\124747\1-gen1 \14-corr\ trans etc pre l draft ft I01713.docx 07.13
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 300, Minnetonka, MN 55343-9302
SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com 952.912.2600 I 800.734.6757 I 888.908.8166 fax
FEASIBILITY STUDY - BA-416
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDINA
54TH STREET ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION
OCTOBER 17, 2013
SUMMARY:
LOCATION:
The decision-making framework used to arrive at the recommended
improvements presented in this report is driven by the pilot Stakeholder
Engagement Process and Envision Sustainable Infrastructure Rating
System summarized in this report and detailed in the Appendix. Proposed
improvements address many of the issues and concerns raised by
stakeholders while still balancing and maintaining required minimum
State and City engineering standards.
The project includes adding to 54th Street shared vehicle and bicycle
lanes, a sidewalk on the north side of 54th Street with lighting and a new
bridge and decorative railing at Minnehaha Creek. The project involves
removing and replacing all existing Concrete curb and gutter and
reconstructing the bituminous pavement and a portion of the poor
subgrade soils. The project also involves installation of storm sewer that
meets State Aid standards and connecting sump pump drain pipe to the
storm sewer system as needed. The project will also involve trunk water
main pipe installation in order to connect existing City water pipe systems
on either side of Minnehaha Creek.
The total estimated project cost is $X,XXX,000,. Funding for the entire
project will be from a combination of special assessments and State Aid
and City utility funds. The estimated roadway construction cost, including
the bridge, Sidewalk, and lighting is r,,$)(,)o9c,poo and will be 80 percent
funded by State Aid funds; with the remainder funded by special
assessments at a rate Of -SXXXXX per REU. Utility improvements and
repairs amount to $X,XXX,000 and will be funded through their respective
utility fund.
The project can be completed during the 2014 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".
The project includes 54th Street between the Wooddale Avenue right-of-
way (ROW) to the west and the France Avenue ROW to the east for a
total distance of approximately 2,640 feet (Figure 1).
Page 1 of 21
I Mrt IMP-4ggiAl
, MP SEEM ita-1.9,6111 •
31 _ PEF_E4ANTANIAI l inagyalogewt ,
A
54T11 5T W
ci !,•
F.=
5417
Ar
542S IMNSM
41
I }MAOL: 41-21011
14.1456.1 ° =It ttrign rt,r 5425
Cainiii I MA MINP,.qc 542
ii‘difflECVE-<
Project Limits
IKON riiII)1 's
Littliseirtel_LE.1,91C.It Ve.141&,47211.--.4111111141,-ANNIKR.I.
IP A
dro_iatiMi;100040490
1741dr*I
•tmmi.,:07171001.immi
Legend
— Proposed Sidewalk Prciect Area ley
lig:to NEM
4•1_'1Wv,-:-71r° ' —
MOM 1
tilialliSN?
L_W
.'115610
e 0-eim AIMSTRAITIrettiglan
S32t•
rn.W.AK
:T5.11691
Figure 1 - Project Location Map
INITIATION & ISSUES: The project was initiated by the Engineering Department as part of the
City's Municipal State Aid Street reconstruction program and identified in
the Capital Improvement Program. As part of this project the City
collaborated with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to
- address creek issues and needs and develop a separate comprehensive
water 'resource management plan for the Aredn Park Area This feasibility
study, addresses updating aging infrastructure issues associated with the
pavement condition, a structurally deficient bridge, and collection and
conveyance of storm water within the project corridor.
All Engineering projects are reviewed for compatibility with the City of
Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update, Comprehensive Bicycle
Transportation Plan, the Comprehensive Water Resource Management
Plan, and the Living Streets Policy and the sustainable project evaluation.
City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
Sidewalk Facilities
Chapter 7 of the plan addresses locations of proposed sidewalks facilities
within the City. As shown in Figure 7.10 of Appendix X, a sidewalk is
proposed along 54th Street between VVooddale Avenue and France
Avenue.
Bicycle Facilities
Chapter 7 of the plan addresses locations of proposed bicycle facilities
within the City as part of the Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Page 2 of 21
Figure 7.11 of Appendix ')( identifies 541" Street as a secondary bicycle
route between Wooddale Avenue and France Avenue.
City of Edina Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan
The project is located within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
The Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan indicates no
storm water issues within the street right of way.
Living Streets Policy and Sustainability Evaluation
The vision statement of the Living Streets Policy, attached in Appendix N,
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 collector streets such as 54k" Street in
the rehabilitation of the infrastructure and replacement of the road.
For the very first time, staff utilized a sustainability scoring system for this
project called ENVISIONTM to help measure what effect project decisions
and recommendations have on sustainability. ENVISIONTM was
developed in joint collaboration between the Zofnass Program for
Sustainable Infrastructure at the Harvard Graduate School of Design and
the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructurel.
ENVISION "rm was created to support transformational, collaborative
approaches that promote sustainable infrastructure development using a
comprehensive', triple bottorn line approach toward decision-making. It is
intended to foster a necessary and dramatic improvement in the
performance and resiliency of physical infrastructure across the full
economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability.
The rating system includes a total of 60 credits organized into five
categories:
o Quality of Life: Goal is to improve the project's impact on the
surrounding community
• Leadership: Goal is to strengthen collaboration, stakeholder
involvement, and long-term planning considerations
• Resource Allocation: Goal is to wisely manage materials, energy,
and water resources used for project
• Natural World: Goal is to understand and minimize negative
environmental impacts of project
The Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure is a not for profit education and research organization
founded by the American Public Works Association, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the
American Council of Engineering Companies
Page 3 of 21
Overall Scoring
7 CLIMATE & RISK
NATURAL WORLD
Fl RESOURCE
ALLOCATION
D LEADERSHIP
QUALITY OF LIFE
Total Points
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
• Climate and Risk: Goal is to minimize emissions and design for
resilience - in both the short-term and long-term
Within each credit, points are earned based on level of achievement
obtained, with five levels of achievement ranging from "improved" to
"enhanced" to "superior" to "conserving" to "restorative."
The project was evaluated based on a set of 52 ENVISION TM credits
which were determined to be most relevant to this project and the Arden
Park Stormwater Management Plan.
The ENVISION TM evaluation was conducted at three stages during the
planning process. During the first stage, the project team identified
ENVISIONTM credits deemed most relevant to the critical issues identified
through stakeholder engagement including intercept surveys and door
knocking.
During the second stage the project team used ENVISIONTM to evaluate
the alternative design scenarios for each of the three project sections
(West End, Middle Section, and East End). Results of this evaluation
were presented at the September (:)th final scenario workshop and are
summarizeol in Appendix X.
Finally, ENVISIONTM was used by the project team to evaluate the
preferred design alternative which is being presented as part of this
report. Overall project scoring is shown in Figure X and detailed results of
this evaluation are summarized in Appendix X.
Figure X —Overall Project Scoring Using EnvisionTM
Page 4 of 21
Overall, the preferred alternative scored 176 points out of a possible 500
points. It should be noted that the scores will increase substantially as the
project moves from the feasibility phase to the detailed design and
construction phases. At this stage of the project there was no basis to
assign points to a large number of the credits available because decisions
related to those credits have not yet been made.
The preferred design scored highest in terms of quality of life credits (85
points), leadership (44 points), and Climate & Risk (27 points). It achieved
fewer points for Natural World (11 points) and Resource Allocation (9
points).
In terms of Quality of Life, the preferred design scored well because it
improves quality of life for the neighborhood, encourages alternative
modes of transportation, improves site accessibility, safety, and way
finding, and enhances public spaces.
In terms of Leadership, the project scored well because of the City and
project team's effective leadership and commitment to the project, a
robust stakeholder involvement process, and efforts to improve
infrastructure integration (linking Arden Park and 54 th Street
reconstruction project planning together for example).
In terms of Climate and Risk the project scored moderately well, reflecting
the fact that the design (in particular raising the bridge) helps the
community prepare for long-term adaptability and short-term hazards
assbciated with changing climate conditions. Minimizing pavement use
also helps manage heat island effects.
In terms of Natural World the project scored very low because again, at
this stage of the project it is not possible to score several of the credits.
The project team and City are however addressing a number of these
credits, especially those related to the creek, and as the project moves
forward there will be an opportunity to capture points associated with
factors such as: protecting surface water, preserving floodplain functions,
and preventing surface water contamination among several others.
In terms of Resource Allocation, the project scored very low because at
this stage there is no formal commitment or design which will support
sustainable procurement, use regional materials, divert waste from
landfills, reduce excavated materials taken off site, and other related
factors. Addressing this category of credits in the next phase of the
project will significantly increase scoring.
Staff Issues
The following existing issues and/or features, some generated by
stakeholders, are addressed in this study:
• Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle safety
• Minnehaha Creek access/safety
• Recreational use at Minnehaha Creek as it relates to 54th Street
• Parking capacity
• Poor condition of existing pavement surface
Page 5 of 21
• Storm water quality and drainage
• Existing landscaping, retaining walls and driveways
• Existing mature trees
Summary Stakeholder Engagement Process and Outcomes
This robust, collaborative, and transparent engagement served as a
pilot/model for the City. Below is a summary of both the process and
outcomes.
Technical and Engagement Parameters (June 13, 2013): The City and
consulting team jointly determined the key engagement issues and
"promise" to the public, agreed on core engagement values, identified and
analyzed the project's key stakeholders, and determined the project's
technical and engagement parameters. The resulting Stakeholder
Engagement Plan drove all engagement activities and communications.
The technical parameters framed the project within the context of City
policies, plans, and regulations including sidewalks, bike facilities, and
special assessments; Watershed policies and plans, and the partnership
with the City to help address Minnehaha Creek's impaired waterway
status; and MnDOT requirements for this state aid roadway.
Input on Needs and Issues (late June-late July 2013): Over 450
stakeholders offered issues and needs for both projects through
doorknocking, intercept surveys, online surveys, and small group
sessions in response to questions around issues and needs on 54th
Street and the bridge, and stormwater-related issues and needs for
Minnehaha Creek and Arden Park. All input was documented and
reported back to the community, and informed the preliminary street
design components and stormwater management plan. Broad categories
of input were aesthetics; Creek access and safety; water quality and
runoff; parking availability; road geometry and pavement conditions;
safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, Creek users; lighting and
signage; and traffic and speeding. See detailed report in Appendix X.
Feedback on Design Components (August 2013): Based on that input,
the consulting team developed a variety of design components and
received great feedback from over 112 stakeholders attending a workshop
or completing an online survey. Participants provided either positive or
negative feedback on each design component. See detailed report in
Appendix X.
Roadway
'Configurations
(sidewalks, bike
lanes, parking):
Many participants
still weren't aware
of the MnDOT/City
roadway
requirements.
Feedback on
specific design
components varied
considerably and was often highly individualized. Stakeholders with
Page 6 of 21
•
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA-416
October 17, 2013
children, walkers and bikers, and Arden Park and Creek users more often
provided positive feedback on the practical and safety advantages of
these requirements. There was generally positive feedback on one vs.
two sidewalks, and varied feedback on where parking was needed and
why, and the value of boulevards; there were many more concerns about
the narrower western section of the roadway. Some drivers and bicyclists
were frustrated about the "mixed messages" about bike lanes/sharrows
on the east end of the road. Some stakeholders wanted more parking for
Park and Creek, as well as church attendees. Others were concerned
about the impact on people's property — even though the City owns that
right-of-way.
• Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety, Speeding: Original stakeholder issues
and needs prioritized pedestrian and bicyclist safety, so numerous design
components focused on those topics. Feedback continued to support
safety as a key priority. Many concerns and opinions reflected the
interconnections among effectiveness, cost, and appropriateness of
various speed reduction and pedestrian crossing safety design
components. There were concerns about flashing signals and
stakeholders took various positions on pedestrian crossing aesthetics, but
there was clear consensus on the need for safe crossings.
Bridge Safety and Creek Access: Feedback on the bridge designs varied,
and many participants preferred a bridge that maintains the area's
"country" feel and fits with the residential area. Others focused on designs
that allow Creek users sufficient headroom; many were attracted to the
possibility of a path underneath the bridge. Stakeholders posed important
questions about Creek access and use as well, including positive
feedback on an updated canoe landing that is not "slickery" when wet,
and how landings or steps can double as places to play, watch, and
otherwise have fun and be safe alongside the Creek.
Water Quality, Road Drainage, Park Flooding: While there appeared to be
general understanding and support for the need for stormwater
management, a number of the design components in this category
garnered a range of positive and negative feedback. There was a lot of
feedback on filtration design components, with generally positive feelings
about including native plants. Stakeholders generally favored maintaining
green space and existing park uses, and ensuring that any new design
components address water safety especially in play areas.
Feedback on Design Scenarios (September 2013): The design team
developed alternative scenarios for different segments: west,
middle/bridge plus Creek and stormwater, and east. Each of these
brought together feedback on the design components with MnDOT and
City plans and policies. At the session and subsequent online survey, c.
120 stakeholders offered feedback. See detailed report in Appendix X.
• Middle/bridge, Creek, stormwater: There was very strong support for
Scenario 1 that directly addressed stakeholder-identified safety issues at
that intersection for both crossings and vehicle/bicycle stopping, and also
maintained the rapids for recreational use. For canoe landing, bridge, and
railing designs, etc., there was solid preference for a more natural look,
but these component design choices merit more specific input and
Page 7 of 21
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA-416
October 17, 2013
feedback once the process moves forward.
• West end: The scenarios for this narrower section of roadway generated
the most response, especially from residents on 54th Street. The concerns
were overwhelmingly focused on ways to avoid or minimize property
impacts from any of the options. Widespread objections to dedicated bike
lanes in Scenario 1 focused on the property impacts of the additional 10'
of pavement; the sharrow option garnered more support. (See West+East
below.)
o East end: These scenarios generated varied responses, again with many
concerns about property impacts with an additional sidewalk plus
dedicated bike lanes and parking in various configurations. The option to
mix bike lanes and sharrows caused some to worry this would confuse
drivers and bicyclists. Feedback generally supported one-sided parking,
with mixed feedback and questions about the need for extra or special
parking on the north side. (See West+East below.)
O West+East: Most stakeholders supported a sidewalk on one side, but the
varied opinions about north versus south side suggest that the volume of
information may have resulted in misunderstandings about impacts.
Some recommended centering the roadway to "share the pain" on both
north and south sides. Many questioned the purpose and width of even
the smaller 2' curbs. Everyone preferred preserving trees. Most supported
more and better lighting, and many specified the design must be
downward-facing/sky-friendly. Almost no one saw any value to having a
bike rail at bus stops, and some noted that most buses now have bike
racks in front. Most objected to concrete pads at any bus stops, although
some of those assumed a sidewalk without noticing that a sidewalk on
only one side of the roadway serves only half the bus stops.
Feedback on Draft Design (October 2013): Staff will host a design '
feedback session for stakeholders on October 23, 2013. Stakeholders will
be able to review draft roadway design and associated elements n
presented in this draft study.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: This segment of 54th Street is included in the City's Municipal State Aid
(MSA) roadway system.
Street
The street was originally constructed in 1954. The existing street is surfaced
with bituminous pavement. Patches, longitudinal cracking and transverse
cracking are present throughout the street section as shown in Figures X and
N. The existing pavement is generally in poor condition.
Page 8 of 21
I
Figure X- Looking West from Oaklawn Avenue towards Kellogg Avenue
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA-416
October 17, 2013
Figure X- Looking East from Halifax Avenue to France Avenue
As part of this study, a total of four (4) soil borings were taken along 54th
Street. The borings identified an 8 to 17-inch thick layer of poorly graded
gravel base material beneath the pavement. Plastic sandy loam soils beneath
the street section are poor and do not provide proper structural capacity for
the existing street section.
The average pavement condition index (PCI) for the City of Edina is 51 and
the average PCI for 54th Street as calculated in 2009 is approximately 20.
The City of Edina recently hired a consultant to evaluate all bituminous
Page 9 of 21
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA-416
October 17, 2013
roadways within the City. The streets were graded based on a number of
conditions such as sagging, alligator cracking, raveling and potholes.
Streets are rated on a scale from 0 to 100; with 0 being extremely poor and
100 representing a brand new road surface. The City evaluates the PCI
values of streets to determine a proper maintenance program. Streets with a
PCI less than 45 are evaluated for total reconstruction, PCI's between 45 and
65 are evaluated for mill and overlays, and PCI's greater than 65 are
considered for seal coats.
The pavement surface of the street appears to be near the end of its useful
life while the costs to maintain and repair the road are steadily increasing.
Overlaying or seal coating the pavement is no longer feasible.
Street grades vary throughout the area from approximately 0.4 percent to 7.5
percent.
Currently, 54th Street has two (2) distinct and different street typical sections
west and east of the bridge at Minnehaha Creek.
West Segment Typical Section
The existing street between Wooddale Avenue and the bridge at Minnehaha
Creek is abutted by residential properties. The street varies in width from 29-
feet to 34-feet with no parking, concrete curb and gutter or sidewalks on
either side. This segment includes 5-foot dedicated bicycle lanes on both
sides. A three space bump-out vehicle parking area exists west of the bridge
at Minnehaha Creek
East Segment Typical Section
The existing street between the bridge at Minnehaha Creek and France
Avenue is abutted by residential, commercial and civic properties. The street
has an existing width of 40-feet with concrete curb and gutter and 8-foot
parking lanes on both sides. The street is striped with 5,-foot advisory bike
lanes in both directions inside of the dedicated parking lanes. The concrete
curb and gutter and pavement are generally in poor condition.
Metro Transit operates a total of seven (7) bus stops on each side of 54th
Street between and including Wooddale Avenue and France Avenue. The
existing bus stops are typically located at each intersecting street. Existing
stop signs are in-place at the Minnehaha Boulevard intersection.
There are nineteen (19) residential and five (5) commercial driveway
entrances along the street. Two (2) residential driveway pavements feature
decorative concrete textures and brick paver blocks along the west segment
of 54th Street. Figure X depicts a driveway with brick paver block edging
found in the project area.
Page 10 of 21
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA-416
October 17, 2013
Figure X — 5357 Oaklawn Avenue - Paver Block Driveway and Retaining Walls
Sidewalks and Bicycle Facilities
Existing sidewalk is present along the south side of 54th Street beginning east
of the Edina Lutheran Community Church parking lot up to 4015 54th Street
for approximately 250-feet and along the north and south side of 54th Street
beginning at 3907 54th Street up to the France Avenue ROW for
approximately 135-feet on each side. The existing sidewalk is in satisfactory
condition. 54th Street is identified as a secondary bicycle route and contains
dedicated and advisory lanes on the west and east segments respectively.
Lighting
Street lighting in the project area consists of standard cobra head lights
mounted on wood poles that are typically located at intersections of side
streets. The locations of the existing street lights are shown in Appendix
X.
Traffic, Parking and Crash Data
Average daily traffic volumes ranged from 1,166 to 2,602 cars per day with
85th percentile speed ranging from 29.8 to 30.5 mph.
A parking study was conducted on the east side of the project area from
Minnehaha Boulevard to France Avenue to determine existing parking
capacity and usage rates. Traffic, parking and crash data are included in
Appendix X.
Landscaping
Fourteen (14) private retaining walls and decorative landscaping features are
located in the ROW in the project area. Many of these landscape items are
located directly behind the edge of the street. Figure X shows a typical
landscaping feature found in the project's ROW.
Page 11 of 21
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA-416
October 17, 2013
Figure X — 5336 Brookview Avenue - Landscaping Feature
Existing geometry of Park Place and Minnehaha Boulevard intersections',
Recreational Creek Use and Bridge
The project area contains unique recreational opportunities at Minnehaha
Creek due to its configuration near the existing bridge and the presence of a
grade control structure. During moderate to high flow conditions, the existing
grade control structure causes the creek water to form rapids that are
enjoyed by experienced users. A photo of the existing rapids is shown in
FigureK.
Typically, recreational users access Minnehaha Creek by parking on
Minnehaha Boulevard or on 54th Street. Currently, there is an unmarked
creek landing area located on the eastern creek bank north of the bridge.
Based on observations and stakeholder feedback, lesser experienced users
avoid the rapids by crossing 54th Street near the bridge. Stakeholders
overwhelmingly identified these crossings as common and unsafe since no
clearly marked pedestrian crossing(s) exist(s).
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District recognizes the unique recreational
opportunities in this area, and has also identified the grade control structure
as a source of inhibiting water quality and aquatic growth upstream of the
project area.
The existing bridge at Minnehaha Creek was originally constructed in 1935
and widened to the current configuration in 1948. The structure is a single
span comprised of steel beams with a concrete deck that has been paved
over with bituminous as part of previous street surfacing projects. The main
Page 12 of 21
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA-416
October 17, 2013
span is 32-feet long and the deck is 33.5-feet wide including concrete curb
and gutter and a 4-foot sidewalk on the south side. The superstructure is
supported on high concrete abutments and wingwalls. The bridge is not
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. MnDOT's Structure
Inventory Report shown in Appendix X; identifies the bridge as Structurally
Deficient with a Sufficiency Rating of 40.2. The existing bridge railing is rated
substandard. The bridge is also load restricted and posted. A photo of the
existing bridge is shown in Figure X.
IMI:31111211M=IIMEMINSIllir • _ .
Figure X — 54tn Street Bridge Looking South at Minnehaha Creek
Public Utilities
Water Main
The existing water main system layout is shown in Appendix X. Properties
abutting 54th Street east of Halifax Avenue are served from a 8-inch Cast iron
trunk water main pipe that was constructed in 1946. The valves are operable
and the trunk pipe is in satisfactory condition due to no record of pipe breaks.
In 2009, the City repaired two (2) water service pipe breaks at 4109 and 4113
54th Street.
All other properties abutting 54th Street are served by trunk water main pipes
located in north/south intersecting streets. Trunk water main pipe was never
installed along 54th Street between Halifax Avenue and Park Place to loop the
City's water system. System pressure and water quality needs are
satisfactory without this missing trunk pipe, but are not optimal.
Sanitary Sewer
The existing sanitary sewer system layout is shown in Appendix X. Properties
abutting 54th Street east of Halifax Avenue are served from a 9-inch clay
trunk sanitary sewer pipe that was constructed in 1952. Historical records
indicate there have been no sewer backups or blockages in the trunk or
Page 13 of 21
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA-416
October 17, 2013
service pipes. All other properties abutting 54th Street are served by trunk
sanitary sewer pipes located in north/south intersecting streets.
Storm Sewer
The existing storm sewer system layout is shown in Appendix X. The storm
sewer system is located within the legal boundary of Minnehaha Creek
Watershed. Resident feedback identified ice problems near the bridge during
winter. No locations of either localized surface drainage issues or street
flooding during heavy storm events were identified by stakeholders.
Private Utilities
Providers of privately owned gas, electric, communications and cable
television utilities are present in the neighborhood. These utilities are either
overhead or buried underground both within and outside the street ROW.
PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS: The decision-making framework used to arrive at the recommended
improvements presented in this report is driven by the pilot Stakeholder
Engagement Process and Envision Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System
summarized previously and detailed in the Appendix. Proposed
improvements address many of the issues and concerns raised by
stakeholders while still balancing and maintaining required minimum State
and City engineering standards.
The project includes adding to 54th Street shared vehicle and bicycle lanes, a
sidewalk on the north side of 54th Street with lighting and a new bridge and
railing at Minnehaha Creek. The project involves removing and replacing all
existing concrete curb and gutter and reconstructing the bituminous
pavement and a portion of the poor subgrade soils. The project also involves
installation of storm sewer that meets State Aid standards and connecting
sump pump drain pipe to the storm sewer system as needed.The project will
also involve trunk water main pipe installation in order to connect existing
water pipe systems on either side of Minnehaha Creek.
Street
The project will reconstruct the street with a bituminous surface to
approximately its existing widths on the west and east segments respectively.
The project will recycle and mix the existing bituminous street pavement and
the amounts of aggregate base below it together to form a material that can
be used as utility trench backfill or as a suitable material to replace poor
subgrade soils on other City street reconstruction projects.
The project will remove and replace all of the sections of existing concrete
curb and gutter. New concrete driveway aprons are proposed whether they
are present today or not. The stop signs at the Minnehaha Boulevard
intersection are proposed to remain in place.
Page 14 of 21
North South
.5' .5' CL
14' Shared Vehicle/ I 14' Shared Vehicle/
Bicycle Lane Bicycle Lane
35'
5 Sidewalk r
Concrete
Blvd
a a a
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA-416
October 17, 2013
54th Street West Segment Typical Section
The proposed street section between Wooddale Avenue and the bridge at
Minnehaha Creek is shown in Figure X. The bump-out vehicle parking area
west of the bridge at Minnehaha Creek will be reincorporated into the project.
Figure .)<— 541h Street West Segment Typical Section
The recommended section addresses the following issues and concerns
raised through the public engagement process:
• X
x
54th Street East Segment Typical Section
The east segment contains two (2) separate typical sections as shown in
Figures and B. FigureIA is proposed east of Minnehaha Boulevard and
Halifax Avenue. A wider sharrow-lane will be incorporated for vehicle/bike
use; except parking will be allowed on the north side on Sundays for services
at Edina Community Lutheran Church. Figure B is proposed east of Halifax
Avenue to the west ROW line of France Avenue.
North , A Scruff
.5'
5' Sidewalk r
Concrete
Blvd
CL
18' Shared Vehicle/
Bicycle Lane
14' Shared Vehicle/
Bicycle Lane
.5'
7' Parking
46'
Figure A — 54t11 Street East Segment Typical Section — North Side Parking on Sunday Only
Page 15 of 21
1
,4k.1 South
019
North
CL
14' Shared Vehicle/ I 14' Shared Vehicle/ 7' Parking
Bicycle Lane Bicycle Lane
42'
.5'
ii
_
gtA.;:tsf, - j7.7:T77-774l'ir""1--
.5'
5' Sidewalk 11'
Concrete
Blvd
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA-416
October 17, 2013
Figure B — 54th Street East Segment Typical Section
The recommended sections address the following issues and concerns
raised through the public engagement process and parking study: _
• X
• X
Staff will contact Metro Transit to relocate the existing bus stop on the south
side of 54th Street at Minnehaha Boulevard and consider moving it to the
existing sidewalk in front of Edina Community Lutheran Church. Staff will also
inquire about ridership along 54111 Street and determine if bus stops can be
consolidated along the corridor. Small concrete bus stop pads may be placed
at proposed bus stops where no sidewalk exists.
Proposed geometry of Park Place and Minnehaha Boulevard intersections
Recreational Creek Use and Bridge
Based on feedback received, stakeholders generally prefer keeping the
existing grade control structure in-place. At the time of writing this draft
feasibility study, the MCWD was exploring the feasibility of removing the
structure while still maintaining a form of rapids for recreational use.
Canoe landings and grass paver installations
Based on feedback received, stakeholders generally prefer a natural looking
bridge that would fit into the neighborhood and complement the creek. A
conceptual level bridge is proposed as part of this study. The actual type of
bridge has not been determined. Staff recognizes several options exist
regarding the aesthetics of a bridge and its associated lighting and railing
elements. Staff is proposing a public meeting during final design to receive
more feedback from stakeholders about these types of elements.
The bridge shown in Figure X is an arch structure with vertical sidewalls to
accommodate the water flow and recreational use of Minnehaha. This arch-
Page 16 of 21
.5' CL .5'
17' Shared Vehicle/
Bicycle Lane
17' Shared Vehicle/
Bicycle Lane
6' Sidewalk
41'
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA-416
October 17, 2013
type bridge was generally preferred by a majority of stakeholders and would
span 42-feet of clear width and provide for an access bench 10-feet wide
along the west side, within the arch. The arch would be supported on piling.
The bench wall is on cantilevered sheet piling. The concrete headwall,
wingwalls, and the concrete railing base could incorporate a stone texture
and coloring to match that of the local limestone. An ornamental metal railing
could be mounted on the concrete traffic base to provide height for pedestrian
and bicycle users.
Figure X — 54th Street Conceptual Bridge Looking North at Minnehaha Creek
This structure would carry two 17-foot shared vehicle and bicycle lanes and
provide for a 6-foot wide sidewalk on the north side as shown in Figure X.
North
South
Figure X — 54th Street Bridge Typical Section
Page 17 of 21
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA-416
October 17, 2013
The proposed bridge will address the following issues and concerns raised
through the public engagement process:
• X
X
Sidewalks and Bicycle Facilities
Sidewalk and bicycle facility recommendations are based on feedback
received while balancing minimum design standards and impacts that would
result within the 54th Street ROW as part of their installation.
Staff is recommending a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk with 1-foot exposed
concrete aggregate shoulder on the north side of 54th Street for the entire
length of the project to address the following issues and concerns:
• X
Staff is recommending a shared vehicle and bicycle lane for the entire length
of the project to address the following issues and concerns:
X
Lighting
Based on the feedback received, low impact lights are favored by
stakeholders. This request is consistent with already established City lighting
standards. Staff is proposing a public meeting during final design to receive
more feedback from stakeholders about preferred light styles.
Public Utilities
Water Main
Since the existing trunk water main pipe is in satisfactory condition,
reconstruction is not proposed as part of the project. New trunk water main
pipe will be installed along 54th between Halifax Avenue and Park Place to
loop the water main systems. By installing these pipes, the City will improve
system pressures and water quality. Pipe installation will occur by horizontal
directional boring to minimize the construction footprint and protect
Minnehaha Creek.
Sanitary Sewer
Since the sanitary sewer trunk and service pipes east of Halifax Avenue are
in satisfactory condition, no improvements are proposed. The Arden Park
Area has a 24-inch diameter clay sanitary sewer trunk pipe that follows the
Minnehaha Creek corridor. This pipe may be part of a separate future City
infiltration and inflow reduction project that would include manhole repair and
pipe lining by the cured-in-place-pipe (CIPP) method.
Storm Sewer
The project will install new concrete curb and gutter and a trunk storm sewer
pipe and inlet system meeting State Aid minimum design standards to
capture and convey stormwater. The project will install two (2) separate storm
Page 18 of 21
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA-416
October 17, 2013
sewer catch basin manholes with 3-foot vertical sumps and screens that will
serve to catch sediment and debris from storm water runoff before it enters
Minnehaha Creek. Based on stakeholder feedback, rain gardens are
generally supported by stakeholders to help treat storm water runoff before it
enters Minnehaha Creek. Staff will determine exact locations of rain gardens
near the creek once MCWD determines the creek's future configuration.
Installation of sump drains will be installed where feasible to allow the
property owners to connect their sump pump discharges directly into the
storm sewer system.
Private Utilities
The local gas utility company, CenterPoint Energy, has indicated that they
may upgrade or replace gas mains within the project limits. This work is not
part of the City's project but will be coordinated to occur prior to the start of
construction.
The City will coordinate other private utility relocations or upgrades prior to
the start of construction.
Any damage to privately-owned pet containment and irrigation systems
caused by street and City utility reconstruction activities will be repaired by
the City.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
& EASEMENTS: Existing right-of-way on all streets in the project area is 60-feet wide. No
additional right-of-way or easements are anticipated to complete the
proposed improvements.
PROJECT COSTS: The total estimated project cost is $X,XXX,000 and is
summarized in Table X. The total cost includes direct costs for engineering,
clerical and construction finance costs from the start of the project to the final
assessment hearing. Funding for the entire project will be from a combination
of special assessments and State Aid and City utility funds. The estimated
roadway construction cost, including the bridge, sidewalk, and lighting is
$X,XXX,00-O and will be 80 percent funded by State Aid funds; with the
remainder funded by special assessments. New concrete curb and gutter is
included under the storm sewer fund, not under the roadway special
assessment. Utility improvements and repairs amount to $X,XXX,000 and
will be funded through their respective utility fund.
Page 19 of 21
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA-416
October 17, 2013
Table X
Summary of Total Estimated Project Cost
ITEM ESTIMATED COST 1
CITY
UTILITY
FUNDS
MSA RESIDENTS TOTAL COST
541h Street
Sidewalk
Bridge
Lighting
Water Main
Storm Sewer
Sub-total
Total $X,XXX,XXX
1 Costs are given in 2014 dollars
2 MSA costs represent 80% of total cost
ASSESSMENTS:
3 Resident costs represent 80% of total cost
The assessments are based on the City's Special assessment policy, dated
August 21, 2012. Based on the policy there are XX.XX residential equivalent
units (REU). The assessments will be levied against the benefiting adjacent
properties, see attached preliminary assessment roll in Drawing X of
Appendix X. The methodologies for calculating the REU's for properties other
than one REU are described below:
Residential Corner Lots:
XXXX and )000( 54th Street and )(XXX and X)(X)( Halifax Lane, 0.33 REU =
(1 REU) x (1/3 side yard)
Churches:
Edina Community Lutheran Church:
X.XX REU's = XXXX sf / 1000 sf) x (0.8 REU's per 1000 sf) / (X
accesses)
Christian Calvary Church
XXX REU's = (XXXX sf / 1000 sf) x (0.8 REU's per 1000 sf) /
accesses)
The estimated assessment per REU is $XXXXX. A copy of the preliminary
assessment roll is included in Appendix X.
Page 20 of 21
Feasibility Study
54th Street Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. BA-416
October 17, 2013
PROJECT SCHEDULE: The following schedule is feasible from an Engineering standpoint:
Public Design Component Workshop August 19, 2013
Public Design Scenario Workshop September 29, 2013
Public Design Feedback Session October 23, 2013
Edina Transportation Commission Meeting October 24, 2013
Receive Feasibility Report and Public Hearing December 10, 2013
Bid Opening March/April 2014
Award Contract Spring 2014
Begin Construction Spring 2014
Complete Construction Fall 2014
Final Assessment Hearing Fall 2015
FEASIBILITY:
APPENDIX:
Staff believes the construction of this project is necessary, cost effective and
feasible to improve the public infrastructure on 54111 Street between Wooddale
Avenue and France Avenue.
A. Stakeholder Engagement Issues and Needs Gathering
B. Community Workshop—August 19, 2013
C. Community Design Feedback Session — September 30, 2013
D. Existing Water, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Features
E. Preliminary Assessment Roll
F. City Comprehensive Plan Update
G. Traffic and Crash Data
H. Existing Street Lights and Signs
I. 54th Street Bridge MnDOT Structure Inventory Report
J. 54th Street Parking Study
K. Living Streets Policy
L. Envision Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System Summary Report
Page 21 of 21
Report Appendix
A. Stakeholder Engagement Issues and Needs Gathering
1. Title Page
2. Report Summary
B. Community Workshop - August 19, 2013
1. Title Page
2. Report Summary - Design Component Stakeholder Feedback
3. Invitation to August 19, 2013 Community Workshop
4. Sign In Sheet
C. Community Design Feedback Session -September 30, 2013
1. Title Page
2. Invitation to September 30, 2013 - Community Design Feedback Session - Appointed or Elected Official
3. Invitation to September 30, 2013 - Community Design Feedback Session - Other Stakeholders
4. Sign In Sheet
Report SurnmarY
k. Bridge Option Summary - still being updated 10/9/131
b. Railing Option Summary - still being updated 10/9/14
D. Existing Water, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Features
1. Title Page
2. Water Features
3. Sanitary Sewer Features
4. Storm Features
E. Preliminary Assessment Roll
1. Title page
2. Assessment Summary Figure 1
3. sessment
F. City Comprehensive Plan Update
1. Title page
2. Sidewalk Facilities Figure 7.10
3. Bicycle Facilities Figure 7.11
4. Draft Pedestrian Facilities Figure 8.8
5. Bicycle Facilities
G. Traffic and Crash Data
1. Title page
2. Traffic and crash data
H. Existing Street Lights and Signs
1, Title Page
2. Existing Street Lights
3. Existing Street Signs
54th Street Bridge MnDOT Structure Inventory Report
1. Title Page
2. 54th Street Bridge MnDOT Structure Inventory Report
J. 54th Street Parking Study
1. Title Page
2. Existing Parking Capacity on 54th Street east of Minnehaha Creek
K. Living Streets Policy
1. Title page
2. Living streets
Envision Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System Summary Report
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
To: Edina Transportation Commission
From: Chad A. Millner, PE, Assistant City Engineer
Date: October 24, 2013
Subject: 2014 Neighborhood Reconstruction Projects - Updates
Agenda Item #: VI. D.
Action
Discussion
Information
Action Requested:
Review and comment on the 2014 Neighborhood Reconstruction Projects.
Information / Background:
Please recall staff presented the draft feasibility studies to the ETC at their September 19 meeting for the
following 2014 projects:
I. Morningside B Neighborhood
2. Countryside F Neighborhood
3. Bredesen Park D Neighborhood
4. Birchcrest B Neighborhood
5. Strachauer Park B Neighborhood
Staff has reviewed additional information gathered since that meeting. A memo is attached with updated
information for the commission to consider.
Attachments:
2014 Neighborhood Reconstruction Projects - Updates
G:\ Engineering \Infrastructure \Streets\ Traffic \TRANSP COMM \ Agendas & RR's \2013 R&R \ 20131024 \Item VI.. 2014 Neighborhood Project Updates.docx
City of Edina 4801 W. 5001St. Edina, MN 55424
CITY OF EDINA
Engineering Department . Phone 952-826-0371
Fax 952-826-0392 . www.CityofEdina.com
MEMO
Date: October 17, 2013
To: Edina Transportation Commission
From: Chad Millner, PE, Assistant City Engineer
Re: 2014 Neighborhood Reconstruction Projects - Updates
Summary:
Staff presented draft feasibility studies for the 2014 Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Projects
to the ETC at their September 19, 2013 meeting. The ETC had specific questions concerning the
projects.
Background Information:
All Projects
I. The questionnaire results will be sorted by street address.
2. Staff will provide a separate spreadsheet to council addressing the questions and comments
from the questionnaire.
Morningside B
I. Staff is recommending the installation of a 5-ft concrete sidewalk w/ a 5-ft boulevard along
42nd Street by Weber Field Park. This would require most of the shrubs and approximately
70% of the trees to be removed. Additional trees would be installed in areas open to the
park.
2. Staff will not be making a recommendation for a sidewalk from Grimes to Oakdale. Staff feels
residents were given too short of a notice to provide input. Staff will continue to study this
area with input from residents to determine the best location for the sidewalk from Grimes
to Oakdale. This sidewalk could be installed as a standalone project at a later date.
3. Staff is recommending the installation of a 5-ft concrete sidewalk w/ a 5-ft boulevard along
Grimes Ave from 42nd Street to Inglewood Avenue by Weber Field Park. The 5-ft boulevard
would vary to protect existing trees.
4. The shallow parking bay on the NE quad at 42nd Street and Grimes Avenue is too close to the
intersection. It will be adjusted east about 20-ft to reduce confusion and increase sight lines.
5. All intersections will be reviewed to determine if there is enough space for ADA pedestrian
ramps. Pedestrian ramp installation is standard construction practice for the City. Crosswalk
pavement markings will also be included as part of the project.
6. Updated traffic counts are not yet available.
Engineering Department . 7450 Metro Blvd . Edina, MN 55439
CITY OF EDINA MEMO
Birchcrest B
I. Staff is recommending the installation of a 5-ft concrete sidewalk w/ a 5-ft boulevard along
Normandale Road and Valley View Road from Benton Avenue to Code Avenue.
2. A petition was received by council against the sidewalk at this location. The recommendation
by staff is based on traffic volumes and speeds, a sidewalk shown on Valley View Road from
Hansen Road to Tracy Avenue, a sidewalk shown on Hansen Road from Valley View Road to
Benton Avenue on Figure 7.10 of the Comprehensive Plan, and possible connectivity to the
future Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail.
7. Updated traffic counts are not yet available.
\\Ed-nt8 \engpubwks\PVVICENTRAL SVCS1ENG DMPROJECTS \CONTRACTS \20131ENG 13-1 Mendelssohn MADMINIMISC\Sod_Seed Mte20130227 W1-1 Memo Turf Est in Recon
Proj.docx
Engineering Department ° 7450 Metro Blvd ° Edina, MN 55439
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
1886
To: Edina Transportation Commission
From: Wayne D. Houle, PE, Director of Engineering
Date: October 24, 2013
Subject: Draft 2013 Street Reconstruction Survey
Agenda Item #: VI. C.
Action 0
Discussion
Information
Action Requested:
Review and provide feedback on the Draft 2013 Street Reconstruction Survey.
Information / Background:
Attached are the 2012 Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Survey questions for your review and
discussions as Draft 2013 Street Reconstruction Survey questions.
Attachments:
2012 Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Survey Questions
G:\ Engineering \ Infrastructure \ Streets\ Traffic \TRANSP COMM \ Agendas & RR's \ 2013 R&R \ 20131024 \Item VI.C. Draft 2013 Street Reconstruction Survey.docx
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Street Reconstruction Survey
Exit this survey
1. How effective was the communication you received prior to construction?
City Meetings and
Open Houses
Mailed Correspondence
Weekly Email Update
Monthly Mailed
Updates
City of Edina Website
Comments
Very effective
N/A I do not
remember
Somewhat Neither effective Somewhat Not at all receiving any
effective or ineffective ineffective effective infomation prior
to the start of
the project.
2. How effective was the communication you received during construction?
N/A I do not
remember
Somewhat Neither effective Somewhat Not at all receiving any
Very effective
effective nor ineffective ineffective effective information
during the
project.
City Meetings and
Open Houses
Mailed Correspondence
Weekly Email Updates
Monthly Mailed
Updates
City of Edina website
Comments
Neither effective Somewhat
Very effective Somewhat effective nor ineffective ineffective
Not at all effective
3. The project is funded between City Utility Funds (approximately 60 percent) and Special
Assessments (approximately 40 percent). Were the specific project costs explained to you in a
manner that you could understand?
Yes
No
Unsure
e I did not attend the Open House.
Comments
4. Did you find the Open House to be beneficial in answering your questions or addressing
your concerns?
Yes
No
Unsure
I did not attend the Open House.
Comments
5. Construction Phase
How effective were the
crews in working to
minimize your level of
inconvenience during
the project?
6. During construction, did you know the name of your City representative?
Yes
No
If "yes," name of City representative:
7. During construction, aside from weather-related delays, did the crew provide you with ample
notices of water shut-offs, driveway access, etc.?
0 Yes
No
r) Unsure
Comments
8. During any phase of the project, did you experience any conflicts in dealing with the project?
Yes
fl No
Unsure
Comments
9. What aspects of the project process did you like?
10. What aspects of the process would you recommend be improved?
11. Were you satisfied with the end result and final design?
Yes
No
Unsure
Comments
12. Which project is this survey in response to?
Bike and Pedestrian Way Phase I
c Countryside Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction
Gallagher Drive Reconstruction
Richmond Hills Park Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction
Tracy Avenue Reconstruction
Valley Estates Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction
Viking Hills Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction
13. Do you have any other comments, input or suggestions for the City staff or City Council?
Next
Powered by SurveyMonkey
Check out our sample surveys and create your own now!
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
To: Edina Transportation Commission
From: Wayne D. Houle, PE, Director of Engineering
Date: October 24, 2013
Subject: 2012 Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Survey - Result
Action Requested:
No action required.
Agenda Item #: VI. B.
Action El
Discussion LI
Information
Information / Background:
Attached are the results of the 2012 Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Survey for your information.
Attachments:
2012 Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Survey - Result.
October 14, 2013 City Council Presentation: 2012 Street Reconstruction Survey Results
G:\ Engineering \ Infrastructure\ Streets\Traffic \TRANSP COMM \Agendas & RR's\ 2013 R&R \ 20131024 \Item VI.B. 2012 Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Survey -
Result.docx
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
2012 Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Survey - Result
1. How effective was the communication you received prior to construction?
Answer Options Very
effective
Somewhat
effective
Neither
effective
or
ineffective
Somewhat
ineffective
Not at all
effective
N/A I do
not
remember
receiving
any
infomation
prior to the
start of the
project.
Rating
Average
Response
Count
City Meetings and Open
Houses 42 39 13 8 13 14 2.23 129
Mailed Correspondence 56 47 7 14 4 11 1.93 139
Weekly Email Update 59 34 10 7 5 20 1.83 135
Monthly Mailed Updates 46 33 14 14 6 22 2.12 135
City of Edina Website 27 28 27 9 14 26 2.57 131
Comments - see below 35
Comments:
1. Didn't use the website.
2. I do not have web or email.
3. Very good communications.
4. It was very frustrating for all of the Valley Estates residents that none of our feedback mattered on a project where the costs are coming
directly out of our pockets.
5. I think they could have communicated better with the people directly involved with project.
6. The street looks great. However, the cars are usually driving between 31 - 35 mph some at 41 mph. Our lawn looks terrible... .full of
weeds and bald spots. We had a much nicer looking lawn before. Will they be fixing it. Also George Bender said that he would be
planting some trees to hide a meter box for the light signal. I have contacted him so hopefully it will get completed. Also, we have a
crack in our hallway ceiling that got worse during the construction. Will the city be fixing that?
7. I signed up for emails but never received any.
8. Far too many of us had to stand during that very long community meeting about a year before the project. No reason we should have
to stand.
1
9. I do not recall any weekly email prior to construction. The city hall meeting I attended was not satisfactory (the meeting where public
comment about the project, project costs, and payment terms).
10. The mail updates seem to not give as much information on the project.
11. Do not recall receiving e-mail updates. Never use Edina website.
12. The weekly email was extremely helpful. The one thing I might recommend was to continue to remind homeowners how to subscribe to
the email. Many of my neighbors never found out about or saw the emails.
13. Ennails were vague. Meetings were not at convenient times. The ennails gave information that was already known.
14. We moved in right before construction started, but could never find out how to get onto or contact any of the staff/or people for the
project or how to get onto the email lists.
15. Did not attend city meetings or open houses.
16. We received communications, but things frequently changed.
17. It seemed to me the meetings and subsequent plans did not take into account the majority desires of the neighborhood. We did not
receive any e-mail updates and the city web site did not have this project listed at the start of the project. Also, I do not recall seeing
any monthly mailed updates.
18. The Pavement index showed that our road on Balder Lane was in good condition. What a waste. The current new road looks worse
than the old road. In addition, the neighborhood did not want the sidewalks. The sidewalks around Creek Valley Elementary are not
kept up, and in bad condition. Why would the city create more sidewalks if they can't keep up with the old sidewalks.
19. City meetings and open houses are pointless because it is clear that the City has made up its' mind and is simply going through the
motions and charade of listening to the people.
20. The information from the meeting we attended turned out to be incorrect as to the cost to residents for the project.
21. I was disappointed that we did not learn two years in advance that our street was going to be replaced. We would have postponed
some repairs had we known.
22. Looking back, "you don't know what you don't know"; hence, there are questions I would have asked if know what I know now (see
below).
23. Did not go to meetings or use website
24. The rudeness of our mayor to one of our citizens was totally inexcusable and unacceptable.
25. We were thoroughly informed throughout the process.
26. I read the mail and attended one meeting on behalf of my 95-year-old mother. I felt confident in explaining the project to her.
27. Info re: Cost of project went from 6,000 to 12,000 and up to 20,000.
28. I was sorry to see what the heavy machinery did to the culde sac on Warden. gauges and cracks where it used to be in rather smooth
condition for walking.
2
29. The letters were very poorly worded. After being on a committee to discuss how to make them better there was no change. They were
filled with jargon and not understandable. Also there was false information and the City has no credibility anymore as far as I can tell.
30. The city meetings were completely ineffective because the city council had already made up their mind before the meeting began.
Also, the projection of the cost was much different than the actual cost of the project which is good that it was lower, but when planning
financial it is important to have an accurate number. In addition, more leg time would help families plan for this large amount rather
than taking out a loan with the city. Our project had been moved up in the planning so we had less time than we most which was
frustrating. I also did not appreciate that the reason that the intersection of kent and warwick was changed was so that a developer
could demolish a home and build a large ridiculous home and then double the front yard because of the intersection change. The
house does not fit with the neighborhood and it ruins the privacy of the homes around it because of its size, it also causes drainage
issues.
31. I felt like it was handled great!
32. Strange letters, mentioned things would happen (like a meeting!) that never happened and was never scheduled, very misleading and
even untrue information, really dropped the ball.
33. Need help with your communication as i was screwed!
34. We bought our house the week prior to construction start so the above questions are not applicable to us.
35. We are out of town but manage the affairs of our parents in Edina so we were not around for the Open House.
2. How effective was the communication you received during construction?
Answer Options Very
effective
Somewhat
effective
Neither
effective
nor
ineffective
Somewhat
ineffective
Not at
all
effective
N/A I do
not
remember
receiving
any
information
during the
project.
Rating
Average
Response
Count
City Meetings and Open
Houses 23 27 16 4 15 41 2.54 126
Mailed Correspondence 48 46 9 4 10 15 1.99 132
Weekly Email Updates 73 29 5 6 8 13 1.74 134
Monthly Mailed Updates 41 38 18 6 7 22 2.09 132
City of Edina website 25 27 24 5 16 31 2.59 128
Comments - see below 31
3
Comments:
1. Didn't use the meetings/open houses or the website.
2. Excellent communications.
3. I do not have a computer at home. I need everything mailed.
4. Need more communication on what roads or which sides of the streets wouldn't be accessible. This was not provided on a daily or
weekly basis.
5. Some of the correspondence that we received seemed to arrive on short notice - either the same day or just a day in advance. It would
be nice to have a little more notice on days when water is going to be completely shut off, etc.
6. George was phenomenal at communicating.
7. Not sure I received monthly info but did get correspondence. No emails even though I had signed up.
8. The correspondence during the project was rather vague in terms of timing of activity. Particularly when the street demo and paving
activity finally took place on our street, on several occasions I was compelled to email the project manager to gain clarity on what was
actually happening and when. Thank goodness I did not have any events planned at my home in the fall.
9. only marked apply
10. The weekly emails were a great way to communicate!
11. Do not use Edina website. Was not on weekly e-mail.
12. Never knew what was going on, when street would be closed or what exactly was occurring under the ground.
13. Weekly emails were often inconsistent with what actually took place.
14. Did not attend meetings
15. There was no communication formm the city. the only way we learned anything was talking to the project supt.
16. The weekly email was very very well done. I really appreciated feeling informed about what was going on.
17. Very deceptive. The pavement index was near 50 (no repair needed), the neighborhood petitioned and 90% said no. The building
department said our neighborhood fit nicely into their budget.
18. The project leader, carter, was very good about keeping us up-to-date and was amazingly responsive when we needed him in various
situations!
19. I didn't sign up for e-mail updates - I got info elsewhere.
20. Again, did not go t meetings or use website
21. WE were kept informed.
22. E-mail communication was the best! We really knew what to expect.
23. At least 3 times a construction worker knocked on the door before 7:30 a.m. to tell us to get our cars out of the driveway immediately.
We had not gotten notice the day before that this would be happening.
24. See above - lousy all around.
25. Adequate
26. Weekly or recurring emails work really well.
27. Again, wonderful
28. What was stated and what was actually done were often times not the same.
29. Email updates were great
30. Don't get answers at city meetings. you don't care about what people say in the neighborhood.
4
31. We are out of town but manage the affairs of our parents in Edina so we were not around for the Open House.
3. The project is funded between City Utility Funds (approximately 60 percent) and Special Assessments (approximately 40
percent). Were the specific project costs explained to you in a manner that you could understand?
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes 41.6% 57
No 23.4% 32
Unsure 8.8% 12
I did not attend the Open House. 26.3% 36
Comments 35
Comments:
1. We were out of town on vacation.
2. I understood the information presented but the cost was a moving target. Not sure how we couldn't get more accurate cost information.
Asking residents to sign off on an estimate and then agree to pay 50-100% more doesn't seem reasonable. We haven't seen the bill yet
- hoping to be pleasantly surprised but expecting something different.
3. Very unclear, kept changing.
4. The costs were explained to us, but we still didn't see the need for the project and our feedback didn't matter.
5. Unclear as to why such things as street lights (replacement of the old and frequently defective lighting) were positioned as Special
Assessment items. Later, as the project was nearing completion, the City reversed that position for future projects but now we continue
to deal with ineffective and unsafe street lighting throughout the Valley Estates neighborhood.
6. I did not realize that SA's only accounted for 40% of the project's cost. Thus, I guess the project was more expensive than I realized.
7. We still, months later, do not know how much we will be charged. Only estimates were given. Also we are unsure about the changes in
funding these projects, if any, made by the City Council. Continued communication in this would be appreciated
8. Yes. However, it has come to my attention that we are now paying for the sidewalk by the school. That was something that wasn't
explained up front. Shouldn't that be an expense the school pays?
9. Still think the city should assess all residents in the City of Edina since all streets are or will be in need of repair. Easier to make small
payments than $12,000-$16,000.
10. I attended 2nd meeting
11. What could be effective is a one-sentence statement like: You live at XXX, your cost will be $YYYY and billed this exact way QQQQ at
this exact time or times BBBB.
12. I believe I understand the funding mechanism but I do not agree with its structure.
13. It was confusing and it seemed to change depending on the meeting:(
14. I am concerned about us being assessed for the "school sidewalk". The city now decided not to charge residents for sidewalks after
ours was completed. Would like to see this issue retroactive to include the school sidewalk. Thank you.
15. This is the first I remember hearing that 60% of the funding coming from City Utility Funds. That's a good thing.
5
16. Estimates were off by about 50%. Started out at 6-8 Thousand but ended up over 12 thousand !!
17. I do not understand why we are charged for sidewalks that are on school property that the members of the neighborhood do not use, but
are used by the school and families to drop off and pick up kids.
18. I'm still not sure of the final assessment
19. I still am unsure what the special assessments will be. They kept changing their mind as to how much it would cost if the city did
something vs. us finding our own plumber to do the work.
20. But we still haven't gotten the final assessment amount so this is a difficult one to answer right now.
21. The Edina building department's presentation was poor, reiterating irrelevant facts that droned on forever to bore the audience and force
their agenda down our throats.
22. I assume with the new city council decision we will pay less.
23. COSTS CHANGED ALL THE TIME STILL NOT SURE WHAT THEY ARE
24. Some communications indicated the full project was paid via special assessment; other communications that it was a split. There
remains some confusion over how our project is handled now that Edina changed the way is assesses for projects.
25. It appeared to be explained in a manner that would cause a response that could be interpreted used as a gauge for the city to figure out
how much our neighborhood would be willing to tolerate in Special Assessments.
26. Final project cost unknown to us as yet we only had an estimate
27. We were mis-informed and talked down to however. And frankly, lied to, about the costs.
28. Where are our tax dollars no other city charges this much for an assessment I didnt want curves the road is that great
29. Info changed several times... .amount should have been settled sooner, ..financing model should be changed so it doesn't rely entirely on
assessments
30. Costs changed drastically.
31. Yes but there was confusion about the part we pay for and when the city bid that portion it came back less than us going on our own.
Caused issues.
32. According to the newspaper clipping I have, each homeowner will pay about $4,500.
33. Explanation was clear although at times self serving.
34. Screwed. my house is worth 260,000 and i will have and an assessment of 17K or a 6% assessment on my house. thanks Edina. fyi i
don't live in the county club area and make the money they do.
35. We are out of town but manage the affairs of our parents in Edina so we were not around for the Open House.
6
4. Did you find the Open House to be beneficial in answering your questions or addressing your concerns?
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes 28.7% 39
No 22.8% 31
Unsure 5.9% 8
I did not attend the Open House. 42.6% 58
Comments 19
Comments:
1. Neighbors filled us in.
2. Several people in my neighborhood didn't feel we needed the roads redone. It was clear the decision had already been made.
3. Yes, but it seemed to be more of a sales pitch to convince the residents of what was already decided.
4. Many including myself had questions about the initial cost info and what was presented at the meetings.
5. none of my concerns were addressed (funding mechanism which is broken). The meeting was an opportunity to vent and observe our
city leaders in 'action'.
6. But at times I still was unsure on some of the next steps in the project.
7. I always find those types of formats to be a difficult way to get specific questions answered
8. They didn't listen to the desires of the majority.
9. Only because we stayed after to ask specific questions.
10. Somewhat
11. The pavement index the was completed by engineers showed that a new road was not needed, and the Edina Building Department said
they wanted it since it fit in their budget.
12. After construction completed, I wished I had asked about all the stuff that could be put on my property; I didn't know to ask the questions.
13. they were very informative and answered all questions.
14. Somewhat. The Open Houses, again appear to be used as a gauge of sentiment towards a direction the city has already chosen. More
of a pitch session disguised as Citizen Input.
15. Somewhat - some answered, some not. Wayne Houle's manner is awful - condescending at best. We are not stupid!
16. I do not feel that concerns were addressed
17. Not so much, degree of care taken and concern shown in OUR neighborhood was much less than in more wealthy neighborhoods. We
got the second rate treatment all the way through from quality of work to care re landscape damage to responsiveness.
18. Out of town
19. We are out of town but manage the affairs of our parents in Edina so we were not around for the Open House.
7
5. How effective were the crews in working to minimize your level of inconvenience during the project?
Construction Phase
Answer Options Very
effective
Somewhat
effective
Neither
effective
nor
ineffective
Somewhat
ineffective
Not at all
effective
Rating
Average
Response
Count
43% 33% 7% 9% 8% 2.07 133
6. During construction, did you know the name of your City representative?
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes 50.4% 69
No 49.6% 68
If "yes," name of City representative: 56
If "yes," name of City representative:
1. Aaron Kuznia - He did a good job!
2. Aaron
3. Don't remember.
4. Jeff
5. Jeff
6. Aaron
7. kept in correspondence
8. Aaron Kuznia
9. For us George Bender was a great representative.
10. Can't remember his name now!
11. now forgotten
12. I cannot remember that was a year ago.
13. Jeff Frahm
14. Aaron Kuznia
15. George
16. I think we had to dig up the info initially however. Not sure if we missed a correspondence where he was introduced or what, but didn't
know who he was initially. Jeff Frahm
17. Andrew Plowman??????
18. Don't remember now
19. Aaron
20. Carter Schultze
21. Aaron Akuznia -- Deserves a "star".
22. I can't remember the project manager's name, but it was sent to us several times (via email and letter).
23. Jeff Pfram ( Spelling?)
24. George
25. Jeff Frahm
26. Ploughman
27. Don't remember now
28. Have since forgotten
29. I did a year agobut can't remember for sure now. Maybe Brandon??
30. Can't recall his name, but he was excellent and very responsive.
31. Carter
32. Can't remember now.
33. Aaron
34. AARON
35. George
36. Aaron Kuznia
37. Aaron Kuzio
38. sorry, I forgot his name, but very helpful!
39. Aaron
40. arron? big blonde guy had his cell #
41. I have forgotten but he was great. Terrific.
42. Aaron
43. Don't recall now.
44. what is a city representative?
45. aaron k.
46. I can't remember it now but it was a strange name, he was the manager from the company and I did call with questions and concerns
47. Andy something
48. I don't recall, but he introduced himself via email.
49. Don't remember anymore
50. Carter from SEH and of course Wayne Houle
51. can't remember now
52. Carter
53. Cannot Remember at this time but he was good-Viking Hills
54. I think he was Carter from SEH.
9
55. george bender
56. don't remember the name now
7. During construction, aside from weather-related delays, did the crew provide you with ample notices of water shut-
offs, driveway access, etc.?
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes 69.6% 96
No 24.6% 34
Unsure 5.8% 8
Comments 35
Comments:
1. Driveway access crew did not give advance notice.
2. The work crews were very accommodating.
3. Water shut off was not well communicated. When we got notices, the construction was often delayed or modified and several times we
were not even informed. Only to find we wouldn't have water for the next 8 hours - that was an avoidable challenge.
4. We were not notified in advance every time the water was shut off.
5. It would have been helpful to have access to street via one way during the project to make for a safer driving during the construction
phase. We were told we would have daily updates via notes left at the door to inform when streets would be blocked--this didn't happen.
6. There was a day when they created a 3 foot high berm blocking my driveway for whatever they were doing that day. I received no
advance warning of this, though they must have known at least the day before that they would be doing this work. I was out on a bike
ride, so was not home when they knocked on my door to say they were about to do this. Thus my car was in the garage, not accessible. I
could have easily moved it out ahead of time had I been given a little more notice.This was not during one of the weeks when we were
warned to move our cars out to the frontage road.
7. If I recall correctly, the first water shut off was a little short on notice, but notice was great after that.
8. I had no advance notice my gas would be shut off. This was a huge inconvenience when I got home from work at 8pm. Once the water
shut-off notice was stuck to my garage door, rather than my front door. As a result I had to finish my shower with bottled water.
9. And these were often provided ON THE SAME day as the issue, and even then changed that day. I work evenings, and at times woke
up at 10 AM (due to working until 3 AM), finding a notice on the door saying my driveway access was limited that day after 9 AM.
Surprise!
10. The composite of notices: emails from the city(?) project manager, doorknob notices (which sometimes blew off doors) and mailed
notices resulted in a complicated communication stream for homeowners.
11. My car would have been stranded in the driveways had my neighbor had not told me about the driveway tear out.
10
12. Except for one time they put something on my door later in the evening and I was unable to get out of my driveway the next Sometimes
notice was only hours prior. I work night shift so I would be asleep when notice was placed in the AM and shutoffs would occur in the PM
and I wouldn't know. Same with cutting off driveway access
13. Sometimes notice was only hours prior. I work night shift so I would be asleep when notice was placed in the AM and shutoffs would
occur in the PM and I wouldn't know. Same with cutting off driveway access
14. Most of the time ....a few days we were "surprised" to learn we had no water.
15. there were times that they said they would be at our house and didn't show up and then there were times they didn't give us amp I don't
live in the immediate area so I was not impacted by no-water or driveway access.le time to change schedules less than 6 hours notice;
very inconvient
16. I don't live in the immediate area so I was not impacted by no-water or driveway access.
17. Did not receive hang tag on door when water was turned off.
18. We recieved several shutoff notices (upwards of 8) but mosdt were false alarms, meaning we were told of the shutoff but the shutoff
never occurred. Left us feeling they were crying wolf.
19. There was one time we received no notice of losing driveway access--we were stuck home until crews came and created a way to get
out.
20. No, our property was not accessible without notice!
21. The crew was wonderful and hard working!
22. Though if there's any way to have more lead time about water shut-off, that would be helpful.
23. Aaron was awesome!!! Very efficient! He was on site everyday,answered questions and communicated what we could expect in the next
day or 2, by email-glad he was our Rep! The crew was very friendly and courteous!
24. usually but not always - trouble getting water turned back on - delayed until almost 6:00 pm
25. We were kept well informed
26. City ought to have given day time parking for residents some thought. Tracy can't be parked on, neither could Westridge or other blocks
since all being done at the same time.
27. As stated above, there were days they would knock on the door before 7:30 a.m. to tell us to get out. We had no prior notice of that and
it disrupted our morning schedule as far as getting ready for and going to work.
28. They notified but often did not follow what they told usw.
29. times they left our gate open and our dog got out because they did not give notice that they had been in the yard
30. ONCE THERE WAS NO ADVANCE WARNING TO ME.
31. they did a good job.
32. one night notice wasn't enough. And then they change the schedule without telling you.
33. Except for the very start of digging in front of our driveway, after than very good communication
34. No they did not. About 15 minutes notice or less re driveway access and street exit.
35. worst experience i ever had. Waste of a great summer. Project took way to long, dust, dirt everywhere.
11
8. During any phase of the project, did you experience any conflicts in dealing with the project?
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes 41.3% 57
No 50.0% 69
Unsure 8.7% 12
Comments 55
Comments:
1. Our driveway was cracked.
2. When we could not park in our driveway - cannot walk very far!
3. No one likes the inconvenience of this type of project. No one wants to pay the assessment for streets that don't really appear to be that
bad. Neighbors got crabby with the inconvenience and contractors did some poor quality work in the neighborhood that had to be
corrected ... that only made things worse. I expected more updates or work to be done to mandate new streets but the utility work was
very minimal and may have been easily completed without the streets. The big gain for us was the water shut offs, but it didn't seem to
be a problem for us in the previous 15 years ... so really seemed like a expensive resident funded resurfacing.
4. The crews were very nice, but often would work in multilple spots that would block both entrances/exits to our neighborhood.
5. Clarity on certain issues became problematic throughout the project. It sometimes appeared as though the responses to our questions
had either not been encountered in previous similar projects or that the City did not have a precedent or position established as to how to
deal with certain issues.
6. Could not get out of neiborhood to get to work multiple times
7. Early morning noise-called a few times to discuss the true start time. Trucks running non-stop.
8. How do you define "conflict"? with the city, with the crew, with carrying on one's normal life?
9. parking when my driveway wasn't accessible
10. Yes, the crew damaged our driveway. The crew was not carefully and drove trucks on fresh concrete damaging curbs and had to be
redone. Still pointed out damaged and said asphalt would cover the damage but the damaged concrete is visible. The asphalt at the
bottom of the apron is higher and it makes it difficult to clear snow and creates a tripping hazard.
11. See above comment
12. The crew that came through did a pretty rough job of cutting our driveway concrete and went ahead an poured new concrete up against
it. We brought it to the attention of our city rep and it was redone the next day.
13. They did not take responsibility when they damaged property.
14. The painting of our house could not be completed til this spring. Very frustrating as their was too much dust and dirt in the air.
15. see above
16. One day unable to get out, notified too late.
17. I was fortunate in my family's personal physical mobility and lack of significant events at my home during the street tear up on Richmond
Drive. We were at the end of the project and there was considerable delays (not weather related) at the end which resulted in work
barely completing before snow flew.
12
18. The grass was damaged by the equipment and not restored
19. When they changed the project from sodding to seeding.
20. See above-I did find someone who was kind enough to come and backfill it for me so I could get out and go to work
21. The end of my driveway is all messed up. The people laying the curb cut the end off too close and now the radius from the apron is
actually in the drive way.
22. There was damage to the drywall, ceilings inside of our home as well as the seals on our windows due to the constant pounding on the
ground. This pounding sent shock waves through the ground which damaged our home.
23. My sprinkler line was ruptured
24. My sprinkler line was ruptured
25. returning our yard to its original form
26. the sod they installed was NOT being watered and I called three times to tell them it was going to die....guess what it died.
27. Yes, when we started to ask questions to the contractors we would get conflicting information on what was happening and what we
needed to do or when we needed to be home.
28. Blocked roadways due to trucks/vehicles parked on both sides.
29. They still haven't fixed my sprinkler head
30. Water issues in my basement, erosion of driveway. Evacuated when the hit a gas line outside my house.
31. Late nights. It was very clear there was to be no construction activity past 9:00 pm but there were more than one occasion that the
crews worked well past that time frame.
32. removal of apron was not satisfactory
33. People said they would be dong work and we needed to be home and then they wouldn't show up and this happened more than once.
34. There were instances when I was unable to get out of my driveway. But they were short-lived.
35. I found it interesting that the city would give us a survey, but then do what they wanted to do "in the best interest of the city" instead of
what the neighborhood overwhelmingly wanted. Why bother with the survey or the microphones at the city hall meetings. Just wanting
us to feel like we've been heard? Hmmm...
36. Sprinkler system and pet containment were disrupted but eventually repaired for us.
37. The fire hydrant is not within the Edina Fire Department specifications, and has not been corrected. My sprinkler system was broken and
I had to fix it, and pay for it. I had to get a new driveway.
38. The crews cut my cable line and I had trouble getting it back on line. The City rep was very helpful at problem-solving and getting the
subs to take responsibility for it.
39. at one point, i found that i couldn't get to the driveway, and someone had a pile of dirt moved so i could drive in.
40. I don't have a basement sump pump or roof drain tie-in for my property (nor do neighbors), so why all the drainage line work, joint,
cleanout, etc. on my property?
41. All went well and most of the neighbors were also pleased.
42. My mother whose home was affected by the reconstruction, declined and died during the project. Both city employees and construction
crew members were extremely helpful both to our family and to the people from hospice. They were available when we had questions,
helped us navigate a way to and from the house a number of times, kept us informed, and cooperated by avoiding work on her corner
when we had a family gathering following the memorial service and later when we had a 1/2 day sale. I have nothing but positive things
to say about how the project was handled.
43. Water shut-off received same day.
44. My existing drivway and sidewalk had rebar, I had to provide it for the new pours. My depths were 8 and 6 inches, now they are less.
13
45. Water was turned off (w/my knowledge) but not turned on again when they left for the day. Also, when they installed a pipe they dug up
the yard and after they were done, did not replace the grass.
46. There were several reports around the neighborhood of run ins with the Front End Loader driver, but she was a bit
accommodating to the locals later in the Summer. But again she worked her ass off like no one else. The Bulldozer driver was a bit gruff
and unyielding but again, if I had to drive that loud, rumbling, nerve racking piece of shit around all day do I would be a complete and
total belligerent ass by the end of the Summer too!
47. We have a special needs child, who needed access to the street, and the city was very accomodating.
48. cut wires multiple times
49. See 7
50. Sometimes off-site parking was difficult to find.
51. Sump pump hook up was a little confusing on timing, but it was resolved
52. children nearly hit from equipment, bobcats nearly backing into my vehicle, trucks blocking the street access, crews throwinglarge
concrete blocks in yards, sod crews completely missing some areas, etc., etc.
53. not sure what this question means - there was damage and unresponsiveness but not conflicts third rate quality concrete work, sidewalk
damage, tree damage, unfinished business, project still incomplete
54. Irrigation
55. I requested a longer slope for the end of our driveway so that we would not get ice dams as we had in the past, and they redid it.
9. What aspects of the project process did you like?
1. The finish! Good communication.
2. None.
3. NONE.
4. I feel project went well - of course there were minimal times of inconvenience but all in all I'd give them an A+.
5. Advance warning
6. Fixes to sprinklers and dog fence were repaired as promised
7. Project Lead and crew were very helpful and responded to concerns in a timely manner.
8. bike lane and slower speed
9. Friendly crew and project manager.
10. Considering the scope of the project, it was completed in a relatively short time frame. Having said that, the weather cooperate extremely
well in 2012 and this spring/summer may have caused significant delays that we were able to avoid last year.
11. An
12. The finished project looked great. However, it was finished so late in the season that the suggested watering schedule could not be fully
accomplished prior to bad weather setting in.
13. New sidewalk on Creek Valley is greatly appreciated and well used. Underground storm-runoff tie-in; a big improvement. Maintained
access to driveways. Replaced sod, eventually.
14. it was relatively quick. The crews worked hard, long hours and made visible progress daily.
15. The street needed to be fixed and it looks quite nice now.
16. Aaron Kuznia was excellent...prompt, attentive, professional
14
17. The workers generally tried to make it as unobtrusive as they could.
18. George the head guy is really good to work with
19. I thought the crew was very curious and professional for the most part.
20. Did not like the project from start to finish.
21. The street is quieter just wish the police would enforce the posted speed limit.
22. Mailings were informational. If I did have a question, I called and it was answered to my satisfaction.
23. 1. Sidewalks were not added. 2. nothing else
24. Excellent work done, very nice result. Fantastic fix of all the driveways impacted. The city listened to our idea about no curbs. Water
impact minimal. Noise level acceptable. Friendly crews.
25. Really?
26. communication plus Aaron was around every day or so
27. n/a
28. None
29. The design of the new street.
30. Not much-It was a huge inconvenience to say the least-The people that worked on the project were very nice and respectful EXCEPT for
one woman crane driver that drove much to fast in the neighborhood and did not care who was in her way!!!
31. Final product
32. The street looks very nice (narrower but nice).
33. None
34. I appreciate it is done. I like the lower speed-limit to protect the school-age kids,.
35. That we have new road, new drainage, new fire hydrants
36. the construction crew was respectful, very communicative, worked withe our 'special needs' pleasantly and timely, went the 'extra mile'
when needed and kept things clean and rubbish free.
37. Nothing.
38. was not in favor of project but was handled well
39. the workers were polite (aside from the dog one of the workers stole a block away)
40. Good communication from start to finish.
41. None
42. The ability to drive through the site to reach Vernon from Benton.
43. The workers were great with my boys as long as we kept a safe distance we got to watch the trucks in action! The guys even explained
a few things a few times they were nice.
44. New road is nice. Sidewalk needs repair on Tracy and Hawkes on east side of road.
45. None.
46. None.
47. Posting of detour routes
48. really nothing. as expected it was inconvenience after inconvenience
49. The open, friendly attitude of the crews handling the project. Willingness to answer all questions asked.
50. None
51. tyhe project supt (George Bender) was a great communicator.
52. None
15
53. Nothing
54. Seemed to be well-organized.
55. The actual crew and workers. They were marvelous all around.
56. The construction workers were very courteous, paying attention when I needed to get out of Hawkes Drive and on to Tracy.
57. Nothing, a huge waste.
58. The end.
59. i liked that the city had a representative available to the residents. it made things smoother than i thought possible.
60. The professionalism.
61. accommodated our wedding plans
62. The couirtesy of the construction crews in allowing and facilating my use of the street.
63. CONTRUCTION CREW
64. The effort at communicating to the residents!
65. Safety appeared to be important at all times. I was pleased that contractor kept watering sod rest of summer/fall.
66. Well done. Good work crews and great communication from the city.
67. All of the construction crews were very friendly and very accomodating. Hats off to George Bender and his crew.
68. Communication was very good. The workers did the best they could to allow access to our home. Very professional all the way around.
69. The communication from Aaron. In person, by phone, or email, always accessible. The friendly, hard working crew, keeping the road
open for daily traffic.
70. Aaron's prompt response to the few problems we had
71. Being kept informed during the entire project.
72. The city worker, too long ago to remember his name, was very professional and helpful. His name and phone # was on all of the emails
and written mailings. Jeff???? Caucasian male, in his 30's?-- he was perfect for dealing with the public.
73. Crews were respectful mostly. One man though would not take NO as an answer from my wife on access to our house.
74. I liked the communication and attentiveness of our project leader.
75. Always informed and excellent response to questions.
76. Nothing.
77. Always informed and excellent response to questions.
78. Our special needs were tended to.
79. The finish.
80. Good communication and reaction to our individual concerns
81. road looks good
82. friendly workers. keeping us informed, weekly updates
83. Got some pretty rocks.
84. none We didnt want to go through iy
85. When it was over
86. Strong Effort To Keep Us Informed.
87. Weekly e-mails and twitter updates
88. NONE OF IT PARTICULARLY. IT DISRUPTED MY SUMMER.
89. we worked with a city guy who helped us with our driveway.. .very helpful
16
90. I have always wanted to watch a construction project. I absolutely loved it. The workers could not have been nicer or more
accomodating. One even offers to carry my groceries from my car to my house for me.
91. The result is great.
92. End result looks great, but I would move before going through it again. As bad as I anticipated the process, the reality was much worse. I
am still cleaning up from the dust. I had to scrub my gutters by hand last summer and had to have the siding professionally power
washed this spring.. .the grit was ingrained in the siding. I have not been able to thoroughly clean my windows, so may have to have
those professionally done, too. These are unexpected costs, which became unavoidable due to the project.
93. Appearance of the finished project.
94. Communication and your team was top notch
95. none. at the end of the day i have the exact same things as i did before it started and will get a bill for it.
96. Speed of completion. Minimal water shut-offs. Good notice from the city of project developments affecting me.
97. the new pavement
98. Street look much nicer
99. Weekly updates on what to expect
100. not much
101. Looks great
102. We like it now that it is done!
103. nothing. i want my old prefectly working road back
104. Very pleased with final result.
105. Friendly workman and almost no street closure
10. What aspects of the process would you recommend be improved?
1. The sodding was done poorly.
2. Took too much time.
3. None
4. More timely information.
5. I have no suggestions.
6. Several homes had much more inconvenience than others ... equipment storage, lunching workers in the yard, lunch garbage, our
neighborhood was the staging area for the whole Viking Hills project with equipment, materials and crews meeting, work crews seemed
to like to gather and block traffic in a few spots while other neighborhoods got the benefit of new streets but no inconvenience ... Glacier
Place, for example which appeared to experience about 3 days of inconvenience while our neighborhood was torn up for months.
7. Communication to homeowners and input from homeowners on project. Felt we did not have any say in the decision, we were offered
our input in the form of a city council meeting, but it did not have any impact on decision to do the project. No solid proof of why the
streets needed repair, there was minimial issues with the streets.
8. None.
9. Take residents feedback into account for projects that they are paying for directly.
10. Repairs to damages caused by the project took too long and required repeated calls and visits to the site in order to return wiring, sod
and soil levels back to original condition.
17
11. Better communication ong workers to not block off streets at same time
12. Perhaps better detours so only residence can travel through work area
13. It was too protracted! I feel the work could and should have been done much more quickly once construction started. My heart went out
to the folks living on Tracy. The work in front of their homes took about six months. My humble opinion is that the contractors bit off more
work than they could efficiently accomplish during the summer. I saw their crews working on other projects all around the metro area.
14. Anticipate or avoid discoveries during construction that significantly delay the schedule. Very frustrating to be told over and over that
more delays resulted from newly-discovered problems.
15. The sod. I am still waiting for a section of my sod to be replaced.
16. We had no access to our drive for 3 and a half months, along with all of the other inconveniences. This made if very difficult to find
anywhere to park. And to then have to walk through the construction to get to our house.
17. Do not spray paint driveway sections not being torn out. The marks are still visible. Do not spray pant tree bases with neon paint still
visible. Have access to the streets via one way for safety.
18. Much of the equipment was parked in front of our home and our neighbors for the duration of the project. It would have been nice to be
warned about this or had the equipment relocated periodically.
19. I don't know how people got on the email list for updates initially. I wasn't on the list to begin, but would like to have been. Again - not
sure if I missed a communication at the beginning of the process or what.
20. Communication to the whole community of the cost of the project.
21. Put another 25 mph light on the east side as drivers head towards Vernon.
22. It was my 1st time going through anything like this and I can't think of anything.
23. 1. better notice about turning off water or gas; 2. don't take a larger project than can be completed within perhaps 3 months; 3. don't
work in the evenings. My yard was unusable due to the amount of dust in the air. Who could breathe? 4. Too much cost is put on the
homeowners. I understand the funding arrangement for future street projects is being reviewed now. Spreading the cost across the
community. But toolate for us, huh? But we may get to pick up a part of the tab for others' streets in the future. Talk about lose-lose.
24. Better timelines provided. Better warnings about upcoming access issues and length of issues.
25. Aside from the funding issue More communication on progress and the delays. Since I am paying for work being completed, I am
entitled to know what is going on. The weekly emails and the mailings need the attention of a technical writer to clarify content and
ensure the customer (residents) can make applicable decisions on manager their vehicles/personal plans. The details of how the project
is being executed and causes of delays are also important. I would hope, no, I would expect the city to publish a lessons learned
summary of the project for the residents to digest as well as for the city engineering dept and city council to understand to avoid some of
the mistakes made (ref. my comments in question 13)
26. Cost ??
27. 1. Get the approval of the residents before the reconstruction starts - we are majority shareholders in the project; 2. Hire companies that
can do the work efficiently; 3. Shorten the timeframe - the project lasted for 5 months instead of 2 months.
28. Starting on time.
29. There was a big delay in some of the sprinkler system work which resulted in sod being layed late.
30. I think the curbs should all have been replaced -- there is one on our property that is flaking and when I pointed it out -- no go -- also the
"repair" that was done on our blacktop driveway is already showing flaking. Poor job of sodding on our lot.
31. Hard to know - the inconvenience (dirt roads, water shut-off, etc.) was more significant than I thought. I might be extremely clear about
the length of time the raods would be out, dirt/dust would be prevalent, etc.
32. Need to have the end of my drive way fixed! 6116 Westridge Blvd.
18
33. the city should pay for it fully. it took way too long.
34. The quality of the paving, there are spots that are already loosing asphalt after the first winter. Not paying for the sidewalks that are part
of school property not part of the neighborhood
35. Better communication as to what is happening each day.
36. would like to know what the costs came out to be.
37. better job watering the sod they installed.
38. better communication, less disruption and property damage
39. Much shorter interval to complete the project. This took almost the entire summer which I feel could have been greatly reduced had they
worked everyday and for longer durations. There was a long period of time when nothing was being worked on or progressing. I highly
suspect another proiect took priority
40. Road closed sign was posted too far into roadway on warden avenue (between Johnson and Tracey) we moved it to the end of the road
so it was more visible by cars on Johnson before turning onto warden and realizing they could not get to Tracey. There were no signs on
Johnson letting people know they needed to go all the way to Benton to get back on Tracey or even go farther around. We had a lot of
cars before we moved the sign driving up and down our little leg or warden
41. Curb crews did just average work.
42. Could someone please tell us ahead of time what's going to happen? We can't all make it to evening meetings.
43. Email updates with images
44. ength of time. 2 hours of work on nice days is not a work day. It stretched the project because workers were slow and not working on
nice days.
45. None
46. 'd like the city to stand by their worlk. Our home, along with several others, were impacted by the vibration as we now have several walls
in ourt house which are cracked. The insurance company emplotyed by the construction crew denmoied the clainm even though the
cracks are the direct result of the construction. Furthermore, we cannot mow the new boulevard clean black dirt was not laid down
before the hydrosseedinmg. The boulevard is strew with large rocks and construction debris which prevent us from mowing safely.
47. I recommend a "Round About!" This is the only way to help the Tracy / Benton intersection.
48. Not working in Nov.
49. While I did not like the process--noise, dust. .etc, it went as smoothly as it could. The only thing that could have been improved is
timeliness, though I know there were some unforeseen problems.
50. Disruption to home owners, damage to property and follow up
51. The landscaping of my yard. It was filled in with soil containing rocks, stones and pieces of concrete, then seeded with grass.
52. Speaking to the actual residents who live there. There were some intersections that were deemed "dangerous" on which there is very
little travel.
53. It sometimes seemed like aspects of the project took a very long time and I didn't understand why something would be dug up and then
left alone for a long time.
54. If a pavement condition index shows a result near 50, a new road should not be put in. Listen to the neighborhood: no one wanted the
new road. Also, no one wanted new sidewalks.
55. Our neighborhood didn't need the repair, we were just a "filler" in the budget. Yet, the City refused to listen. Our petition and comments
fell on deaf ears. To add insult to injury, we are being charged for a sidewalk that is on school property that adds no value to our
neighborhood. Valley Estates.
19
56. i can't think of anything. i was so impressed with the helpfulness of all the people. it could have been so unpleasant, and the attitude of
the workers made it tolerable! i can't say too many good things about carter!
57. Advance communication, at least two or more years.
58. took too long. There were weeks with no construction.
59. The continuous placement of flags on my lawn by the subcontractors and the lack of removal when they finished.
60. WHY ARE STREET NEEDED DOING WHEN SOME AREAS IN EDINA NEEDED IT MORE
61. I would like to have known that the sump pump drainage line would be run through my frontage yard and joint/cleanout would be
installed in grass; and that Xcel Energy was going to install a large aboveground electrical unit/box on our property as well. I thought
with belowground electric there would not be such stuff appearing on our property!
62. Traffic and dust raised by traffic. During the construction people from other areas would drive through like they were racing in the Baja.
63. I don't know whether it could have been done faster, but I doubt it. Road construction made for a very long, dusty summer.
64. We were pleased with all aspects of the project.
65. Water shut off notice with more notice, also get the bill by now!! Get this survey out sooner-- it is almost a year ago that the
project began. Does Edina REALLY want to know what we think? If so, why didn't this survey get set up immediately after the work was
done when things were more fresh in people's minds-- complaints and compliments.
66. Project started in June and went into November, way too long for such a small section of street.
67. When the sidewalk was added during the process, there was alot of angst amoungst the neighbors that we would have to pay for it when
it wasn't requested by us,but rather by the grade school.
68. the city was going to rebuild our road with poor drainage again. I had to call the city and make sure that they knew they were going to
have a drainage problem.
69. Do the same process every time
70. Communication about driveway access. Better info about cost.
71. That accurate records of where everything is underground be kept in a vault so that the next time this or something else happens,
engineers can pull up what is hiding where?
72. Wait until 7:30 to start construction.. .lots of little kids being woken up.
73. sod problem
74. Just about everything!
75. Listening and addressing concerns before decisions are decided. Not allowing developers to change roads to their benefit.
76. Notify citizens about the project. The City moved up the start date by a year and we were caught short handed.
77. Dust control
78. Earlier communications about times when we couldn't get out our driveways. Two hour notices weren't always enough time.
79. drainage on Crescent Rd near 6005 isn't the best, but overall the project improved the area
80. The dust was pretty bad. Maybe they could have sprinkled it down more to reduce the blowing dust.
81. Not doing the roundabout was a major miss. You should not let those local residents influence such an important safety decision. The
street is great.. .that intersection is pathetic.
82. Have the City pay more of the cost. Communicate more the extra costs, such as power washing and possible professional window
cleaning. Also, I live on West 56th St., so had all the dust and grit coming over from Phase II, after our phase was completed. The mess
went on for 6 months.
83. Less Dust, but not sure how you can get that better
84. all items in # 8
20
85. COST The workers drove very fast up and down our street and did not slow down after multiple complaints to the city
86. At the present time, I think the grass seeding on the blvd was a mistake. I have watered it regularly but am getting about 50% weeds.
Grass is now coming through the seam between my old blacktop and new blacktop--I can buy some black tar caulking but I think they
should have done that, since I had a perfect black driveway before the construction.
87. Notice of water shut-offs and the specific times of the shutoff seemed to be irregular. More specific notices and times would have been
helpful.
88. the addiiton of the drain system for sump pumps/gutters seemed to cause the most disruption and damage to yards and driveways for
little or no benefit.
89. Still not happy about the funding model. I pay taxes for police/Fire and streets/utilities. I feel to be assessed for projects like this is
unacceptable
90. funding method is fundamentally unfair despite mayor's Disneyland view; I agree it is hard to change the funding method
91. None
92. PR
93. The addition of sidewalks would have greatly improved neighborhood walkability and provided safety for children.
11.Were you satisfied with the end result and final design?
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes 55.8% 77
No 34.1% 47
Unsure 10.1% 14
Comments 71
1. The concrete was breaking up near peoples' lawns.
2. Tony - supervisor of the construction co. always available - we think they did a wonderful job.
3. Although it's not really noticeable, streets were fine to start with.
4. I expected better grass. Not so many weeds.
5. Still a little difficult to see traffic coming from the north when making a turn off of Grove St. You need to pull into the bike line to get a
clear line of vision.
6. With the exception of the street lighting not having been upgraded primarily because the neighborhood felt that should be a City paid
expense (and going forward it is!), the improvements in the roadway and storm drainage appear to be effective. Electrical problems in
the area have been greater than usual post-project and that too is a serious issue that has yet to be completely dealt with.
7. Sewers grates are already rusted out. Did we get these on clearance?
8. We won't know how well the pavement holds up for several years. Already this spring it is heavily pitted. Is this normal? It looks like the
pitting will lead to larger holes soon.
9. But the end result is not worth the cost.
21
10. It wasn't a quality construction crew with many defects still present. We are paying for an inferior product. We received inferior concrete.
I hate the re-designed intersections and it makes it difficult to stop on the hill at Crescent & Westridge and the water pools up at the stop
sign. Should have had another drain oposite the house next to the stop sign. Still have damaged concrete. The asphalt is higher than
the concrete creating a tripping hazard, Homeowners should have received a break on their water bill for water the lawn in the fall we
moved into tier three. Traffic is now speeding down the street, Do not like the fact the streets are narrower creates parking issues when
their are parties.
11. I was very satisfied until huge areas of sinkage appeared. The one on Normandale Court was gargantuan! For there to be such a large
area of sinkage, plus others on the other streets in the project, someone seems to have really messed up. It's frustrating to have our
beautiful new street already having areas dug up and patched, which must have a negative impact on the expected life of the new
pavement job that we are paying so dearly for.
12. I think the "grass" looks terrible. I now have a bunch of weeds growing where I used to have nice grass.
13. think overall it looks great and I personally prefer the curb and gutters. I do wish the streets were designed to be wider. It feels tight with
parking and tight on the road with walkers and bikers - especially with so many young kids in the neighborhood. I also would have liked
better street lights.
14. We have commented that the road itself seems more narrow than the old but I don't recall being told directly that this would be the case.
15. The end of my driveway was re-paved at a steeper angle than it had been, so now there is a kerplunk when entering the drive. The lack
of a smooth transition makes it more difficult to navigate up during snowy or icy conditions. This was not necessary.
16. Completely satisfied.
17. from a design perspective, I am satisfied (with the exception of street width reduction)
18. It does look nice
19. Street looks uneven like it needs one more coat. No street lights were replaced after we were asked which we would prefer??
20. Crew and project management did a nice job with the design, quality of sod replacement, sprinkler head replacement, etc.
21. Now that it is finished, we do not see people using the bike lane, but instead using it as a sidewalk. Traffic speeds have not slowed. The
pedestrian crossing lane hasn't made it easier to cross Tracy.
22. Corner of Crescent and Highland is difficult to negotiate with a large vehicle even when no other car is present.
23. some of the intersections have odd curves to them
24. my lawn I had was beautiful, but the sod they installed is mostly dead. I'll have to pay over a thousand to have the sod they installed
ripped out and new sod installed.
25. Speed limit to 25 is too slow. Everybody exceeds the speed limit now.
26. The school intersection is horrible during drop off and pick up time, just ask a bus driver! The intersection should have been straightened
out and Benton widened on the west side of Tracey. Bt I understand the people of Tracey did not want to be assessed with that amount
added on. The Benton section west of Tracey should be done by the city to make the school zone safer. If possible this summer! At
least please post no parking signs during drop off and pic up times on Benton west of Tracey. people who abandon their cars on the
north side of the Benton road during pick up time really make the whole mess so much worse. Buses cannot get in and through, the line
of pick up cars can't move, it's a mess. Cars n the intersection do not treat it as a fur way stop, they stop and go if no one is directly in
front of them. I would like to see it fixed somehow, we just started our first of three boys in kindergarden this past year I have a long way
to go at countryside. It would be nice to see some changes to make that intersection and pickup process safer and easier.
27. Substandard work.
28. I want sidewalks on both sides of the street after seeing the finished project
22
29. roads are sinking and TONS of dirt ran into the lake when it rained. The entire lake was the color of mud and they said there wasn't
anything they could do about it until I said I would call the DNR and see if they could help and then all the sudden they put in floating
barriers to catch the mud.
30. Mostly.
31. Rodayway is nice and smooth, whihc encourages speeding.
32. Wish we would have gotten street lighting.
33. It did not take care of the problem. The 4 way stop by Countryside is still the same. Cars still don't take turns at the Tracy / Benton
intersection. Very dangerous! I thought this was the main concern. All that work and the problem is still there. I don't know why bike
paths were the main concern and are unnecessary.
34. We now have a large patch in due to sedttling
35. There are sunken areas on West 56th street where water now pools and never did before. We received a letter stating some of the
areas were being monitored, but it didn't state which areas or what would be done to correct it and when. How can we know if this area
is one of the areas being monitored? And when will it be fixed?
36. I oppose the parking lane. It is completely unnecessary--please note how few cars ever use it. It created extra expense, took yard away
from houses on the west side of Tracy, and made the street wider than it should be.
37. For the most part yes
38. Horrible waste. Criminal. The city council was very rude. The majority of the neighborhood was very clear that we did not want the new
road. The building department is only interested in their budget.
39. On Polar Circle, just short of the intersection with Vernon, there is flooding after every rain.
40. I would like to have known Xcel Energy was going to install a large aboveground electrical unit/box on our property as well. I thought
with belowground electric there would not be such stuff appearing on our property! What am I supposed to do to 'mask' this unit and
maintain the esthetics of the front yard and property value now?
41. Yes, other than we have the original 1965 light posts which now look archaic. However, I believe that was a "majority rules" decision
based upon the neighborhood survey.
42. I lost 4 feet off the front of my yard to make way for a bike lane, and to date, I have not seen 1 BIKE on Tracy Ave.
43. The exception being the signage. Sign pollution at it finest. Another example of Edina excess.
44. Yes, with all of the potholes on our roads, turning onto Arctic way is wonderful- we have a very nice street!
45. The street looks great.
46. Though we sold the property in the fall, we thought the end result was excellent. Keeping the curving streets was great! Installing
curbing gave the neighborhood a cleaner look. The overall effect certainly didn't hurt when it came to selling the property.
47. Street was narrowed. What idiot decided that? Got yet another McMansion going in down the block. When the trucks park on the road
there--on both sides-- sometimed directly across from each other, it presents a tight traffic situation for residents. As people turn the
corner from Tracy fast, and most do frive fast, you almost get hit leaving Ridgeway Rd. Dangerous. Speed bumps would have been
good. Also why did the city give residents the option of sidewalks-- they are needed. Lots of kids and dog walkers. I am sick of drunk kids
driving at night and in the afternoon, and tossing beer and hard liquor bottles at walkers in the road. Also, NO where to get out the way of
snowplows when walking dogs in winter. If there were sidewalks, it would not be a problem.
If Edina City workers were required to live in Edina, and there still is affordable housing here, they would see what we are talking about --
every day, and not from planning meetings in a city conference room.
48. Smooth street much quieter
23
49. Loved being able to tie our sump pump into the storm sewer. We were very happy that our paver driveway came thru the process
without getting damaged.
50. Streets are too narrow and designs were not shared with the neighborhood before the project.
51. Big dip in our street - Kent Avenue. Has been patched but looks bad in comparison with rest of street.
52. I am unhappy with the narrow streets. They raise the level of tension while calmly driving down the street. There is less time to react to
children popping out from behind parked vehicles and for the first time in 62 years, we have to wait for cars to pass in the opposite
direction before proceeding because of parked vehicles or garbage cans in the road. I find the city's reason for narrowing streets around
town miss guided and hard to swallow at best.
53. Beautiful work, but seems like the streets are a bit narrower, correct?
54. city needs to replace some of the new sod
55. Had to completely re-do my garden myself after they ruined it and it still is not right - dirt they gave resembled ground asphalt in testure
and smell - full of broken glass. Dirt does not drain - standing water in many yards.
56. Its fine
57. it is difficult to drive down our street to narrow
58. It looks nice but not worth the money that was spent.
59. The intersections are dangerous and there is inadequate parking space on the street. The City also cheated our neighborhood out of
new street lights, even though the City increased the utility rate for citizens to pay for those items. Another example of disparate
treatment of the City towards my neighborhood.
60. THE HIGHLAND/CRESCENT INTERSECTION IS TOO RADICAL. IF YOU MEET ANOTHER CAR YOU HAVE TO ALMOST COME TO
A COMPLETE STOP TO NAVIGATE IT.
61. I had no idea how quiet the finished road would be or how effective the 25 mph speed limit would be. What a big improvement to my
quality of life.
62. Should have done a roundabout.
63. Yes, for the most part, but I am seeing chunks already broken off the curbs.
64. CURBS CURBS CURBS
65. No, there is a large dip in the street outside of my house
66. One small piece of my driveway at 5609 Tracy broke off near the mailbox for no apparent reason. Grass is now coming through the
seam between my old blacktop and new blacktop--I can buy some black tar caulking but I think they should have done that, since I had a
perfect black driveway before the construction. See above regarding grass on blvd.
67. sloppy concrete work, lines and seams in blacktop look funny
68. Beautiful
69. but not for the amount i will be paying over the next 15 year.
70. Again, sidewalks would have been a plus.
71. I would have liked the round a bouts to be included in the reconstruction of Tracey Avenue and to have better pedestrian access
walkways across the street.
24
12. Which project is this survey in response to?
Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Bike and Pedestrian Way Phase I 0.0% 0
Countryside Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction 22.1% 31
Gallagher Drive Reconstruction 0.7% 1
Richmond Hills Park Neighborhood Roadway
Reconstruction 21.4% 30
Tracy Avenue Reconstruction 22.9% 32
Valley Estates Neighborhood Roadway
Reconstruction 15.7% 22
Viking Hills Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction 17.1% 24
13. Do you have any other comments, input or suggestions for the City staff or City Council?
1. 1.) What was the estimate before the project began? 2.) When will we receive an assessment for the project and info on financing it with
what time? Thank you.
2. We don't feel we should have to pay for the sidewalk project by Creek Valley school! The sidewalk benefits only the school and was
requested by the school not the neighborhood. Since the completion of the sidewalk last fall we have only seen 2 students using it. The
neighborhood kids still walk in the street. This would be a good time for the City to pay for the sidewalks, especially since it is our
understanding that hereafter, the City will pay for sidewalk projects!! In checking with our friends, we find that in many surrounding
suburbs, these projects are paid for by the city.
3. The workmen had to work thru record heat in July. Did a wonderful job!
4. Another time use the correct size envelope for the material being sent to the City of Edina. I had to cut this questionairre/survey so that it
would fit in the envelope.
5. Do not do any more construction on Hillside Rd.
6. I understand being inconvenienced for a big truck to move through but the repeated delays because City and /or Construction workers
were chatting in the middle of the street got silly.
7. Decision to add sidewalk on school property and assessing it to homeowners was added late and homeowners had now say in decision.
8. No.
9. Would appreciate if police could enforce the 25mph. The sign helps but would like to see some surprise enforcement.
10. The city staff and council were very condescending when asked about the need for the project. One of the councilmen even admitted
that our project was a "filler", so even though it wasn't yet needed, the size of the project fit the city budget for the year.
11. Improve long range planning for these types of projects and deal more effectively with the changes evolving within our community such
as strict standards for tear-downs and reconstruction, etc.
12. Neighborhood should not have to pay for sidewalk for creek valley. That total cost should be paid by school
25
13. We are grateful to the Mayor and Council Members for hearing the residents' voices.
14. if you really care what we thinbk, why send this out now? the project finished in september 2012.
15. During the winter, snowplows jumped our curb and messed up some of our newly laid sod. Someone evidently made an attempt to
patch it up, but it was only a half-hearted effort. Still looks bad in some places. Also, our concrete driveway apron has already
developed a crack from front to back. I envision it getting worse with time. Is there a warranty that you could use to get it repaired or
replaced? I'm Brice Martinson at 6100 Ridgeway Road. (952) 926-1436. QUESTION: When will the Tracy Avenue reconstruction
between Benton and the fire station be accomplished? It really needs attention soon. It appears 2013 is out of the picture. Hopefully,
2014?
16. This project was completely unnecessary in our neighborhood, as our streets were in acceptable condition before. In addition, the lack
of curbs was a main draw to the neighborhood as it had less of a "city" feel. Finally, assuming that families can handle the burden of the
assessment is outrageous! Even if we opt to finance our assessment through the city, we will barely make ends meet. Edina is
discouraging young families from moving in and/or staying when we are unexpectedly saddled with huge assessments.
17. Why wait so very long to provide this survey? Waiting until we forget all of the inconveniences?
18. The final cutting of expansion seams (?) in the pavement left ugly brown marks that lasted until the snow. Small matter, but should not
have occurred. The finished pavement looked ugly for months.
19. We are asked to fill out a survey; yet, we haven't been given our final bill. The survey should be done after the total costs have been
billed. You should take a visual inspection of what was completed. This was not a quality project done like in other areas of the City.
Inferior concrete. Sloppy work by the construction crew. The crews damaged fresh concrete and had to be redone. If you walk the
sections on Crescent Drive you will notice many defects, cracks, large chips in the concrete. The asphalt is uneven where it meets the
concrete of the street and it creates a tripping hazard to walkers. The crews spray painted concrete sections with pant that wasn't
removed from the concrete. Also the crews spray painted large dots at the base of trees with neon green paint which is still visible and
should have been corrected. I had a Hage concrete driveway and now have an inferior product. The concrete quality was not the same
as what Hage used nor was the workmanship. I was told in the meetings to note if you had a Hage driveway in the survey which we did.
I would have like the option to have Hage replace their work. I had better sub base than what the construction crew dug out of our
driveway and put more dirt instead of the sub base the removed. Most of the neighbors are unhappy with the work quality results we see
after the project has been completed. I have areas my lawn that are now sinking--creating a tripping hazard. The City of Edina was
know for having great roads. Everyone in the City should pay for roads and not access only the home owners for the road being
reconstructed. Give the homeowners a break on their water bill during the construction phase. We were left notes to water to ensure the
lawns would take. We were still watering in November and we moved to the tier three level.
20. Please, please move to a system of just one trash hauler. The number of trucks coming through on trash day must be taking a huge toll
on the life expectancy of our roads. Plus, it makes trash day quite unpleasant with the parade of noisy trucks coming through for several
hours.
21. You kinda waited a long time to send this survey out. I would have never remembered Jeff Frahm's name if I hadn't found his name in
an old email.
22. Please just answer my questions in this surgery.
23. As my husband has lived here since the early 60's, he doesn't understand why the cost to residents is so high. For all the taxes his
mother & now we have been paying since then, we would have thought the city would have reserved more over the years so it would
impact residents less.
24. Shouldn't we know by now what our cost will be and when it will be due? I haven't heard a thing since construction was completed.
26
25. This project is analogous to a neighborhood being told they have to replace the old family car. They had no choice in the brand or model
and would not find out the price until they had received the car. Some residents were getting new cars even though they were going to
quit driving and some were getting new cars they couldn't afford. The cars were delivered late, but they looked pretty nice for the first
couple months. When the dealership changed the oil, they dinged the doors and stained the carpet (not the numerous deep snowplow
scars in new curbs and asphalt). After 6 months, rust started showing in sheet metal. The dealership promised to fix the rust but the
paint job is wavy and is a different color. If more rust occurs, the dealer will continue to make patches. One neighborhood couldn't help
but notice that the cars in another neighborhood didn't have the rust problem, even though that neighborhood is paying the same price
for their car. What new car owner would not to be satisfied with that kind of new car.
26. Not enough room
27. I knew Andrew Plowman project engineer from outside firm and George Bender on site supervisor were both great but I could NOT tell
you the city council or city staff who was suppose to be my representative ... pretty sad when the city is not very present on the project.
Both Andrew & George were very helpful and great to work with.
28. When repairs to property was done, specifically our driveway, it looked good but this spring not good. There should be some kind of
contract that they come and redo these patch jobs. Recheck edge next to curbs for flaking.
29. I would like a meeting with the contractor and the city engineer!
30. Stop spending money on studies, $1 Million on park renovations, bike lanes and $100,000 salaries for inspectors and pay for these
projects instead of making us pay more than we already do in property taxes. Find a way to make these projects faster.
31. We would like someone to work with us to resolve the damage our home received as a result of last summer's construction.
32. I understand that the size of the project and the impact of weather can greatly change the dynamics of a road construction project, but
more and earlier communication needs to happen so that residents can plan for inconveniences.
33. we are expected to pay for new sidewalks at the school. since this cost was assigned to us the city council has determined that sidewalk
costs would be born by the city, as costs have not been assigned to us at this point they should not include the sidewalk costs.
34. Our gravel driveway (6121 Ridgeway rd.) never received the replacement gravel fill where it was dug up next to the street. Can this be
done yet for us?
35. get rid of the damn bike lanes in the city... .everyone one I've talked to hates them. They are TERRIBLE. Oh yeah and the Cedar
Apartments are a crime haven and you need to do something to stop the weekly drugs and crime coming out of that area.
36. Overall, a good process & we are pleased with the results.
37. When will Tracy from Benton to 62 take place?
38. We were told that storm sewer connections would be available (for sump hole discharge) at the street when in fact that was only true on
one side of the street (I'm at 6208 Hillside Rd). I spent $1600 to have a an underground line run from my discharge pipe to the front yard
where it discharges into the yard. This creates as problem for me and my neighbor when there is heavy discharge. In addition the line is
frozen into the spring but the sump pump works even if the ground is frozen. I'm not happy with either the expense or the result.
39. I would rather everyone pay a small amount perpetually than get a large special assessment.
40. For the cost of this project to the homeowners it is a disgrace.
41. None
42. The end result is necessary and nice to have, however the process is very stressful and expensive for the residents. My personal
communications to the city were never addressed.
43. UI tried to ask questions directly to the city staff buit b=never received a retrun phone call. We are looking at a $11,000 estimate for
repairs required due to the construction. The boulevard is a mess and cannot be mowed. I sent a note to Wayne Houle regarding the
boulevard issue and am awaiting a response. I will not hold my breath. The electronic speed monitoring device was a great speed
27
limiter. The new speed limit of 25 mph is great if followed but we just noticed this new speed limiter changed its warning limit (the speed
at which the signal turns from amber to red) was rtaised from the speed limit (25 mph) to 30 mph as though the speed limit is 30 mph.
44. Why are bike paths everywhere?
45. No, In their mind everything is a done deal and they simply nod to input.
46. Our property still has damage that hasn't been fixed and the grass they put down has not grown.
47. Again, most unsatisfied with appearance of my front yard. Not only shortened 4 feet, but an additional 8 feet now looks very poor due to
unsatisfactory landscaping.
48. Please notify us if the West 56th area where water is pooling is on your radar and when it will be fixed. Whatever was the final $ amount
for the assessment? It kept changing!
49. I live on Hawkes Drive, and Tracy is the only outlet for us. I appreciate that we were included on communication for the Tracy Ave
project.
50. Not related to this project but it does relate to the Countryside neighborhood. We are concerned about increased traffic when the Waters
project is completed. Especially the intersection of Valley View road and Tracy (near Fire Station). Is the city considering a traffic light
there?
51. Please do not have us pay for the sidewalks. We did not want them and they are on school property. The old sidewalks are in disrepair,
and it did not make sense to add on to them. The new sidewalks are not being used.
52. The City decided to add a sidewalk on school property along Creek Valley Road, and to charge our neighborhood for the work, even
though it adds little value to our residents. I understand that since our work was completed, the City decided that sidewalks like this one
will not be part of the special assessments in the future. If this is the case, the decision should be retro and we should not be charged for
the sidewalk that only benefits the school. Please consider this when making final calculations.
53. Will our assessment be less than determined based on the city council decision to fund more of these projects as other cities do?
54. AS A SENIOR, THESE ASSESSED COSTS ARE VERY DIFFICULT.WE HAD NO CHOICE. ITS A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY.WE
SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN MORE NOTICE. THESE COSTS WORKED INTO PROPERTY TAXES OVER TIME THEN EVERYONE
PAYS FAIR AMOUNT.
55. It would help if the utilities told specific property owners ahead of time (during early communication phase, before construction) what they
were planning to do on their property.
56. I know of several Valley Estates neighbors that registered frequent complaints and petitions to the city over normal project items. Based
upon some of their comments to you (as they relayed to me) I felt they were ignorant and disrespectful toward you. I appreciate your
professionalism and encourage you all to keep up the good work! Wes & Anne Anderson, 6208 Balder Lane.
57. At city meetings and open houses the staff did not listen to the people. They just rammed it down our throat.
58. The road is very noticeably quieter - especially nice with the large number of emergency vehicles and school buses that use our street.
59. See comments to #1
60. We appreciate all the work that the City staff and the City Council do for the residents of Edina. Keep up the good work!
61. Engage your brains, & send out letters asking for input.. .you sent the what kind of lights do you want mailing.. .where was the mailing
asking about daily useage? Edina is too into things being just so-- the flags on the Promenade, the fences being painted on Vernon--
how about real life issues that affect the quality of life in Edina every day? I wish I did not reside here. Poor choice. With all the
McMansioning going on, and the noise from the Colonial Church project-- how many people will reside there...10,000? ...that place is
HUGE. With all of the noise it is not a great place to reside. The booms and dirt and ground vibrations and the truck traffic and parking
issues around here is just awful. EDINA-- Every Day I Need Aggravation.
62. We thought Aaron did a terrific job!
28
63. If you are not going to listen to Petitions from the majority of citizens with the project areas then make it clear so peolpe do not have to
waste their time putting petitions together. This survey is probably another waste of my time. Mike Slaughter 612-328-2559
64. Thanks for a very professional job, and for keeping us informed.
65. I don't remember the name of the city person who was the point person for all the communications, but he was always very responsive to
issues and concerns.
66. Have a rep personally contact each homeowner at end of project to conduct inspection of property following the project.
67. I believe the garbage cans put in the street, (some put out a day early and left out until a day after), by residents now (it is far more
prevalent than pre reconstruction) is a new eyesore. When we first moved here in '96, we received notices from the city that we were,
putting our trash out "To Far From The House". Now it certain that We work for the garbage companies instead of them working for us.
My biggest concern is that people are leaving their garbage cans on the street or out by the curb for sometimes 4 or 5 days. I'm really not
exaggerating. I think it should be addressed along with recycling returning to every week for the same price we used to pay for every
week. The rolling no sort containers hold no more than what we used to pile up in the green tubs and now we pay roughly 100% more for
recycling and get 50% less or 1/2 the service for a lot less labor on the pickup side of things. It's just not right. Thanks for listening.
68. I think we are lucky to have people on staff who care so much about our city! TV meetings helpful.
69. All around it was awful _palda is crummy - their work stinks - my driveway is a mess - apron higher than rest of it so water ponds. Never
do business witht them again.
70. there was nothing wrong with our street you added to much property to some house bring down our assessment alot where is our tax
money going
71. Had To Delay My Retirement To Pay For It.
72. NO
73. Since the lightning strike to the power pole last Saturday the sign that monitors the speed of approaching vehicles turns red at 30 mph
instead of at 25 mph
74. Lower the cost.
75. Thanks for everything. Not excited about paying the SA, but for now this policy is workable. DO NOT change it going forward or you will
impact people who already paid. Thanks for lowering the interest rate on SA
76. hire other contractors as they didn't seem to care about the job.
77. I hope they do south Tracy soon. I worry my wife's car will not be able to take the condition of that road.
78. The city did a fine a job and put a lot of effort into homeowner and neighborhood relations.
79. best part was the temporary water connection crew - they were helpful and they knew what they were doing
80. stop spending the tax payers money on dumb crap...bike lanes on woodale.
81. I thought the email messaging was great.
29
I LI/ I LJ I I
CITY OF EDINA
2012 Street
Survey
Bike and Pedestrian
Countryside
Gallagher
Richmond Hills
Tracy
Valley Estates
Viking Hills
October
•-i,t4 A
a(
4
Reconstruction
Results
Way Phase I
Neighborhood
Drive
Park Neighborhood
Avenue
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
14 2013
CITY OF EDINA
Question #1: How effective was the
communication you received prior to
construction?
L Very Somewhat
ffective effective
City Meetings and Open 33% 30% Houses
Mailed Correspondence 40% 34%
Weekly Email Update 44% 25%
Monthly Mailed Updates 34% 24%
City of Edina Website 21% 21%
h
I %.11 I kJ GU I
CITY OF EDINA \
Question #2: How effective was the
communication you received during
construction?
_
I Very ii SorniMIL
ffectivelIF effective _
City Meetings and Open 18% 21% Houses
Mailed Correspondence 36% 35%
Weekly Email Update 54% 22%
Monthly Mailed Updates 31% 29%
City of Edina Website 20% 21%
CITY OF EDINA .0 ...
Question #3:
The project is funded between City Utility Funds
(approximately 60 percent) and Special Assessments
(approximately 40 percent). Were the specific project
costs explained to you in a manner that you could
understand?
.,
26.3%
fl Yes
• No
0 Unsure
DI did not attend the Open
House.
%wm.Ed[naMN.gov
CITY OF EDINA
ei
X B
Question #5: How effective were the crews
in working to minimize your level of
inconvenience during the project?
Very
effective
Somewhat
effective I
33%
43%
wemEdinaMN gov
I ‘..11 I LI Z. 1,-/ I
CITY OF EDINA F e le . ,
Question #4:
Did you find the Open House to be beneficial in
answering your questions or addressing your
concerns?
28.7%
42.6%
22.8% ._ .
5.9%
•Yes
• No
0 Unsure
DI did not attend the Open
House.
1•n ••11111111
my, EdinaMN gov
I VI I l..)1 I
CITY OF EDINA sx
. Question #6 .
During construction, did you know the name of your
City representative?
la Yes im No
www EdtnaMN gov
Question #7:
During construction, aside from weather-related
delays, did the crew provide you with ample notices
of water shut-offs, driveway access, etc.?
Yes
• No
O Unsure
Y.,ve.EdinaMN.gov
I LI/ I U/Ll..1 I
CITY OF EDINA
1, .
'•:., II
.,
le
Question #8:
During any phase
you experience
- Noise dealing with
- Driveway Issues
- Restoration, sod
- Parking 8.7%
- Irrigation
50.0%
of the project, did
any conflicts in
the project?
41.3%
o Yes
• No
0 Unsure
row EdInaMN gov
Question #9: What aspects
process did you like?
- None
- Communication
- Friendly, courteous, professional
- New infrastructure
- City representative
CITY OF EDINA
1., 14) ..,
of the project
project team
Mla EdlnaMN gov
I%.11 I V I GU I
CITY OF EDINA
( )--
Question #10: What aspects
would you recommend
- None
- Cost
- Communication
- Sod
- Inconvenience factor
of the process
be improved?
Edigo
CITY OF EDINA
Question #11:
Were you satisfied
result and
10.1%
with the end
final design?
- Better grass
- Not the expected value
- Sidewalks
- Lights
55.8%
to Yes
ENo
0 Unsure
v.,./ EdoaNIN go',
I VI I Gl..1 I
CITY OF EDINA
,...4...,,
1..
Question #12 . .
Which project is this survey in response to?
0.0%
„
15.7%
21.4%
22.9%
0 7%
Li Bike and Pedestrian Way
Phase I
R Countryside Neighborhood
Roadway Reconstruction
0 Gallagher Drive
Reconstruction
0 Richmond Hills Park
Neighborhood Roadway
Reconstruction
•Tracy Avenue Reconstruction
0Valley Estates Neighborhood
Roadway Reconstruction
•Viking Hills Neighborhood
Roadway Reconstruction
vemv.EdinaMN.gov
CITY OF EDINA iitaii '
\111111 \. .
have any other
for the
Question #13: Do you
comments, input or suggestions
City staff or City Council?
-cost
- Assessments
- Words of thanks
MINUTES OF
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
COMMUNITY ROOM
SEPTEMBER 19, 2013
6:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL Answering roll call was members Bass, Boettge, Franzen, lyer, Janovy, LaForce, Nelson, Spanhake, Van
Dyke and Whited.
New student member Jackson Van Dyke was welcomed to the ETC.
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Motion was made by member LaForce and seconded by member Franzen to approve the meeting agenda. All
voted aye. Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 15, 2013 — Approved as corrected.
Motion was made by member Bass and seconded by member Franzen to approve the amended minutes of August
15, 2013. Eight voted aye; one abstained (Janovy). Motion carried.
COMMUNITY COMMENT
Mr. Robert Shockwell, resident of Richfield, member of the Richfield Transportation Commission and liaison to the
ETC, stopped by to see if there was anything the ETC would like to share with Richfield's Transportation Commission.
A brief discussion ensued about Mr. Eastling's presentation last month on his proposed expansion of TH-62 and the
importance of improving 66th St. W.
REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
2014 Neighborhood Reconstruction Projects
Director Houle said a special public hearing meeting is scheduled for Dec. 10 for the City Council to consider
approvals. He said the ETC could review and approve the projects tonight or wait until October. Assistant city
engineer Millner presented the five neighborhoods:
Birchcrest B
Current conditions include poor pavement, some utility issues, existing curb and gutter on some streets, some
streets are concrete and while others are bituminous. Proposed improvements are new bituminous pavement
(concrete streets to be replaced with bituminous), spot repair to curb and gutter, install sidewalk on Normandale
Road (petitioned) and continue to Valley View Road (based on pedestrians count); curbs at three intersections will be
narrowed (neck down) to help with speed reduction, and utility improvements. The proposed costs are $1,461,000
(City) and $1,950,000 (residents) for an assessment of $14,000.
Member Whited said the survey response showed that residents are not in favor of sidewalks. Mr. Millner said staff
will be recommending it to City Council and let them make the decision; he stated further that a sidewalk meeting
was held with residents along the proposed route and of the 28 in attendance, most were in favor. Regarding
sidewalk maintenance, Mr. Houle said the policy is that the City maintains sidewalks on State Aid roads and in school
zones and the rest are maintained by residents. He said one distinction is that City maintained sidewalks are 5 ft.
while others are 4 ft. or less and the City does not have the proper equipment to maintain sidewalks that are less
than 5 ft. With varying sidewalk widths, the question was asked how wide should sidewalks be and the consensus
was that this requires more discussion.
1
Concerns were raised by members Franzen and Iyer about the PACS fund not being sufficient to cover all the
sidewalk needs and potential inequities. Mr. Millner said the Living Streets Advisory Group is working on creating a
sidewalk plan as part of the Living Streets Policy; the plan should be ready by next fall. Member lyer suggested a
global plan that includes prioritization and criteria which would eliminate the sidewalk question from the
questionnaire. Member Janovy said the Living Streets Policy has criteria.
It was noted that some streets were secondary bike routes but Mr. Millner said they do not have a plan in place for
secondary routes at this time.
Streetlights are not recommended based on feedback but member Bass asked if the lighting is insufficient for
people/pedestrians or for drivers and she added that the Living Streets Advisory Group may address this. Member
Janovy asked if there is a specific way to measure the level of lighting. Mr. Houle said a study was done 10 years ago
and the decision was made to install lights every 200 ft. He said the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul install lights
every 75 ft. He said to meet pedestrian safety lighting standard, they would need to install a lot more lights and
noted that the Country Club which currently has more streetlights, for example, does not meet pedestrian safety
standard.
Member Janovy asked if they could neck-down the intersection at 60th St• based on traffic speed and counts and Mr.
Millner said they are counting again in two weeks and will review and consider it then.
On page 3 under Equity, member Bass suggested also addressing health and mobility; and in the Powerpoint, under
"What is Included?" she suggested revising the last bullet point to include '...and City policy.' She also asked if the
extra space created by the neck-downs could become rain gardens instead of sod and Mr. Houle said yes; he said
they are doing this on Tracy Avenue and residents and have agreed to maintenance.
Member Janovy suggested sorting residents' comments by street because it would be easier to read.
Member Franzen asked if sump pump is the standard in all projects and Mr. Millner said yes. He said homeowners
often connect during the street project and added that the new building code requires a sump pump in all new
construction.
Bredesen Park D
Current conditions include poor pavement and existing curb and gutter on some streets. Proposed improvements
are new bituminous pavement with pavement being narrowed approximately 1 ft. on each side, and new barrier-
style curb and gutter. The proposed costs are $739,000 (City) and $1,041,000 (residents) for an assessment of
$13,500.
Member Whited asked about water pooling in the cul-de-sac and Mr. Millner said the new barrier-style curb and
gutter will help; also noted were traffic merging issue at Tamarac and Vernon to which Mr. Millner said there is good
sightline because there is a parking lot at the corner; and parking on Tamarac by park users and Mr. Houle said he,
Mr. Nolan, and Mr. Eric Boettcher, recreation supervisor, met last week to talk about how to deal with this because it
is a problem at all parks throughout the City. Member Janovy asked if traffic-related issues are referred to the TSC
and Mr. Houle said Mr. Nolan will review them.
Countryside F
Current conditions include poor pavement, existing curb and gutter and storm sewer issues. Proposed improvements
are new bituminous pavement, spot repair to curb and gutter, and storm sewer improvements. The proposed costs
are $394,000 (City) and $384,400 (residents) for an assessment of $13,000 and $12,000.
2
Morningside B
Current conditions include poor pavement and existing curb and gutter. Proposed improvements are new
bituminous pavement, spot repair to curb and gutter, sidewalk on the north side of 42 nd St. from France to St. Louis
Park border and also on Grimes Avenue (petitioned), and complete the missing segments on Scott Terrace and Alden
Drive; plus, staff proposed a bituminous path around the park and Park & Recreation likes the idea. Mr. Millner
explained that the 42 nd St. sidewalk is proposed for the north side because there are less conflicts and a section of
the Grimes Avenue sidewalk will meander into the park behind some trees in order to save them. The proposed
costs are $1,326,000 (City) and $1,250,000 (residents) for an assessment of $9,000.
After discussion, the consensus is to make the sidewalk 5 ft. on W. 42 nd St. and Grimes Avenue. Member Janovy said
the area where the Grimes Avenue sidewalk will go behind the trees is filled with buck thorns and Mr. Millner said
they will be removed. Scott Terrace and Alden Drive sidewalks would match the existing 3 ft. sidewalk.
Strachauer Park B
Current conditions include poor pavement and existing curb and gutter. Proposed improvements are new
bituminous pavement, spot repair to curb and gutter, adding a parking bay with a 5 ft. sidewalk along the park and
complete a missing segment of sidewalk further down the street. Existing trees would be taken out and new ones
planted. This was approved by the Park Board. The proposed costs are $759,000 (City) and $945,000 (residents) for
an assessment of $10,500.
60th St. W. and Xerxes Avenue traffic issue was mentioned, and while it is not included in this project area, Mr. Houle
said a meeting is scheduled for Sept. 24. He said Hennepin County is proposing bump-outs and a 170 ft. turn lane
which would eliminate parking for 3-4 residents.
Member Janovy suggested assessing the City 3 REUs (instead of 2) since the parking bay is being added for the park.
After discussion of all five projects, the consensus was to wait until October for final approval. Staff will submit a
summary of changes noting the ones they will include.
Traffic Safety Committee Report of September 4, 2013
After a brief discussion, the report was approved for forwarding to the City Council.
Updates
Student Members - None
Bike Edina Task Force
Member Janovy said they are having discussions about their purpose, reviewing their bylaws and will be looking for
new members and she is the new chair, temporarily. She said they are also working on finding out the status of the
group as it relates the City and Mr. Nolan is helping with this; she said the group was started by City Council as a task
force but she was told by manager Neal that they are an outside organization. Received minutes of August 8, 2013.
Living Streets Working Group
The two working groups each met once to work on schedule and workplan. The $5,000 grant increased to $15,000
and a media company was hired. One of the groups requested a sidewalk map and it was distributed to the ETC.
Communications Committee — no update.
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS - None
CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS
Member Franzen said he was excited about Mr. Eastling's proposed plan to expand TH-62 but was disappointed
3
when checked and found out that it is not on MnDOT's schedule for reconstruction.
Member lyer said he was in Cambridge, MA and was surprised at the number of bikers on the street, even late at
night, unlike you would see in Minneapolis which he considers to be a biking city. He wondered if this was because
Minneapolis' bikers are routed to places like the Greenway.
Member Bass said she saw the draft Active Routes to School plan; Mr. Houle said he needs to follow up with city
manager Neal for an update since their meeting. She said also that she attended the Richfield Open Street Pedestrian
Fest on Penn Avenue and it was awesome! Member Whited said she too attended the Fest and will be attending
Bloomington's this weekend which is dubbed as an extension of Richfield's.
Member Boettge said neighbors brought to her attention a stretch of sidewalk on Cornelia Drive that is not regularly
maintained by the City. She asked what can be done for it to get regular maintenance like the one on W. 70th St. Mr.
Houle said he would pass this on to Public Works.
Member Janovy asked about the video camera on W. 44th St. and Mr. Houle said he would check with Mr. Nolan to
see why it was out there. She asked what has happened on Wooddale Avenue since the bike lane was restriped and
Mr. Houle said is he is not aware of any accidents and they will be collecting data this fall.
Member Whited said there is a group in St. Louis Park called Safety in the Park that would like to give a presentation
to the ETC on the Southwest Light Rail because what is happening in their city could affect rail in Edina.
Chair Nelson said Mayor Hovland sent out an email about a seminar on Monitoring and Modeling Non-motorized
Traffic in Minnesota on Oct. 3 and Mr. Houle said Mr. Nolan will be attending. He also said rail usage has increased in
Edina and that he can hear the bell as late as 11:30 p.m. Mr. Houle said he has had no success reaching CP Rail so
he's contacted MnDOT for assistance. He said they need to improve the crossings and create a `no whistle sound'
area.
STAFF COMMENTS
Updates from director Houle:
• Lake Edina and Braemar Hills Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction are just about completed, while
Mendelssohn will be completed within two weeks. There have been complaints about the amount of weeds
growing with the grass — staff decided to use a hydroseed method vs. sod; the hydroseed does produce
weeds but after mowing, the grass blends in nicely and holds up better than sod.
• There was some congestion on France last week as Centerpoint completed their work at the right-in/right-
out lane by Byerly's. The median at 72'd is being rebuilt.
• Vernon Avenue — Hennepin County will be doing the following:
o A bike lane will be stripped from the traffic signal at Gleason & Vernon to 53rd (they did not go down
to TH-62 because a better termini is needed);
o Designated left turn lane at certain intersections;
o Crosswalk at 53rd and City to install a pedestrian activated stoplight;
The bike lane will be 8 ft. with a 1-2 ft. gutter pan; the City will work to reduce the speed limit from 40
mph to 30 mph after completion.
• Edina Promenade Phase 4 (final phase) — URS is designing this final phase which will include designated bike
lane from 70th St. to Gallagher and then east; water features; benches and artwork; and a joint water
filtration project between the City and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. The pedestrian path plan will be
submitted to the ETC next month for review and comment. Construction is scheduled for summer, 2014.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned.
4
ATTENDANCE
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE - 2013
NAME TERM J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
Work
Session
# of Attendance
Mtgs %
Meetings/Work
Sessions I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Bass, Katherine 2/1/2014
2/1/2014
1
.51.1;1
III
ka
•
ki
1
'''...
1
.
1 1
1
...!
1
1
11111
Mig
7/16
1 9 90%
Boettge, Emily 2 100%
Braden, Ann* 2/1/2014 1 1 1 1 1 5 50%
Franzen, Nathan 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 70%
lyer, Surya 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 80%
Janovy, Jennifer 2/1/2014 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90%
LaForce, Tom 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100%
Nelson, Paul 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100%
Schweiger, Steven student 1 1 1 3 30%
Sierks, Caroline student 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 70%
Spanhake, Dawn 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 5 63%
Van Dyke, Jackson student 1 1 100%
Whited, Courtney 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90%
5
CITY OF EDINA
Stakeholder Engagement
issues/Components SUMMER 2013 OCT 2013
Boulevard Width 5' Turf 1'Concrete
Lane Width 17'
11' Vehicle
14' Sharrow
6' Bike
Sidewalk Width 5' 5'
Lighting Type Not Specified Downward Facing/ Dark
Sky
Bus Stop Pads Optional Not Included
Bus Stop Bike Rack Optional Not Included
Wayfinding Signs Optional Not Included
Tree Removal (Entire Corridor) 8 0
Relocating Bus Stops Optional Further Feedback with
Metro Transit
, OiffiX „
www.EdinaMN.gov
CITY OF EDI
4
(Continued)
Stakeholders Engagement
Issues/Components JUN-AUG 2013 OCT 2013
Crossing Safety at
Minnehaha
Boulevard/Bridge
Stop Sign Optional Included
Flashing
Sign
Optional Not Included
Zebra
Crosswalk
Optional Not Included
Shelf Not Incl. Further Feedback Req'd
Bridge
Arch Optional
Arch
Slab Optional
Lighting Optional Further Feedback Req'd
Railing Optional Further Feedback Req'd
Aesthetics Optional Further Feedback Req'd
West Section
Existing Street Width
(edge of pvmnt to edge
of pvmnt)
Proposed
"street" Width
(fc to fc)
Existing Lanes Proposed Lanes
Existing Developed
ROW (edge of pvmnt
to edge of pvmnt)
Proposed
Developed ROW
(bck of sw to bck of
cb)
Note
29' –34' 28' 5' bl, 11'-12', 11'-12',
5' bl 14' shared, 14' shared 29' –34' 35'
Developed ROW
increases 1'-6' to
north to
accommodate
sidewalk and
curb
East Section—Minnehaha east anprox. 350'
Existing Street Width
(fc to fc of curb)
Proposed "street"
Width (fc to fc of
curb)
Existing Lanes Proposed Lanes
Existing Developed
ROW (bck of cb to bck
of cb)
Proposed
Developed ROW
(bck of sw to bck of
cb)
Note
40' 39' 8' p, 24', 8' p1 18' sh, 14' sh, 7' p2 41,3 46'
Developed ROW
increases 5' to
north to
accommodate
sidewalk
astSection—Halifax to France
Existing Street
Width (fc to fc of
curb)
Proposed "street"
Width (fc to fc of
curb)
Existing Lanes Proposed Lanes
Existing Developed
ROW (bck of cb to bck
of cb)
Proposed
Developed ROW
(bck of sw to bck of
cb)
Note
40' 35' 8' p, 24', 8' p 14' sh, 14' sh 41' 42'
Developed ROW
increases 2' to
north to
accommodate
sidewalk and
curb
1 24' includes advisory bike lanes that will be removed and replaced with sharrows
2 Minimum parking lane width allowed by State Aid; no variance required
3 Does not include existing 5' sidewalk on the south side
October 24, 2013
Mr. Paul Nelson
Chairman, Edina Transportation Committee
Mr. Nelson,
We would like to voice our strong disapproval of the County's proposal on Xerxes Avenue
South between 60th and 62 nd and ask that you either reschedule the committee's review of
the proposal - allowing us a one-hour educational presentation and public debate on the
facts and issues involved, or alternatively reject the proposal in its current form.
Two significant issues are operative here:
First, while the proposed plan covering the stretch between 60th and 61st street looks
generally acceptable, the elements from 61st to 62nd are not. In fact, we believe there are a
number of safety, livability, traffic civility and indeed traffic flow issues that would each in
themselves raise serious questions about the viability of this part of the proposal and its
ability to pass objective muster. The dangerous and unworkable movement of the centerline
over by 4ft putting off-ramp trucks and buses into oncoming traffic (contrary to MnDot
recommendations), and a last bump-out at 170ft allowing high-speed documented reckless
driving across several driveways and against the sidewalk as they race to beat the light
(with the Edina Police Chief stating that speed enforcement is virtually impossible due to
the situational dangers!) are just two of the most obvious issues that have been
conveniently ignored in the continuing effort by some to maintain Xerxes as the southbound
traffic garbage chute for both Mpls and Edina. After years of allowing motorists to drive
Xerxes illegally and setting motorists expectations that virtually anything goes on "Xerxes
highway", and at any speed, heaven forbid the County and City should now deprive them of
that privilege.
Second, and just as troubling to us, the fact that this proposal hasn't been vetted under any
stretch of the imagination, speaks volumes. Simply put, the complete lack of any alternative
screening, as well as the points above, makes the notion that a credible analytical process
has taken place - laughable on its face. In fact, while we have advocated a thorough and
objective analytical process that would screen alternative solutions against the safety,
civility, livability and traffic flow concerns within our 40ft road width reality in our
residentially zoned neighborhood, both the City of Edina and Hennepin County have
resisted this at every turn. Add to that a complete disregard for transparency (we've had to
file for both City and County data, etc) and resident partnership in pursuing honest
solutions, and this effort has become a poster child of poor civic leadership and bad
government behavior across the board.
Of course, the evidence of poor behavior in this matter by both the City and County has been
widespread. Not the least, we find it outrageous that in the midst of extended discussions
about Xerxes non-compliance and safety issues, that the City of Edina did nothing -
absolutely nothing - to ensure safety steps were implemented during the Penn avenue
diversion. No speed reduction or caution signs, no sidewalk barriers, nothing. Our sidewalk
was virtually unusable, while, many residents were frightened and overwhelmed
attempting to enter or leave their own driveways given the uncivil and unregulated driving
behaviors exhibited - including threating incidents of road rage.
In addition, we're disgusted that, without the southern most temporary barrier restored to
its previous position, the City of Edina would allow the County to continue to allow high
speed traffic to drive dangerously against and on our sidewalk in an area with the greatest
reckless driving, and the most pedestrian traffic - for the next 8-10 months between now
and any eventual solution implementation next summer. It's both outrageous and
indefensible given the facts.
It may be unfortunate to some that Xerxes was designed and built as a two-lane road just
40ft wide, but it was, and so it remains. It may also be inconvenient to some that there are
houses and people leaving along this stretch of residential road. But there are.
All Edina residents should be very concerned about the City of Edina's attitude and
response to resident safety, motoring civility and respect for homeowner property livability
and rights. Over the past 16 months that we have been working to get Xerxes back into
compliance as a safe two-lane road, we've heard a lot of non-sense about traffic levels of
service. It's now time for some level of sanity.
We intend to fight this vigorously and very publicly going forward. You have a chance to be
part of the solution here, not part of the problem.
Thank you,
The Edina Xerxes Neighborhood Association
Casey & Tiffanie Call
Scott & Jolene Chestnut
Jeff Hamm
Joe Kosceilak
Michael Lang
Bruce 8z. Dawn Lees
Brian & Dana Noah
Vernette Sanders
Brian Weideman