Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2012-06-21 Meeting Packet
AGENDA CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMUNITY ROOM June 21, 2012 6:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of May 17, 2012 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 some 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. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS A. Traffic Safety Committee Report of June 6, 2012 B. Updates i. Student Member ii. Bike Edina Task Force - May 10, 2012 Minutes iii. Grandview Small Area Study iv. Living Streets Working Group V. Transportation Options Working Group vi. France Avenue Pedestrian and Bike Crossings VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS . IX. STAFF COMMENTS A. Preview of 2013 Neighborhood Reconstruction Projects B. Draft Sidewalk Projects Feasibility Studies C. TLC Bike Boulevard Update Agenda / Edina Transportation Commission May 17, 2012 Page 2 • D. 1494 Update E. 2012 Human Services Task Force 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 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. Tuesday June 19 Transportation Options Working Group 5:00 PM Thursday June 21 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM Tuesday June 26 France Avenue Pedestrian and Bike Crossing Stakeholder #2 7:00 PM Monday July 9 France Avenue Pedestrian and Bike Crossing ETC Meeting 7:00 PM Tuesday July 17 Transportation Options Working Group 5:00 PM Thursday July 19 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM Tuesday Aug 16 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM Thursday Aug 21 Transportation Options Working Group 5:00 PM quesday Sept 18 Transportation Options Working Group 5:00 PM hursday Sept 20 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM • G:\Engineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\TRANSP COMM\Agendas\2012 Agendas\20120621 Agenda.docx SHERWOOD ROOM, SENIOR CENTER COMMUNITY ROOM PUBLIC WORKS COUNCIL CHAMBERS SHERWOOD ROOM, SENIOR CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM SHERWOOD ROOM, SENIOR CENTER SHERWOOD ROOM, SENIOR CENTER COMMUNITY ROOM MINUTES OF CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMUNITY ROOM MAY 17, 2012 6:00 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering roll call was Members Bass, Braden, Franzen, Iyer, Janovy, LaForce, Nelson, Schweiger, Thompson, and Whited. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Motion was made by member Thompson and seconded by member Braden approving the meeting agenda. All voted ave. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 19. 2012 The minutes was amended as follows: page 2, last paragraph, delete :..project ends here with...' Motion was made by member LaForce and seconded by member Braden to approve the amended minutes. All voted ave. Motion carried. COMMUNITY COMMENT — None. REPORT/RECOMMENDATIONS Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) Report of May 2, 2012 Member LaForce asked how often the ETC receives TSC reports and what to do they with the reports. Director Houle explained that the TSC is a staff committee that meets monthly. He said staff receives requests from residents, collects data, does analysis and reports findings to the TSC and the requests are reviewed and approved or denied based on policy. Residents are sometimes surveyed for their input. He said requests usually decrease during the winter months. He said staff is working on a new website that will include an interactive map showing requests from residents. Page 6, Section D, Item 8: Member Janovy asked if this could be referred to the Planning Commission since it seems to come up often. Director Houle said they could make a recommendation to Council to forward it on to the Planning Commission and he could also talk with Planning Director Teague. Page 3, Section B, Item 1: Member Whited said she walks this area frequently and it appears that the issue is more extreme at nights and staff's observation is in the daytime. She recommended that staff review this request in 90 days to see if the intersection qualifies for a 4 -way stop sign because she concurred that the intersection was not safe. Director Houle said a stop sign will not provide extra safety. Member Whited suggested a sidewalk or no parking on one side of 56th. Director Houle said staff could survey residents to get their feedback on a sidewalk or no parking on one side. A hedge was also noted as a possible safety hazard. Staff will look at the hedge, parking and speed data, and report back on these. Page 1, Section A, Item 1: Director Houle was asked about the street width for parking on both sides. He said the width is 27 -ft without marked lanes and 36 -ft for a marked 2 -lane road. Director Houle was asked what Section D was and he explained that it was a list of other calls that staff received and residents were satisfied and therefore the issues were not advanced to the TSC. •Speed Table Policy: Director Houle said during the W. 44th Street reconstruction, traffic was unintentionally pushed to Sunnyside Road (despite the marked detour route) and with 85% speeds up to 36 mph prior to construction, Council approved a speed table for temporary use during construction. Director Houle said approval of this policy would allow staff to purchase more speed tables to be used in conjunction with street reconstruction projects, except on Municipal •State Aid streets because traffic calming is not allowed on these streets. After discussion the following changes were recommended: • Process: the city engineer to decide when and where to place speed tables; • Item 4: remove 'speed of 5 to 10 mph' and reword to say 'over speed limit;' change 'adjacent' to 'nearby' or 'close.' • Item 6: delete and incorporate into #2. At the end of what was Item 6 add 'the priority for installation should be on a first requested basis.' Motion was made by member Janovy to recommend the following actions regarding items in the TSC report: • Section A.2.: Policy 4: remove 'S to 10 mph' and add 'over speed limit;' eliminate Policy 6 and incorporate into Policy 2 and add 'the priority for installation should be on a first requested basis;' city engineer to decide when and where to place speed tables; and bring back to ETC for review. • Section B.1.: Explore option of no parking on one side of street; see if hedge is a safety hazard; • Section D.B. Refer to Planning Commission to look at parking requirements. The motion was seconded by member LaForce. All voted aye. Motion carried. Proposed Enhanced Crosswalk for Tracy Avenue Project Director Houle said staff is opening bids next Tuesday for this project. He said the Intersection at Tracy and Benton is staying as is and the ETC recommended an enhanced crosswalk. He said the plan is to install a 10 ft. (12 ft total width from edge to edge) stamped crosswalk that is pounded into the pavement. He explained that the design will be more visible because the design and color makes it pops out at you. He said the initial cost is more expensive than traditional rosswalks; however, there is no annual maintenance like painted crosswalk that has to be painted twice annually. He said the crosswalk on 501h next to City Hall is very similar and after seven years and it is just now showing wear. Other areas where similar design is used are 701h & Metro, and 44th & Wooddale. Director Houle was asked if the same crosswalk could be installed at Creek Valley and he said yes. Member Bass suggested creating a policy to make this standard treatment near schools if it works well. Director Houle agreed and said the intersections near schools would have the major crosswalk and a tiered system as you move away from the schools. Chair Nelson asked about a crosswalk on Vernon toward Highland School and Director Houle said Hennepin County does favor crosswalks where traffic signals are installed but he could explore this further with the County. Member Franzen asked staff to report back on the overall cost after bids are open. After discussion, the ETC recommended installation of the crosswalk. Updates Student Member - No update. Bike Edina Task Force — Minutes of April 12, 2012 — No update. Grandview Small Area Study Director Houle said he asked Director Teague if there is anything that the ETC could be doing in the meantime and he is going to check with the committee. Director Houle said he has some ideas for federal funding. Living Streets Working Group Update *Chair Thompson said he spoke with BARR, the consultant who is developing the Living Streets Policy and they are working on the deliverables. He said they have driven the streets to get a sense of the system to develop four street templates and he would like to schedule a working group meeting before this is completed. He said BARR would like to make a formal presentation at the June meeting. Member Bass offered the do.Town staff to meet with the working Ktroup to help with public engagement. Member Thompson said Robin from Bloomington Health will be invited to the ext working group meeting. Director Houle will schedule the next working group meeting. Transportation Options Working Group Co-chair Whited said they had a presentation from ITNAmerica that she will forward to everyone. She said she will be giving a presentation on Prism at the next meeting, the company she works for. Member Thompson motioned to add new member Greg Colborn from Normandale Lutheran Church, to the working group and the motion was seconded by member Iyer. All voted aye. Motion carried. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS — None CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS Member Janovy expressed dissatisfaction with staff's report to Council because it did include comments from the ETC regarding the TLC Bike Blvd and the urban planner for the France Avenue Pedestrian Crossings. She said while the draft minutes were included, use of an advisory might be necessary to express the ETC desires. After discussion, the consensus was that use of advisories would be determined on a case by case basis. Member Whited followed up with Director Houle about expansion of bike lane on W. 58th St. Director Houle will have information for the next meeting. Chair Nelson expressed concerns about the increased amount of trains on the track. Director Houle said Canadian Pacific (CP) switched operation time due to a crew change which has resulted in more trains in the evenings. He said it is emporary but CP did not provide an end date. Chair Nelson said they are improving the track and wondered if this was o enable them to travel at higher speeds and if so, would they be required to install crossing arms. Director Houle said he will look into this and report back. Member Iyer said he has received comments from residents about the bike path over TH-62 and they've expressed concerns that it is not a workable solution and should be a real bridge. Director Houle said the plan is for a real bridge that will accommodate ADA when funding becomes available. STAFF COMMENTS TLC Bike Boulevard Update Director Houle said the City Council approved the plan with the following exception: W. 54th from Minnehaha Blvd to France Avenue will be advisory lane with parking on both sides; bump -outs were added on Wooddale Avenue at the intersection in the parking bay area; on -street markings south of Valley View Road down to W. 70th; and enhancement of the U -channel on the pedestrian bridge. Gallagher Drive & Three Rivers Trail Director Houle said the plan was approved, including conduits and bus pads. France Avenue Pedestrian Crossings Director Houle said stakeholders meeting are scheduled for May 31, 7 p.m. (first meeting to explain the project and solicit feedback); June 26, (6-7 p.m. ETC meeting, and 7-9 p.m. for stakeholders meeting); July 9 (with the ETC to recommend approval to Council); and the public hearing on July 17. Wotion was made by member Janovy approving the 3 special meetings and the motion was seconded by member Bass. All voted aye. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT 4veeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. ATTACHMENT Attendance Spreadsheet 0 N C O N 2 J p1 N Lu O Z 0 X888 REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Edina Transportation Commission Agenda Item Item No: VI.A. From: Byron Theis Traffic Safety Coordinator ® Action Discussion Information Date: June 21, 2012 Subject: Traffic Safety Committee Report of June 6, 2012 ACTION REQUESTED: Review and recommend Traffic Safety Committee Report of Wednesday June 6, 2012, be forwarded to City Council for approval. 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 will be included in the staff report provided to Council for their July 17, 2012 meeting. Also attached is all of the current Traffic Safety Policies. Staff will be reviewing these policies in the next few months to see if they need modifications or elimination due to change of standards or State Law. ATTACHMENTS: Traffic Safety Review for June 6, 2012. Traffic Safety Policies G:\Engineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\Traffic Safety Committee\Staff Review Summaries\12 TSAC & Min\20120621 Traffic Safety Committee Report of June 6, 2012.doc r. TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT Wednesday, June 6, 2012 The Committee review of traffic safety matters occurred on June 6, 2012. The Committee is comprised of staff members including the City Engineer, City Planner, Police Traffic Supervisor, Sign Coordinator, and Traffic Safety Coordinator. From that review, the recommendations below are provided. On each of the items, persons involved have been contacted and the staff recommendation has been discussed with them. They were also informed that if they disagree with the recommendation or have additional facts to present, they can be included on the June 21, 2012, Edina Transportation Commission and then the July 17, 2012 City Council Agenda. SECTION A: Requests on which the Committee recommends approval of request: 1. Request for an all -way stop sign at the intersection of 58th Street West and Concord Avenue. The requestor has a child that goes to the school in the area (did not state which school). The requestor feels that an all -way stop sign would be beneficial to the students that walk to school. Requestor has also gathered a petition of people who would like to see a stop sign at that intersection. Traffic counts were conducted in the area. Vehicle volumes entering the intersection from each leg were added to determine the total volume for the hour. The City of Edina policy regarding an all -way stop sign requires at least 300 vehicles per hour for any eight hours entering the intersection. Stop signs are not installed in an attempt to control speed or volume of vehicles. Given that this is only a three-way intersection, the required vehicle volume entering the intersection per hour was reduced to 225. Concord Avenue and 58th Street West are classified as State Aid Streets. Concord Avenue is also classified as a collector with an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 2469 vehicles and an 85th percentile speed of 27.9 MPH north of 58th Street West; and an ADT of 1994 vehicles with an 85th of 30.6 MPH south of 58th Street West. 58th Street West is also classified as a collector with an ADT of 2208 vehicles and an 85th of 29.6 MPH. There has been zero recorded accidents at this intersection from 2001 to 2010. The volume of vehicles entering the intersection was also calculated. There was a total of seven hours of over 225 vehicles per hour entering in one day, which is only one hour short of the required hours to warrant a Traffic Safety Committee Report June 6, 2012 Page 1 of 6 • stop sign. This information, combined with the higher pedestrian traffic in the area, and the proximity to the school, staff does not see a problem with the placement of stop signs at all legs of this intersection. 10 Staff recommends the approval of an all -way stop sign at the intersection of Concord Avenue and 58th Street West. 2. Request for a crosswalk at the intersection of Vernon Avenue and Schaefer Road. This request is from a resident who crosses that intersection frequently. The requestor states that vehicles are not very attentive to pedestrians and bicycles and a crosswalk will help with the safety of pedestrians. Vernon Avenue is an "A" Minor Arterial Reliever road with an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 9900 vehicles. This road is under the jurisdiction of Hennepin County. Any recommendations will also need to be approved by them as well. City Policy on crosswalk state that crosswalks should be placed in areas that have an excess of 20 pedestrian crossing the intersection for a minimum of two hours for any eight hour period. Pedestrian counts were conducted in the area. There were a total of 20 pedestrians crossing the intersection during the time of observations. This warrants the placement of a crosswalk according to the City of Edinas' policies. Staff also recommends including the placement of a sidewalk on the north side of Vernon Avenue in the Capital Improvement Plan. Staff recommends approval to request Hennepin County to place a crosswalk at Vernon Avenue and Schaefer Road. 3. Staff reviewed changes to the Temporary Speed Table Policy. Staff reviewed changes made based on the recommendations of the ETC. These recommendations were made during the May 17, 2012 meeting. Staff developed this policy for placement of temporary speed tables to provide a temporary traffic calming method for local streets that are experiencing an increase in speed due to nearby road construction. Traffic Safety Committee Report Page 2 of 6 June 6, 2012 �J In the June 21, 2011 City Council meeting, City Council approved the use of the temporary speed table on Sunnyside Road east of Townes Road. Traffic counts taken after placement reported an 85th percentile speed of 27.6 MPH on Sunnyside Road east of Curve Road. A previous 85th percentile speed of 35.0 MPH was recorded in the Northeast Edina Traffic Study (2006). Staff recommends approval of the attached Temporary Speed Table Policy. SECTION B: Requests on which the Committee recommends denial of request: 1. Request for an all -way stop sign at the intersection of Chowen Avenue and 58th Street West. The requestor lives near the intersection of Chowen Avenue and 58th Street West. The requestor has stated that vehicles are speeding through 58th Street, which is a safety concern. Requestor feels that bicycle and pedestrian safety is at risk due to the eastbound/westbound legs of this intersection being uncontrolled. Traffic counts were conducted in the area. Vehicle volumes entering the intersection from each leg were added to determine the total volume for the hour. Chowen Avenue and 58th Street West are classified as local city streets. Chowen Avenue has an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 265 vehicles with an 85th percentile speed of 28.1 MPH north of 58th Street West; and an ADT of 235 vehicles with an 85th of 29.0 MPH south of 58th Street West. 58th street West has an ADT of 2075 vehicles with an 85th of 29.4 MPH east of Chowen Avenue; and an ADT of 2260 vehicles with an 85th of 31.5 MPH west of Chowen Avenue. There are no recorded accidents at the intersection from 2001 to 2010. The closest accident was at the intersection of Ewing Avenue and 58th Street West (Property Damage, 2010). The City of Edina policy regarding an all -way stop sign requires at least 300 vehicles per hour for any eight hours at the intersection. Stop signs are not installed in an attempt to control speed or volume of vehicles. Volumes entering the intersection were calculated. This intersection did not have at least eight hours of vehicles entering the intersection. The highest number of hours over 300 vehicles were three in one day, which is Traffic Safety Committee Report June 6, 2012 Page 3 of 6 short of the required eight hours to warrant the placement of an all -way stop sign at this intersection. This intersection was also reviewed in 2010. It was determined at the time that placement of stop signs regulating traffic on 58th Street West was not needed due to stop signs at Beard Avenue and 58th Street West. Staff recommends denial of an all -way stop sign at 58th Street West and Chowen Avenue. 2. Request for a painted crosswalk on the northwest side of Wooddale Park. This request comes from a resident who frequents the area. Requestor did not give an address. The request is for pedestrians who would like to cross from Country Club Road into Wooddale Park. City Policy on crosswalks state that crosswalks should be placed in areas that have an excess of 20 pedestrian crossing the intersection for a minimum of two hours for any eight hour period. It is also City Policy to not place crosswalks at midblock locations. After observations were taken at the proposed area for the crosswalk, it was determined that this crosswalk would intersect a driveway on the north side of Country Club Road. • Staff recommends denial of a painted crosswalk in the area northwest of Wooddale Park. � 0 SECTION C: Requests that are deferred to a later date or referred to others. At this time, there are no requests that are deferred. SECTION D: Other traffic safety issues handled. 1. Request for speeds to be monitored in the area of Bruce Avenue and Country Club Road. Resident lives on the street and has stated that vehicles are going, "too fast" in the area. Country Club Road is a local street with an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 1305 vehicles and an 85th percentile speed of 26.4 MPH. Speed information forwarded to Edina Police Department. Traffic Safety Committee Report Page 4 of 6 June 6, 2012 • 2. Request for speeds to be monitored in the area of 57th Street West and Drew Avenue South. Resident lives on the street and has stated that vehicles are going, "too fast" in the area. 57th Street West is a local street with an ADT of 898 vehicles with an 85th of 27.0 MPH. Speed information forwarded to Edina Police Department. 3. Request for speeds to be monitored in the area of the 6000 block of Olinger Boulevard. Resident lives on the street and has stated that vehicles are going, "too fast" in the area. Olinger Boulevard is a State Aid street with an ADT of 1664 vehicles with an 85th of 32.9 MPH. Speed information forwarded to Edina Police Department 4. Five calls from the same resident requesting parking restrictions on Hillside Road. Resident has stated that vehicles park on Hillside Road and are blocking access to the road. Resident was informed of the State Statute restricting vehicles parking within the vicinity of stop signs. Resident was also informed of the placement of a sign at Countryside Park informing vehicles of the parking lot for the park. Resident was also informed that Hillside is a public street and the City of Edina does not restrict vehicles from parking on a public street unless parking restrictions are in place. This also includes streets that are under neighborhood reconstruction. 5. Call from another resident concerning parking on Hillside Road. Resident has suggested that the Parks Department to inform the parents that attend activities in Countryside Park of the parking lot on Colonial Way. Resident was informed that the Parks Department already does this. 6. Call from resident requesting traffic counts in the area of 501h Street West and France Avenue. Requestor was informed that the most recent count for 50th Street West had an Average Daily Traffic of 7260 vehicles with an 85th percentile speed of 22.6 MPH. 7. Call from resident concerning the proposed bike boulevard on Wooddale Avenue. Referred to Mike Anderson, Senior Transportation Engineer at Alliant. 8. Call from a resident requesting the crosswalk at 51St Street West and Halifax Avenue to be looked at. Resident was informed of the ongoing investigation of the area. 9. Call from a resident requesting traffic counts in the 4400 block of Valley View Road. Requestor was given the most recent count for the 4400 block of Valley View Road had an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 4924 vehicles with an 85th percentile speed of 38.1 MPH west and an ADT of Traffic Safety Committee Report Page 5 of 6 June 6, 2012 • 6702 vehicles with an 85th of 36.1 MPH east of 4400 block of Valley view Road. • • 10. Call from a resident requesting the vegetation blocking the stop signs on 54th Street West and Wooddale Avenue to be trimmed. Referred to Sign Shop. 11. Call from a resident requesting the northbound left turn lane of Valley View Road at the intersection of 66th Street West to be looked at. The resident stated that the road condition is very poor and is hazardous to vehicles. Referred to Streets Division. 12. The area around 70th Street West from Normandale Road to Valley View Road was reviewed. Traffic counts were recently conducted to gather post -construction volumes and speeds. The counts were compared to previous counts taken. Traffic Safety Committee Report Page 6 of 6 June 6, 2012 • 0 , TEMPORARY SPEED o e tl� TABLE BUMP N� O �y POLICY • ,�roR�e TE City of Edina PURPOSE: The purpose of a Temporary Speed Table is to provide a temporary traffic calming method for local streets that are experiencing and increase in speed of traffic due to road construction on nearby roadways. PROCESS: • Contact the Traffic Safety Coordinator. • The City Engineer may initiate the installation of a temporary speed table. • The Traffic Safety Coordinator will gather the pertinent facts to help define the problem and seek a solution. • The City Engineer will determine where the temporary speed table will be installed. POLICY: 1. The provisions of the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) shall be followed. 2. Traffic analysis, engineering, property use facts, emergency response routes, and school bus routes shall be reviewed when considering placement of a temporary speed table. 3. Speed tables will only be placed on non -municipal State Aid roadways that are nearby road construction projects. They shall remain for the duration of road construction project. 4. Traffic speeds must show a significant increase over the speed limit to warrant the installation of temporary speed tables. 5. The street that the temporary speed table is placed on should not have any unusual features which might affect safe road operations. The street should also have good vertical sight distance, horizontal distance, and drainage. • • Plan View Cross Section C IN -STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGN TRAFFIC POLICY City of Edina PURPOSE: Both pedestrians and motorists in the State of Minnesota have rights and responsibilities on the roadway. Statistics and public response continue to reveal that the rights of pedestrians are not very well respected by motorists. This fact increases the potential for accidents and pedestrian injury at crosswalks. The purpose of this policy is to allow the usage of and give guidance for the installation of the In -Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign (R1 -6b) in accordance with the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD). The In -Street Pedestrian Crossing sign (R1 -6b) may be used to remind road users of the Minnesota State law that requires the driver of a vehicle to stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk. It should be noted that studies show that excessive use of signs and pavement markings can substantially is reduce the effectiveness of such devices. Therefore, a consistent application of this policy will serve both the motorist and pedestrian within the City. PROCESS: The staff member you have contacted will formalize your traffic safety concern or request. That person will work with you and gather the pertinent facts to help clearly define the problem and seek a solution. City Staff will review those facts, determine if the request is warranted and will share this determination with you. If you disagree with the recommendation or can bring forth additional information and/or facts that are persuasive as related to the City warrants/policies for the requested issue, you may request that the Traffic Safety Committee review the issue. POLICY: The following guidelines are standards and warrants for the use of In - Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs (R1 -6b): 1. The provisions of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) shall be followed. 2. Relevant speed, volumes, accident records, pedestrian counts, sight obstructions and demographic analysis shall be reviewed when considering In -Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign installations. . 3. The sign shall not be used at intersections whose approaches are controlled by either stop signs or traffic control signals. 4. The sign should only be used at key locations, such as high • pedestrian volume crosswalks, to avoid overuse. 5. The sign shall only be used at existing crosswalk locations. 6. The sign shall only be used as an in -street sign, not on the outside shoulder or parking lane. When installed, the sign shall not impede or obstruct any traffic movement including through or turning movements. 7. When the sign is used at or in advance of a school crossing to supplement the ground mounted school warning signs, the sign shall include the SCHOOL plaque. 8. The sign shall be used seasonally due to safety issues with the use of the sign during the winter and to prevent damage during the winter because of plowing operations. 9. A maximum of ten qualifying locations shall be signed at one time throughout the City on a rotating basis, which shall help avoid overuse of the sign. 10. The sign shall only be installed on City Streets on a temporary basis and maintained by the City of Edina at qualifying locations that are determined and prioritized by staff . 11. The sign shall only be used in 35 mph or lower speed zones. 12. The sign shall only be used on streets with vehicle traffic volumes that exceed 1,500 vehicles per day. 13. Only one sign structure shall be used per approach at marked crosswalks. 14. Any of the following supplemental conditions may warrant the signs installation: a. Those locations adjacent to and along established pedestrian routes to and from a school. b. Locations adjacent to community centers, libraries, and other high use public facilities. C. Locations adjacent to public parks. d. Locations where accident records, sight obstructions and/or pedestrian volume warrants the installation. e. Locations where significant numbers of handicapped persons cross a street. f. Locations where significant numbers of senior citizens cross a street. Note: The Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2003 edition approved use of In - Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs. Minnesota will be adding this sign as an option in the 2005 edition of the MN MUTCD. Until this sign is incorporated into the MN MUTCD, Technical Memorandum No. 04-11-T-02 documents the approval of this device when installed under the preceding guidelines. Approved by City Council on August 2, 2005 Page 2 of 2 G:\Engineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\policies\2005 in -street ped malk sign.doc 0 0 °kms+ E;..a MULTIWAY STOP SIGNS En � STOP Up 0 TRAFFIC POLICY rynnA�^wp City of Edina PURPOSE: The purpose of the multiway stop sign policy is to provide fair and uniform treatment of all requests for multiway, all way, and 4 -way stop signs. Multiway stop signs can be an effective safety measure if properly warranted. They should not be installed inappropriately where they may be ignored by drivers, needlessly interrupt traffic flow, and negatively affect fuel consumption, the environment, or cause needless noise. A consistent application of the policy serves both the motorist and resident within the City. PROCESS: The staff member you have contacted will formalize your traffic safety concern or request. That person will work with you and gather the pertinent facts to help clearly define the problem and seek a solution. City staff will review those facts, determine if the request is warranted and will share this determination with you. If you disagree with the recommendation or can bring for the additional information and/or facts that are persuasive as related to the City warrants/policies for the requested issue, you may request that the Traffic Safety Committee review the issue. POLICY: 1. The provisions of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) shall be followed. 2. Relevant speed, volumes, accident records and sight obstructions shall be reviewed when considering the installation of a stop sign. 3. Absent engineering data which clearly indicates the need for a multiway stop sign, control devices at an intersection will remain unchanged. MULTIWAY STOP SIGN POLICY (CONTINUED0 ) 4. Any of the following conditions may warrant a multiway stop sign installation: • 0 a. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multiway stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. b. A crash problem, as indicated by 5 or more reported crashes in a 12 -month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi -way stop installation. Such crashes include right- and left -turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Minimum volumes: 1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor -street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour, but 3. If the 85th -percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the above values. d. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition. 5. Multiway stop signs shall not be installed in an attempt to control speed. 6. Multiway stop signs shall not be installed in an attempt to control volume. • 9�—, ON STREET PARKING e Vco � CONTROL Z r� ° y ... TRAFFIC POLICY ee City of Edina PURPOSE: The purpose of an on street parking control policy is to enhance the safety of motorists and pedestrians as well as facilitating effective parking capacities in certain demand areas. The prohibition of long-term residential and non-residential parking exists within City of Edina Code 1400.10, however, it can be reinforced with appropriate signage. Also, special parking needs can be accomplished with the application of this policy. On street parking control serves the motorist, pedestrian, and resident within the community. PROCESS: Your traffic safety concern or request will be formalized by the staff member you have contacted. That person will work with you and gather the pertinent facts and help clearly define the problem and seek a solution. Those facts will be reviewed by the City Engineer, the Police Chief, and the Assistant City Manager. That group will make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the matter. The staff safety review recommendation will be shared with you. If you disagree with the 40 recommendation or can bring forth additional information and/or facts that are persuasive as related to the City warrants/policies for the requested issue, you can appear at the second Council meeting of the month and present your viewpoint. We suggest you alert any interested parties to attend the meeting with you. In all cases the City Council is the final authority on traffic safety matters. Any subsequent review of the same or similar request is at the discretion of the City Council. POLICY: 1. The provisions of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) shall be followed. 2. Traffic analysis, engineering, and property use facts and data shall be reviewed when considering on street parking control. 3. Absent supporting facts and data streets will not be subjected to parking controls. 4. Any of the following conditions may warrant the establishment of on street parking controls: a. Identified bus stops. • � 0 10 ON STREET PARKING CONTROL (CONTINUED) b. Prohibiting parking near an intersection to improve sight lines. C. Where the street is too narrow to allow safe passage if parking is permitted. d. On collector and arterial streets if the curb lane is required for thru traffic during peak periods. e. In conjunction with school and pedestrian crosswalks. f. In conjunction with turning lanes and other lane restrictions when the curb lane is used for thru traffic. g. At connecting intersections to controlled access highways. h. On roadways designed with four or more lanes. i. In other than R-1 or R-2 (residential) zones to effectively improve parking capacity: 1. Hourly restrictions 2. Daily restrictions j. In R-1 or R-2 (residential) zones when residential parking is negatively affected by non-resident parking from a permitted use such as a school, church, park or community center: 1. Hourly restrictions 2. Daily restrictions 3. Neighborhood support via petition or public hearing 4. Bans 5. Handicap Parking shall not be permitted on a public street 6. Parking controls shall not be installed for business, commercial or industrial interest when it would adversely affect normal residential parking CJ • '9i�11 o e � PEDESTRIAN cc .�0 CROSSWALKS TRAFFIC POLICY City of Edina PURPOSE: Both pedestrians and motorists in the State of Minnesota have rights and responsibilities on the roadway. Pedestrians must obey signals and yield to motorists if not crossing at an intersection or a crosswalk. Conversely, motorists are required to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks and when crossing at intersections. In other parts of the country, this law works well and pedestrians are protected. In Minnesota, the rights of pedestrians are not as respected by motorists. This fact creates the potential for accidents and injury with the improper placement of crosswalks. Excessive use of signs and pavement markings can substantially reduce the effectiveness of such devices. A consistent application of this policy will serve both the motorist and pedestrian within the City. PROCESS: Your traffic safety concern or request will be formalized by the staff member you have contacted. That person will work with you and gather the pertinent facts and help clearly define the problem and seek a solution. Those facts will be reviewed by the Traffic Safety Committee That group will make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the matter. The staff safety review recommendation will be shared with you. If you disagree with the recommendation or can bring forth additional information and/or facts that are persuasive as related to the City warrants/policies for the requested issue, you can appear at the second Council meeting of the month and present your viewpoint. We suggest you alert any interested parties to attend the meeting with you. In all cases the City Council is the final authority on traffic safety matters. Any subsequent review of the same or similar request is at the discretion of the City Council. POLICY: 1. The provisions of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) shall be followed. 2. Relevant speed, volumes, accident records, pedestrian counts, sight obstructions and demographic analysis shall be reviewed when considering pedestrian crosswalk installations. 3. Absent engineering data, that clearly indicates the need for a pedestrian crosswalk, intersections will remain unmarked. 4. Pedestrian crosswalks unusually hazardous or pedestrian movement. Revised 5-20-03 by City Council shall be placed only at locations that are at locations not readily apparent as having PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS (Continued) 5. Pedestrian crosswalks shall 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. 6. Marking of pedestrian crosswalks shall be established by analyzing the "Vehicle Gap Time". The "Vehicle Gap Time" is the total number of gaps between vehicular traffic (that are equal to or exceed the required pedestrian crossing time of three feet per second) recorded during the average five minute period in the Peak Hour. Pedestrian crosswalks shall be marked and signed using the following criteria: a. More than five Gaps — Pavement markings and signage only. b. Four to five Gaps — Add activated pedestal mounted flasher. Add overhead mounted flasher if roadway is over 40 feet wide. c. Less than three Gaps — Add activated overhead mounted flasher. The activated pedestal and overhead mounted flasher shall be designed per City Engineer Standards. 7. Pedestrian crosswalks shall not be located on arterial roads or roads with a speed limit greater than 30 MPH unless in conjunction with signalization. 8. Pedestrian crosswalks shall only be placed at intersections. 9. Any of the following conditions may warrant pedestrian crosswalks: a. Those locations adjacent to and along established pedestrian routes to and from a school. b. Locations adjacent to community centers, libraries, and other high use public facilities. C. Locations adjacent to public parks. d. Locations where accident records, sight obstructions and/or pedestrian volume (see No. 5) warrants the installation. e. Locations where significant numbers of handicapped persons cross a street. f. Locations where significant numbers of senior citizens cross a street. Revised 5-20-03 by City Council 2 0 RESIDENTIAL STOP SIGNS TRAFFIC POLICY do City of Edina PURPOSE: The purpose of the residential stop sign policy is to provide fair and uniform treatment of all requests for stop signs in residential areas. A consistent application of the policy serves both the motorist and resident within the City. PROCESS: Your traffic safety concern or request will be formalized by the staff member you have contacted. That person will work with you and gather the pertinent facts and help clearly define the problem and seek a solution. Those facts will be reviewed by the City Engineer, the Police Chief, and the Assistant City Manager. That group will make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the matter. The staff safety review recommendation will be shared with you. If you disagree with the recommendation or can bring forth additional information and/or facts that are persuasive as related to the City warrants/policies for the requested issue, you can appear at the second Council meeting of the month and present your viewpoint. We suggest you alert any interested parties to attend the meeting with you. In all cases the City Council is the final authority on traffic safety matters. Any subsequent review of the same or similar request is at the discretion of the City Council. POLICY: 1. The provisions of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) shall be followed. 2. Relevant speed, volumes, accident records and sight obstructions shall be reviewed when considering the installation of a stop sign. 3. Absent engineering data which clearly indicates the need for a stop sign, a residential intersection should be left uncontrolled. 4. If an intersection experiences five (5) or more right angle accidents in a three (3) year period, stop signs should be considered. 5. If the presence of a sight obstruction is contributing to accidents at an intersection, removal of the sight obstruction should be sought before considering a stop sign. RESIDENTIAL STOP SIGN POLICY (Continued) 6. If the 85th percentile speed on any leg of an intersection is more than five (5) MPH over the posted speed limit, a stop sign should be considered for the intersecting street. 7. If traffic volumes exceed 1,000 vehicles per day on each of the intersecting streets, stop signs should be considered. 8. Residential stop signs shall not be installed in an attempt to control speed. 9. Residential stop signs shall not be installed in an attempt to control volume. • a�9e , WARNING SIGNS 0 TRAFFIC POLICY O „2y • f�'�RroA.wTw° ,eee City of Edina PURPOSE: Warning signs are used when it is deemed necessary to warn traffic of existing or potentially hazardous conditions on or adjacent to a highway or street. Warning signs require caution on the part of the vehicle operator and may call for a reduction in speed or a maneuver in the interest of safety for the motorist or pedestrian. The use of warning signs should be kept to a minimum. Overuse of warning signs, especially for conditions which are apparent, tends to breed disrespect for signs in general, and they lose their effectiveness. Warning signs many times have an initial positive effect but soon lose the attention of regular passers-by. At speeds under 35 MPH motorists using due care can respond to hazards or conditions presented in the roadway without the need for warning signs. PROCESS: Your traffic safety concern or request will be formalized by the staff member you have contacted. That person will work with you and gather the pertinent facts and help clearly define the problem and seek a solution. Those facts will be reviewed by the City Engineer, the Police Chief, and the Assistant City Manager. That group will make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the matter. The staff safety review recommendation will be shared • with you. If you disagree with the recommendation or can bring forth additional information and/or facts that are persuasive as related to the City warrants/policies for the requested issue, you can appear at the second Council meeting of the month and present your viewpoint. We suggest you alert any interested parties to attend the meeting with you. In all cases the City Council is the final authority on traffic safety matters. Any subsequent review of the same or similar request is at the discretion of the City Council. POLICY: 1. The provisions of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) shall be followed. 2. Traffic analysis, engineering, and property use facts and data shall be reviewed when considering warning signs. 3. Absent supporting facts and data, warning signs will not be erected on residential streets. 4. Any of the following conditions may warrant the installation of a warning sign: a. Speed Advisory Warning Sign In conjunction with another warning sign where geometrics or operating conditions warrant a reduced speed. b. Curve or Turn Warning Sign Installed in residential locations when inadequate sight lines warrant. Installed when a street or roadway turns at a right angle. • 0 0 WARNING SIGN POLICY (Continued) C. Park or Playground Warning Sign Installed on the park property at the focal point or entrance to the park. d. Blind Driveway Warning Sign Installed on collector or arterial roadways where the speed limit is 35 MPH or greater and inadequate sight lines warrant. e. International Pedestrian Warning Sign Installed on established pedestrian routes where 10 pedestrians per hour for two continuous hours are documented. f. School, School Crossing, & School Bus Stop Warning Signs Installation in accordance with Part VII of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) g. Advance Crossing Warning Signs (Deer, Bicycles. Etc.) Not installed on 30 MPH roadways - installed on collector or arterial roadways with a speed limit of 35 MPH or greater. h. Senior Citizen and Disabled Pedestrian Crossing Warning Signs Installed on any street or highway in the vicinity of a senior citizen housing project, nursing home, residential care facility or other location generating crossings by seniors or disabled persons. i. Children at Play Warning Signs Not installed within the City of Edina. This sign has been incorporated into the International Pedestrian Warning Sign (see e. above). j. Hill Warning Sign Installed in advance of a downgrade where the length percent of grade horizontal curvature or other physical features require special precautic on the part of drivers. k. Stop Ahead, Yield Ahead, Signals Ahead Warning Signs Installed on approaches where the traffic control sign is not continuous visible to the driver. I. Chevron Alignment Warning Sign Installed to give notice of a sharp change of alignment with the directioi of travel. M. Dead End/No Outlet Warning Signs Installed where a roadway terminates in a dead end or where a turn -ab is necessary to return to a point of origin. n. Disabled Person Warning Signs (i) (Warning signs will be installed upon the request of a disabled person or by the representative of a disabled person. (ii) Requestors will be asked to notify the City to remove the sign wt the disability no longer exists or the person moves. (iii) Disability specific signs or signs of a more generic nature will be the choice of the requestor. (iv) Signs shall be black on yellow, standard warning colors. (v) Signs available include: - "Deaf Child", "Deaf Child Area" - "Blind Child", "Blind Child Area" - "Disabled Child/Person", "Disabled Child/Person Area", or - The generic "International Pedestrian" sign • 0 0 w� ° e o YIELD SIGNS VV \•l�a z�9=ay TRAFFIC POLICY City of Edina PURPOSE: Yield signs are used to protect traffic on one of two intersecting streets without requiring traffic on the other street to come to a complete stop. Studies indicate Yield signs are effective in certain low volume conditions with adequate sight distances. Some efficiencies in accident reduction, delays, and operating costs can be realized with the use of Yield signs. PROCESS: Your traffic safety concern or request will be formalized by the staff member you have contacted. That person will work with you and gather the pertinent facts and help clearly define the problem and seek a solution. Those facts will be reviewed by the City Engineer, the Police Chief, and the Assistant City Manager. That group will make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the matter. The staff safety review recommendation will be shared with you. If you disagree with the recommendation or can bring forth additional information and/or facts that are persuasive as related to the City warrants/policies for the requested issue, you can appear at the second Council meeting of the month and present your viewpoint. We suggest you alert any interested parties to attend the meeting with you. In all cases the City Council is the final authority on traffic safety matters. Any subsequent review of the same or similar request is at the discretion of the City Council. Their recommendation will be shared with you and if you disagree with it or can bring forth additional facts you can appear at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting and present your viewpoint. In all cases the City Council is the final authority on traffic safety matters. POLICY: 1. The provisions of the Minnesota Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) shall be followed. 2. Relevant speed, volumes, accident records, signt distances, and other pertinent data shall be reviewed when considering the installation of a Yield sign. 3. Absent engineering data in support of a Yield sign, intersections shall remain uncontrolled. 0 YIELD SIGNS (Continued) 4. Any of the following conditions may warrant the installation of a Yield sign. a. At the entrance to an intersection where it is necessary to assign right of way and where the safe approach speed on the entrance exceeds 10 MPH based on adequate sight distance. b. Where there is a separate or channelized right turn lane without an adequate acceleration lane. C. At intersections where all legs of the intersection do not exceed 800 vehicles/hour for any given hour. (Must also comply with (a) above.) d. At any intersection where engineering studies identify special problems that are correctable by Yield signs. 5. Yield signs shall not be used to control traffic traveling on a collector or arterial roadway. 6. Yield signs shall not be used to control traffic entering a collector or arterial roadway. 7. Yield signs shall not be used on more than one approach of an intersection. i� C_n 6DINA Bike Edina Task Force: News & Meeting Outcomes May 10, 2012 Purpose: The Bike Edina Task Force (BETF) meets to serve citizens and partner with City staff and elected officials to promote bicycle improvements in Edina for education, encouragement, infrastructure, enforcement, and ongoing assessment. We support implementation of the approved City of Edina Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan that serves all levels of bicyclists, connects key destinations including safe routes to schools, and integrates with the Twin Cities' regional bike network. Our vision is a progressive bicycle -friendly community where citizens can integrate cycling into their daily lives. Time & Location: BETF monthly on the 2°a Thursday of each month at 8 p.m. in the Mayor's Conference Room at Edina City Hall. For questions contact Peter Kelley, Chair. Guests are welcome. • Distribution: BETF, guests, City Manager, City Engineer, Edina Police BETF Liaison Sgt. Timothy Olson, SHIP contact Robyn Wiesman, and Mayor & City Council. Also Dianne Plunkett Latham to post for the Edina Energy and Environment Commission. • Present: Ellen Jones, Peter Kelley, Sally Dunn, Larry Olson, Brad Schaeppi, Kirk Johnson, Marty Mathis, Don Eyberg, Rob Erickson, • Absent: Alice Hulbert, Carl Gulbronson, Alex Johnson, , Jennifer Janovy, Carl Follstad, Tom Randall • Guests: Kristopher Wilson • Recorded by: Kirk Johnson & Peter Kelley 1. Project Updates a. Bike Boulevard – City Council Vote on the 15th (was passed!). All members are encouraged to attend and write to the council to voice their support for the project. Peter will write a letter from the BETF stating the group's support of the project. Marty discussed conversation with opponent to the plan who came to his door—a key issue was spending government money. More conversation needs to be had to understand reasons for opposing biking intrastructure. is b. Bike Racks ---- Peter reported that Wayne Houle believes delivery of the racks • will happen within a few weeks. He pressed for specific delivery dates, but had not heard back prior to this meeting. Everything appears to be on track for an early summer installation, but this project has already taken far longer than anyone thought, so BETF needs to continue to follow up. Brad stated the need to publicize the installation of the racks as soon as it happens. c. Striping Projects (Antrim, Cahill, Valleyview, 70th) – Peter reported that Wayne said the plans were almost ready and everything was on track for implementation later this summer. Specific plans have not yet been seen by the BETF. d. Tracy Ave. Redevelopment – Project is being put out to bid, construction should start soon thereafter. e. Gallagher Drive—Nine mile creek trail segment. Up for Council approval on May 15. No serious objection identified. 2. Grandview Project Plan – Ellen talked about her work on the plan. A Framework has been presented to the city and approved by the council. There are no specific dates or development timetables attached to the plan at this point. Ellen thought it would be useful for the BETF to more carefully review the plan and provide any input to city on bike specific matters. Peter suggested a subcommittee of 2-4 people. Marty and Brad agreed to work with Ellen to review the current plan. • 3. Bike Rodeo Recap –Larry provided an overview of the event which occurred on April 21 at Cornelia Elementary. It was a great success. 68 kids registered for the event and participated in a dozen safety stations. Parents were very complimentary and asked about other similar events. Carl F. took pictures and will forward them to Peter to post on the Blog. Larry agreed to organize the event again next year. He discussed the possibility of making the individual stations more exciting, through balloons, music, etc. BETF is grateful for the participation of the Edina Police, do.town, councilman Sprague, and Hoigaards. 4. Bike Safety/Sidewalk Riding – The group discussed Statute 169.222 and clarified that bicycles can impede traffic when riding legally, single file. Sidewalk riding is not allowed in business districts, but was thought to be legal in other areas. Follow-up by Jennifer after the meeting revealed that biking is technically not allowed on any sidewalks in the city of Edina. More discussion to be held at future meetings. 5. BETF Status – City manager Scott Neal has stated his opinion that the BETF is completely independent from the city. As a result the group discussed it's formal status: whether to pursue formal nonprofit status or reopen the possibility of becoming a subcommittee of the Edina Transportation Committee. Ellen offered to ask a lawyer acquaintance his opinion of that the BETF's options might be. Further discussion is necessary. 6. Handicapped Biking initiative — Larry received a request for resources to help • handicapped kids learn to bike. He will work with Kirk to identify possibilities and forward them to the teacher who made the request. 7. Biking and Aging — Sally discussed a presentation she attended at Midwest Mountaineering that provided great information about biking for senior citizens. It provided information on special equipment and techniques to make biking safer and more comfortable for older riders. All agreed that this would be a great demographic for the BETF to support in the future. • C] 0 REGULAR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Edina Transportation Commission From: Wayne D. Houle, PE Director of Engineering Date: June 21, 2012 Subject: Preview of 2013 Neighborhood Reconstruction Projects Agenda Item No.: IX.A. ACTION: ❑ Recommendation/Motion ❑ Discussion ® Information Info/Background: 40 Staff would like to share the proposed 2013 Neighborhood Reconstruction project maps with the ETC. We are anticipating hosting early July information meetings for these project and will have feasibility studies to share with ETC in September with a vote from the ETC anticipated at the October meeting. A public hearing is anticipated with the City Council in early December. Chad Millner — Assistant City Engineer will be the liaison for this meeting and will be able to answer possible questions you may have on these projects. • Attachments: • 2013 Neighborhood Reconstruction Projects: o Mendelssohm A Neighborhood - BA -393 o Normandale Neighborhood — BA -394 o Braemer Hills B Neighborhood — BA -395 o St. Patricks Lane Neighborhood — BA -396 o Gleason Cir Neighborhood — BA -397 o Lake Edina Neighborhood — BA -398 G:\Engineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\TRANSP COMM\Agendas\2012 R&R\20120621\20120621 Item IX A Preview of 2013 Neighborhood Reconstruction Projects.docx 301 300 301 300 301 6201 K 309 F 304 y 305 306 305 6205 311 308 309 308 lk 309 405 315 314 315 315 6204 6200 0 6224 622 321 6320 318 317 6216 6208 409 409 412 BELMORE LN Y 401 6301 6217 6233 6221 405 404 6229 0 w 409 408 409 409 412 Y g 413 m 412 413 413 414 417 416 417 416 w 417 f 421 420 Z O 421 ao �`"., 420 N Wa' 421 N 6214 MA NEY AVE 501 500 z 505 504 M 6229 6223 505 509 508 509 513 513 512 517 521 N (O cq 66220 6324 `M° O O � 605 6321 6313 6309 6305 6225 609 6308 6304 6300 6228 6224 6328 621 6320 6321 I 5004 I l 5000 6201 6202 6201 PROJECT LIMITS 6200 1 5008 o� eti� Project Area W N E o Mendelssohn A Street Reconstruction S i ~ Improvement No: BA -393 Engineering March, 20112p1 PROJECT LIMITS 6400 W 6416 'a Qa V 6424 W x N 6432 6324 4860 4850 6332 6401 4841 6409 6408 6417 6416 6425 6424 6433 6432 6433 16432 631 6321 6320 6325 6324 6401 6325 6324 6404 6408 6333 6332 6425 6416 W 64TH ST 6432 6401 6400 6509 6409 6408 > 6417 6416 a a J ;fes 6516 6517 > 6425 6424 Z a 6525 6526 529 6532 a 6433 16432 631 6321 6320 6325 6324 6401 4717 6409 6404 6408 6417 6412 6425 6416 6433 6432 3 6309 6308 6-3 3 6312 62 6309 6308 6313 6312 6317 6316 6321 1 6320 W 65TH ST W 65TH ST 6500 6501 6500 6501 6500 6501 6500 6508 6509 6508 6509 6508 6509 6508 6512 6517 6516 ;fes 6516 6517 6512 011 6517 6516 6525 6524 6524 6525 6526 529 6532 4812 4730 6528 6533 4728 6533 4720 W 66TH ST 6601 6601 4905 6604 6600 6601 4705 6600 4809 6605 \� ti 2 Project AreaN E W+ 0 e °� 0 Normandale Street Reconstruction S ° ° a Improvement No: BA -394 Engineering Dept March, 2012 6913 6829 602 6901 6828 6905 11 PROJECT LIMITS 6903 32 6836 6840 E 6909 6908 6909 .... 000. A 6 6905 6998 6994 6913 6907 6112 7004 6917 6124 6120 6116 7000 6990 6200 6128 6921 SCOTIA DR 6986 6121 6117 6113 7001 6982 �. 6125 � 4 6205 6201 a 7009 ------ as 7014 7012 7015 8 7009 7016 CIP, 7016 TUPA � 7013 ------ 7022 7019 08 _.�._ .__._. "'•` 7101 7018 7020 7012 7101 7020 ...... 7100 71057115 6234 7109 7113 7117 -_ 7024 7122 7123 710 GLEASON RD 6200 7129 7028 2 6208 6161 7116 7120 6204 7124 6203 6201 7128 7131 7032 ID \1A A, Project Area ° e )y� o Braemar Hills B Street Reconstruction a Improvement No: BA -395 N W+E S Engineering Dept May, 2012 Lox 08 ly Z 0 W J 1 " 6 21 1913 1911 6721 1 6732 6901 �0•1 6717 167721676867646760 VALLEY VIEW RD 6905 IMILW-A� 6832 /6836 6905 ""IRM 6998 676990 913 6907 """" ""as " ' 6120 6116 7000 6917 6124 6112 7004 6200 6128 6921 \14 A, 4, /ti Project Area e >C' St Patricks Lane Street Reconstruction > 0 i Y Improvement No: BA -396 N W+E S Engineering Dept May, 2012 ..... 6804 6028 6805 _ 6808 6820 6809 PROJECT LIMITS 6813 6 ------ 6816 681 6817 -1 J --- -- 6820 6821 N 2 6821 a 6824 6825 6901 717-1 6905 IMILW-A� 6832 /6836 6905 ""IRM 6998 676990 913 6907 """" ""as " ' 6120 6116 7000 6917 6124 6112 7004 6200 6128 6921 \14 A, 4, /ti Project Area e >C' St Patricks Lane Street Reconstruction > 0 i Y Improvement No: BA -396 N W+E S Engineering Dept May, 2012 67211 6732 6717 6772 6768 6764 6760 6800 0 6803 6 6805808 6812 6817 6816 6820 6824 28 6821 6825 U Z 0 6829 6913 6901 0 6901 W 6911 J 04 6903 VALLEY VIEW RD 680116763 6905 6905 6909 \ 08 6909 6908 6909 6905 912 6913 6907 6916 6917 6124 6120 6116 6112 7004 7000 6200 6128 27 6920 6921 <,/ 100A 2 Project Area W " E °e N Gleason Cir Street Reconstruction rC � )o S Y a Engineering Dept Improvement o■■ B % May, 2012 6805 6820 6809 6813 6817 Z J co 2 6821 PROJECT LIMITS 1 a co 6901 6905 6905 6909 \ 08 6909 6908 6909 6905 912 6913 6907 6916 6917 6124 6120 6116 6112 7004 7000 6200 6128 27 6920 6921 <,/ 100A 2 Project Area W " E °e N Gleason Cir Street Reconstruction rC � )o S Y a Engineering Dept Improvement o■■ B % May, 2012 11 "399 LAKE EDINA 4928 4924 4920 4932 4916 POPPY L 4912 491 4913 4908 W 4909 4904 V944 4905 7" 949 4900 4948 7504 4901 952 y 7461 509 7507 7503 7 7 7465 AO 7405 7404 4721 HIBISCUS AVE 471 1u! 7409 7401 7408 i 471 470 470 4701 4521 4517 4515 4509 4505 Q 7411 7400 7405 7412 4504 O 7417 7404 7409 4512 4508 7416 J 4520 4516 7421 w 74087413 �M�.N 7501 v 7412 $�� 4509 450 4501 7505 7432 7428 7424 7420 7417 7416 4525 4521 4517451 7436 7421 7440 7425 7437 7433 7429 4 c� 7441 — 7445 n �2 Project Area e >0� o Lake Edina Street Reconstruction i Y Improvement No: BA -398 7636 N W+E S Engineering Dept May, 2012 4728\C12T7214=704141UUJ6913 6912 4512 4504 6908 4424 20 4416 4412 4408 4404 W 70TH ■ 809 4807 4805 4801 7001 521 51 4517 4515 7000 7001 25 21 :4J4174413 7005 ■■ 4908 4904 4900 4824 7000 7008 O 7 N D N W V �7 v v 5004444 0 7012 4820 N r v> 4445 4437 o m o 4n 4812 4711 7016 v o h N y 4 450 4501 qg2 7020 7021 7020 ro m m 490 4817 SA 4800 490 7024 45 4500 7025 7024 v a v v v 490 4813 "1'� 7029 7028 482 4809 7100 O 4 805 o v Oy 9SA 4816 7104 7033 7032 v h 4521�64513509 505 ,� o-0 b00 481 �s� 4801 710 v 7037 7036 92 o-yry^ as1 480 7104o- 7112 PROJECT LIMITS 71°8 4440" 7040 4912 a� 13 4800 Z 4908 4813 472 472 471 471 470 4704 �ry 4500 o -o- 4809 470 71 ao- 7117 4517 v o- poo- 4805 m �� 490 4801 472 SPASIA CIR 7121 13 509 o- o-0 yGZj 481 4920 �� 480 4721 471 471 470 4705 470 7200 4516 4501 512 508 a°4 -o y ° ary N p°o 4916 4903 48 480 4708o o -o -o- 4500 o- o- LANTANA LN 4700 7204 7208 7212 7204 v o -Om o-4 �ry� ry o- o- 4517 513 o -a N 4405 4401 509 F49J2. v 480 4801 7200 7216 7208 7212 505 7209 4501o- ^� 4412 7204 7201720 7200 o- o- 4408 7208 a o N 7204 7209 7220 7216 7213 vo-00 ry o -°N 4421 o- 4912 m 480 4804 480 v v Z 7208 7209 7213 -1 7220 7217 7204 v 4405 °' ory N N4404 7212 HIBISCUS AVE 7224 7213 7217 O 7224 4453 7221 7208 o -o -a v o -o- v 1 4412 gg00 7216 7212 Q. 7228 7217 7221 Q 7228 7212 7225 4452 m `T v 334429 00 490E 490 490 o v ^ Z 7232 4754 7225 O 7300 7301 7300 o- o -°p as 442 4421 41 1 0 05 4401 ay0y o --0f ay 7233 7229 7236 4757 7304 a 7305 7304 7301 AA 443 4428 4424442 16 12 044 44 475 7240 7308 7309 7308 7305 m 4749 7252 248 7244 7312 7313 7312 7313 v ^ Vp O r M 4745 4712 7316 P V N N O O 7317 7316 7317 `r 4720 4716 4741 4708 7320 N 0 ao N o N N N v o X LN 7324 a 4600 4520 a y o 4737 4700 4702 4704 7328 4733 4724 7332 9 460vNi vNi vNi u`� in voi uoi uoi 25 4421 17 13 09 405 4401 v v o a e o e a v v 4729 4716 4725 471 470 4704 4608 4604 4600 4520 4516 4512 4508 4504 4500 7401 7400 11 "399 LAKE EDINA 4928 4924 4920 4932 4916 POPPY L 4912 491 4913 4908 W 4909 4904 V944 4905 7" 949 4900 4948 7504 4901 952 y 7461 509 7507 7503 7 7 7465 AO 7405 7404 4721 HIBISCUS AVE 471 1u! 7409 7401 7408 i 471 470 470 4701 4521 4517 4515 4509 4505 Q 7411 7400 7405 7412 4504 O 7417 7404 7409 4512 4508 7416 J 4520 4516 7421 w 74087413 �M�.N 7501 v 7412 $�� 4509 450 4501 7505 7432 7428 7424 7420 7417 7416 4525 4521 4517451 7436 7421 7440 7425 7437 7433 7429 4 c� 7441 — 7445 n �2 Project Area e >0� o Lake Edina Street Reconstruction i Y Improvement No: BA -398 7636 N W+E S Engineering Dept May, 2012 o e m � I�OORPOFi?`T�� IBea REGULAR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Edina Transportation Commission From: Wayne D. Houle, PE Director of Engineering Date: June 21, 2012 Subject: Draft Sidewalk Project Feasibilities Agenda Item No.: IX.B. ACTION: ❑ Recommendation/Motion ❑ Discussion ❑ Information Info/Background: is Staff recently shared four draft sidewalk feasibility studies during a discussion on special assessments and sidewalk funding with the City Council, see attached studies. The purpose of sharing the feasibility studies was to share the cost of these projects as they relate to funding, such as special assessments or utilizing too much of our yearly Municipal State Aid allotment. The City Council directed staff to look into other funding sources for sidewalk construction. Staff does not have a proposed schedule for these sidewalk projects. 0 Attachments: • Draft Sidewalk Feasibility Study: Xerxes Avenue from West 56th Street to West 60th Street — S46 • Draft Sidewalk Feasibility Study: West 42nd Street from France Avenue to Oakdale Avenue— S47 • Draft Sidewalk Feasibility Study: Normandale Road — S105 • Draft Sidewalk Feasibility Study: West 60th Street and School Road — S108 G:\Engineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\TRANSP COMM\Agendas\2012 R&R\20120621 \20120621 Item IX B Sidewalk Projects Feasibility Studies.docx 4'9IN�\l''1r ok a H O FEASIBILITY STUDY - S46 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS XERXES AVENUE SIDEWALK BETWEEN WEST 56TH STREET AND WEST 601h STREET MAY 24, 2012 SUMMARY: The estimated total project cost is $480,000. Funding for the entire project will come from Municipal State Aid funds since Xerxes Avenue is County State Aid Road (CSAH 31). A number of engineering challenges exist but these can be overcome during design and construction of the sidewalk. The major challenge is getting assistance from Excel Energy to relocate utility poles. The project could be completed during the 2012 construction season. Staff believes the project is feasible to create a safe pedestrian link along Xerxes Avenue. LOCATION: The Xerxes Avenue Sidewalk Project runs along the west side of Xerxes Avenue from 56th Street to 60th Street, a distance of approximately 2500 feet (See Figure 1). A .W 56TH ST, _ i A e' i 4 tt! Project Area Xerxes Ave Sidewalk ^.hh Improvement No: S46 e - Existing Bituminous Sidewalk - --- Existing Concrete Sidewalk eoom�n� oaw • Proposed State -Aid Sidewalk r y. au,z Proposed Concrete Sidewalk Feasibility Study Xerxes Avenue Sidewalk Improvement No. S46 May 24, 2012 Figure 1. Project Area Map 01TIATION & ISSUES: The City Council directed the Engineering Department to do a feasibility study on the proposed sidewalk along the west side of Xerxes Avenue from 56th Street to 60th Street. The City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update has a plan for future sidewalks and bicycle facilities. The proposed sidewalk along Xerxes Avenue is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (Attachments A & B). The following are existing features that were used in determining the feasibility of the project and are addressed in this report: • Missing segment of sidewalk between 56th Street and 60th Street on west side of Xerxes Avenue • Existing fences, walls, and out -walk sidewalks • Right-of-way issues • Steep slopes • Existing trees and landscaping • Safety of residents • Snow removal • Existing utility poles located within construction area • Traffic volume between approximately 8,700 and 15,200 vehicles per day EXISTING CONDITIONS: The existing roadway is a Hennepin County Roadway (CSAH 31) and is a bituminous surface with concrete curb and gutter, approximately 41 feet wide with a concrete 46 sidewalk that runs the full length on the east side of the roadway. The City of Minneapolis is located along the east side of CSAH 31. The sidewalk on the west extends both north of 56th Street and south of 60th Street along Xerxes Avenue (See Photos 1 and 2). 0 Page 2 of 8 Feasibility Study Xerxes Avenue Sidewalk Improvement No. S46 May 24, 2012 Photo 1. North of 56th Street on Xerxes Avenue • 17-'� • Photo 2. South of 60th Street on Xerxes Avenue The existing boulevard along the west side of Xerxes Avenue has locations of steep boulevard grades, concrete stairs and sidewalks, lannon stone and block retaining walls, large mature trees, utility poles, and fire hydrants (See Photos 3, 4, and 5). Photo 3. 5616 Xerxes Looking South on France Avenue Page 3 of 8 Feasibility Study Xerxes Avenue Sidewalk Improvement No. S46 May 24, 2012 0 0 I Photo 4. 5608 Xerxes Avenue looking South Photo 5. 5740 Xerxes Avenue looking North Page 4 of 8 Feasibility Study Xerxes Avenue Sidewalk Improvement No. S46 May 24, 2012 SOPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: C The Xerxes Avenue Sidewalk Improvements would consist of a 5 foot wide concrete walk with a 4 foot grass boulevard from 56th Street to 60th Street on the west side of CSAH 31 (See Photo 6). There is existing concrete curb and gutter along Xerxes Avenue and the sidewalk will be constructed with little disturbance to the existing concrete curb and gutter. Photo 6. Boulevard Style Sidewalk There are four (4) utility poles that are located within the construction area that may need to be either removed or relocated by Xcel Energy. In a few select cases, the sidewalk may be adjusted to limit utility pole work. Between 56th Street and 59th Street, there are approximately five (5) trees (elm, oak, and box elder) ranging in diameter from 4" to 30" that will need to be removed (See Photo 7). Page 5 of 8 Feasibility Study Xerxes Avenue Sidewalk Improvement No. S46 May 24, 2012 • Photo 7. 5628 Xerxes Ave - Tree Removal • Along the project there is a combination of a concrete out -walks, concrete staircases, lannon stone retaining walls and steep boulevard areas. The existing concrete out - walks, concrete staircases, and retaining walls will need to be adjusted, removed and/or relocated within the right-of-way line (See Photos 8 and 9). In areas of steep boulevard areas, new lannon stone retaining walls will be installed at the right of way line. • Page 6 of 8 Feasibility Study Xerxes Avenue Sidewalk Improvement No. S46 May 24, 2012 • IGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENTS: MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALK: Photo 8. 5740 Xerxes Ave — Retaininq Wall Adjustment SIT Photo 9. 5924 Xerxes Ave — Retaining Wall Installation and Concrete Stair Adjustments This project utilizes the existing County owned right-of-way that runs parallel to Xerxes Avenue. The City will work closely with the County for all permits and approvals. All proposed permanent improvements will stay within this right-of-way. Temporary construction easements will be required to construct portions of the lannon stone retaining walls, concrete out -walks, concrete stairs, and driveway pavements. The proposed sidewalk would be maintained by the City, including snow plowing and associated general maintenance. PROJECT COSTS: The total estimated project cost is $480,000. The total cost includes indirect costs of 15% for engineering and clerical costs and 7.5% for first year finance costs. Funding for the entire project will come from Municipal State Aid funds since Xerxes Avenue is a County State Aid Road. ASSESSMENTS: Special assessments to the property owners are not part of this project. PROJECT SCHEDULE: The following schedule is feasible from an engineering standpoint with assistance Excel Energy to relocate utility poles: • Informational Meeting/Open House.......................................June 11, 2012 Transportation Commission Review...................................................TBD Receive Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing..........................................TBD Page 7 of 8 Feasibility Study Xerxes Avenue Sidewalk Improvement No. S46 May 24, 2012 PublicHearing...............................................................................TBD is Bid Opening...............................................................................TBD AwardContract...........................................................................TBD Begin Construction......................................................................TBD Complete Construction.................................................................TBD FEASIBILITY: The City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update has laid out a plan for future sidewalks and the proposed sidewalk along Xerxes Avenue is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ATTACHMENTS: • • A number of engineering challenges exist but these can be overcome during design and construction of the sidewalk. The major challenge is getting assistance from Excel Energy to relocate utility poles. Staff recognizes the challenges but believes the construction of this project is feasible, cost effective and necessary to create a safe pedestrian link along Xerxes Avenue. A. Sidewalk Facilities Figure 7.10 - 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update B. Bicycle Facilities Figure 7.11 - 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Page 8 of 8 • • 4'91N�1r'U ok e rn H O e,N�iPoe TE9a FEASIBILITY STUDY - S47 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS WEST 42nd STREET FROM FRANCE AVENUE TO OAKDALE AVENUE INCLUDING PORTIONS OF CROCKER, GRIMES, AND ALDEN AVENUES AND SCOTT TERRACE MAY 23, 2012 SUMMARY: The estimated project cost is $435,000. Based on our sidewalk policy and the location of the sidewalk, funding for this project will come from a combination of City funds and special assessments. The project cost will be split between the City (25%) and residents (75%). The project would be completed during the 2012 construction season. Staff believes the project is cost effective and feasible to create a safe pedestrian link between France Avenue and the City of St. Louis Park. PROJECT MAP: The West 42nd Street Sidewalk Project from France Avenue to Oakdale Avenue including portions of Crocker, Grimes, and Alden Avenues and Scott Terrace (Figure 1). Project Area W 42nd St Sidewalk s� knprovemerd No: S47 ' e to - Existing Concrete Sidewalk Proposed Concrete Sidewalk Figure 1. Project Area Map Feasibility Study West 42" Street Sidewalk Improvement No. S47 May 23, 2012 GNITIATION & ISSUES: The City Council directed the Engineering Department to do a feasibility study on the proposed sidewalk along West 42nd Street from France Avenue to Oakdale Avenue. The City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update has a plan for future sidewalks and bicycle facilities. The proposed sidewalk along West 42nd Street including portions of Crocker, Grimes, and Alden Avenues and Scott Terrace are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (Attachment A & B). Staff Issues The following are existing features that were used in determining the feasibility of the project and are addressed in this report: • Existing fences and walls • Existing trees and landscaping • Existing utility poles and overhead utilities • Existing fire hydrants • Steep driveways and yards • Safety of residents and children • Traffic volumes ranging from approximately 1000 to 2000 vehicles per day • Project cost and source of funding EXISTING CONDITIONS: The road is approximately 30 -feet wide and the right-of-way for the majority of • the roadway is 50 -feet. The existing roadway is a bituminous surface with concrete curb and gutter. Existing sidewalks extend from the south on Oakdale Avenue, Lynn Avenue, Grimes Avenue, Alden Avenue, Scott Terrace, and France Avenue. An existing sidewalk extends along the north side of 42nd Street between Grimes Avenue and Alden Avenue in front of Weber Field and the Golden Years Montessori (Photo 1). Photo 1. Existing Sidewalk at Weber Field and Golden Years Montessori Page 2 of 6 Feasibilit�r Study West 42" Street Sidewalk Improvement No. S47 May 23, 2012 IPROPOSED MPROVEMENTS • Sidewalk Style Staff is proposing a combination of 4 -foot and 5 -foot wide concrete boulevard style sidewalks (Photo 2). The 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk will be constructed along the east portion of 42nd Street from France Avenue to Grimes Avenue. It will connect to the existing sidewalk along Weber Field. The 4 -foot wide concrete sidewalks will be constructed along the west portion of 42nd Street from Alden Avenue to Oakdale Avenue and south of 42nd Street. The grass boulevard that separates the existing curb and gutter from the proposed sidewalk will vary between 4 -feet and 6 -feet in width depending on existing conditions. The separation from the vehicle traffic creates a more pedestrian friendly environment and allows most of the utility poles to remain in place. Currently there is concrete curb and gutter and the sidewalk will be constructed with little disturbance to the existing concrete curb and gutter. Photo 2. Boulevard Style Sidewalk Location of Sidewalk The north side of West 42nd Street was selected as the preferred alignment based on the amount of potential conflicts along the south side with existing retaining walls, steep slopes, landscaping, and trees and the ability to connect to the existing sidewalk at Weber Field and the Golden Years Montessori School. This project will install sidewalk along portions of Crocker Avenue, Grimes Avenue, Alden Avenue, and Scott Terrace to connect to existing sidewalks. Page 3 of 6 Feasibility Study West 42" Street Sidewalk Improvement No. S47 May 23, 2012 ,RIGHT-OF-WAY & EASEMENTS: This project utilizes the existing City owned right-of-way. All proposed improvements stay within this right-of-way and no additional easement requirements are anticipated. MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALK: 5 -foot wide sidewalks are considered City sidewalk. Maintenance for City sidewalks will be the responsibility of the City including snow removal. 4 -foot wide sidewalks are considered local sidewalks. Maintenance for local sidewalks will be the responsibility of the residents including snow removal. PROJECT COSTS: The total estimated project cost is $435,000. The total cost includes indirect costs of 15% for engineering and clerical costs and 7.5% for first year finance costs. Funding for this project will come from a combination of City funds (25%) and special assessments (75%). I Funding Sources Percentage $ Amount I Sidewalk Cost Participation: City of Edina 25% $108,750 Special Assessment (includes 75% $326,250 Assessing City of Edina) Total Project: $435,000 ASSESSMENTS: The assessments are based on the City's sidewalk policy. Based on this policy there are 78 residential equivalent units (REU). The estimated assessment per REU is $4,200 (Figure 2). The City is assessed 5 REU's based on a comparable lots size analysis for an estimated assessment amount of $21,000. Page 4 of 6 9 10 � 0 Feasibility Study 'West 42" Street Sidewalk Improvement No. S47 May 23, 2012 4001 4000 4001 4000 4000 4001 4000 4001 4000 4003 4002 4003 4002 4003 4004 4003 4003 4002 4005 4004 4005 4004 4005 4008 4009 4004 4007 4006 4007 4006 4007 4010 4011 4006 4005 4004 4009 4008 4009 4008 4009 4012 4013 4008 4007 4008 4015 4011 4010 4011 4010 4011 4014 4015 4010 4011 12 4013 4012 4013 4012 4013 4016 4017 4015 4014 4015 JZ1'26 4015 4018 4019 4016 4020 1 4017 4020 4019 4018 4019 4019 4022 40214022 4020 4023 4075 0224021 4023 4026 4025 4024 4101 4100 4101 4100 4021 i ■ 4100 ■ 4105 4104 4103 4102 - � 4104 w 4108 Project Limits 4109 4108 ) 4109 ; 4108 Q 4112 4113 4112 Z 4113 4118 .. • 4112 Z • 4117 4116 J 4117 4120 4116 4166 4121 4120 4121 4124 : 4115 4120 •■ A A A A A A / A A A / A P■ ■ 74124 O O O/ • O O O W W ■ W W W N/ / CJ N N ■ O■ ■ c0 ■■■■• W N ■ m O O N• N O O AAA2 O O ■ A N O■ ■ W O A p A• A O A �: (n N N O■ ..•.. •------ �■� ST O •.: N 4125 11 yy r 4200 4201 A - A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 4200 ■■■■ ■■■ O 4200- W j j W W W N j N N N -� ... Mal J = 0 0 0 N o o ■ 4203 4005 4003 3919 3915 = 4208 4204 42059 J w 0. 0.' J cn w cn w ■■ 7 ■■■■■■■ 4204■ 4205 ■■•■■■■ 4212 4208 4211 4212 4211 4206 4209 4208 4209 4206 ■ 4207 4208 4209 4216 4213 4212 4208 4212 4212 4215 4218 4213 4212 i 4213 4210 ■ 4214 ■ 4211 4224 4216 4219 4220 4215 4216 ■ 4213 4228 4217 4220 4215 ■ 4215 4212 • 4211 fiV4220 4223 4224 4217 4216 ■ 4217 4214 • 4218 4232 4219 4224 ■■■■■■■■. 194224 4227 4228 ��•■■■4219 = 4219 4216 ■ 21 4238 LLI 4221 4226 �42214218 4221 4219 4220 4228 4231 4232 4220 i 22 '■ 4242 Q 4223 4228 4223 4222 4223 4222 4223 jZu■■ 4223 W 4225 4230 t42254224 4225 4225 4224 4225 4250 Z 4232 4227 4232 4226 4227 4224 4227 4226 42274300 4231 4234 4230 4229 4226 4229 4228 4229 420 4201 O w� 4307 4304 4234 4233 4236 4231 4230 4231 42 4231 W 42nd St Sidewalk h Improvement No: S47 W " E Existing Concrete Sidewalk - 1 REU - Estimated Assessment $3,925 S ng Proposed Concrete Sidewalk - 5 REU - Estimated Assessment $19,625 EngMaY 20 Dept 4233 4232 4232 4233 423233r4239 V4�231 4236 4238 4237 4234 4235 4234 4235 4234 4320 4238 4237 4236237 4238 4240 4240 42394238 4239 42384239 4238 4239 43 4 4241 4240 4241 4240 4241 4328 4242 4242 4243 4242 4249 4242 4243 4242 4243 4330 4244 4245 4244 4245 4240 4244 4245 4244 4245 4412 0 4248 4247 w w 4246 4247 N 4246 4247 � 4248 4247 Ao 4246 4350 w 4400 4350 �.. m 4248 4249 a 4200 4114 0 4248 4249 o even 4247 4352 420 4201 O w� 4307 4304 Figure 2. Estimated Assessment Map Page 5 of 6 Proposed Assessment W 42nd St Sidewalk h Improvement No: S47 W " E Existing Concrete Sidewalk - 1 REU - Estimated Assessment $3,925 S ng Proposed Concrete Sidewalk - 5 REU - Estimated Assessment $19,625 EngMaY 20 Dept Figure 2. Estimated Assessment Map Page 5 of 6 Feasibility/ Study West 42n Street Sidewalk Improvement No. S47 May 23, 2012 •PROJECT SCHEDULE FEASIBILITY: ATTACHMENTS: L� The following schedule is feasible from an Engineering standpoint: Informational Meeting/Open House............................................TBD Transportation Commission Review...........................................TBD Receive Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing.................................TBD PublicHearing...........................................................................TBD BidOpening...........................................................................TBD AwardContract....................................................................... TBD Begin Construction...................................................................TBD Complete Construction..............................................................TBD The City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update has a plan for future sidewalks and bicycle facilities. The proposed sidewalk along West 42nd Street including portions of Crocker, Grimes, and Alden Avenues and Scott Terrace are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment A). Staff believes the construction of this project is cost effective and feasible to create a safe pedestrian link along West 42nd Street and surrounding streets. A. Sidewalk Facilities Figure 7.10 - 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update B. Bicycle Facilities Figure 7.11 - 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update C. Sidewalk Finance Policy Page 6 of 6 0 C] ,I� 0 e cn N o ly FEASIBILITY STUDY - S 105 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS NORMANDALE ROAD FROM CLOVER RIDGE TO BENTON AVENUE MAY 21, 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The estimated project cost is $150,000. Funding for this project is from the construction funds. No special assessments are part of this project. Construction would be completed during the 2012 construction season. Staff believes the construction of this project is cost effective and feasible to create a safe pedestrian link along Normandale Road. LOCATION: The Normandale Road Sidewalk Project runs along the west side of the Normandale Road from Valley View Road north up to Benton Avenue. The sidewalk would be located within City owned right-of-way. (See Figure 1) r• r r_ - t - a =- 0- - Project Area West Frontage Road Sidewalk Improvement No: 5105 Existing Bituminous Sidewalk Existing Concrete Sidewalk endn—gyre �•� G Proposed State -Aid Sidewalk M""n1 Proposed Concrete Sidewalk Figure 1. Prosect Area Map `�-5 UTH IEW LN : 4 '.. _ ♦ A - @' • ' " 1 a sSN(:y BENTON AVE /�� .,N, 't ���rv- ..A r f 4� �� ' If r y.. may' •-+t W. GOTHS .. I t--. 'q.L ♦w_tiGQQLBAI ;._ r - .W60Tji ST _ a� 0- - Project Area West Frontage Road Sidewalk Improvement No: 5105 Existing Bituminous Sidewalk Existing Concrete Sidewalk endn—gyre �•� G Proposed State -Aid Sidewalk M""n1 Proposed Concrete Sidewalk Figure 1. Prosect Area Map Feasibility Study Normandale Road Sidewalk Improvement No. S-105 May 21, 2012 .INITIATION & ISSUES: This project was initiated by a petition accepted by City Council on June 16, 2009. The petition was signed by 91 residents living in the surrounding neighborhood. The City Council directed the Engineering Department to do a feasibility study on the proposed sidewalk along Normandale Road from Clover Ridge to Benton Avenue. The City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update has laid out a plan for future sidewalks and bicycle facilities and the proposed sidewalk along Normandale Road is consistent with the Comp Plan. (Attachment A and B) Staff Issues The following are existing features that were used in determining the feasibility of the project and are addressed in this report: (Photo 1) • Existing fences and walls • Existing trees and landscaping • Existing utility poles • Steep boulevard slopes • Connection to existing sidewalk north of Benton Avenue • Safety of residents and children Photo 1. Looking West at Normandale road and Valley View Road EXISTING CONDITIONS: The road is approximately 25 -feet wide with adequate right-of-way. The existing roadway is a bituminous surface with concrete curb and gutter. Existing sidewalks extend north to Eden Avenue, and west and east along Benton Avenue from the intersection of Benton Avenue and Normandale Road. The proposed sidewalk would connect to the existing sidewalks at the intersection of Benton Avenue and Normandale Road. (Photos 2 and 3) Page 2 of 5 :7 • Feasibility Study Normandale Road Sidewalk Improvement No. S-105 May 21, 2012 Photo 2. Looking South at Normandale road and Benton Avenue Photo 3. Looking North at Normandale Road and Benton Aveune Page 3 of 5 Feasibility Study Normandale Road Sidewalk Improvement No. S-105 May 21, 2012 *PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 0 RIGHT-OF-WAY & EASEMENTS: MAINTENANCE th OF SIDEWALK: The Normandale Road Sidewalk Improvements consist of a 6 -foot wide bituminous sidewalk with a 5 -foot grass boulevard to separate the existing curb from the proposed sidewalk (Photo 4). The separation from the vehicle traffic creates a more pedestrian friendly environment. Currently there is concrete curb and gutter and the sidewalk will be constructed with little disturbance to the existing concrete curb and gutter. a Photo 4. Boulevard Style Bituminous Sidewalk This project utilizes the existing City owned right-of-way. All proposed improvements stay within this right-of-way and no additional easement requirements are anticipated. Per City Council policy, the Edina Public Works Department will maintain the sidewalk, including snow removal. Page 4 of 5 r e' Cn day • ~�A�B 2F.9 e FEASIBILITY STUDY - S108 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS WEST 60TH STREET AND SCHOOL ROAD FROM NORMANDALE ROAD TO CONCORD AVENUE MAY 22, 2012 SUMMARY: Option A Option A is the installation of sidewalk from Normandale Road to Concord Avenue along 60th Street and School Road. The total estimated project cost is $312,000. Based on our sidewalk policy and the location of the sidewalk, funding for this project will come from a combination of special assessments, City funds and Independent School District 272 (ISD 272) funds. The project cost will be split at 25%, 25%, and 50% between ISD 272, the City, and residents, respectively. The project would be completed during the 2012 construction season. Option B Option B is the installation of sidewalk along School Road between Ruth Drive and Concord Avenue. The total estimated project cost is $118,000. Special assessments would not be part of this option. The project cost would be split evenly between ISD 272 and City of Edina at 50% each. The project would be completed during the 2012 construction season. Staff believes either option would be cost effective and feasible to create a safe pedestrian link to Concord Elementary. PROJECT MAP: Options A and B for the W. r . 60th Street and School Road''",!,, Sidewalk Project from Normandale Road to Concord ' Avenue are shown in Figure 1. ,a •I Figure 1. Project Area Map-tvcnrH'1 r Pra)kclA— liNool Rdd Sitlewa✓k Imprwenwrw No: sloe • — Existing B'iluminous..1k lk 1 —ExlsNnp Conaete Si.tlewalk — ProposeC Concrete Skewalk (Oplbn A) — Proposed Concrete Sidewalk (Option 6) • • Feasibility Study School Road Sidewalk Improvement No. S-108 May 22, 2012 INITIATION & ISSUES: The City Council directed the Engineering Department to do a feasibility study on the proposed sidewalk along the West 60th Street and School Road. The City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update indicates the need for a sidewalk along this section of roadway (Attachment A and B). Staff ISSIJPS The following are existing features that were used in determining the feasibility of the project and are addressed in this report: • Existing trees and landscaping • Steep driveways and yards • Safety of residents and children • Defined school walking zone • Project cost and source of funding EXISTING CONDITIONS: The road is approximately 31 -feet wide and the right-of-way for the majority of the roadway is 50 -feet. The existing roadway is a bituminous surface with concrete curb and gutter. An existing sidewalk extends along the west side of the Concord Avenue from Southview Lane down to Valley View Road (Photo 1). Photo 1. Northwest Corner of School Road and Concord Avenue Page 2 of 6 Feasibility Study School Road Sidewalk Improvement No. S-108 May 22, 2012 0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: 0 An existing sidewalk extends along Normandale Road from Benton Avenue to Concord Avenue (Photo 2). Photo 2. Northeast Corner of Normandale Road and West 60th Street Sidewalk Style A 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk was selected as the minimum width needed for plowing by Public Works. A 4 -foot grass boulevard will separate the existing curb from the proposed sidewalk (Photo 3). The separation from the vehicle traffic creates a more pedestrian friendly environment and allows the utility poles to remain in place. Currently there is concrete curb and gutter and the sidewalk will be constructed with little disturbance to the existing concrete curb and gutter. Page 3 of 6 Feasibility Study School Road Sidewalk Improvement No. S-108 May 22, 2012 Photo 3. Boulevard Style Sidewalk Location of Sidewalk 10 The north side of both West 60th Street and School Road and the east side of School Road were selected as the preferred alignment based on available right- of-way and proximity to Concord Elementary School for both options. Option A The proposed sidewalk would connect to the existing sidewalks at the intersections of School Road and Concord Avenue and the intersection of Normandale Road and W. 60th Street. The slope of the boulevard area along West 60th Street and School Road, will require the use of lannon stone retaining walls. Option B The proposed sidewalk would connect with the existing sidewalk at the intersection of School Road and Concord Avenue. The slope of the boulevard area along School Road, will require the use of lannon stone retaining walls. RIGHT-OF-WAY & EASEMENTS: This project utilizes the existing City owned right-of-way and potentially may need to acquire some temporary construction easements to construct the proposed sidewalk. MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALK: Per City Council policy, the Edina Public Works Department will maintain a school zone sidewalk, including snow removal. Page 4 of 6 Feasibility Study School Road Sidewalk Improvement No. S-108 May 22, 2012 •FEASIBILITY: The City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update has laid out a plan for future sidewalks and the proposed sidewalk along School Road is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes the construction of either option is cost effective and feasible to create a safe pedestrian link along West 60th Street and School Road. PROJECT COSTS: Option A The total estimated project cost is $312,000. The total cost includes indirect costs of 15% for engineering and clerical costs and 7.5% for first year finance costs. Funding for this project will come from a combination of special assessments, City funds and ISD 272 funds (See Table 1). For additional funding information see the Sidewalk Finance Policy (Attachment C). Option A Percentage $ Amount Sidewalk Cost Participation: City of Edina 25% $78,000 ISD 272 25% $78,000 Special Assessment 50% $156,000 Total Project: $312,000 Table 1. Option A Estimated Project Cost Participation Option B The total estimated project cost is $118,000. Special assessments would not be part of this option. Funding for this project will come from a cost split between ISD 272 and City of Edina at 50% each (See Table 2). Option B Percentage $ Amount Sidewalk Cost Participation: City of Edina 50% $59,000 ISD 272 50% $59,000 Total Project: $118,000 Table 2. Option B Estimated Project Cost Participation Page 5 of 6 Feasibility Study School Road Sidewalk Improvement No. S-108 May 22, 2012 * ASSESSMENTS PROJECT SCHEDULE: ATTACHMENTS: 0 • Funding will based on the option approved by City Council. (See Options A and B listed above) The following schedule is feasible from an Engineering standpoint: Informational Meeting/Open House ............................................TBD Transportation Commission Review ...........................................TBD Receive Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing .................................TBD PublicHearing ........................................................................... TBD BidOpening ........................................................................... TBD AwardContract ....................................................................... TBD Begin Construction ................................................................... TBD Complete Construction .............................................................. TBD A. Sidewalk Facilities Figure 7.10 - 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update B. Bicycle Facilities Figure 7.11 - 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update C. Sidewalk Finance Policy D. Overall Project Map Page 6 of 6 9 REGULAR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Edina Transportation Commission From: Wayne D. Houle, PE Director of Engineering Date: June 21, 2012 Subject: TLC Bike Boulevard Update Info/Backaround: Agenda Item No.: IX.C. ACTION: ❑ Recommendation/Motion ❑ Discussion ® Information • The Municipal State Aid Division at Minnesota Department of Transportation has approved the plans. The plans now move onto Federal Highways (FHWA) for their authorization. Once FHWA authorizes the project the City will be able to advertise for bids. We still anticipate an August / September construction. • G:\Engineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\TRANSP COMM\Agendas\2012 R&R\20120621 \20120621 Item IX C TLC Bike Boulevard Update.docx 0 • REGULAR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO: Edina Transportation Commission From: Wayne D. Houle, PE Director of Engineering Date: June 21, 2012 Subject: 1494 Update Agenda Item No.: IX.D. ACTION: ❑ Recommendation/Motion ❑ Discussion ® Information Info/Background: Here is a response from Scott Pedersen of the Minnesota Department of Transportation: The project was let last Friday to Ames Construction. The contract start date is July 23, 2012. Now that there is an apparent low bidder, we can have discussions with them with respect to their schedule and how they plan to deliver the project. 1 believe that there may be some work on the corridor to install message boards and etc. You can monitor the web site for this project located at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/i494richfield/ You can also sign up to receive updates on the MNDOT website: www.dot.state.mn.us. The place to sign up is located on the lower right.. . . side of, the home web page under "Connect ® O ® O with us", see below „,,,.M...— I— .tea - — ..a�.m MWMt.Wta.Wyronnon, Tmw9W IMwm.tlon .sir. slamwbe o-aWa bbm�annn �:ip+uWU Ong •CuneM COneVudbn ulak[b . Fd92 ddecH Fuc�mu�es n me Twm •Cllks-JUM 1518 m uYWW�M UCOTW•M w.y Dad.l.. Lanal kemma.an lard MRDOT Off sdonyourdnmJnu.e.ua �Id,LWWb bnla you MnDOT awm H.y. Yapdv..l. aNM: Tate a minae b aalglace ar we. vry l T&M wOm \ GH W.IY.d . —. HW slesMol.e-paeklpalbn R000nuneee R I ...kv M.u. • Reoon a oomde • RedM ansak UMIm • R—an AmenFans mm D.a99arts AClCandR Ralf . Wh.tyou dMol Wm In&*@WbeW&W Or n wMeb Gov-.minw..I.1y. . MIP -80 G:\Engineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffc\TRANSP COMM\Agendas\2012 R&R\20120621\20120621 Item IX D 1494 Update.docx 9R1 M W TW — Winer lapmb ary ttuse may anu.roum .wnilee. Hem aroV.vel tlps Wean 9vo..p n yossmle �eRep,,,rn �.Mccv9a nWa Hwy 191n Na.l.H.11K wa4f ovelaW rob-oue vabunmkc bel. M Its Wry amlMd uau s now..m Hwy t 19 al Hwy to nem MergW wMnb dm 1Henew ad1 Jure Mlp:/n.<d9mD.MVAE WIlll.al AoulYMwl.W emeam Wm w © Elm9lp.Nen © N OFett.noy YonObe • L' • REGULAR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Edina Transportation Commission From: Wayne D. Houle, PE Director of Engineering Date: June 21, 2012 Subject: 2012 Human Services Task Force Agenda Item No.: IX.E. ACTION: ❑ Recommendation/Motion ❑ Discussion ® Information Recommendation/Motion: Appoint a member of the ETC to the 2012 Human Services Task Force Info/Background: Each year the City appropriates approximately $80,000 from its General Fund to pay human services agencies to provide outsourced services to Edina residents. In the past, the process for appropriating these funds started with a publicly advertised RFP, which then led to a review & recommendation process at the Human Rights & Relations Commission (HRRC) and ended finally with an approval by the City Council. Last year, the HRRC asked the Council to consider changing the process for making this budget decision. The Council agreed to the request. Instead of that function being done by the HRRC, it was completed by a new body called the Human Services Task Force, which is being created once again to look at funding for 2013. The 2011 Task Force Members were Ann Braden, Transportation Commission; Colleen Curran, Heritage Preservation Board; Carolyn Peterson, Community Health Committee; Louise Segreto, Park Board; and Russ Stanton, Human Rights and Relations Commission. They did an awesome job! The 2012 Human Services Task Force will again consist of one representative from each of our official boards and commissions. The task force will be created for this process only, and then it will be dissolved. It will come together for three Wednesday meetings in October and a City Council Work Session in November: G:\Engineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\TRANSP COMM\Agendas\2012 R&R\20120621\20120621 Item IX E 2012 Human Services Task Force.docx 1) Wednesday, October 3rd, 5:30-8:00 PM • funding; 2) Wednesday, October 17th, 5:00-9:00 PM have requested funding; 3) Wednesday, October 31 It, 6:30-9:00 PM, human services funding; and • • (meal provided), to review the proposals for 2013 (meal provided), to hear from the providers who to form and approve a recommendation for 2013 4) Monday, November 5th, 5:00-7:00 PM, to bring the recommendation for 2013 human services funding to the City Council for discussion. Staff is requesting that one person from the ETC be appointed to this task force. G:\Engineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\TRANSP COMM\Agendas\2012 R&R\20120621 \20120621 Item IX E 2012 Human Services Task Force.docx • t L L • Edina Transportation Commission Roll -Call Sign -in Sheet June 21, 2012 Last Name First Name Signature Bass Katherine Y-/\ AV1.Y4' Vr- i Braden Ann ranzen Nathan er Surya Janovy Jennifer aForce Tom Nelson Paul ig/chweiger Steven hom son Michael Whited Courtne A • EDINA BIKE ORDINANCE MEMO • SITUATION Edina ordinance 1400.07, Subd. 3 prohibits people from riding or parking a bicycle on a sidewalk in Edina. Edina ordinance Section 1425 requires registration of bicycles. BACKGROUND Bicycles on sidewalks— Edina ordinance 1400.07, Subd. 3 reads: "No vehicle shall be parked or driven on or along a sidewalk." A bicycle is a vehicle according to MN statute. Local ordinance therefore prohibits people from riding or parking a bicycle on a sidewalk. State statute allows people to ride or park their bike on a sidewalk, except in business districts, unless prohibited by local authorities. All surrounding communities appear to allow people to ride or park on the sidewalk, with some restrictions. State statute does not allow people to ride their bikes on sidewalks in business districts, unless permitted by local authorities. Edina does not permit riding on sidewalks in business districts. Bicycle registration Edina ordinance section 1425 requires bicycles in Edina to be registered. The ordinance references a state statute that has been repealed. There appears to be no process for registering bicycles in Edina. 6/21/12 ANALYSIS Bicycles on sidewalks generally The dangers of riding a bicycle on a sidewalk are well documented. These dangers are largely related to cyclist behavior—for example, riding too fast, not yielding to pedestrians, and not pausing and looking before crossing a driveway or entering a street. Because the dangers are related to behavior, they can be influenced through education. Police departments are a highi `d source1q tition about b ing an People of all aloes and apparent skill levels are observed riding on sidewalks in Edina. Edina Police, however, are limited in their ability to educate the public about how to ride on the sidewalk safer because sidewalk riding is prohibited by code. As cycling increases in Edina, there is an immediate need to educate the p behaviors, including common situations where, pedestrians and cyclists mlx Cyclists, pedestrians and motorists share the same space on most streets in Edina. Cyclists and pedestrians share the; same space on park pathways. Although it not allowed, cyclists and pedestrians currently share the same space on public sidewalks. • It is assumed the prohibition against riding on sidewalks is not widely known nor widely enforced This raises a few questionsFirst, if this ordinance were widely known, would it have public support? Second, in the most common situations, would this ordinance be reasonable to enforces For example, would it be reasonable to stop or cite a child for riding on the sidewalk €n fi ons , S her house or a student riding on the sidewalk on his way to school? An ordinance that Q unreasonable to enforce in the most common situations deserves a second loop The reasons to allow sidewalk riding are summed up in an October 201 1 Los Angeles Department of Transportation memo. LA looked at whether the city should ban bicycles from sidewalks and concluded that banning bicycles from using sidewalks "is a poor option to revising and enforcing a new ordinance." Their reasons to allow bicycles to use sidewalks apply to Edina as well. he memo includes suggestordinance requirements that not only provide a basis fop , Oducation but also promote safe sidewalk riding behaviors. These requirements are: Must provide the right of way to all pedestrians and slow to a walking pace of notmor ocal or mechanical to pedestrians to alert them to their or heavily, City code section 1400.07, subdivision 3, can be modified by inserting the word "motor" so that the ordinance reads: "No motor vehicle shall be parked or driven on or along a sidewalk." • This would allow bicycles to operate and park on the sidewalk 6/21/12 2 • Bicycles on sidewalks in business districts MN statute 169.222, Subd. 4 (d) prohibits riding a bike on a sidewalk in a business district unless permitted by local authorities. A business district is defined as: "the territory contiguous to and including a highway when 50 percent or more of the frontage thereon for a distance of 300 feet or more is occupied by buildings in use for business" (169.01 1, Subd. 13). Business districts in Edina include neighborhood commercial nodes at 44th & France, Wooddale and Valley View, Grandview, and Cahill; 501h & France; industrial areas such as along Metro Boulevard; and the Southdale area. The reasons for allowing a person to ride a bicycle on a sidewalk apply in business districts as well. That said, there are also reasons for restrictions. Madison, WI allows bicycling on sidewalks except where buildings abut the sidewalk (http://www.cityofmadison.com/BikeMadison/getBiking/sidewalks.cfm). • Edina could permit riding a bicycle on a sidewalk in business districts, except where a building is not set back from the sidewalk This would prohibit riding a bicycle on a sidewalk at 50" & France, where there is a lot of pedestrian activity, but permit riding a bicycle on the sidewalk in business districts with very little pedestrian activity. Bicycle registration Edina's bicycle registration ordinance references a state statute that has been repealed. There appears to be no process for registering a bicycle in Edina and the requirement to register a bicycle appears not to be enforced. RECOMMENDATION Forward a recommendation to the 1111M to update City code to permit the operation and • parking of bicycles on all City sidewalks, including in business districts, subject to certain restrictions. 6/21/12 z A person may lawfully operate a bicycle on a public sidewalk, including in a business district, subject to • the following restrictions: ield to pedestrians live audible signal to pedestrians before enter driveway or intersection only when clear of traffic • No riding on sidewalks in locations where buildings abut the sidewalk • No riding on sidewalks where posted • Bicycle parking must not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle travel • No bicycle parking where posted Forward a recommendation to the that the City repeal City code Section 1425 Registration of Bicycles. References Edina ordinance 1400.07 General Rules for Drivers. Subd. 3: Driving or Parking on Sidewalk. No vehicle shall be parked or driven on or along a sidewalk. • Edina ordinance Section 1425 — Registration of Bicycles 1425.01 Adoption of State Law. There is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference, as a provision of this Code, the provisions of M.S. Chapter 168C relating to bicycle registration, except as such provisions may be made more restrictive by this Section. 1425.02 Bicycle Registration Required. All bicycles used or ridden upon any highway, street, alley, sidewalk or other public property within the City shall be registered in the same manner and subject to the same regulations, fees and penalties as those voluntarily registered pursuant to M.S. Chapter 168C, 1425.03 Existing Permanent Licenses to Remain Valid. All existing permanent licenses granted by the City pursuant to former Ordinance No. 1421 of the City are valid as long as the licensed bicycles are in the possession of the original licensee. History: Ord 1423 adopted 8- 13-80 Reference: M.S. Chapter 168C Statute 169.222 OPERATION OF A BICYCLE Subd. 4 (d) A person operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk, or across a roadway or shoulder on a crosswalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give an audible signal when necessary before overtaking and passing any pedestrian. No person shall ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk within a business district unless permitted by local authorities. Local 6/21/12 4 • authorities may prohibit the operation of bicycles on any sidewalk or crosswalk under their jurisdiction. Subd. 4 (f) A person lawfully operating a bicycle on a sidewalk, or across a roadway or shoulder on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances. Subd. 9. Bicycle parking. (a) A person may park a bicycle on a sidewalk unless prohibited or restricted by local authorities. A bicycle parked on a sidewalk shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of pedestrian or other traffic. Statute 169.21 PEDESTRIAN Subd. 2: Rights in absence of signal. (a) ... No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. Statute 169.011 DEFINITIONS Subd. 4. Bicycle. "Bicycle" means every device propelled solely by human power upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels except scooters and similar devices and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front • or rear wheels. • Subd. 42. Motor vehicle. "Motor vehicle" means every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires. Motor vehicle does not include an electric personal assistive mobility device or a vehicle moved solely by human power. Subd. 81.Street or highway. "Street or highway" means the entire width between boundary lines of any way or place when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the purposes of vehicular traffic. Subd. 92. Vehicle. "Vehicle" means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. Surrounding Communities: Minneapolis: htLI2://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/bicycles/faq/index.htm Bloomington: http://www.ci.bloomington.mn.us/code/index.php/o/page/p/695 Richfield: Section 1335.05, http://www.cityofrichfield.orp/Residents/Codes/docs/ch 13 pdf Hopkins: Section 1330, http://www.hopkinsmn.com/archives/pdf/code/section 1330- bicycles.pdf Eden Prairie: Section 7.20, subd. 6/21/12 5 Minnetonka: • City of Los Angeles Interdepartmental Memorandum, October 26, 201 1 http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2009/09-0680 RPT DOT 10-26-1 I .pdf Routing Drafted by Jennifer Janovy I n draft: Distributed to BETF for 6/14 meeting 2nd draft: Distributed to BETF by email on 6/21/2012 • • 6/21/12 6 • ETC POLICY AND NTMP MEMO TO ETC SITUATION The Edina Transportation Commission Policy was adopted by the City Council in April 2005. The Policy incorporates the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP). Advances since 2005 have made the ETC Policy obsolete, For example: • The ETC ordinance was changed in 201 1 • Specific policies were incorporated into the 2008 Comprehensive Plan • Several short- and long-term goals in the Policy have been met • There has been little demand for the current Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) Because the Policy is obsolete it is rarely consulted. BACKGROUND Ordinance change The Policy references Section 1225 of City Code (ETC Policy and Establishment, Purpose is and Duties, and Membership). This Section was renumbered and revised in 201 1. Policies incorporated in Comprehensive Plan The Policy includes specific policies related to Roadway Design; Roadway Function and Access; Roadway Maintenance and Operation; Transit/TDM; Parking; Pedestrian/Bicycle; Goods Movement; and Funding and Jurisdiction. These policies incorporated and added to policies in the 1999 Transportation Plan. All policies, with the exception of two, were included in Chapter 7 of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Policy goals achieved The Policy includes short-term goals that have been met: Review and approve Transportation Commission Policy Review Local Traffic Task Force Findings and Recommendations and rank the six "issues areas" Review and approve a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan The Policy includes long-term goals that have been met or are ongoing: • Review and update local roadway functional classification • Review and make recommendations for collector and arterial roadway planned improvements Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans (NTMP) • An initial survey of data indicates that since the Policy was adopted in 2005 there have 6/21/12 been three resident requests for neighborhood traffic management plans. These were: • • Schaefer Road (between Interlachen Boulevard and Parkwood Road) • Wooddale Avenue (between 501h and 58" Streets) • Halifax Avenue Schaefer Road was one of seven traffic concern areas scored and ranked in 2005 (ranking 6th). The ETC did not recommend an NTMP. Wooddale Avenue (50th to 58th) was scored and ranked in 2006. It came in first against four areas scored and ranked the previous year. Engineering staff proposed re -striping the roadway, increasing enforcement, and installing a permanent speed indicator sign. An NTMP was not completed. It appears that the annual scoring and ranking of traffic concern areas ended in 2006. In 2008, residents on Halifax Avenue submitted an NTMP application. In 2009, Engineering staff surveyed residents to see if they were still interested in an NTMP. Fewer than half of the surveys were returned, leading staff to recommend against an NTMP. Of the traffic concern areas recommended for scoring and ranking in 2005 by staff, none were recommended for an NTMP. Those that have been addressed have been through other means. For example, NE Edina and W. 70th were addressed through traffic studies. The High School area was addressed through a staff -initiated re -striping plan. In June 2010 the ETC voted to update the NTMP to include Education and Enforcement sections. These sections are typically found in NTMP policies. In October 2011 Council member Bennett requested that the NTMP policy be used, updated, or eliminated. ANALYSIS There are exceptions to every policy; however, when exceptions become the rule, the policy is no longer an effective tool for guiding decisions. This is the case with the NTMP. Engineering staff routinely receive traffic concerns from residents; however, these concerns are not annually scored and ranked. Traffic calming requests are handled directly by staff, the Traffic Safety Committee, or as part of street reconstruction projects. This varied approach to addressing traffic concerns has the benefit of flexibility, but can also make it difficult for residents to understand the process. Thinking about traffic calming has evolved since the NTMP was adopted. Whereas in the past, the focus was on specific traffic calming measures, such as speed humps or diverters, the focus now is on road diets, the five E's (Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, . Engineering, and Evaluation), and Living Streets. This calls for a new kind of NTMP. A Living 6/21/12 2 C • Streets NTMP is anticipated to be developed as part of a Living Streets Policy and Implementation Plan. Policies within the ETC Policy are now included in Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan. The establishment and policy, purpose and duties of the ETC are outlined in the ETC ordinance. Several short-term and long-term goals in the Policy have been achieved. The soon to be developed Living Streets Policy and Implementation Plan will provide further guidance. The ETC Policy is no longer needed and should be retired. RECOMMENDATION Place this on upcoming agenda to discuss. Consider recommendation to City Council to eliminate ETC Policy and NTMP. 6/21/12 3 171