HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-18 Meeting PacketAgenda
Transportation Com m ission
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Community Room
Thursday, February 18, 2016
6:00 PM
I.Call To Order
II.Roll Call
III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda
IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes
A.Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of January 21, 2016
V.Special Recognitions And Presentations
A.Grandview District Tra nsportation Study Upda te
VI.Community Comment
During "Community Comment," t he Board/Commission will invite resi dent s to share r elevant
i ssues or concerns. Individuals must l i mi t t heir comments to three mi nutes. The Chair may limit
the number of speakers on the same i ssue in t he int erest of time and topic. Gener al ly speaking,
i tems that ar e elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed dur i ng Communit y Comment.
Indi vi dual s should not expect the Chai r or Boar d/Commission Member s to respond to t heir
comment s tonight. Instead, the Board/Commi ssion might refer the mat ter to st a% for
consi derat i on at a future meeting.
VII.Reports/Recommendations
A.2016 Work Plan Updates
B.Tra.c Safety Report of February 3, 2016
C.A.rm the 2016 Transportation Commission Meeting Schedule
D.Review Transportation Commission Bylaws
E.Annual Elections
VIII.Correspondence And Petitions
IX.Chair And Member Comments
A.Tra.c Safety Process Rev iew Committee
X.Sta 5 Comments
A.Sta5 Comments for February 2016
XI.Calendar Of Events
A.Schedule of Meeting a nd E v ent Dates as of Februa ry 18, 2016
XII.Adjournment
The City of Edina wants all res idents to be c om fortabl e bei ng part of the
publi c proc ess . If you need as s is tanc e i n the way of heari ng am pli 8c ation, an
interpreter, large-print doc um ents or s om ethi ng els e, pleas e c al l 952-927-8861
72 ho urs in advance of the m eeting.
Date: Feb ruary 18, 2016 Agenda Item #: IV.A.
To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type:
Minutes
From:Sharon Allis on - Engineering Spec ialis t
Item Activity:
Subject:Ap p ro val o f Minutes - Regular Meeting of January 21,
2016
Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve the meeting minutes of the regular Edina Transportation Commission meeting of January 21, 2016.
INTRODUCTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Minutes : ETC, Jan. 21, 2016
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
1
Minutes
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Transportation Commission
Council Chambers
January 21, 6:00 p.m.
I. Call To Order
Chair Bass called the meeting to order.
II. Roll Call
Answering roll call were members Bass, Iyer, LaForce, Loeffelholz, Janovy, Nelson, Olson, Ruehl, and Spanhake.
Absent at roll call were members Boettge, and Ding.
III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda
Motion was made by member LaForce and seconded by member Nelson approving the meeting agenda.
All voted aye. Motion carried.
IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes
Motion was made by member LaForce and seconded by member Loeffelholz approving the edited Dec. 17,
2015, minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried.
V. Community Comment – None
VI. Reports/Recommendations
VII.A. Traffic Safety Process Review Committee (Bass, Janovy, Loeffelholz)
Chair Bass stated that this was added to their work plan because it is a way that residents interact with
the City regarding traffic and how it affects them daily. She said it was an important part of the City’s full
implementation of the Living Streets Plan.
Member Loeffelholz presented the findings of the committee which included the committee process, data
findings methodology, time series, decision pattern, supporting data for decision criteria, and geographic
data requests.
Member Janovy presented the committee’s recommendations which included integrating the Living Streets
Vision, define scope of responsibilities, develop a focused approach to neighborhood speed concerns,
standardize intake, strengthen the link between problem, data, analysis and recommendation, track data
on requests and provide annual report to the City Council, evaluate resident satisfaction, make traffic
safety coordinator position full time, and do not limit repeat requests at this time.
Member Iyer suggested identifying best practices for citywide implementation as an additional
recommendation. Member LaForce suggested changing the name of the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) to
Transportation Improvement Requests.
Concluding the presentation, member Loeffelholz said the findings and recommendations will also be
presented to the TSC and, based on feedback from the ETC and the TSC, the report will be revised and
presented again to the ETC and then submitted to the City Council.
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
2
VI.B. Traffic Safety Report of Jan. 6, 2016
Motion was made by member LaForce and seconded by member Spanhake to forward the
Jan. 6, 2016, Traffic Safety Report to City Council. All voted aye. Motion carried.
VII. Correspondence And Petitions – None.
VIII. Chair and Member Comments
VIII.A. Proposed Standing Item: 2016 Work Plan Updates
Chair Bass suggested and received approval to add a standing item under “Reports/Recommendations” for
commissioners to give updates on current Commission work plan items, and she asked commissioners to
volunteer to champion a 2016 work plan item.
Member Nelson talked about the driving lane signage on W. 70th going north on TH-100. He said drivers
often use the far right lane and then realize the lane takes them to Normandale Road and not to TH-100.
Planner Nolan said this has come up several times and MNDOT looked at the signage and decided not to
make any change.
Member LaForce asked if the two styles of pedestrian crossing flashers cause confusion or fatigue and if
there are plans to go to one style (one that flashes constantly and one that is activated by pedestrians).
Planner Nolan said they plan to remove the style that flashes constantly.
Member Janovy asked if consideration has been given to delaying the construction of Valley View Road
and Valley Lane this summer because of the middle/high school construction. Planner Nolan will check
with city engineer Millner on this.
Member Spanhake said even though her time on the commission is coming to an end soon, she was willing
help with one of the 2016 Work Plan items - finding transportation-themed event speakers, because this is
associated with her current employment.
IX. Staff Comments
• Golf Terrace B Sidewalk – based on the sidewalk survey, residents favored Tower Street, staff
recommended Woodland Road, and City Council decided on W. 56th Street because it provides a
better network connection. City Council asked staff to survey W. 56th Street residents on street
width (24-ft vs. 27-ft) and parking.
• Oaklawn Avenue Sidewalk (2017) – an application was submitted for a Safe Routes to School
grant; a public meeting is scheduled for Jan. 28; the school district was asked to send home a flyer
about the meeting; Three Rivers Park District will be present at the meeting because a connection
is planned from this sidewalk to the Nine Mile Creek Trail on Parklawn Avenue.
• Grandview District Transportation Study – staff will be meeting with the project team to receive a
progress update; ‘Imagine Week,’ City Council and ETC presentation are scheduled for February;
a public meeting is scheduled for Feb. 16.
• Southdale Area Transportation Study – a meeting is being planned that the ETC will be invited to;
a presentation to the ETC is scheduled for March.
• 66th Street Crosswalk (at Barrie Road) – Hennepin County did not approve this crosswalk
because it does not meet their threshold of 500-ft from the signal.
• School district expansion – no additional in/out access is planned; staff strongly recommended that
they align Chapel Lane with their western entrance.
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
3
• Tracy Avenue Sidewalk on bridge over TH-62 – the estimate for the sidewalk and new bridge
railing is $1.5M which makes it cost prohibitive. Planner Nolan was asked if they could still
construct the sidewalk where the ‘goat path’ is that leads to the bridge; another suggestion was to
post no pedestrians signs. Planner Nolan said they need to balance the safety of those using the
path so he will discuss this with staff.
• Election is next month for new officers.
X. Calendar of Events
X.A. Schedule of Meeting Dates/Events
XI. Adjournment at 7:45 p.m.
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE
J F M A M J J A S O N D SM WS
# of
Mtgs
Attendance
%
Meetings/Work
Sessions 1 1
NAME TERM (Date) (Date)
Bass, Katherine 3/1/2017 1 1 100%
Boettge, Emily 3/1/2017 0 0%
Iyer, Surya 3/1/2018 1 1 100%
LaForce, Tom 3/1/2018 1 1 100%
Loeffelholz, Ralf 3/1/2018 1 0 0%
Janovy, Jennifer 3/1/2017 1 1 100%
Nelson, Paul 3/1/2016 1 1 100%
Olson, Larry 3/1/2017 1 1 100%
Spanhake, Dawn 3/1/2017 1 1 100%
Ding, Emily 9/1/2016 0 0%
Ruehl, Lindsey 9/1/2016 1 1 100%
Date: Feb ruary 18, 2016 Agenda Item #: V.A.
To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type:
Other
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:Grand view Dis tric t Trans p o rtation S tud y Update Disc ussio n
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
P lease recall that at its Nov 19, 2015 meeting the Transportation Commission received a presentation from LHB,
who is the lead consultant for the team preparing the Grandview District Transportation Study. T he presentation
highlighted “Convene Week” activities, which were focused on assessing existing conditions and developing a
deeper understanding of the transportation system’s role in guiding public and private investments in the area.
Since that time, the project team has been working to develop potential scenarios and solutions for Grandview’s
transportation network based in part on findings contained in the draft Exi sti ng Condi ti ons Bri efi ng Book
(attached).
T his project update to the Transportation Commission will be part of “Imagine Week” for the Study. During
Imagine Week, where there are three key opportunities for the public to connect with the process. First, there will
be a public workshop on Feb 16 at 6:00pm at the P ublic Works & P ark Maintenance Facility. Next will be the
presentation to City Council on Feb 17 at 7:00pm at Edina City Hall. Finally, there will be a wrap-up presentation
for the week’s efforts at the Transportation Commission meeting on Feb 18 at 6:00pm at Edina City Hall. Of
these meetings, the Feb 16 public workshop will be the only meeting where public comments will be taken
regarding the Study.
Staff from the LHB, Inc. consultant team will lead a brief presentation to update the Commission on the Study,
potential transportation scenarios and solutions, and to briefly share the outcomes of the Feb 16 public workshop.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Draft Exis ting Conditions Briefing Book
GRANDVIEW DISTRICT
TRANSPORTATION STUDY
EXISTING CONDITIONSBRIEFING BOOK
CITY OF EDINA | FEBRUARY 2016 DRAFT
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 20162
1947
1966
1991
1957
1979
2003
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 2016 3
GRANDVIEW DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTEXT | 4
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK | 9
PEDESTRIAN + BICYCLE | 13
LAND USE | 17
TRANSIT | 21
SAFETY | 23
ENVIRONMENT | 25
DEMOGRAPHICS | 28
Aerial photos showing GrandView change over time. Photos from the City of Edina.
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 20164
CONTEXT
WHAT IS THIS STUDY?
In December of 2009, as a
response to some unsuccessful
planning studies, planning
commissioners proposed a
new kind of “community-led”
Small Area Guide process for
the GrandView District as a
precursor to a Small Area Plan.
The Small Area Guide process
started with a self-selected
18-person Community Advisory
Team of residents, business
and property owners, and a
10-person volunteer design team
made up of architects, landscape
architects, urban planners, and
engineers, all of whom are
Edina residents. This innovative
and collaborative process was
short but intense, including ten
meetings in 20 days, resulting
in the unanimous approval of
seven guiding principles for the
redevelopment of the GrandView
District in May of 2010.
Building on the momentum of
the Small Area Guide process,
City staff applied for and
received a Met Council Livable
Communities grant, enabling
the hiring of a consultant team
to work with a 52-member
steering committee to create the
GrandView District Development
Framework.
Map of the study area (City of Edina)
This process began in April 2011
and was unanimously adopted by
the City Council in April 2012.
The Framework describes a
catalytic new mixed use public/
private project for the Public
Workss Site that would set the
tone for future development in
the district.
7 GUIDING PRINCIPLES
FROM THE SMALL AREA GUIDE PROCESS
1. Leverage publically owned parcels
2. Meet the needs of businesses and residents
3. Turn barriers into opportunities
4. Pursue logical increments; make vibrant,
walkable, and attractive
5. Organize parking; provide convenience
6. Improve movement for all ages and modes
7. Identity and unique sense of place
83.6
acreage of the GrandView
District
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 2016 5
Map of the study area in Edina and the Twin Cities (City of Edina, Census Bureau)
In April 2013, the City Council discussed various
strategies to implement the Framework and selected
the Request for Interest (RFI) process to find a
development partner for the Public Workss Site. A
new GrandView Community Advisory Team (CAT)
was convened to develop the RFI. For the first time
since late 2009, the focus left the big GrandView
vision where consensus had been building and
zoomed in on the Public Workss Site where opinions
differed on how much of site should be allocated for
public vs. private uses.
The Council proceeded with an RFI for developers
in June of 2014 and ultimately selected Frauenshuh
as their developer partner. Together, the City and
the Frauenshuh team worked with the community
to arrive at a development program for the site that
included a 60,000sf community center anchored
THIS STUDY WILL
• Identify needs, challenges and opportunities based on
existing conditions and future “build-out” with lower-
density and high-density scenarios
• Review, evaluate and affirm the recommended changes to
the transportation network contained in the GrandView
District Development Framework (2012)
• Offer specific recommendations but remain flexible
enough to take into account future unknown challenges
and opportunities
• Recommend prioritized, phased improvements tied to key
redevelopment events
• Recommend improved connections to adjacent
neighborhoods, with a focus on bicycle and pedestrian
connections
• Analyze motorized travel to guide intersection and roadway
modifications identified in the Development Framework
• Follow the Living Streets Policy and Implementation Plan
guidelines.
by the Edina Art Center and
Edina Senior Center, an 8,000sf
restaurant, a 170-unit apartment
building, public plazas, pedestrian
friendly streets and amenities.
The City Council received the
development team report at
the September 1, 2015 council
meeting which included a traffic
study and preliminary cost
estimates.
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 20166
The Council approved the formation of a task
force to work with Park and Recreation staff in
an effort to determine the feasibility of a new
community center. The task force hired a multi-
faceted team led by HGA architects and engineers
to facilitate community visioning and programming
of a multi-generational community center. The work
will include concept design and cost estimating,
operational analysis and an arts market/feasibility
analysis. The results of the community center study
are intended to be complete in late May, at roughly
the same time as this transportation study.
OTHER POLICY AND
PLANNING WORK
While the GrandView process has been progressing,
the Transportation Commission was working with
staff on a Living Streets Policy, approved by the City
Council in August of 2013. By May of 2015, a Living
Streets Plan was approved by the Council outlining
in detail how the policy will be implemented.
During this same period of time, the Metropolitan
Design Center at the University of Minnesota
approached the City about the idea of building
a lid over Highway 100, similar to early sketches
developed during the 2010 GrandView Guide Plan
process. MnDOT has become increasingly interested
in the lid concept as a way to create value from
under-utilized State-owned land.
PROJECT GOALS
The primary purpose of this project is to prepare
a comprehensive transportation study for the long-
term redevelopment of the GrandView District that
guides public and private investments in the area.
PREVIOUS PLANS +
STUDIES
Several previous studies and planning efforts have focused
on the GrandView District. The project team will review
these documents and relevant elements of other citywide
plans and documents. These documents include (but may
not be limited to) the following:
• GrandView District Development Framework (2012)
• GrandView Former Public Workss Site Traffic Study
(pending 2015)
• GrandView Former Public Workss Site Redevelopment
Planning (pending 2015)
• GrandView Transportation Summary prepared by
consultant (March 6, 2014)
• Highway 100 Lid Preliminary Concept (July 2014)
• Edina Comprehensive Plan (2008)
• Living Streets Plan (2015)
• City of Edina Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan
(2007)
• Northeast Edina Transportation Study (2006)
• Metropolitan Council 2040 Transportation Policy Plan
(2015, see Chapter 6 for transit investments, including
Figure 6-5 for Express Bus/Park-and-Rides and Chapter
7 for bicycle and pedestrian investments, including Figure
7-2 for regional bicycle trails)
• Hennepin County Pedestrian Plan (2013)
• Hennepin County 2040 Bicycle Transportation Plan
(2015)
• City of Edina 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Plan
(2014)
The City of Edina’s GrandView District
Transportation Study seeks to identify
challenges and opportunities, evaluate previously
recommended transportation changes, and offer
additional recommendations to improve the area’s
transportation system. The findings of this study
will inform planning and investment in the area for
decades to come, and is an opportunity to tailor
transportation infrastructure and development in a
progressive multi-modal and mixed-use framework
that meets the community’s long-term needs.
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 2016 7
CONTEXT
GRANDVIEW HISTORY
Spanning 125 years, the
GrandView District has evolved
and changed throughout its
history. In 2008 the Edina
Comprehensive Plan identified
the GrandView area as a
“Potential Area of Change”. The
GrandView District has always
changed and achieved a unique
perspective among residents and
admirers of Edina. Transportation
infrastructure has long been an
ally to the economic and cultural
improvements of the area. In
1913, the Dan Patch Rail Line
was developed through the high
ground east of Brookside Avenue,
providing passenger service to
Minneapolis from 1915 to 1942.
In 1927, new Highway 169/212
(current Vernon Avenue) was cut
through the District, bringing new
businesses including the Biltmore
Motel and several restaurants.
Over the years, the GrandView
area has hosted cafes, restaurants,
gas stations, hardware stores,
office buildings, a funeral home,
and the widely recognized Jerry’s
enterprises, a longtime business
in the District.
The District continued to evolve
during the 80s and 90s, where
economic growth encouraged
the distinct commercial aspect
of the area. Currently, the
GrandView District sits between
multiple access points: 50th
street, Vernon Avenue, Highway
100, Eden Avenue, and Arcadia
Avenue. The District provides an
entryway into several memorable
cultural and historic sites in
Edina, including City Hall, 50th
and France, the Country Club
District, Interlachen, the historic
Grange hall and school house,
and the Edina Library.
GrandView Planning Timeline
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 20168
CONTEXT
RECENT DEVELOPMENT
No new development has occurred in the
GrandView District since the GrandView Square
development including condominiums, office, parking,
library and senior center in the early 2000’s. Prior
to that, the newest development was the mid-1980’s
Jerry’s office tower and municipal parking ramp.
The Eden Avenue Grill added a sunporch to the
south side of their building in 2014 and is currently
undergoing a major interior remodel. Many other
businesses have remodeled their interiors, including
Jerry’s grocery store, Davanni’s, GrandView Tire and
Auto and Edina Liquor.
In 2011, Jerry’s enterprises sold their hardware store
location to Walgreens and moved the hardware
store into a former pharmacy space adjacent to the
grocery store. The CSM retail building on Gus Young
Lane immediately north of the Public Workss Site
has consistently updated tenant spaces through the
years.
Two significant demolition projects have created
development opportunity in the District. Our Lady
of Grace church (OLG) purchased the former
Wanner Property, demolishing several small
industrial buildings. Meanwhile, the City demolished
the old Public Workss building in 2013.
Photo of the study area.
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 2016 9
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
STREETS
The GrandView area is bounded by Vernon Avenue
and Eden Avenue and bisected by Highway 100 and
the active CP freight rail corridor. The remaining
local streets are a patchwork of discontinuous
pieces. The excessive transportation infrastructure
visible today is the remnant of Highway 169/212
intersecting with Highway 100, before Highway
169/212 was relocated to its present location.
The sweeping curves and width of Vernon Avenue
were appropriate for a highway, but currently, they
form a barrier to the neighborhoods on either side.
The excessive entrance and exit ramps on both
sides of Highway 100 occupy valuable real estate,
impede pedestrian and bicycle movement, and create
unfriendly highway merges for motorists.
Eden Avenue is designated as a primary bike route
through the District while Vernon Avenue and
Interlachen Boulevard are designated as secondary
bike routes. In general, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities range from poor to non-existent, effectively
excluding the surrounding neighborhoods of from
the businesses and public facilities at GrandView.
Data: City of Edina
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 201610
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
TRAFFIC SIGNALS + STOP SIGNS
Most intersections along Vernon Avenue are
signalized, while stop signs are more common on
smaller side streets and on Eden Avenue.
Community members have provided feedback that
some intersections are not safe due to the wrong
signal or stop configuration.
Data: City of Edina, MnDOT
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 2016 11
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
TRAFFIC COUNTS
Naturally, Highway 100 is the busiest road passing
through the study area, carrying over 110,000
vehicles per day. The next-busiest street, Vernon
Avenue, carries one-fifth that amount, with
just 22,500 vehicles east of Highway 100 and
20,400 vehicles west of Highway 100. Interlachen
Boulevard and Eden Avenue are other well-used
streets in the study area, though they carry just
10,300 and 8,500 vehicles, respectively.
Data: City of Edina, MnDOT
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 201612
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
PARKING
There is extensive parking in the study area. Parking
lots cover BLANK percentage of the study area,
while over 2500 parking spaces are available. In
general, parking appears to be adequate for existing
uses with the exception of during peak events at the
Senior Center and Library.
2552
marked parking spaces in GrandView
(calculated using aerial photos)
13.96
acres of parking in GrandView
16.7%
of GrandView is used for parking
Data: City of Edina, MnDOT
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 2016 13
%
%
%
%
UV100
UV100
E D E N
50TH
V E R N O N
W I L S O N
A R C A D I A
N
O
R
M
A
N
D
A
L
E
49TH
S H E R W O O D
52ND
G
R
A
N
G
E
LINK
53RD
H A N K E R S O N
D A L E
I
N
T
E
R
L
A
C
H
E
N
B R O O K S I D E
GUS YOUNG
GRANDVIEW
W E S T B R O O K
S U M M I T
PINEWOOD
BROOKSIDE
50TH
G
R
A
N
D
V
I
E
W
Legend
%Library
%City Hall
%Schools
Parking Lots
Building Footprints
Project Area
Features
Water
Park
0 250 500
Feet
Less Stress
More Stress
PEDESTRIAN + BICYCLE
SIDEWALKS
This is a map of sidewalks in the Edina GrandView
area. Gaps in the sidewalk network exist along one or
both sides of the following roadways:
The map represents the relative stress level a
pedestrian might experience when walking in the
project area. Routes are scored based on proximity
to the roadway and roadway traffic volumes. Since
almost all sidewalks in the project area are 5 feet
wide, sidewalk width was not a major consideration.
Portions of 50th Street and Arcadia Avenue scored
highest in terms of pedestrians’ estimated stress level.
Segments of Eden Avenue, a block of 50th Street, Gus
Young Lane, and Link Road scored lowest in terms of
estimated stress level.
• 52nd
• 53rd
• Arcadia
• Brookside
• Eden
• Grange
• Gus Young
• Hankerson
• Interlachen
• Pinewood
• Sherwood
• Summit
• Vernon
The on- and off-ramps for State Route 100 pose
concerns for pedestrians’ comfort, particularly when
traveling along 50th Street and Eden Avenue.
Data: City of Edina, MnDOT
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 201614
%
%
%
%
UV100
UV100
EDEN
50TH
VE
R
N
O
N
WIL
S
O
N
AR
C
A
D
I
A
N
O
R
M
A
N
D
A
L
E
49TH
SH
E
R
W
O
O
D
52ND
G
R
A
N
G
E
LIN
K
53RD
HA
N
K
E
R
S
O
N
DA
L
E
I
N
T
E
R
L
A
C
H
E
N
BR
O
O
K
S
I
D
E
GUS YOUNG
GRANDVIEW
WE
S
T
B
R
O
O
K
SU
M
M
I
T
PINEWOOD
BROOKSIDE
50TH
G
R
A
N
D
V
I
E
W
Legend
Painted Crosswalk
Brick Inlay Crosswalk
Curb Ramp
%%
%
Library
City Hall
Schools
Project Area
Features
Water
Park
Building Footprints
Parking Lots
0 250 500
Feet
PEDESTRIAN + BICYCLE
CROSSWALKS + CURB RAMPS
This is a map of crosswalks and curb ramps in the
study area. Dashed white lines with gray backing
show painted, continental-style crosswalks. Solid gray
lines show decorative crosswalks. The latter is found
at one intersection (Eden Avenue and W 50th St)
near Edina City Hall. Orange circles show locations
with curb ramps. All crosswalks within the study
area feature curb ramps.
Decorative Crosswalk
Missing Crosswalk
Missing Crosswalk
Data: City of Edina, MnDOT
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 2016 15
PEDESTRIAN + BICYCLE
BICYCLE NETWORK
This is a map of the study area’s existing and
proposed bicycle facilities. Vernon Avenue currently
has bicycle lanes on both sides of the street, south
of W 53rd Street. Bicycle lanes are also found on
Interlachen Boulevard; they begin at Boyce Street
on Blake Road and extend to the intersection
of Interlachen Boulevard and Vernon Avenue S.
Previously produced plans propose bike lanes along:
• Arcadia
• Brookside
• Grange
• Gus Young
• Link/Eden
• Vernon/50th
%
%
%
%
UV100
UV100
E D E N
50TH
V E R N O N
W I L S O N
A R C A D I A
N
O
R
M
A
N
D
A
L
E
49TH
S H E R W O O D
52ND
G
R
A
N
G
E
LINK
53RD
H A N K E R S O N
D A L E
I
N
T
E
R
L
A
C
H
E
N
B R O O K S I D E
GUS YOUNG
GRANDVIEW
W E S T B R O O K
S U M M I T
PINEWOOD
BROOKSIDE
50TH
G
R
A
N
D
V
I
E
W
Legend
Edina Grandview
Bicycle Facilities
Edina Grandview
Proposed Bicycle
Facilities
%Library
%City Hall
%Schools
Project Area
Features
Water
Park
Parking Lots
Building Footprints
0 250 500
FeetData: City of Edina, MnDOT
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 201616
%
%
%
%
UV100
UV100
E D E N
50TH
V E R N O N
W I L S O N
A R C A D I A
N
O
R
M
A
N
D
A
L
E
49TH
S H E R W O O D
52ND
G
R
A
N
G
E
LINK
53RD
H A N K E R S O N
D A L E
I
N
T
E
R
L
A
C
H
E
N
B R O O K S I D E
GUS YOUNG
GRANDVIEW
W E S T B R O O K
S U M M I T
PINEWOOD
BROOKSIDE
50TH
G
R
A
N
D
V
I
E
W
Legend
Level of Traffic Stress
Level 1
Level 2
Level 4
Not Included in Analysis
%Library
%City Hall
%Schools
Project Area
Features
Water
Park
Building Footprints
Parking Lots
0 250 500
Feet
PEDESTRIAN + BICYCLE
BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
This map shows the results of a Level of Traffic
Stress (LTS) analysis of the study area. LTS
investigates roadway characteristics (i.e., speed,
number of lanes, presence of bike facilities) to
estimate a given route’s stress level for an adult
bicyclist. Stress levels increase with an LTS score.
Most roadways in Edina GrandView scored LTS 4,
indicating a stressful roadway environment, which
is not accessible for a casual bicycle rider. Bicycle
lanes on Interlachen Boulevard and Vernon Avenue
score LTS 2 and LTS 1, respectively, indicating their
accessibility to the general population.
No routes scored LTS 3, which would indicate a
moderate level of traffic stress. Well-designed bicycle
facilities can decrease a route’s level of traffic stress.
More
stressful
Less
stressful
Data: City of Edina, MnDOT
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 2016 17
LAND USE
ZONING
The study area is zoned a mix of land uses, though it
is predominantly commercial in nature. Commercial
and industrial zoning dominates the area bounded by
Vernon Avenue, Eden Avenue, and Route 100, while
residential zoning is more common north and west
of Vernon Avenue. Mixed-use zoning occurs south of
Eden Avenue.
Data: City of Edina
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 201618
LAND USE
BUILDING FOOTPRINTS
Like many suburban areas built during the mid-20th
century, the GrandView District consists primarily of
low-rise, horizontal building types, such as strip malls,
drive-thrus, and office parks. Most buildings are set
back behind large parking lots. The result is an urban
fabric that consists mainly of buildings scattered
among large open spaces.
More recent development, such as GrandView
Square, has a more urban pattern with buildings
tightly clustered around streets and public spaces.
Data: City of Edina
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 2016 19
LAND USE
POTENTIAL FOR CHANGE
Many of the parcels in the GrandView district
have the potential to change significantly if the
GrandView District Framework Plan or the
GrandView Green are implemented. Others are
fairly stable and seem unlikely to change in the
planning timeframe of this study. Understanding the
potential for change helps us predict how much
additional traffic may be generated by development
in this area.
959
new units in GrandView if the land is
developed at 30 units/acre
1917
new units in GrandView if the land is
developed at 60 units/acre
Data: City of Edina, MnDOT
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 201620
LAND USE
LAND VALUES
Land values per acre vary widely throughout
the study area. The highest-value properties are
commercial and residential uses along Vernon
Avenue.
$2,000,000
The average value per acre of land in GrandView
Data: City of Edina
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 2016 21
TRANSIT
TRANSIT NETWORK
ROUTE FREQUENCY SERVICE
46 15-30 minutes Weekdays
146 15-20 minutes Rush hour, peak direction
568 One trip Rush hours, peak direction
587 30 minutes Rush hour, peak direction
Data: City of Edina, Metro Transit
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 201622
TRANSIT
TRANSIT RIDERSHIP
This is a map of transit ridership. Overall, the busiest
bus stops are located along Vernon Avenue. The
most boardings and alightings are at Vernon and
Interlachen Boulevard, followed by Vernon and Eden
Avenue.
1,687
transit boardings and alightings each week in
the GrandView District
Data: City of Edina, Metro Transit
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 2016 23
SAFETY
AUTO, BIKE + PED COLLISIONS
The Highway 100 interchange is the site of many
automobile collisions in the study area, followed by
the intersection of Vernon Avenue and Interlachen
Boulevard. There are just one pedestrian collision
and one fatality, both of which occurred at that
intersection as well.
Data: City of Edina, MnDOT
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 201624
ENVIRONMENT
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
Information to be provided by the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District.
PLA
C
E
H
O
L
D
E
R
INFORMATION TO BE
PROVIDED BY THE
MINNEHAHA CREEK
WATERSHED DISTRICTDRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 2016 25
ENVIRONMENT
TOPOGRAPHY
The study area is generally flat with a gentle slope
from north to south. However, there is a significant
change in elevation around the railroad line and
Highway 100.
Data: City of Edina
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 201626
ENVIRONMENT
SEWER SYSTEMS
There are a variety of sewer utilities serving the
GrandView district, including sewers, manholes,
inlets, and lift stations.
Data: City of Edina
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 2016 27
ENVIRONMENT
STREET TREES
Street tree cover is inconsistent throughout the
district. The greatest concentration of trees is
along the streetscape of Vernon Avenue and within
the semi-private roadways in the senior housing
development by the library. However, most of the
these trees are very small to moderate in size.
Mature street trees are rare in the district.
The species diversity of the street trees have not
been assessed at this stage of exploration. This bears
further inquiry as more refined plans for the district
are developed, in an effort to increase species
diversity and therefore resiliency of the district’s
flora.
Trees that contribute to the streetscape
experience were included in this assessment, even
if they are located within private property. Trees
that are significantly setback from the roadway,
in the highway right-of-way, or the railroad right-
of-way were excluded from this assessment.
Exceptionally large shrubs were also excluded.
Data: City of Edina
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 201628
The City of Edina is a destination for commuters
across the Twin Cities area, while residents
commute to activity centers throughout the Twin
Cities as well, according to the US Census Bureau.
The largest group of workers living in the
city commute to Minneapolis, followed by
Bloomington, St. Paul, and Eden Prairie. These
four cities are also the largest contributors of
commuters into the city. Meanwhile, over 3200
Edina residents both live and work in the city.
DEMOGRAPHICS
WHERE PEOPLE WORK
26%14%
of employed Edina
residents work in Edina
of Edina workers
commute to Minneapolis
Data: US Census Bureau
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 2016 29
The following pages illustrate many demographic
trends in and around the GrandView District
using data from the US Census and 2010-2014
American Community Survey. The GrandView
District straddles three Census tracts, which are the
geographic areas used to publish Census data. As a
result, the data on the following pages refers to the
area shown above in blue.
DEMOGRAPHICS
STUDY AREA
Data: US Census Bureau
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 201630
DEMOGRAPHICS
INCOME
GrandView has a diverse
socioeconomic mix. According
to the 2010-2014 American
Community Survey, one-quarter
each of households have an
income of over $200,000 per
year, between $50,000 and
$100,000 per year, or below
$50,000 per year. Households
making between $100,000 and
$200,000 per year make up
the final quarter. GrandView
has a higher median income,
and lower poverty rates, than
Edina or the Twin Cities, though
unemployment is higher than in
Edina as a whole.
INCOME LEVELS
MEDIAN INCOME UNEMPLOYMENT +
POVERTYDRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 2016 31
UNEMPLOYMENT +
POVERTY
DEMOGRAPHICS
MODE SHARE
GETTING TO WORK
More than four out of five workers living in the
GrandView study area drive alone to work, while
about 10 percent work from home, according to
the 2010-2014 American Community Survey. Both
of these rates are higher than in Edina and the
Twin Cities as a whole. This may be an opportunity
to improve carpool options in the area, such as
providing a park-and-ride.
82%
Of GrandView workers drive alone to work
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 201632
JOURNEY TO WORK TRAVEL TIME
VEHICLES PER
HOUSEHOLD
GrandView workers have shorter
commutes than those in Edina
and the Twin Cities, according
to the 2010-2014 American
Community Survey.
15.3%
Of GrandView households have one or no
vehicles available
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 2016 33
DEMOGRAPHICS
RACE, ETHNICITY + AGE
The GrandView study area is predominantly
white, but has a diverse age makeup. Baby
Boomers, or adults between 50 and 69,
are the largest age group in the study area,
followed by Generation Z (children under
age 14) and Generation X (adults between
35 and 49). The study area has comparably
smaller numbers of adults over 70 and of
Millennials, or individuals between 15 and 34.
Overall, GrandView is older than Edina
and the Twin Cities, which both have larger
populations of Millennials and Generation Z.
GENERATION BREAKDOWN
RACIAL BREAKDOWNDRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Grandview District Transportation Study | February 201634
OUTCOMES OF DESIGN WEEK
Priorities identified at Public Meeting
• Consider all modes of movement
• Incorporate Complete Streets
• Reconnect zones within district for all modes
• Transit
» Bus routes and access
»Advocacy for Park and Ride
»Consider commuter rail
• Pedestrian experience
»Enhance both safety and routing
»Improve experience
• Motorists
»District parking strategy
»Reorganize highway ramps
»Explore street and intersection configurations
»Consider through-traffic and to-traffic
Identified 4 scenarios for analysis
• Existing conditions
• New development at Edina Comprehensive Plan levels
»30 housing units per developable acre
»1.5 FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
• New development at GrandView Framework levels
»Incorporates Former Public Works Site development density
»60 housing units per developable acre
»2.0 FAR
• New development with a Highway 100 GrandView Green
»125 housing units per developable acre
Stakeholder Discussions
• MetroTransit
• MnDOT and Hennepin County
• Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
(NMCWD)
• Bike and Pedestrian Focus Group
DRA
F
T
Febr
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
6
Date: Feb ruary 18, 2016 Agenda Item #: VII.A.
To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type:
Other
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:2016 Wo rk Plan Up d ates Dis cus s io n, Info rmatio n
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Each month, members ("champions") will provide updates on 2016 work plan initiatives. For this month, the
Commission shall confirm which ET C member will serve as "champion" for each work plan initiative.
INTRODUCTION:
1. Study and report Community Circulator.
2. Organize and host a transportation-themed event with speaker(s).
3. P repare and comment on Comprehensive P edestrian and Bicycle P lan for inclusion in 2018
Comprehensive P lan.
4. Review Edina To Go app and provide recommendations to staff regarding organization/categories for
reporting concerns related to streets/transportation.
5. Review data from City’s Quality of Life Survey (2011, 2013, 2015) and conduct 2 public meetings to
identify gaps around the City’s transportation systems.
6. Make recommendations to staff for evaluation of the Living Streets and Streets Smarts outreach
campaigns.
7. P rovide input to staff on the creation of a walking map of the City indicating routes and areas of interest.
Date: Feb ruary 18, 2016 Agenda Item #: VII.B.
To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type:
R ep o rt and Rec o mmendation
From:Jo s ep h Totten, Traffic Safety Coordinator
Item Activity:
Subject:Traffic Safety Report of February 3, 2016 Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review and recommend the Traffic Safety Report of Wednesday February 3, 2016 be forwarded to City Council
for approval.
INTRODUCTION:
It is not anticipated that residents will be in attendance at the meeting. An overview of the comments from the
Edina Transportation Commission (ET C) will be included in the staff report provided to Council for their March
15, 2016 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Traffic Safety Report of February 3, 2016
February 18th, 2016
Edina Transportation Commission
Joe Totten, Traffic Safety Coordinator
Traffic Safety Report of February 03, 2016
Information / Background:
The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on February 03. The City
Engineer, Assistant City Planner, Traffic Safety Coordinator, Sign Coordinator, Transportation Planner and
Police Lieutenant were in attendance for this meeting.
For these reviews, 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 informed that if
they disagree with the recommendation or have additional facts to present, these comments can be included
on the February 18 Edina Transportation Commission and the March 15 City Council meeting agendas.
Section A : Items on which the Traffic Safety
Committee recommends action
A1. Request for treatment(s) to increase
westbound compliance with all-way stop
control at 42nd Street and Alden Drive, with a
preference for stop bars
This request comes from neighbors in the
Morningside neighborhood, and was relayed to staff
via an Edina Transportation Commissioner. The
request notes that vehicles on 42nd Street do not stop
for the stop signs at Alden Drive often, and this
creates a dangerous situation. The T-intersection is an
all way stop, with 42nd Street being identified as a local connector in the comprehensive plan, and Alden
Drive is identified as a local street. A video analysis, from 5:00 AM-10:00 PM, of westbound vehicle traffic
identified 123 drivers as not reaching a full stop, 4 drivers ran the stop sign at what was clearly a very high
and dangerous rate of speed; these numbers are out of 770 westbound drivers who passed the intersection
in the timeframe studied. No reported crashes have occurred in the past ten years at this location.
Map : 42nd Street and Alden Drive
Traffic Safety Report of Feb. 03, 2016 Page 2
Map : Eden Avenue at Our Lady of Grace parking entrance
Photo : Screenshot from video analysis, looking south from
Eden Avenue, towards Our Lady of Grace parking entrance
After review, staff recommends using this
intersection to study the effect of using red
posts with stop signs to give the sign greater
weight. Video will be collected of the
intersection to best observe westbound
traffic; before and after the stop sign’s post
has a red reflective strip added to it. This
study will be completed within the year, and
this item will be reconsidered at that time.
The recommendation to not install a stop bar
at this location is due to a lack of research on
their effectiveness, while the red reflective
strips can be installed immediately, and are easier to remove if found ineffective, and have
been installed in other locations around the city.
Section B : Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends no action
B1. Request for mitigating difficult left turns from
Our Lady of Grace parking access onto
westbound Eden Avenue
This request comes from a parent who drops their
child off at Our Lady of Grace school daily; the
requestor states that turning left out of the parking
lot onto Eden Avenue is difficult during school drop-
off, and turning right, then using Arcadia and Gus
Young to avoid this issue is troublesome because of
the backups from the Grandview area Starbucks
Drive-Thru. To avoid bus and pedestrian conflicts,
Our Lady of Grace only allows for utilization of the
school’s northern access for parent drop-off. Buses
are shared between Our Lady of Grace and
Normandale Elementary; this consideration prevents
use of other entrances being utilized for the school’s
drop-off. A video study was performed, both
determining the vehicle gaps on Eden Avenue of
sufficient size for left turns out of the parking lot, as
well as a delay study for left turning vehicles. The
delay study only concerned left turning vehicles as it
was seen that the queue for left turns rarely, if ever
interferes with right turns out of the driveway. The
video study found that most left hand turns occurred during school drop-off from 7:45-8:30 AM. The gap
analysis study determined that the least number of gaps occurred between 8:15-8:30 AM. During this time
there were 18 gaps that allowed left hand turns. In the delay study from 7:45-8:30 AM the average delay was
about 19 seconds. The maximum delay was found to be 22 seconds and occurred between 8:15-8:30 AM.
After review, staff does not recommend immediate treatments of the issues presented by the
requestor, due to sufficient gaps and a delay which would be considered a Level Of Service of
C by the Highway Capacity Manual. The number of gaps also did not present itself as an issue,
with several gaps of proper length for left turns (by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials “Green Book”). Further, as the Grandview District
Photo : 42nd Street at Alden Avenue, the approach studied is
on the far side of the intersection
Traffic Safety Report of Feb. 03, 2016 Page 3
Transportation Study is completed, and the Former Public Works site is redeveloped,
strategies and recommendations will be presented, regarding traffic in the area.
B2. Request for stop control at the intersection of
Ridge Place and Dale Drive to increase safety
at an intersection with inadequate sight
distance
This request comes from the Sunnyslope
neighborhood, where a resident is concerned about
sight distances at the intersection of Dale Drive and
Ridge Place. The requestor noted how neighbors do
not drive on the sides of the streets, but down the
middle, and is concerned for neighborhood children
who are biking in the streets. This is a three-leg
intersection, and the main concern from the
requestor is that southbound traffic on Ridge Place
cannot see westbound traffic on Dale Drive and vice-
versa, as they approach the uncontrolled intersection.
Both of these streets have counts from 2014 studies
in the neighborhood, Both streets have 85th-
percentile speeds which are around 20 mph, Ridge
Place has a volume of 273 ADT and Dale Drive’s east
of this intersection has a volume of 121 ADT. This
would indicate that should a sightline issue be
investigated, required sight distances from AASHTO
should be considered at speeds of 20, 25, and 30
mph. The low volumes indicate that although no
crashes are seen in this location, the likelihood of
these two approaches having an approaching vehicle
in the same few seconds, is so unlikely that even if a
safety issue does exist it is unlikely to have presented
itself through a crash history. No crashes have been
reported in this location in the last five years. Sight distances were investigated, with different design speeds
for 20, 25 and 30 mph design speeds, as indicated above. The tables below show if an approach has a given
85th-percentile or design speed, if it would have sufficient sight distance with the possible 85th-percentile or
design speeds of the opposing approach.
Dale Drive
Ri
d
g
e
P
l
a
c
e
Uncontrolled
Intersection
20 mph design speed,
90 feet
25 mph design speed,
115 feet
30 mph design speed,
140 feet
20 mph design speed, 90
feet
Yes Yes No
25 mph design speed,
115 feet
Yes Yes No
30 mph design speed,
140 feet
No No No
Left Turn from
Stop
Dale Drive, 20 mph design
speed, 220 feet
Dale Drive, 25 mph design
speed, 280 feet
Dale Drive, 30 mph design
speed, 335 feet
Ridge Place, 18 feet
from intersection
Yes Yes No
Map : Ridge Place and Dale Drive, approximate centerlines
are shown in red for greater clarity
Photo : Berm on the Northern corner of the intersection
Traffic Safety Report of Feb. 03, 2016 Page 4
Map : Woodhill Way and Ridge Place
The southwest leg of Dale Drive was seen to have adequate sight distance for all movements, as did right
turns. A peak-hour radar study found an 85th-percentile speed of 27 mph on Dale Drive as it enters the
neighborhood. Five of the 74 drivers surveyed entered the intersection while traveling more than 25 mph,
and all of these drivers were entering the neighborhood on Dale Drive, on the leg determined to have
adequate sight distance under all conditions.
After review, staff has recommended this request for no action. This is because sight distance
measurements are taken at approximately 3.5-feet of height. This is a residential
neighborhood, and the low speeds found with most drivers were seen as an indication that
almost all drivers in this neighborhood are maintaining a speed which would be reasonable
under these conditions. Additionally, installing a stop sign would not solve all sight distance
issues.
B3. Request for stop control at the intersection of Ridge Place and Woodhill Way
This request was previously considered in 2014,
the requestor in this case wishes for stop signs to
increase intersection safety specifically for children
riding bicycles in the street, based highly on sight
distance concerns. Sightlines were seen to be
sufficient in 2014, and Ridge Place was seen as the
major street, with an ADT of 273 vehicles and an
85th Percentile speed of 20.0 mph. No further sight
line issues were observed due to the change in
seasons. Further, other area residents voiced
strong opposition to controlling the intersection
during site visits in 2014, due to increased noise,
speeds away from the stop sign, aesthetics, and
non-compliance with stop signs in residential
neighborhoods. No crashes have been reported in
this location in the past ten years.
After review, staff continued their recommendation from 2014 of no action. The area was
shown to have sufficient sight distances in the summer of 2014, and the investigation during
the winter of 2016 did not find any issues with sight distance either. Existing low speeds were
also considered during the decision on this request.
Section D : Other items handled by traffic safety
D1. A resident called in to request a street name blade for wayfinding. Summit Avenue, the street name
requested, is a private road. This sign was placed, with the signage placed for Vernon Lane (2014) used as
precedent for giving street name signs to private roads where they intersect public roads.
D2. A requestor asked that the Grandview Starbucks not be allowed to use Arcadia Avenue as a queuing
space for the drive-thru, as this was blocking traffic and causing safety issues when the requestor’s spouse
and mother-in-law are dropped off at various Grandview area locations. This item has been addressed in
previous traffic safety reports (2004, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015).
D3. A driver was very concerned with the possible design of speed bumps and if Edina would be able to
inspect and alter speed bumps in a condo development’s parking lot, as the driver’s small SUV was
bottoming out on the bumps. Because this was on private property, typical designs of speed bumps were
Traffic Safety Report of Feb. 03, 2016 Page 5
provided, but no investigation was handled. The requestor was advised to report the issue to the
homeowners association.
D4. A requestor notes that traffic on Vernon Avenue is driving above the speed limit during mid-afternoon
and into the evening. This request was forwarded to the police department, and a separate radar study was
taken from 3:00-4:30. This data was forwarded to the police department and Hennepin County.
D5. A requestor on 49th Street noted high vehicle speeds on that street. This request and existing traffic
data on the street were forwarded to the police department for directed enforcement.
D6. A requestor noted that construction vehicles for 6500 France Avenue were staged too close to an
existing building’s driveway. After discussing parking laws, the requestor wished for investigation to
determine if the staging was illegal. In a site visit, the staging was legal, and no conflict was observed.
D7. A requestor asked for instructions on how to reach the new Lund’s and Byerly’s store, as the new
median on Hazelton Road prevents a left turn directly into the parking lot. A site visit determined that the
signs which the requestor believed banned the movement around the roundabout to the south instead were
instructing drivers on how to enter the grocer’s parking lot. These instructions were relayed to the
requestor.
D8. A requestor noted a dangerous situation which has happened when the requestor stopped while
blocking a roundabout on 70th Street, as other drivers passed the requestor slowly and cautiously on the
truck apron. How to drive in a roundabout was discussed, as the requestor acknowledged he did not know
the rules in these types of intersections. And the dangerous situation he described was walked through to
ensure that the requestor knew how to prevent a repeat of the situation.
D9. A requestor asked for vehicle and non-motorized counts on Cornelia Drive, between 70th Street and
66th Street. These were provided.
Traffic Safety Report of Feb. 03, 2016 Page 6
Appendix A:
Stop Sign Warrants
When it is determined that a full stop is always required on an approach to an intersection a STOP (R1-1)
sign shall be used.
At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should first be given to using
less restrictive measures such as YIELD signs.
The use of STOP signs on the minor-street approaches should be considered if engineering judgment
indicates that a stop is always required because of one or more of the following conditions:
A. The vehicular traffic volumes on the through street or highway exceed 6,000 vehicles per day;
B. A restricted view exists that requires road users to stop in order to adequately observe conflicting
traffic on the through street or highway.
C. Crash records indicate that three or more crashes that are susceptible to correction with the
installation of a STOP sign have been reported within a 12-month period, or that five or more such
crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. Such crashes include right-angle collisions involving
road users from the minor street failing to yield the right-of-way to traffic on the through street or
highway.
Additional warrants which do not specify the type of control are as follows;
A. An intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal right-of way
rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law;
B. A street entering a designated through highway or street; and/or
C. An un-signalized intersection in a signalized area.
In addition, the use of YIELD or STOP signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets
or local roads where the intersection has more than three approaches and where one or more of the
following conditions exist:
A. The combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from all approaches
averages more the 2,000 units per day;
B. The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield
in compliance with the normal right-of-way rule if such stopping or yielding is necessary; and/or
C. Crash records indicate that five or more crashes that involve the failure to yield the right-of-way rule
have been reported within a 3-year period, or that three or more such crashes have been reported
within a 2-year period.
Additional warrants from the city of Edina list that:
1. If an intersection experiences five (5) or more right angle accidents in a three (3) year period, stop signs
should be considered.
2. If the presence of a sight obstruction is contributing to accidents at an intersection, removal of the sight
obstruction should be sought before considering a stop sign.
3. If the 85th percentile speed on any leg of an intersection is more than five (5) MPH over the posted
speed limit, a stop sign should be considered for the intersecting street.
4. If traffic volumes exceed 1,000 vehicles per day on each of the intersecting streets, stop signs should be
considered.
5. Residential stop signs shall not be installed in an attempt to control speed.
6. Residential stop signs shall not be installed in an attempt to control volume.
Date: Feb ruary 18, 2016 Agenda Item #: VII.C .
To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type:
Other
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:Affirm the 2016 Transportation Commis s ion Meeting
Sc hed ule
Ac tio n
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Affirm the regular Transportation Commission meeting schedule for 2016.
INTRODUCTION:
Below is the 2016 meeting schedule for the ET C, including the Joint Work Session with City Council. As part of
the Commission's Annual Meeting, staff is asking the ET C to make any changes/cancellations (if necessary) and
affirm the schedule.
T hursday January 21:
Regular ET C Meeting - 6:00 P M, COMMUNIT Y ROOM
T hursday February 18:
ET C Annual Meeting - 6:00 P M, COMMUNIT Y ROOM
T hursday March 17:
Regular ET C Meeting - 6:00 P M, COMMUNIT Y ROOM
T hursday April 21:
Regular ET C Meeting - 6:00 P M, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
T hursday May 19:
Regular ET C Meeting - 6:00 P M, COMMUNIT Y ROOM
T hursday June 16:
Regular ET C Meeting - 6:00 P M, COMMUNIT Y ROOM
Tuesday June 21:
ET C Joint Work Session with City Council - 6:15 P M, COMMUNIT Y ROOM
T hursday July 21:
Regular ET C Meeting - 6:00 P M, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
T hursday August 18:
Regular ET C Meeting - 6:00 P M, COMMUNIT Y ROOM
T hursday September 15:
Regular ET C Meeting - 6:00 P M, COMMUNIT Y ROOM
T hursday October 27:
T hursdayThursdayThursdayThursdayThursdayThursday T hursdayThursday
T hursday
T hursday
Regular ET C Meeting - 6:00 P M, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
T hursday Novemver 17:
Regular ET C Meeting - 6:00 P M, COMMUNIT Y ROOM
T hursday December 15:
Regular ET C Meeting - 6:00 P M, COMMUNIT Y ROOM
Date: Feb ruary 18, 2016 Agenda Item #: VII.D.
To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type:
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:Review Transportation Co mmis s ion Bylaws Info rmatio n
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
Transportation Commission bylaws should be reviewed on an annual basis by the members.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Trans portation Commis s ion Bylaws
Transportation Commission Bylaws
1 | Page
Updated 2015.08.19
Section 1: Introduction
The bylaws outlined below are approved procedures for the Edina Transportation Commission. Members should review
and understand City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1 and Chapter 2, Article III, Division 9 included in the appendix of
these bylaws. In the event of a conflict between the City Code and the Edina Transportation Commission bylaws, the City
Code will prevail.
Some components of these bylaws are common across all City boards and commissions. From time to time the City
Council may make changes to board and commission bylaws and will notify the board and commission of these changes.
Boards and commissions should consult with their staff liaison if they want to propose a change to the bylaws. Proposed
bylaw amendments should be announced one meeting prior to voting on the proposed change. Bylaw amendments
require the approval of a majority of the voting Edina Transportation Commission members and approval by the City
Council.
In addition to the City Code and these bylaws, the Edina Transportation Commission will be guided by those policies and
procedural documents applicable to the Edina Transportation Commission or City advisory boards in general. Copies of
these documents will be made available to members at the beginning of their service with the Edina Transportation
Commission.
Section 2: Mission and Business Address
Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2-78 and Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 9, Section 2-313
for the Edina Transportation Commission mission. The business office for the Edina Transportation Commission is
located at: Edina Engineering Department, 7450 Metro Boulevard, Edina, Minnesota, 55439. Members of the public can
also contact the Edina Transportation Commission at mail@edinamn.gov.
Section 3: Membership
Membership Composition
Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1 and Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 9, Section 2-314.
Terms of Membership
Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2-81.
Contact Information
Edina Transportation Commission members are required to provide a mailing address and phone number and/or email
address to the City Clerk. This contact information is available to Project Coordinator and members of the public.
Responsibilities
Edina Transportation Commission members are expected to be present and adequately prepared for all meetings and to
actively participate in meeting discussions. Members who are unable to complete assigned tasks should notify the
Chairperson as soon as possible.
Transportation Commission Bylaws
2 | Page
Updated 2015.08.19
Attendance
Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2-86. If a member cannot attend a regular meeting, he or she
should notify the Staff Liaison as soon as possible and ideally no later than two hours prior to the start of the meeting.
Cancelled meetings will be counted as meetings held and attended for purpose of calculating attendance percentages.
Resignation or Removal
Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2-81. The Edina Transportation Commission may ask the City
Council to review a member’s appointment based on the member’s failure to perform the responsibilities outlined
above.
Section 4: Meetings
Meeting Notice
Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2-84. All board and commission meetings are open to the
public. To comply with legal requirements and ensure accessibility to the public, the Staff Liaison gives official notice of
all Edina Transportation Commission meetings on the City’s website and at City Hall.
Regular Meetings
Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2-84. Regular meetings of the Edina Transportation
Commission are held at Edina City Hall, 4801 West 50th Street, Edina, Minnesota, 55424 or another officially noticed
location on the third Thursday of the month. A regular meeting may be rescheduled by the Edina Transportation
Commission at a prior meeting.
Annual Meeting
In February, the Edina Transportation Commission will hold an annual meeting to:
• Elect officers for the upcoming year,
• Review and update bylaws as necessary, and
• Affirm the regular meeting schedule for the upcoming year.
Special Meetings
Special meetings of the Edina Transportation Commission may be called by the Chairperson, City Council, City Manager
or by the directive of a majority of the Edina Transportation Commission voting members. Members will be notified of
the special meeting by written or email communication at least three calendar days in advance of the meeting. To
comply with the open meeting law and to ensure accessibility to the public, the Staff Liaison posts official notice of all
special meetings. A quorum is not required for special meetings; however, members cannot take action on a motion
unless a quorum is present.
Canceling Meetings
Meetings of the Edina Transportation Commission can be cancelled by the Chairperson, City Council, City Manager or by
the directive of a majority of the Edina Transportation Commission voting members. Meetings may be cancelled for
insufficient business, lack of quorum, conflict with a holiday, inclement weather, or in the event of a community
emergency.
Transportation Commission Bylaws
3 | Page
Updated 2015.08.19
Quorum
Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2-84.
Meeting Agendas
Meeting agendas will be prepared by the Chairperson in consultation with the City Staff Liaison. Members may request
that items be added to the agenda; however, the addition of such items is subject to approval by a majority of the voting
members. The meeting agenda and related materials will be sent electronically and/or mailed the Thursday prior to the
scheduled regular meeting.
Meeting Proceedings
During regular meetings, business will be conducted in the order listed below. The order of business may be changed
with the support of a majority of the voting members.
• Call to order
• Roll call
• Approval of agenda
• Approval of minutes from preceding meeting
• Public hearings
• Community comment
• Reports and recommendations
• Correspondence
• Commission comments
• Staff comments
• Adjournment
Meetings will be conducted according to the latest edition of Roberts Rules of Order.
Community Comment
During "Community Comment," the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to speak about
something not on the agenda that is relevant to the Edina Transportation Commission. Individuals must limit their
presentations to three minutes. The Chair has the right to limit the number of speakers making similar statements and
to limit comments related to matters previously discussed. The Edina Transportation Commission is not required to
respond to the comments. In order to maintain a respectful environment for all those in attendance, disruptive behavior
such as the use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing is not allowed.
Motions and Voting
A simple majority of voting members present and voting will decide all motions before the Edina Transportation
Commission. At the request of a member, a roll call vote will be taken when there is a divided vote on any item. A tie
vote on any motion will result in a failure to pass. Student members are not eligible to vote.
Meeting Minutes
Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2-85. City staff will prepare minutes for Edina Transportation
Commission meetings. The minutes will include which members were present and absent, a summary of each item
discussed and any motions proposed, and the votes on those motions. If a member of City staff is not present to record
Transportation Commission Bylaws
4 | Page
Updated 2015.08.19
minutes, the Edina Transportation Commission will appoint a secretary to prepare the minutes. The secretary will
prepare draft minutes within two weeks of the meeting date and forward the draft to the Chair and City Staff Liaison.
Approved minutes will be posted on the City’s website and forwarded to the City Clerk for distribution to the City
Council by the City Staff Liaison.
Section 5: Officers
Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2-83. The Edina Transportation Commission will hold elections
for the officer positions of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson at the annual meeting in February. The Chairperson may
make and second motions and vote on all motions. The duties of the Chairperson include but are not limited to:
• Prepare the agenda in consultation with the City Staff Liaison.
• Lead the meeting in accordance with the agenda and facilitate discussion on agenda items.
• Invoke a reasonable time limit for speakers during public testimony.
• Ensure that the bylaws are followed and actions are properly taken.
• Maintain meeting decorum.
• Extend meetings or schedule special meetings as necessary.
• Cancel meetings, in consultation with the City Staff Liaison.
• Facilitate the development of the annual work plan.
• Develop annual calendar of anticipated agenda items for each month.
• Consult with members regarding attendance issues.
• Encourage active participation by Edina Transportation Commission members and members of the public.
The Vice Chairperson performs the duties of the Chairperson in his/her absence. If both the Chairperson and the Vice
Chairperson are absent, an acting chairperson may be assigned in advance by either officer or at the meeting by a
majority vote of the members.
Section 6: City Staff Liaison
Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2-79. The Edina Transportation Commission has a City Staff
Liaison appointed by the City Manager. The City Staff Liaison is expected to work cooperatively with Edina
Transportation Commission members. Members may not direct City staff but can request assistance through the City
Staff Liaison to carry out the Edina Transportation Commission mission. The duties of the City Staff Liaison include but
are not limited to:
• Work with Chairperson to prepare and distribute meeting agendas.
• Reserve meeting rooms and other needed meeting equipment.
• Record and prepare meeting minutes (or delegate the responsibility to another City staff member).
• Provide technical expertise and access to City resources.
• Work with Chairperson to ensure bylaws are followed and annual work plans are submitted.
• Relay information or directives from City Council meetings or work sessions relevant to the Edina Transportation
Commission.
• Respond to Edina Transportation Commission inquiries in a timely manner.
Transportation Commission Bylaws
5 | Page
Updated 2015.08.19
• Forward information to and between Edina Transportation Commission members.
• Record meeting attendance, include the current attendance record with each packet, and consult with the
Chairperson and designated staff regarding attendance issues.
• Provide orientation materials to new members and Chairperson.
• Handle funds allocated to the Edina Transportation Commission in accordance with its directives, City policies
and legal requirements.
• Serve as the custodian of Edina Transportation Commission records.
• Work with City Clerk to serve all notices required by law or these bylaws.
Concerns with the performance of the City Staff Liaison should be directed to the Assistant City Manager.
Section 7: Committees and Working Groups
Introduction
Committees or Working Groups may be established by a majority vote of the Edina Transportation Commission to study
issues in greater depth and report findings. Committees or Working Groups present their analysis to the Edina
Transportation Commission for discussion and recommendations. The Edina Transportation Commission has the sole
authority to make final recommendations on all matters on which a Committee or Working Group has given guidance.
The Edina Transportation Commission defines the scope and the duration of the Committee or Working Group’s mission.
In no case may the Committee or Working Group exceed the authority granted by the Edina Transportation Commission.
Committee and Working Group participants may not include enough voting Edina Transportation Commission members
to constitute a quorum for the Edina Transportation Commission. Committees or Working Groups may be designated as
standing (ongoing) or temporary in nature.
Definitions
Committees and Working Groups may be comprised of two or more people, one of whom is the Chair appointed by the
Edina Transportation Commission. A Committee is comprised of current Edina Transportation Commission members
only. A Working Group is led by an Edina Transportation Commission member, but will also include members of the
public.
Working Group Announcement
Notice will be given to the public of the formation of any Working Group, including a press release from the City to local
media outlets. Individuals will have a minimum of 14 days after the public notice to express interest in joining before
members are selected.
Public Access
Based on the potential public interest in the topic, some Committee and Working Group meetings may be designated as
public meetings by the Edina Transportation Commission or the City Council. If a Committee or Working Group’s
meetings are designated as public meetings, official meeting notices, written agendas and written minutes are required.
Refer to Section 4 of these bylaws for additional information on meeting notices.
Transportation Commission Bylaws
6 | Page
Updated 2015.08.19
Appointments and Chair Assignments
Committees: The Edina Transportation Commission Chairperson will ask for Committee volunteers from the Edina
Transportation Commission membership. A majority vote may approve the Committee appointments once sufficient
volunteers are established. A temporary Committee Chair will be appointed by the Transportation Commission at the
time of Committee formation. The Committee will elect its own Chair and notify the Edina Transportation Commission
Chairperson.
Working Groups: The Edina Transportation Commission Chairperson will ask for volunteers from the Edina
Transportation Commission to serve as the Working Group Chair. The Working Group Chair is approved by a majority of
the Edina Transportation Commission members. The Working Group Chair will recommend other Working Group
members. By definition, those members will include individuals outside of the Edina Transportation Commission. The
Chair may also nominate a co-chair who is not an Edina Transportation Commission member. Working Group
appointments will be made by a majority vote of Edina Transportation Commission members.
The duties of the Committee or Working Group Chair(s) include but are not limited to:
• Set the meeting schedule and, if required, notify the City Staff Liaison for public notification.
• Prepare and distribute a written meeting agenda, if required.
• Lead the meeting in accordance with the agenda and facilitate discussion on agenda items.
• Ensure that this section of the bylaws and Edina Transportation Commission directives are followed.
• Maintain meeting decorum.
• Recommend members and notify Edina Transportation Commission of changes in membership (Working Group
only).
• Report on the Committee or Working Group’s activities at each regular Edina Transportation Commission
meeting.
• Communicate to the Committee or Working Group any directives, questions or input from the Edina
Transportation Commission.
Resignation or Removal
A Committee or Working Group member may voluntarily resign by submitting his or her written resignation to the Chair
of the Committee or Working Group. A Committee or Working Group member may be removed by a majority vote of
the Edina Transportation Commission.
Disbanding
A Committee or Working Group may be disbanded at any regular meeting of the Edina Transportation Commission by a
majority vote of the members. Committees or Working Groups will automatically be disbanded if no member of the
Edina Transportation Commission is available to serve or appropriate volunteer membership cannot be established.
Section 8: Communication
Applicability
This section applies to all types of media and communication methods including face-to-face, telephone, email and
social media.
Transportation Commission Bylaws
7 | Page
Updated 2015.08.19
Communication Between Members Outside of Meetings
Edina Transportation Commission related communication between members when a quorum of voting members is
present constitutes a violation of Open Meeting laws if it takes place outside of publicly-noticed meetings. Members are
prohibited from discussing Edina Transportation Commission business in such a situation. Since email communication is
common outside of meetings, the following email protocol is adopted:
• Any email communication intended for a majority of Edina Transportation Commission members should go
through the City Staff Liaison so that an appropriate record can be established.
• Members should not respond “reply all” to group messages.
• Members should not blind copy (bcc) other members.
Members must not engage in a serial discussion of Edina Transportation Commission business. A serial discussion occurs
when members discuss official business with a majority of voting members through successive communications. Serial
communication can occur through a combination of communication methods such as face-to-face, email, telephone or
on a social media site.
Communication with the Public Outside of Meetings
Edina Transportation Commission members are encouraged to share their work with members of the public within the
guidelines noted in the paragraph below.
When communicating Edina Transportation Commission business with the public, members should understand and
convey the following:
• The deliberations and decisions of the Edina Transportation Commission will be based solely on information
contained in the public record presented to all Edina Transportation Commission members participating in the
deliberation or action.
• The member’s comments do not represent the opinion or viewpoint of other commissioners or the Edina
Transportation Commission as a whole.
Members should exercise care not to communicate how they intend to vote on any pending matter or give the
appearance any matter has been pre-decided.
Public Announcements and Press Releases
The City’s Communications and Technology Services Department will approve and coordinate any public
announcements, press releases or other media contact desired by the Edina Transportation Commission.
Section 9: Financial Transactions
All financial expenditures by the Edina Transportation Commission must relate to the Edina Transportation Commission
mission and be covered under the Edina Transportation Commission budget. All expenditures must be approved in
advance by a majority of the voting members. The City Staff Liaison is responsible for ensuring that all approved
expenditures or reimbursements meet the criteria above as well as other City financial policies. Expenditures that do not
meet the criteria above will not be reimbursed. The Edina Transportation Commission does not have the authority to
Transportation Commission Bylaws
8 | Page
Updated 2015.08.19
execute contracts or to otherwise financially obligate the City of Edina. Any contract related to Edina Transportation
Commission business will be managed by the City Staff Liaison and may be subject to City Council approval.
Section 10: Ethical and Respectful Conduct
Conflict of Interest
Members may not use their position on the Edina Transportation Commission for personal benefit. The interests of the
Edina Transportation Commission must be the first priority in all decisions and actions. Any member who has a financial
interest in, or who may receive a financial benefit as a result of, any Edina Transportation Commission action or decision
must disclose this fact as a conflict of interest. A member who has disclosed a conflict of interest should abstain from
discussion and voting on the matter.
Gifts
Edina Transportation Commission members may not receive personal gifts from any “interested person” in conjunction
with their board or commission duties. An “interested person” is a person, or representative of a person or an
association, who has a direct financial interest in a recommendation under the Edina Transportation Commission’s
purview. This section does not apply to lawful campaign contributions. The Edina Transportation Commission may
recommend acceptance of general gifts or donations through the City’s donation policy.
Respectful Behavior
The City of Edina is committed to providing a work environment free from violence for all elected and appointed
officials, employees and visitors. The City does not tolerate any form of violence in the workplace including threats or
intimidating actions by or against any of the groups cited above. Violence and threats may include, but are not limited
to:
• Any act which is a physical assault
• Any threat, behavior or action which is interpreted by a reasonable person to carry the potential to harm or
endanger the safety of others, or result in an act of aggression, or destroy or damage City property.
The Chairperson and City Staff Liaison have the right to call for the immediate removal of anyone who threatens or
commits an act of violence on City property.
Respectful behavior also includes how Edina Transportation Commission members relate to each other, City staff and
members of the public. Members share a joint responsibility in modeling, monitoring and addressing behavior within the
group.
During Edina Transportation Commission interactions, members should strive to:
• Treat people with courtesy, politeness and kindness
• Encourage others to express their opinions and ideas
• Listen to what others have to say
• Use the ideas of others to improve decisions and outcomes
• Recognize cultural differences
Transportation Commission Bylaws
9 | Page
Updated 2015.08.19
Members should avoid:
• Speaking over or cutting off another individual’s comments
• Insulting, disparaging or putting down people or their ideas
• Bullying other members by displaying a pattern of belittling, demeaning, judging or patronizing comments.
How to Report
Members can report cases of unethical conduct to the City Staff Liaison, Assistant City Manager, City Manager or City
Attorney.
Date: Feb ruary 18, 2016 Agenda Item #: VII.E.
To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type:
Other
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:Annual Elec tions Ac tio n
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Appoint Transportation Commission Chair and Vice Chair effective 3/1/2016 through 3/1/17.
INTRODUCTION:
Date: Feb ruary 18, 2016 Agenda Item #: IX.A.
To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type:
Other
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:Traffic Safety Proc es s Review Committee Dis cus s ion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
T he ET C's Traffic Safety P rocess Review Committee (T SP RC) met with the traffic safety committee (City staff)
to discuss their report (presented to ET C at their Jan. 21 meeting). T he T SP RC has revised the report based on
this meeting, and would like to share this with the rest of the commission. T he revised report will be sent to
commissioners at a later time, prior to the Feb. 18 meeting. You will be notified when it is available.
Update (Feb 16, 2016): Attached i s the fi nal report as prepared by the TSPRC.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Final Traffic Safety Proces s Review Committee Report
2/16/2016 1
Traffic Safety Process Review Committee Report
Each year, the City Council approves the ETC work plan. The 2015 Council-approved work
plan included “Review and recommend modifications to Traffic Safety Request process.” At
the October 2015 ETC meeting, the ETC formed a committee to make progress on this
work plan item by the end of the year. Committee members were Katherine Bass, Jennifer
Janovy and Ralf Loffelholz.
The ETC holds accountability for making recommendations that help to advance and
implement Living Streets. Sometimes, the ETC recommends updates to City code or policy
to align with the Living Streets vision. Sometimes, the ETC recommends process
improvements. An example of the latter is the ETC’s work in 2015 to recommend revisions
to the neighborhood street reconstruction survey so that the survey can be a useful tool in
advancing the implementation of Living Streets. In a similar way, the Traffic Safety process
holds great potential for helping communicate the Living Streets vision to residents and
advancing Living Streets implementation. It is through the lens of Living Streets
implementation that the committee viewed its task.
Issues/Perceptions at start
• Integration of Living Streets vision
• High number of requests denied; process not always clear for requesters or
committee
• Requesters and committee view “problem” through different lenses
• Traffic Safety Committee scope of responsibilities not formally defined
• Presentation of information in reports varies widely
Committee Process
• Drafted scope of our work
• Met with Traffic Safety Committee (Nov. 2015)
• Created data input tool and entered data from three years (2013-15) of Traffic Safety
Committee Reports
• Met with Mark Nolan, Transportation Planner, and Joe Totten, Traffic Safety
Coordinator (Dec. 2016)
2/16/2016 2
• Analyzed data
• Drafted report and initial recommendations
• Presented draft report and recommendations to ETC (Jan 2016)
• Presented draft to Traffic Safety Committee for feedback (Feb 2, 2016)
• Present revised report to ETC (Feb 18, 2016)
• Submit report to City Council
Data Findings
• 155 entries (sections A and B of reports), some (10) incomplete due to missing data
and/or data entry
• 62.5% related to intersections; 32.9% to roads
• Excessive speed is main concern, followed by parked or queued cars obstructing,
difficult to cross street as pedestrian, not safe for pedestrians, and no crosswalk
• 22.8% requested stop sign; 22.1% requested other type of traffic sign; 12.8% asked
for traffic calming; 11.4% asked for crosswalk; 11.4% asked for parking restriction
• Request approved 36.5% of the time
• Request denied 52.7% of the time
• Main reasons for denying requests: did not meet warrants and committee did not
find a safety issue
Recommendations
Recommendation #1: Define Scope of Responsibilities
The Traffic Safety Committee originated at a time when our principal focus as a
community was on motor vehicles and “traffic safety” concerns were viewed through
that lens. Then, as our community desires for multimodal transportation and safety
increased, and our vision changed (Living Streets), the process evolved in an organic,
not intentional, way.
As it stands today, the current scope of work and role of the Traffic Safety
Committee is not formally defined. The heading “traffic safety” encompasses a wide
range of issues—in current practice, any traffic or transportation-related request for
2/16/2016 3
improved motorist, pedestrian or bicyclist safety anywhere within the public right-of-
way or city-owned transportation facilities. This has frequently included requests for
maintenance, construction or referrals to enforcement.
Our committee discussed whether the current scope as practiced is appropriate or
too expansive, and whether the name “Traffic Safety Committee” sufficiently
communicates its role.
However the scope of the Traffic Safety Committee is defined, our committee was in
agreement that the scope must be aligned with Living Streets. In its work, the Traffic
Safety Committee is—in words and actions—in a position to communicate and
implement the Living Streets policy priorities.
Recommendation #2: Standardize Intake
Traffic Safety requests are submitted in various forms. Some requesters ask for a
solution (to be defined) to a general problem (such as “intersection feels unsafe”).
Some specify a problem (no stop sign) and request a specific solution (add stop
sign).
A standard intake tool (survey) should be developed to focus the information that is
gathered on the safety deficiency as the requester sees it and the outcome the
requester would like to have. Outcome (safer intersection for kids to cross to get to
the park) is different from solution (marked crosswalk). By asking specific questions,
from a multimodal perspective (similar to the neighborhood street reconstruction
survey), both the requester and the city can gain a more complete understanding of
the issue and the goal.
Currently, a request can be sent in via email, made over the phone, or submitted
through the Edina-to-Go app. The intake tool should be used across all platforms to
ensure consistency in the information collected and the ability to easily capture that
data for reports.
2/16/2016 4
Recommendation #3: Strengthen the Link Between Problem, Data, Analysis, and
Recommendation
In reviewing reports, the committee noted that often there was not a clear link
between the problem description, the data gathered to investigate the problem,
analysis of the data (application of warrants, etc.), and the resulting recommendation.
This suggests that two improvements are needed:
• Clearly defined and documented processes for responding to different categories
of requests.
• This helps to ensure a rational and transparent process.
• It also helps to identify the resources (such as staff time) that are needed
to respond to certain types of concerns. This can help to inform decisions
about allocating resources and help to evaluate costs in relation to the
effectiveness of the process.
• A flow chart or decision tree can be used to show what data should be
gathered, policies may apply, and tools or resources may be employed to
respond to a particular type of concern. The process should be designed
to support the ideal solution (aligned with Living Streets policy). If
resources or budget are inadequate to support ideal solutions, this can be
reported for further debate and consideration.
• A standard format for presenting information in reports.
Documentation of the process for responding to concerns should be posted on the
City’s website and shared with requesters.
In reviewing reports, the committee also noted that a sizeable number of requests
were denied because the requested solution failed to meet warrants. This may
require a larger policy discussion. While a situation may not meet warrants, a
requested solution may be consistent with Living Streets goals. The strict application
of (discretionary) warrants can work against furthering Living Streets.
2/16/2016 5
Recommendation #4: Track Data on Requests and Provide Annual Report to the
City Council
This will help to identify trends and inform city plans and budgeting. Viewing
requests month by month helps the city respond to immediate concerns, but doesn’t
help us understand the big picture of how streets and neighborhoods are serving
residents overall. Looking at a summary of data over a year’s worth of requests will
help to inform staff and council about the primary concerns and needs of residents,
and provide a temperature check for the speed and pace of Living Streets
implementation. If requests for traffic calming, for example, exceed all other requests
and also exceed the appropriated budget, this is a powerful piece of data that can
help to inform annual budgeting and decision making to support the implementation
of Living Streets.
Recommendation #5: Develop a Focused Approach to Neighborhood Speed
Concerns
Concerns about motor vehicle speeds represent the single largest percentage of
traffic safety requests, based on the data that was entered. Tracking of data and
annual reports to council will help to confirm or refute this finding over time. The
speed limit on most Edina streets is 30 mph, and “the average violation for a driver
on a city street was 16 mph over the posted speed limit” (April 4, 2014 Friday
Report). When speed data is gathered, the 85th percentile speed is used to determine
whether there is a speeding issue. From this perspective, there rarely is.
As a result, requests related to speed concerns (including stop sign requests) are
frequently denied.
The speed limit, enforcement speed, and 85th percentile speed may not be adequate
measurements for determining whether there is a speed issue from either a
residents’ or Living Streets perspective.
An improved approach to addressing neighborhood speed concerns and data
reporting will help the city identify a speed threshold (target speed) that aligns with
2/16/2016 6
the community’s vision and desire for Living Streets and draw from a toolbox of
specifically defined practices (Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering,
Evalaution) to influence motorist behavior to slow down. This requires a multi-
disciplinary approach.
Recommendation #6: Integrate Living Streets Vision
The Traffic Safety Committee is comprised of staff from Engineering, Public Works,
Planning and Police.
The Living Streets policy, adopted by the City Council in 2013, states “All City
departments will support the vision and principles outlined in the Policy in their
work.”
The Policy outlined steps that needed to be taken to fully integrate and implement
the Living Streets vision. These steps included:
o Communicate this Policy to residents and other stakeholders; educate and
engage on an ongoing basis;
o Update [and document] City ordinances, engineering standards, policies and
guidelines to agree with this Policy;
o Inventory building and zoning codes [and update as necessary] to bring these
into agreement with Living Streets principles as established by this Policy;
o Update and document maintenance policies and practices to support Policy
goals; and
o Update and document enforcement policies and practices to support Policy
goals.
The Living Streets Policy was revised when it was included in the Living Streets Plan.
The revision eliminated these additional implementation steps.
The value of having an inter-disciplinary committee review traffic safety concerns is
that each member brings the experience, knowledge and resources of their
department or of their particular role.
2/16/2016 7
If the Living Streets vision has been integrated into the policies and practices of each
department, then each member will bring that integrated perspective to the Traffic
Safety Committee.
Our committee believes that the Traffic Safety Committee plays a vital role in helping
to implement Living Streets and so strongly recommends that the above-listed
implementation steps be re-inserted into the Living Streets Policy and that these
steps be prioritized and completed.
Recommendation #7: Evaluate Resident Satisfaction with Traffic Safety Request
Process and Living Streets Implementation
The committee recommends identifying a question(s) on the city’s Quality of Life
survey that would provide benchmarking data to inform how well the city is
addressing Living Streets implementation. Along with other methods (such as
quantitative outputs like miles of sidewalk constructed) this would provide the city
with a better qualitative indication of satisfaction.
The committee also recommends annually sending a short survey to requesters from
the previous 12 months. The survey would not evaluate satisfaction with the
outcome, but rather the experience of the process (e.g., Was the process clear? Was
the decision communicated to you effectively?). This will help to identify where the
process is working and where it needs improvement.
Recommendation #8: Make Traffic Safety Coordinator Position Full Time
Consider increasing the Traffic Safety Coordinator to full time and revising the job
description as needed to reflect the Living Streets perspective. The recommendations
to standardize intake of requests and evaluate process effectiveness are only as good
as the synthesis, analysis and reporting of this information over time. This represents
an increase in the work load of staff, and we feel it would contribute greatly to
increased resident satisfaction with the process. Further, the Traffic Safety
Coordinator’s tasks directly benefit the EPD, as many of the requests and phone calls
2/16/2016 8
fielded relate to neighborhood traffic concerns. The Traffic Safety Coordinator is
acting as a community liaison in the role, and the Police department is a beneficiary
of those interactions.
Recommendation #9: Do Not Exclude Repeat Requests
In the committee’s review, we found only a small number of repeat requests
although we only reviewed Sections A and B of the last 3 years of reports. It is
possible that some repeat requests were underreported, as the Traffic Safety
Coordinator might have successfully redirected requestors. In that case, the
standardized intake would help the city track repeat requests over time and might, in
time, build the evidence base for limiting repeat requests in the future. Our
committee believes that making the recommended changes will help to reduce
repeat requests. Our recommendation is to make these changes and then re-
evaluate.
Conclusion
The review committee is eager to assist the city with advancing these recommendations and
feels it could play a helpful role by offering assistance with recommendations #1-5 and #7.
We could further develop these ideas and draft tools for city staff to react to and build
upon.
Date: Feb ruary 18, 2016 Agenda Item #: X.A.
To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type:
Other
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:Staff Comments fo r F eb ruary 2016 Info rmatio n
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
In addition to other items of interest to the ET C, staff will update the Commission on the following topics:
Golf Terrace B Sidewalks (2016)
Oaklawn Avenue Sidewalk (2017 - south of W 72nd St)
Southdale France Avenue Area P lanning P rocess
Edina High School/Valley View Middle School Campus Traffic Study
Date: Feb ruary 18, 2016 Agenda Item #: XI.A.
To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type:
Other
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:Sc hed ule o f Meeting and Event Dates as of February
18, 2016
Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
INTRODUCTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Schedule of Upcoming Meetings /Dates /Events
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SCHEDULE OF MEETING AND EVENT DATES AS OF FEBRUARY 18, 2016
SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS/DATES/EVENTS
Thursday Feb 18 ETC Annual Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Monday Feb 29 Board/Commission Recognition Dinner 5:30 PM BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE
Thursday Mar 17 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Wednesday Apr 20 Annual Volunteer Awards Reception 5:30 PM BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE
Thursday Apr 21 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Thursday May 19 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Jun 16 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Tuesday Jun 21 ETC Joint Work Session with City Council 6:15 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Jul 21 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Thursday Aug 18 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Sep 15 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Oct 27 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS