HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-10-22 Meeting PacketAgenda
Transportation Commission
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Council Chambers
Thursday, October 22, 2015
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 September 17,
2015
V.Special Recognitions And Presentations
A.Metro Transit Green Line LRT Extension Presentation
VI.Community Comment
During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share
relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes.
The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time
and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not
be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair
or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the
Board/Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future
meeting.
VII.Reports/Recommendations
A.2016 Neighborhood Reconstruction Project Draft
Engineering Studies
B.Traffic Safety Report of October 7, 2015
C.Results of 2015 Open Streets on 50th Event
VIII.Correspondence And Petitions
A.Board and Commission Communication with City Council
IX.Chair And Member Comments
A.Discussion: Review and Recommend Modifications to
Traffic Safety Request Process
B.Guiding Principles for Transportation Studies
X.Staff Comments
A.Staff Comments for October 2015
XI.Calendar Of Events
A.Schedule of Meetings Dates/Events
XII.Adjournment
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public
process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter,
large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in
advance of the meeting.
Date: October 22, 2015 Agenda Item #: IV.A.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Minutes
From:Sharon Allison - Engineering Specialist
Item Activity:
Subject:Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of
September 17, 2015
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
September 17, 2015.
INTRODUCTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Meeting Minutes for Regular ETC Meeting of September 17, 2015
1
MINUTES OF
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
THINK MUTUAL BANK COMMUNITY ROOM
3655 HAZELTON ROAD
SEPTEMBER 17, 2015
6:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL Answering roll call were members Bass, Boettge, Ding, Iyer, Janovy, LaForce, Nelson, Olson, Ruehl, and Spanhake.
ABSENT Loeffelholz
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Motion was made by chair Bass to add new Item B. NovusAgenda Overview under Special Recognitions and Presentations
and to reverse the items under Reports and Recommendation. The motion was seconded by member Olson to approve
the amended meeting agenda. All voted aye. Motion carried.
ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2015
Motion was made by member Janovy and seconded by chair Bass to pull the minutes from the Consent Agenda for
discussion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
Motion was made by member Nelson and seconded by member Laforce to approve the amended minutes of Aug. 20,
2015. All voted aye. Motion carried.
SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
Discussion with Edina Public Works Director
Chair Bass welcomed public works director Olson and explained that their annual meeting with him was part of their work
plan to learn how they could work together to support the City’s vision of more multi-modal transportation and the ETC’s
plans or policies such as Living Streets, Active Routes to School and the Sidewalk Map. She asked director Olson what has
gone well within the last year.
Director Olson said public works and engineering are working well together to implement the PACS program. He said over
the past year they’ve learned that installing a more expensive crosswalk actually saves money because it requires less
maintenance and that they will need to increase their maintenance budget for sidewalks and streets. In reference to
sidewalks, he said they are currently maintaining 55 miles of sidewalk and it takes at least two days for snow removal.
Another challenge is sidewalks that are 4-ft wide or sidewalks without boulevards – the snow removal machine is 5-ft wide
and sidewalks without boulevards do not have a place to store snow and they become snow covered again after the streets
are plowed. He said they need at least two more machines and two staff to maintain current service levels if all sidewalks in
the city were maintained by City crews, which will cost approximately $250-$300,000 (contracting out vs in-house is
approximately the same cost). He said the recent Quality of Life survey showed Edina was ranked at the top out of 33 cities
for street snow removal but not for sidewalks. Chair Bass suggested asking engineering staff to begin including maintenance
costs in their engineering study along with reconstruction costs.
Director Olson was asked how streets are selected for maintenance and he said engineering ranks the streets using a
Pavement Condition Index software and the goal is to get at least 60 years out of every road. Theoretically, he said their goal
is do sealcoating at year 7, mill and overlay at years 23 and 40, and reconstruction at year 60. He was asked if he believed
the many garbage trucks deteriorated the streets and he said yes.
Director Olson said one of the challenges they face is expectation from residents – the quicker staff completes tasks the
more residents come to expect their performance will always be at this pace. He thanked the ETC for their support of the
sign reflective policy and justification for the increased budget.
2
Overview of NovusAgenda by MJ Lamon
City Project Coordinator MJ Lamon presented an overview of the new software, NovusAgenda that the City will be using for
City Council and boards and commissions meeting agendas and reports.
COMMUNITY COMMENT
Mr. John Plotnicky, 5525 Kellogg Avenue, said he was in attendance pertaining to a traffic safety request for the Senior
Center and library parking lot at Grandview Square that was recommended for denial by the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC).
Mr. Plotnicky said because of the layout of the parking lot visibility is restricted when you are backing out which leads to at
least 1-3 close collisions daily and there was one accident three weeks ago. He said the issue is having safe access to public
facilities and he suggested realigning the parking lot with angular parking spaces but staff said this would reduce the number
of spaces. He said the TSC reason for denial was that the hazard wasn’t significant and the parking lot was of standard
design.
REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
Traffic Safety Report of Sept. 2, 2015
A.1. Crosswalk will be on the south and west leg of the intersection.
A.2. Planner Nolan will check to see if the 10 mph sign is being removed.
B.1. Discussion ensued about the recommendation to have a 4-year restriction on same or similar traffic safety requests. The
feeling was that residents would be turned away without a resolution and that it was important to track the number of times
residents requested improvements for a certain intersection. Planner Nolan said the recommendation is similar to other
communities.
B.3. Should this be handled by the Planning Commission (PC) since they are responsible for parking lots? Planner Nolan said
the TSC felt it was a safety issue. Also mentioned were PC deals with capacity not safety; the parking lot is at capacity; what
can be done instead of denying the request; where does staff park; is the parking monitored to make sure it is not used as a
park and ride; parking is adequate for regular use but becomes an issue when events are scheduled in the meeting rooms;
why are there dedicated on-street parking for condo use.
B.4. It was stated that this request has come up before and at some point a crosswalk should be added. Also noted was that
the denial is inconsistent with another crosswalk that was approved and taking action to review and update the City’s
crosswalk warrants policy to ensure it is consistent with the Living Streets plan. Planner Nolan was asked if a marked
crosswalk would make it less safe for pedestrians and he said there are studies that show this can sometimes be the case.
Member Nelson would like to see this continued instead of denied.
D.5. Add more explanation for better understanding.
Motion was made by member Iyer and seconded by member LaForce to postpone approval of B.1 pending review of the
full TSC process by the end of 2015; move B.3 to C to determine if the TSC is the proper group to handle this request and
address it in an integrated way; move B.4 to C; and for A.2 remove the 10 mph street sign and forward the amended
September 2, 2015, TSC report to the City Council. All voted aye. Motion carried.
2016 Work Plan
The 2016 Work Plan was reviewed and finalized.
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS – None
CHAIR AND MEMBER COMMENTS
Participation in Open Streets on 50th Event
Chair Bass said this event is scheduled for Sept. 27 and that Minneapolis extended the boundary on their side. She said the
ETC will have a Living Streets table that she and member Spanhake will be helping with; other members volunteered to
assist.
Member Nelson invited members to an annual beer tasting on Oct. 15 at Braemar Golf Course.
3
Member Laforce said he saw a construction work sign placed in a bike lane and one placed on a sidewalk that could have
been placed elsewhere so they do not impede travel. Planner Nolan said they are to take these things into consideration
when placing the signs. He said he attended an urban design workshop and it was interesting how the presenter made a case
for density because it increases the tax base and spreads it among more property owners.
STAFF COMMENTS (Sept. 2015)
• Planner Nolan gave an update on the 2015 reconstruction projects.
• He handed out draft engineering reports for the 2106 projects for the ETC to review for October’s meeting;
Morningside and White Oaks will be distributed in October.
• Work began on the Interlachen Blvd sidewalk.
• A $200,000 grant was received for the Cornelia Drive sidewalk scheduled for construction in 2016.
• Four Requests for Proposals were received for the Grandview Transportation Study and three of the companies will
be interviewed; chair Bass, staff and a member of the Planning Commission will conduct the interviews; City Council
final approval is scheduled for Oct. 20.
• Bids were opened for the Nine Mile Creek Trail for the section east of Tracy and tree removal will begin in Oct.
• A grand opening for the Promenade is scheduled for Sept. 23 at 5 p.m.
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
Schedule of Upcoming Meetings/Dates/Events (distributed with packet)
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned.
ATTENDANCE
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE
J F M A M J* J A S O N D SM SM WS
# of
Mtgs
Attendance
%
Meetings/Work Sessions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
NAME TERM (Enter Date) (Enter Date) 6/17
Bass, Katherine 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90%
Boettge, Emily 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100%
Ding, Emily 1 1 100%
Iyer, Surya 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90%
LaForce, Tom 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90%
Loeffelholz, Ralf 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 60%
Janovy, Jennifer 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90%
Nelson, Paul 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100%
Olson, Larry 3/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90%
Whited, Courtney 2/1/2015 1 1 100%
Spanhake, Dawn 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90%
Ruehl, Lindsey 1 1 100%
Rummel, Anna 9/1/2015 1 1 1 3 30%
Campbell, Jack 9/1/2015 1 1 1 1 4 40%
*cancelled
Date: October 22, 2015 Agenda Item #: V.A.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Metro Transit Green Line LRT Extension
Presentation
Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
Please recall that at its May meeting, the ETC held its first discussion regarding a new (2015) work
plan initiative titled "Study access to and from Southwest LRT stations in St. Louis Park, Hopkins,
Minnetonka and Eden Prairie. For that meeting, staff prepared summary information for
commissioners regarding the future LRT construction and nearby station locations. At that time the
ETC planned to revisit this topic in the coming months. To that end, staff from Metro Transit will
give a presentation to share information about the "Green Line Extension" and answer questions
regarding bus routes and transit service through Edina.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Green Line LRT Extension Project Facts
Green Line LRT Extension Community Outreach Coordinators
Opening 2020
www.swlrt.org
twitter.com/SouthwestLRT
August 2015
Project Facts
Route and Stations
The planned Southwest LRT (METRO Green Line Extension) is a 14.5-mile proposed extension of the METRO
Green Line (Central Corridor LRT), which will operate from downtown Minneapolis through St. Louis Park,
Hopkins, Minnetonka and Eden Prairie, passing near Edina. The proposed line includes 16 new stations
(including the Eden Prairie Town Center station that has been deferred for building out at a later date).
Ridership in 2040 is forecasted at approximately 34,000 average weekday boardings. The plan also includes nine
park and rides with nearly 2,500 new parking spaces, passenger drop off areas, bicycle and pedestrian access, as
well as new or restructured local bus routes connecting stations to nearby residential, commercial and
educational destinations. The line will connect major activity centers in the region including downtown
Minneapolis, Methodist Hospital in St. Louis Park, downtown Hopkins and the Opus/Golden Triangle
employment area in Minnetonka and Eden Prairie. At Target Field Station in Minneapolis, Green Line Extension
trains will continue along the Green Line, providing one-seat rides to the University of Minnesota, state Capitol
area and downtown St. Paul.
Budget
The total estimated project cost is $1.774 billion. Funding will come from the Federal Transit Administration (50
percent), Counties Transit Improvement Board ($496 million, which is already committed), Hennepin County
Regional Railroad Authority ($165 million, which is already committed), the state of Minnesota, the
Metropolitan Council and other local funding partners.
Timeline
Southwest LRT will begin passenger service in 2020 as an extension of the Green Line. Next steps include:
• 2015: The project will conduct advanced project development activities.
• 2016: The Federal Transit Administration is expected to issue its Record of Decision and approve the
project to enter the Engineering phase of the New Starts process. The project will secure its Full Funding
Grant Agreement, which commits the federal government to pay 50 percent of the project’s capital cost.
• 2017-19: Heavy construction.
• 2020: Passenger Service
Map of Southwest LRT Route and Stations
Hopkins, St. Louis Park
& Edina
Stations: Beltline, Wooddale,
Louisiana, Blake, Hopkins, Shady
Oak
Nkongo Cigolo
612-373-3825
Nkongo.Cigolo@metrotransit.org
Eden Prairie &
Minnetonka
Stations: Opus, City West, Golden
Triangle, Eden Prairie Town Center,
Southwest
James Mockovciak
612-373-3894
James.Mockovciak@metrotransit.org
www.SWLRT.org swlrt@metrotransit.org 612-373-3888
Minneapolis
Stations: Royalston, Van White,
Penn, 21st Street, West Lake
Sophia Ginis
612-373-3895
Sophia.Ginis@metrotransit.org
Community Outreach
Coordinators
Updated July 2015
Date: October 22, 2015 Agenda Item #: VII.A.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:2016 Neighborhood Reconstruction Project
Draft Engineering Studies
Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
Please recall that at the Sep 17 ETC meeting staff handed out the draft 2016 Engineering Studies
for the Golf Terrace B and Strachauer Park A neighborhoods. Commissioners were asked to
review these studies and to bring them to the Oct 22 ETC meeting. Additionally, attached is the
draft Engineering Study for the Morningside A/White Oaks C neighborhood (prepared with
consultant SEH, Inc.) for your review and comment.
Engineering Director Chad Millner will be present to discuss these projects and to solicit
commissioners' feedback.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Draft Engineering Study for Morningside A/White Oaks C Neighborhood (2016)
ENGINEERING STUDY – BA-422 & BA-438
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA
MORNINGSIDE A & WHITE OAKS C NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION OCTOBER 14, 2015
SUMMARY: This project implements principles of the Living Streets Policy and Living
Street Plan. It continues our change of thinking about the use of our streets from primarily auto-centric to the incorporation of pedestrian–centric elements
and what is required for a balanced, multi-modal transportation system.
This project involves reconstruction of the roadways including bituminous
pavement and curb and gutter. The project also includes upgrading existing
utility infrastructure systems including storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water. Existing sidewalk panels that are cracked or heaved will be replaced.
The estimated total project cost is $X,XXX,000. Funding for the entire project will be from a combination of special assessment, respective utility funds,
Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) funds, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) funds. The estimated roadway cost for the
Morningside A neighborhood is $X,XXX,000 and the estimated roadway cost
for the White Oaks C neighborhood is $XXX,000. All of these costs will be 100 percent funded by special assessments at a rate of $X,000 per REU for
Morningside A and $XX,000 per REU for White Oaks C. Utility improvements
and repairs amount to $X,XXX,000 and will be funded through respective utility funds.
The project can be completed during the 2016 construction season. Due to the proximity of the 2 neighborhoods, we anticipate bidding them together as
one project to realize economic savings based on project size and the
decreased amount of construction coordination required.
Staff and consultant believe the project is necessary, cost effective and feasible to improve the infrastructure as initiated by Vision Edina’s mission statement to “provide effective and valued public services and maintain a
sound public infrastructure” and also in the City’s Living Streets Policy and Living Streets Plan. LOCATION: The project area includes Townes Road (Bridge Ln to Sunnyside Rd), Grimes Avenue (Sunnyside Rd to W 44th St), Curve Avenue (Sunnyside Rd to W 44th
St), Townes Circle (Townes Rd to end of Cul-De-Sac), Sunnyside Road
(Grimes Ave to France Ave), West 45th Street (Grimes Ave to end of W 45th St). Figure 1 is a detailed project location map of the Morningside A & White
Oaks C Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Project.
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Figure 1 - Project Location Map
INITIATION & ISSUES: The project was initiated by the Engineering Department as part of the City’s
street reconstruction program and identified in the Capital Improvement Program. Improvements to City lift station No. 1 were delayed in 2013 due to
high bid prices and will be included with this project. This project addresses updating aging infrastructure issues associated with the pavement condition, storm water, sanitary sewer and water main systems.
All Engineering projects are reviewed for compatibility with the City of Edina
2008 Comprehensive Plan Update, Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation
Plan, the Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan, the Living Streets Policy, and the Active Routes to Schools Plan.
Recall the City recently completed a study of flood protection and clean water improvements to a land-locked wetland located in the project area. Council
met with the neighborhood at a work session on July 7, 2015 to discuss the
results of the study and opportunities this project presents to mitigate water levels and improve water quality.
In 2006, the City completed the Northeast Edina Transportation Study Final Report to address long-term concerns from area residents regarding traffic
volumes and speeds on residential streets that included this project area. The report evaluated existing traffic patterns and safety concerns and identified
Page 2 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
potential solutions for the surrounding arterial streets and neighborhoods. No improvements to Sunnyside Road were recommended. A dedicated left-turn lane was proposed on northbound France Avenue at the Sunnyside Road
intersection. The project would require an agreement with Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis. Currently, Hennepin County has no plans to add the left-turn lane.
Also included in the study were suggested residential area safety
improvements that included the addition of traffic circles at the intersections
of Sunnyside Road with Grimes and Curve Avenues and speed humps or tables east of the intersection of Sunnyside Road and Curve Avenue.
City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
Sidewalk Facilities
Chapter 7 of the plan addresses locations of proposed sidewalks facilities and funding options within the City. As shown in Figure 7.10 of Appendix G,
there are no future sidewalk facilities planned within the project limits. Bicycle Facilities
Chapter 7 of the plan addresses locations of proposed bicycle facilities within
the City as part of the Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan. Figure 7.11 of Appendix G does not identify proposed bicycle routes within this
neighborhood. City of Edina Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan
The project is located within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The 2011 Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan indicates no
potential flood areas in the neighborhood. The City recently completed project
STS-406 to study flood protection and clean water improvements to a land-locked wetland located in the project area. Further evaluation will be
performed regarding drainage issues resulting from the questionnaires.
Living Streets Policy Evaluation
The vision statement of the Living Streets Policy expresses the need to look
at projects differently in the future:
Living Streets balance the needs of motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and
transit riders in ways that promote safety and convenience, enhance community identity, create economic vitality, improve environmental
sustainability, and provide meaningful opportunities for active living and better
health.
Sustainability in engineering projects means delivering our services in a manner that ensures an appropriate balance between the environment, the
community, and funding. This is essentially the “Triple Bottom Line” of
sustainability; Equity, Environment, and Economy. We look at sustainability as maximizing our resources, creating lasting environments, improving and
shaping both the present and future of our community so that future
generations are not burdened by the decisions of today.
Page 3 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
The project was evaluated based on the following key indicators to look for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and risks.
• Equity: How well does the project provide or maintain core city
services such as transportation, sanitation, clean water, emergency access, and emergency service? How does the project influence the well-being of the community?
• Environment: How does the project influence the natural environment, including surface or ground water health, forest canopy, natural
resource diversity, wildlife habitat, air quality, noise and others?
• Economy: How does the project influence the local economy? What
are the short term and long term costs? Is the continued service worth the price?
The following is a summary of this evaluation: Equity: The project maintains access to the transportation network. Updates
to the fire hydrants provide public safety staff the ease of connection needed during an emergency.
Environment: The project provides for an increase in the sediment control capacity of the storm sewer network and helps to control localized flooding.
The project provides homeowners a piping system to discharge ground water
into; this will eliminate standing water and/or ice buildup along the street curb lines. Construction operations are required to use the smallest footprint
necessary to complete the work thus protecting the existing natural
environment. The project also analyzes the sanitary sewer to ensure that inflow and infiltration of clear water is kept out of the sewer system, which
minimizes regional wastewater treatment.
Economy: The project is designed to reduce construction costs now and into
the future. The proposed roadway section can easily be maintained in the long term with the use of mill and overlays and/or seal coating operations. These maintenance operations will extend the life of the pavement. The
project will also use less intense construction methods, such as trenchless technology; i.e., lining the pipes versus removing and replacing them.
This is a simplified analysis of the projects sustainability. In the future we anticipate correlating this analysis to an in-depth scoring system displaying
the City’s sustainability to the community. Staff Issues
The following existing issues and/or features are addressed in this study:
• Traffic volume and speed
• Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle safety
• Poor condition of existing pavement surface
• Storm water quality and drainage
• Existing landscaping, retaining walls and driveways
Page 4 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
• Existing mature trees
• Existing landscaping and driveways
• Sanitary sewer and water main condition; areas missing adequate
water mains
• Existing residential roadway lighting
Resident Input The Engineering Department follows a practice of notifying residents two
years prior to a potential reconstruction project. The residents of this
neighborhood were invited to an Open House on November 25, 2013 to discuss the City’s process for street reconstruction and provide input for the
flood protection study. A copy of the presentation from this meeting is
included in Appendix A.
Residents were then invited to another Open House on February 25, 2015 to
discuss the City’s process for street reconstruction and learn about the results of the flood protection and water quality study. A copy of the
presentation from this meeting is included in Appendix A. A resident multi-modal survey was sent to the property owners on May 4,
2015. The surveys were completed and returned by 40 of the 111 property owners, a return rate of 36%. The full survey and responses by each
neighborhood are included in Appendix D.
The survey asked property owners for input on existing multi-modal usage
and traffic conditions of the neighborhood including vehicle speeds, traffic
volume, motorist behavior, and a wide variety of pedestrian issues. Some of the results from the survey are shown in Table 1.
MAY 4, 2015 MULTI-MODAL SURVEY RESULTS
Neighborhood Surveys Sent Surveys Returned
% of
Returned Surveys1
Speed Satisfaction Intersection Unsafe?2 Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Yes No
Morningside A 88 34 38% 4 0 28 26 9
White Oaks C 23 6 26% 3 2 1 1 5
Total 111 40 36% 7 2 29 27 14
1 Percentages are based on responses of returned questionnaires and may not equal 100% if
questions were not answered on questionnaire.
2 The majority of residents that answered this question commented that the unsafe intersections were W 45th St and Grimes Ave, Grimes Ave and Sunnyside Rd, Curve Ave and
Sunnyside Rd.
Table 1
Page 5 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Other results of note for the Morningside A respondents include
• 53% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with traffic volume
• 55% were most impacted when walking or running
• 96% walk or run frequently or very frequently
A utility survey was sent to the property owners on June 12, 2015. The
surveys were completed and returned by 39 of the 111 property owners, a
return rate of 35%.
The survey asked property owners the history of their properties and public
spaces including existing drainage service connections and private underground utilities. The survey for each neighborhood is included in
Appendix E. The results from the survey are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Recall a group of the residents provided input to the council at the July 7, 2015 City Council Work Session. The topic of that conversation was the flood protection and water quality study.
A neighborhood informational meeting was held on July 29, 2015 to discuss improvements planned for this neighborhood. Several residents expressed
concerns with traffic speeds and volumes in the neighborhood, specifically related to traffic from 44th Street along Grimes and Curve Avenues to and including Sunnyside Road and France Avenue. They also voiced concerns
about pedestrian crossing safety on Sunnyside Road at Grimes and Curve Avenues and across Grimes Avenue at 45th Street. Residents asked staff to
review traffic calming and pedestrian safety measures on these streets as
part of the preliminary design process. The meeting was attended by 19 residents representing 16 properties. A copy of the presentation and public
input from this meeting are included in Appendix B.
Another neighborhood informational meeting was held on September 21,
2015 to discuss preliminary assessments and proposed utility and street improvements. Staff presented traffic calming measures that were considered and recommended on Grimes and Curve Avenues and along Sunnyside
Road. The meeting was attended by 37 residents representing 28 properties.
A copy of the presentation, public input from this meeting, and subsequent correspondence from residents to staff requesting stop signs and cross walks
are included in Appendix C.
JUNE 4, 2015 UTILITY SURVEY RESULTS
Neighborhood Surveys
Sent
Surveys
Returned
% of Returned Surveys
Morningside A 88 33 38%
White Oaks C 23 6 26%
Total 111 39 35%
Page 6 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Staff Input A draft engineering report was provided to the public works, fire and police departments and the Edina Transportation Commission.
Public Works Department:
Fire Department: The fire department supports the 27-foot proposed street widths in context with their largest fire truck. Existing hydrants lack the
STORZ connections. Consideration of fire hydrant placement needs to be
made to minimize obstacles within 3-feet of fire hydrants that may hamper emergency operations.
The existing water service pipe diameters from the city water main to residential connection is between one-half inch (1/2") and three-quarter inch
(3/4"). Minnesota lawmakers have passed requirements for residential fire
sprinkler installation of new single family homes larger than 4,500 square feet, effective January 24, 2015. The fire department recommends the City’s
water service pipe be one-inch (1") for any new construction. Police Department:
Edina Transportation Commission (ETC): See Appendix M for input received from the October 22, 2015 ETC meeting.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: Public Utilities
Water Main and Sanitary Sewer Pipes
Water main pipe material is cast iron and the sanitary sewer pipe material is
vitrified clay. The sanitary sewer lines and water mains were constructed in the early 1940’s.
Water in the Morningside Neighborhood is supplied by the City of Minneapolis. There have been issues with discolored water or red water
caused by hard water or mineral deposits. The White Oaks Neighborhood is
supplied with water produced by the City of Edina.
The neighborhood is served by six-inch (6”) diameter water main pipes
except for four properties located in the Townes Circle private drive that are serviced by a two-inch (2”) water service pipe.
The valves and fire hydrants along the water main pipe are operable, vary in age and lack the STORZ nozzle fittings desired by the Edina Fire Department
for quick connection of fire hoses.
Two (2) water main pipe breaks have been recorded in the neighborhood. In
order to better understand the integrity of the water main system, it was acoustically tested during July 2014. The testing provided remaining pipe wall
thickness data to help staff assess the condition of the pipes. Results of the
Page 7 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
tests are described in the proposed improvements section and shown in Appendix K.
The neighborhood is served by nine-inch (9”) diameter clay sanitary sewer pipes, except for an eight-inch (8”) diameter clay sanitary pipe that serves the private drive north of Townes Circle. Equipment in sanitary sewer lift station
No. 1 at the intersection of Curve Avenue and Sunnyside Road has reached the end of its useful life.
Currently, the conditions of the sanitary sewer pipes within the neighborhood are unknown. It is anticipated that the sanitary sewer pipes will be lined with a
cured-in-place pipe (CIPP). We anticipate reviewing the CCTV prior to the
final design of the project.
Water and Private Sanitary Sewer Service Pipes
Water service pipes within the neighborhood are copper pipes and vary in diameter.
Six (6) City owned water service pipe break and leak repairs have in the neighborhood. Locations of the City-owned water service pipe breaks are
shown in Appendix K. Private sanitary sewer service pipes are likely 4-inch or 6-inch diameter clay
pipes.
Storm Sewer
The storm sewer system is located within the legal boundary of Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District. The majority of the surface water for the neighborhood typically drains via longitudinal street slopes and concrete curb
and gutters where it enters a neighborhood storm sewer system that drains to
a land-locked wetland.
Based on a hydraulic model of the existing storm sewer pipes in the
neighborhood, most are currently large enough to convey storm water following typical size storm events. However, the existing storm sewer system
does not have capacity for large storm events as confirmed from input received by residents and City staff. Localized flooding based on input and the model is illustrated in the blue shaded areas and highlighted curb and
gutters in Figure 2. Observations include localized flooding or surface discharges from storm sewer structures. However, no known structural flooding has occurred.
Page 8 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Figure 2 – Surface Water Ponding/Flooding Areas
Six (6) property owners told us they operate sump pumps via returned questionnaires. The City’s GIS records indicate that 49 residents utilize sump
pumps. They use these pumps to discharge ground water away from their homes. In most cases, their pumps discharge onto their yards or an adjacent street.
Private Utilities
Providers of privately owned gas, electric, communications and cable
television utilities are present in the neighborhood. These utilities are either overhead or buried underground both within and outside the street right-of-way (ROW).
Results from the questionnaire indicate sixteen (16) residents own and
operate a lawn irrigation system and two (2) own and operate an
underground pet containment system within the project boulevards.
Page 9 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Streets and Sidewalks The neighborhood’s existing streets are surfaced with bituminous pavement. Patches, overlays, and sections of alligator cracking are present at random
locations throughout the project area as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 – Typical Pavement Condition
The streets vary in width between 23 feet and 38 feet. Average existing street widths are shown in Table 3. If a street has curb and gutter, the width shown
is from face to face of curb. Where no curb and gutter exists, street width is
from edge to edge of pavement.
EXISTING STREET WIDTHS
Street Existing Width (ft.)
Curb and Gutter (Y/N)
45th Street 25 Y
Grimes Avenue 32 Y
Curve Avenue 27 Y
Sunnyside Road (1) 28 Y
Sunnyside Road (2) 37 Y
Townes Circle 25 N
Townes Road (3) 23 N
Townes Road (4) 25 Y
(1) Grimes Ave to 4001 Sunnyside Rd
(2) 4001 Sunnyside Rd to France Ave (3) Sunnyside Rd to Townes Circle
(4) Townes Circle to Bridge St Table 3
The concrete curb and gutter is in poor condition. While the pavement
condition varies throughout the neighborhood, it is generally in poor condition
likely due to its age.
Page 10 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
In 2012, City street crews completed a thin overlay patch along Townes Road and Townes Circle due to failed pavement conditions and to prevent city
plows from inadvertently gouging chunks of bituminous and throwing them towards vehicles, homes and boulevards. The pavement surface throughout these streets appears to be near the end of its useful life while the costs to
maintain and repair the roadways are steadily increasing. Overlaying or seal coating the pavement is no longer feasible.
As part of this study, 13 soil borings were taken in the project area. The borings identified a 3-inch to 11-inch thick bituminous pavement. West 45th
Street and Sunnyside Road have up to 8-feet of poorly graded sand beneath
5-inches to 6-inches of aggregate base. Grimes Avenue has 3-feet of clay beneath 5-inches of aggregate base. Curve Avenue, Sunnyside Road,
Townes Road, and Townes circle have 3-feet or more of silty sand beneath
varying amounts of aggregate base. Street grades vary throughout the area from approximately 0.3 percent to 12 percent.
The average pavement condition index (PCI) for the City of Edina is 57 and the average PCI for the Morningside A neighborhood is 11. The average PCI
for the White Oaks C neighborhood was at or below 11 prior to the thin overlay patch.
The City of Edina has a consultant systematically evaluate all bituminous roadways within the City. The streets are graded based on a number of conditions such as sagging, alligator cracking, raveling and potholes. Streets
are rated on a scale from 0 to 100 with 0 being extremely poor and 100 representing a brand new road surface. The City evaluates the PCI values of
streets to determine a proper maintenance program. Streets with a PCI less
than 45 are evaluated for total reconstruction, PCI’s between 45 and 65 are evaluated for mill and overlays, and PCI’s greater than 65 are considered for
seal coats.
An existing private drive exists north of Townes Circle as indicated by the
hatched area in Figure 4. The drive is approximately 200 feet long and is owned by the property owners at 4605, 4607, 4609, and 4611 Townes Circle. The City currently maintains this private road pavement and provides snow
plowing services to allow the City the use of this property for specific utilities. Three out of the four properties allow sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and watermain pipes within the easement. The remaining easement document
only allows sanitary sewer.
Page 11 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Figure 4 – Private Drive North of Townes Circle
Sidewalks with boulevards exist today on both sides of Townes Road (south
of Townes Cir), Grimes Avenue, Curve Avenue, West 45th Street, and
Sunnyside Road. Parking is allowed on both sides of all streets except on the south side of Sunnyside Road from Grimes Avenue to 3905 Sunnyside Road.
As discussed in the Resident Input section of the study, neighborhood
residents have expressed speed, volume and safety concerns on many of the Morningside A neighborhood streets including Curve Avenue, Grimes
Avenue, and Sunnyside Road. Vehicle traffic speeds and volumes on these streets can likely be attributed to one or a combination of the following; traffic attempting to circumvent traffic signals at France Avenue, avoiding 44th
Street, and longer stretches of straightaways, particularly on Sunnyside Road. These issues can lead to diminished pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
The existing geometric configurations at the intersections are shown in
Figures 5, 6 and 7.
Page 12 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Figure 5 – Curve Avenue and Sunnyside Road
Figure 6 - Grimes Avenue and Sunnyside Road
Page 13 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Figure 7 – Grimes Avenue and West 45th Street
The existing pavement footprint of the cul-de-sac for Townes Circle is larger than necessary and is shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8 – Townes Circle Cul-De-Sac
There are seven (7) driveways featuring brick paver block in the project area.
Figure 9 depicts a driveway with brick paver block found in the project area.
Page 14 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Figure 9 - Paver Driveway
Residential Lighting
Street lighting in the project area consists of combination of City owned and
Xcel Energy owned street lights as shown in Appendix I. The 2 City owned street lights are Arlington and Acorn style lights.
Xcel Energy street lights are a combination of Coach (11), Acorn (1), Shoebox Square (2), and Cobra (2) cut-off style lights and are located
throughout the two neighborhoods. A cut-off style street light is a street light that does not project or reflect light upward and meets standards set by the
Dark Sky Association. Traffic/Crash Data and Existing Signs The most recent average daily traffic volumes and speeds are shown in Table
4.
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND SPEEDS
Street Date Recorded Average Daily Traffic 85th % Speed (mph)
Curve Avenue October 2014 199 23.9
Grimes Avenue April/May 2014 976 26.7
Sunnyside Road
July 2012 2,914 30.3
Townes Road July/August
2008 153 26.3
Table 4
Historic traffic and speed counts and crash data are shown in Appendix H.
Existing signs are shown in Appendix I. Landscaping
Several property owners have landscaping in the ROW. Many of these landscape items are located directly behind the curb or adjacent to existing fire hydrants. Some of these landscape items will need to be removed in
Page 15 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
order to complete the necessary reconstruction work. Figure 10 shows a typical landscaping feature found in the project’s ROW.
Figure 10 – Landscaping Within ROW
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: This project involves reconstruction of existing roadways including bituminous
pavement, existing curb and gutters and portions of any poor subgrade soils. The project also includes upgrading existing City utility systems. Green infrastructure improvements to reduce storm water to the wetland include
options to install tree trenches, a pervious paver system, perforated storm sewer pipe, and private rain gardens.
Public Utilities The scope of the water main, sanitary and storm sewer reconstruction should
meet the following parameters:
• Protect boulevard trees.
• Provide continuous sewer and water service to residents.
• Maintain pedestrian and vehicle access in the neighborhood during
construction.
• Encourage property owners to reconstruct their private sanitary sewer
service pipe between the sanitary trunk pipe and their homes prior to construction.
• Reconstruct the City-owned water service pipe up to and including replacement of the curb stop box within the City’s ROW.
• Encourage property owners to reconstruct their private water main service pipes between the curb stop and their homes.
Water Main and Sanitary Sewer Pipes
Based on the results of the pipe integrity testing, segments of the existing water main pipe on Townes Road are in satisfactory condition and will not be
upgraded. The existing water main pipes along West 45th Street, Grimes
Page 16 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Avenue, Curve Avenue, Townes Circle, and Sunnyside Road will be replaced via open cut as shown in Drawing 1 in Appendix L.
The project will replace all of the existing fire hydrants with new City standard hydrants and will replace all existing gate valves. All of the proposed improvements to the water main system will optimize water flow for
firefighting and improve water quality.
During improvements to the water main pipe network, residents will have
continuous water service. If necessary, temporary water main and service pipes will be placed on the ground along the boulevards and front yards of
the neighborhood. These temporary pipes are connected to sections of the
existing water main. Continuous water service is provided to each home via its outside garden hose spigot. The contractor will need access into each
affected home to make a proper temporary water main connection.
The project will reconstruct the sanitary sewer pipes using a trenchless
reconstruction method called cured in place pipe lining. Spot repairs will be made to the sanitary sewer pipes that have sagged, cracked or where offset joints occur. The City’s CCTV inspections will provide the exact locations of
these repairs. Wherever necessary, the repairs will be completed using open
cut repair methods. In sensitive locations, repairs will be completed using trenchless repair methods.
Approximately 60% of the sanitary sewer manholes are constructed with brick or concrete block. All of the brick / block manholes will be will be lined with cement mortar. All sanitary manholes will have castings and adjustment rings
replaced.
The project will remove sanitary sewer lift station No. 1 at the intersection of
Curve Avenue and Sunnyside Road. To serve the neighborhood, a new sanitary sewer pipe will be installed by directional drill that will flow by gravity
and connect to an existing sanitary sewer pipe on Meadow Road. The
location of the proposed sanitary sewer pipe is shown in Figure 11.
Page 17 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Figure 11 – Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Sanitary Sewer Service and Water Service Pipes
Along with upgrading the street, the City also plans to upgrade the publicly owned water service pipes. Upgrading these pipes will ensure that the water
services will be safe and reliable for the foreseeable future.
Upgrading portions of the private and public underground utility lines also
helps ensure that the new street will stay in good condition by decreasing the chances that the street will need to be disturbed in order to repair old or leaking underground utilities.
Property owners will be allowed to have the cost of any private sanitary sewer
service or water service upgrades financed through the City’s special
assessment financing system. Staff will provide the interested property owners with information on how to proceed with this option.
Page 18 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Water Service Pipes: The City will upgrade the publicly owned portion of the water service shown as segments “A & E” in Figure 12. There will be no special assessment for
this work.
Figure 12 – Typical Section Showing Water Service
Storm Sewer: All of the concrete curb and gutter in the neighborhood will be
replaced. Installation of sump drains will be installed where feasible to allow
the property owners to connect their sump pump discharges directly into the storm sewer system.
To begin to address the water level and water quality issues in the wetland and taking advantage of the sandy soils in the area, three (3) levels of green
infrastructure that utilize infiltration are under consideration with specific
locations identified in Figure 13.
1. Tree trenches
2. Pervious paver system
3. Perforated storm sewer pipe
SEGMENT OWNERSHIP
B Property Owner A City
E City
F City
Page 19 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Figure 13 - Storm Sewer Infiltration Areas
As a reference, a 0.5-inch precipitation event generates 5,846 cubic feet of storm water runoff. A 1.0-inch precipitation event generates 11,692 cubic feet of storm water runoff.
Based on the locations shown in Figure 13, we could expect the following
cubic feet of treatment associated with each treatment level.
Typically we do not include this level of storm water treatment within our street reconstruction projects. Due to the fact the City increased the amount
of storm water runoff from an adjacent street into the land-locked wetland,
staff is recommending implementation of Level 1 green infrastructure improvements. The addition of tree trenches in boulevard areas will improve
storm water and air quality. Even though it’s above our typical practice, this
correlates well with the City’s Living Streets Plan where streets are
Page 20 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
considered part of the natural ecosystem. Implementation of Levels 2 and 3 is not recommended by staff but could be considered by the Council.
Staff has submitted a grant application to the MCWD for the green infrastructure options under consideration since it meets the watershed district’s goal of recharging groundwater adjacent to the creek. The status of
whether a grant is secured will not be known until January/February 2016. If the grant is not secured, costs to implement Level 1 improvements will be
taken out of the City’s storm sewer fund and staff will seek Council input on
whether to fund levels 2 and 3.
Representatives of MCWD and the Master Water Stewards Program have
attended the neighborhood informational meetings. To continue exploring stormwater infiltration options, residents have been encouraged to consider
constructing private rain gardens on their property or installing rain barrels to
capture stormwater at their own cost.
Private Utilities The City will coordinate other private utility relocations or upgrades prior to
the start of construction.
Any damage to privately-owned pet containment and irrigation systems
caused by City reconstruction activities will be repaired by the City.
Streets and Sidewalks
Based on the City’s Living Streets Plan, Grimes Avenue and Sunnyside Road
are classified as local connectors. All other streets in the neighborhood are
classified as local streets.
The proposed width of all neighborhood streets is 27-feet measured from the
curb faces, except segments on Townes Road and Sunnyside Road. The proposed width of Townes Road (north of Townes Cir) is 21-feet and 37-feet
on Sunnyside Road (east of Curve Ave) to match the existing width. All existing sidewalks will remain in place. Cracked or heaved concrete sidewalk panels will be removed and replaced.
The project will recycle all the existing bituminous street pavement on-site. The existing bituminous will be mixed together with the existing aggregate
base course below it and then reincorporated into the project to replace poor subgrade soils, utility trench backfill or street aggregate.
Resident input from the multi-modal survey in Appendix D, Table 1 of this study and from informational meetings indicates issues with traffic speed and
volumes and safety of pedestrian and bicyclists. Figure 14 lists the traffic
calming measures listed in the City’s Living Streets Plan that are options to consider.
Page 21 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Figure 14 – Traffic Calming Measures
Table 5 lists a qualitative comparison of traffic calming options considered that fit the context of the neighborhood. Traffic calming options under
consideration were limited to Grimes Avenue, Curve Avenue, and Sunnyside Road.
Identified Pedestrian and Vehicle Issues
Issue Traffic Calming
Option Considered Pros Cons
Traffic
Speed*
Lane Width
Reduction / Curb
Extension
Likely reduction in vehicle speed
due to less vehicle space
Increased vehicle travel times
Less future road maintenance
costs
Less impervious surface leads to
less storm water runoff
Likely reduction in vehicle speed
lowers risk to cyclists
Traffic Circles (1)
Likely reduction in vehicle speed in
one direction
Less likely to reduce speeds in both
directions
Likely reduction in vehicle speed
lowers risk to cyclists Difficult to properly remove snow
Page 22 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Identified Pedestrian and Vehicle Issues
Issue Traffic Calming
Option Considered Pros Cons
Traffic
Speed*
Traffic Circles
Private driveway access issues
Landscaping maintenance and access
Increased vehicle travel times
Raised Brick
Crosswalk
Likely reduction in vehicle speed Not recommended where cyclists are
present
Difficult to properly remove snow
Enforcement Regulatory speed issue does not exist
On Street Parking Likely reduction in vehicle speed
due to less vehicle space
Reduction in parking availability in an
area with low availability
Traffic
Volume*
Lane Width
Reduction
Possible reduction in volumes
Less future road maintenance
costs
Less impervious surface leads to
less storm water runoff
Traffic Circles
Possible reduction in volume Difficult to properly remove snow
Driveway access issues
Landscaping maintenance and access
Raised Brick
Crosswalk
Possible reduction in volume Not recommended where cyclists are
present
Difficult to properly remove snow
On Street Parking Possible reduction in volumes Reduction in parking availability in an
area with low availability
Pedestrian
Safety
Lane Width
Reduction / Curb
Extension
Reduction in travel distance
reduces risk for conflicts
Reduction in vehicle speed
reduces risk for conflicts
Increased visibility of pedestrians
Delineated
Crosswalks
Increased visibility of pedestrian
facility
Warrants are not met at some
intersections
Installation can occur after
construction if warrants are not
met
Raised Brick
Crosswalk
Change in texture and grade may
reduce traffic speed and volume
Less visible than City standard
crosswalk markings
More difficult to install after
construction
Difficult to properly remove snow
Page 23 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Identified Pedestrian and Vehicle Issues
Issue Traffic Calming
Option Considered Pros Cons
Cyclist
Safety
Dedicated bicycle
lanes Dedicated space for cyclists ROW impacts, tree removals, not
enough space for this facility
Shared bicycle
lanes/sharrows Dedicated space for cyclists All parking would have to be removed
to accommodate this facility
* Stop signs were suggested by the residents as an option to address this issue. Stop signs determine right-of-way.
Industry practice is not to introduce stop signs to address vehicle speeds and volumes.
(1) Traffic circles considered on Sunnyside Road at Grimes and Curve Avenue intersections Table 5
Note – it is difficult to predict if any of the options listed would decrease traffic
volumes. However, the recommended option will likely discourage some
drivers from using the neighborhood if the geometric configuration of the neighborhood streets causes vehicle users to either slow down or become
uncomfortable navigating narrower streets. Based upon the evaluation in Table 5, curb extensions are proposed at the
intersection of 45th Street and Grimes Avenue as shown in Figure 15, and on straightaway sections of Curve Avenue and Sunnyside Road as shown in
Figures 16, and 17. These options will eliminate 2 parking spaces on
Sunnyside Road and 4 spaces on Curve Avenue assuming 21-foot parking space lengths.
Curb extensions are proposed on Sunnyside Road at the intersections with Grimes Avenue and Curve Avenue as shown in Figures 18 and 19
respectively. This option will not eliminate any parking spaces at the Curve
Avenue intersection based on City ordinance that stipulates parking is not allowed within 30-feet of intersections. No loss of parking will occur at the
Grimes intersection since it is already has no parking signs posted beyond
the ordinance requirements.
Revisions are proposed to the cul-de-sac geometrics at Townes Circle as
shown in Figure 20. This improvement will help reduce the overall impervious surface of the project.
Crosswalk striping will be updated at the Sunnyside Road and France
Avenue intersection. The week of October 5, the Edina Traffic Safety Committee recommended approval of three (3) striped crosswalks at the
intersection of Sunnyside Road and Grimes Avenue. Crosswalks at the
intersections of Curve Avenue and Sunnyside Road and Grimes Avenue and 45th Street did not meet City crosswalk warrants and were not recommended.
Page 24 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Figure 15 – 45th Street and Grimes Avenue Intersection
Figure 16 – Curve Avenue Curb Extensions
Page 25 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Figure 17 – Sunnyside Road Curb Extensions
Figure 18 – Grimes Avenue and Sunnyside Road Intersection
Page 26 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Figure 19 – Curve Avenue and Sunnyside Road Intersection
Figure 20 – Townes Circle Cul-De-Sac
Page 27 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
Residential Lighting The existing lighting will remain the same with no additional lights proposed.
The proposed improvements acknowledge many of the comments and concerns raised by residents and staff throughout the information gathering process while still maintaining the desired minimum standards of the
engineering and public works staff.
RIGHT-OF-WAY & EASEMENTS: Existing ROW in the neighborhood varies from 40 feet to 60 feet wide. A 40-foot ROW exists for 45th Street. A 50-foot ROW exists for Curve Avenue. 60-
foot ROWs exist for Townes Road, Townes Circle, Sunnyside Road, and
Grimes Avenue. The City has a water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer utility easement in the private drive for 4607, 4609 and 4611 Townes Circle. The
City only has a sanitary sewer utility easement for 4605 Townes Circle.
Existing utility easement for sanitary sewer pipe HDD to Meadow Road
CITY COUNCIL VOTING: The Public Hearing will contain two separate motions for voting on the project improvements. Per State statute, the assessment portion of the project requires a super majority approval from council (4:1). The PACS funded
components requires a simple majority approval from council (3:2). PROJECT COSTS: The total estimated project cost is $X,XXX,000 (Table 6). The total cost
includes direct costs for engineering, clerical and construction finance costs from the start of the project to the final assessment hearing. Funding for the entire project will be from a combination of special assessment, utility, MCWD
and PACS funds.
The estimated roadway improvement cost is $X,XXX,000. All of these costs
will be 100 percent funded by special assessments.
Utility improvements and repairs amount to $X,XXX,000 and will be funded through respective utility funds. Any pedestrian safety enhancement such as
crosswalks and sidewalks will be funded through the PACS Fund in an
amount of $XX,000.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
ITEM ESTIMATED COST 2 MCWD3
CITY RESIDENTS
Sanitary Sewer Pipe
Water Main Pipe and Service Pipe Up To and Including Curb Stop Box $XXX,000
Storm Sewer $XXX,000
Storm Water Treatment $XXX,000
Street Reconstruction1 (Morningside A) $X,XXX,000
Street Reconstruction1 (White Oaks C) $XXX,000
PACS $XX,000
Sub-total $X,XXX,000 $X,XXX,000 $XXX,000
Total $X,XXX,000
1 Cost to be assessed to residents
Page 28 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
2 Costs are given in 2016 dollars
3 Preliminary, not officially approved
Table 6
ASSESSMENTS: The assessments are based on the City’s special assessment policy, dated August 21, 2012. Drawing 2 in Appendix L summarizes the distribution of
REUs within the neighborhood. Based on this policy, the residential equivalent units (REU) for Morningside A
and White Oaks C are shown in Table 7 below with estimated street reconstruction assessments per REU in 2016 dollars.
SUMMARY OF TOTAL REUs and ASSESSMENTS
Neighborhood REUs Assessment per REU
Morningside A 126.9 $X,000
White Oaks C 20 $XX,000
Table 7
City-owned property is located within the neighborhood on Townes Road. The property contains a land-locked wetland area that cannot be developed in the future so no levied assessment is planned for that parcel.
The methodologies for calculating other assessments that are not equal to 1 REU are as follows:
Commercial Property:
Commercial properties are assessed 1.5 REU’s per 1000 square feet.
4412 France Avenue S:
4.3 REU’s = [(7,670 SF / 1,000) x (1.5 REU) + (3 units) x (0.5 REU)] x
(1/3 REU)
4500 France Avenue S:
6.7 REU’s = (13,414 SF / 1,000) x (1.5 REU) x (1/3 REU)
3903 Sunnyside Road:
12.2 REU’s = (8,111 SF / 1,000) x (1.5 REU)
3904 Sunnyside Road: 5.0 REU’s = (3,342 SF / 1,000) x (1.5 REU)
3910 Sunnyside Road: 6.9 REU’s = (4,578 SF / 1,000) x (1.5 REU)
3918 Sunnyside Road: 2.9 REU’s = (1,945 SF / 1,000) x (1.5 REU)
3920 Sunnyside Road: 3.6 REU’s = (2,412 SF / 1,000) x (1.5 REU)
Page 29 of 30
Engineering Study Morningside A Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-422
White Oaks C Neighborhood Improvement No. BA-438 October 14, 2015
3930 Sunnyside Road: 3.7 REU’s = (2,484 SF / 1,000) x (1.5 REU)
3940 Sunnyside Road: 3.6 REU’s = (2,368 SF / 1,000) x (1.5 REU)
A copy of the preliminary assessment roll is included in Appendix F.
PROJECT SCHEDULE: The following schedule is feasible from an Engineering standpoint:
FEASIBILITY: Staff and consultant believes the construction of this project is necessary,
cost effective and feasible to improve the public infrastructure in the Morningside A and White Oaks C Neighborhood. APPENDIX: A. 2013 and 2015 Open House
B. July 29, 2015 Informational Meeting
C. September 21, 2015 Informational Meeting D. Property Owner Multi-modal Survey
E. Property Owner Utility Survey
F. Preliminary Assessment Roll G. City Comprehensive Plan Update – Sidewalk and Bicycle Facilities
H. Traffic and Crash Data
I. Existing Street Lights and Signs J. Not Used
K. Water Main and Service Breaks
L. Appendix Drawings Drawing 1 – Proposed Water Main Map
Drawing 2 – Preliminary Assessment Map M. October 15, 2015 ETC Meeting
Project Open House 2012 November 25, 2013
Project Open House 2013 February 25, 2015
Neighborhood Informational Meeting July 29, 2015
Neighborhood Informational Meeting September 21, 2015
Edina Transportation Commission Meeting October 15, 2015
Receive Feasibility Report and Public Hearing December 8, 2015
Bid Opening February 2016
Award Contract Spring 2016
Begin Construction Spring 2016
Complete Construction Fall 2016
Final Assessment Hearing Fall 2017
Page 30 of 30
Date: October 22, 2015 Agenda Item #: VII.B.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Joseph Totten, Traffic Safety Coordinator
Item Activity:
Subject:Traffic Safety Report of October 7, 2015 Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review and recommend the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) Report of Wednesday October 7,
2015 be forwarded to City Council for approval.
INTRODUCTION:
It is anticipated that residents may be in attendance at the meeting. An overview of the comments
from the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) will be included in the staff report provided to
Council for their November 17, 2015 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Traffic Safety Committee Report of October 7, 2015
Traffic Safety Committee Report of October 07, 2015
Page 1 of 10
Map : 70th Street roundabouts in question, the stars mark
the crosswalks
Map : Transition from 49th Street to Westbrook Lane
Traffic Safety Report
October 07, 2015
The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on October 07. The
Transportation Planner, Traffic Safety Coordinator, Sign Coordinator, City Engineer, Public Works
Director, and Police Sergeant were in attendance for the meeting. The Assistance City Planner has been
contacted with the report and results and asked for input.
Section A : Items on which staff recommends action
A1. Request for increased pedestrian safety at
the 70th Street roundabouts
A requestor asked for an investigation into
pedestrian safety at the 70th Street roundabouts,
between York Avenue and France Avenue.
Specifically, the requestor asked for an
investigation of distracted driving in this location.
In two studies rates of distracted driving of 15
and 22 percent were found, with the lower
number being from the sidewalk directly next to
the road, and the higher being from a nearby
parking lot. Cell phone use, eating, and playing
with the radio were three common distractions
which removed drivers’ eyes from the roadway.
While a full yielding study has not been done,
drivers yielded to pedestrians and the Traffic
Safety Coordinator in crossings but often did not
wait until pedestrians had fully cleared the lane to continue. July’s Focus In campaign by the Edina Police
Department was crosswalk safety, and September’s Focus In campaign was on distracted driving. There
have been no reported crashes between motor vehicle drivers, and pedestrians or bicyclists along the
70th Street roundabouts since their installation.
After review, staff recommends that this item be approved. The police department
already enforces these infractions and these locations and data will help in their
enforcement, further, the crosswalks are being remarked with more durable
thermoplastic.
A2. Request for further discussion of 49th Street
and Westbrook Lane
A requestor asked for clarification on why the
stop sign on 49th Street, as it turns from east-west
to north-south and becomes Westbrook Lane,
was removed. The sign was removed in 2010 as
there is no intersection in this location. The sign
had been placed years earlier to prevent people
from rounding the corner at a high rate of speed
Photo : A woman crosses in the 70th Street crosswalks
Traffic Safety Committee Report of October 07, 2015
Page 2 of 10
or drifting to the wrong side of the roadway, it
was removed as part of a traffic safety request
which also had a staff recommendation of adding a
centerline to the roadway. This was not placed,
but may have been due to now lost revisions of
the report. Centerlines may be warranted in
specific locations by the MNMUTCD under the
option which reads, “On roadways without
continuous center line pavement markings, short
sections may be marked with centerline pavement
markings to control the position of traffic at specific locations, such as around curves … and at bridges.”
No accidents attributable to this condition have been reported since the removal of the sign.
After review, staff recommends this item for approval. Centerline striping will be added to
the curve, which is compliant with standards used elsewhere in the city.
A3. Request for further intersection control at
the intersection of Parkwood Road and
Schaefer Road
This requestor believes that the intersection of
Parkwood Road and Schaefer Road is dangerous
due to the high number of crashes recorded in
this location. Five (5) crashes have occurred at
this location in the past five (5) years, with four
(4) being right-angle crashes, which are
considered susceptible to correction with all-way
stop control, three of these crashes have involved
eastbound and southbound vehicles which is
consistent with the requestor’s observation that
drivers on these approaches cannot see each
other. Eastbound and westbound traffic at this
location has a stop sign to control entrances to
the intersection; the northbound and southbound
approaches are uncontrolled. While the requestor
sees this intersection as an issue, removal of the
hedges on the northwest corner of the
intersection is not seen as a positive solution and
the requestor would prefer that they remain and continue with the dangerous condition than have their
removal. These hedges are also only questionably in the intersection clearview area of the intersection.
Parkwood Road, east of this intersection has an ADT of 350 and has an 85th-percentile speed of 30.5
mph. Schaeffer Road has an ADT of 885 and has an 85th-percentile speed of 34.1 mph.
After review, staff recommends that this intersection be controlled by an all-way stop. This
recommendation considered the high incidence of crashes in this location, in particular,
the incidence of crashes compared to the lower volumes seen on these roadways. Sight
distance obstructions were seen to be beyond Edina’s Right-Of-Way in this area, as well as
beyond the intersection clearview area.
Photo : 49th Street at Westbrook Lane looking east
Photo : Parkwood Road and Schaeffer Avenue, looking north
Map : Schaeffer Road and Parkwood Road
Traffic Safety Committee Report of October 07, 2015
Page 3 of 10
Photo : Gleason Road and Schey Drive, looking southeast
Map : Gleason Road and Schey Drive, Dewey Hill Road runs
along the bottom of this map
A4. Request for crosswalks at the intersection of Grimes Avenue and Sunnyside Road
This request has been considered in 2012 and was
denied at that time for a lack of warrants.
Upcoming construction in the area was seen as
warranting further investigation. A camera study
was taken of the area, and found that there were,
at maximum nineteen (19) crossings in a two-hour
period across the northern leg of the intersection,
including at least 6 crossings which were from
maintenance workers in the area, crossing from a
workspace to a vehicle. The western leg of the
intersection had a maximum of ten (10) crossings
in a two-hour period, and also had several
crossings by workmen. The eastern leg of the
intersection had thirteen (13) crossings in a two-
hour period. No crashes related to pedestrians
have occurred in this location in the past ten
years. Grimes Avenue is stop controlled at this
intersection, and has an ADT of 976, with an 85th-
percentile speed of 26.7 mph. Sunnyside Avenue is
uncontrolled at this location and has an 85th-
percentile speed of 30.3 mph and an ADT of 2910.
After review, marked crosswalks are
recommended for approval at all three legs
of the intersection. This intersection is
getting several traffic calming treatments in
a 2016 reconstruction of the area. These
improvements will shorten the crossing
distance for pedestrians and slow vehicular
traffic through this intersection.
Section B : Items staff recommends for denial
B1. Request for making a safer intersection at
the intersection of Gleason and Schey
Drive
A resident requested that the City of Edina
consider solutions to improve safety at the
intersection of Gleason Road and Schey Drive.
The requestor notes that many people run the
stop sign in this location and feels that this is
unsafe. The requestor would also like to
decrease noise, and decrease speeds along all of
Gleason Road. 2014 traffic counts showed an
ADT of 84 on Schey Drive and 1,924 on Gleason
Road near this location. 85th-percentile speeds on
Schey Drive were seen as 25.8 mph, and as 32.7
Map : Sunnyside Road and Grimes Avenue
Photo : Sunnyside Road and Grimes Avenue, looking east
Traffic Safety Committee Report of October 07, 2015
Page 4 of 10
Photo : 74th Street at Ohm’s Lane, looking east
Map : 74th Street and Ohm’s Lane, Public Works is the white
roof in the south of the map
Photo : Tracy Avenue and McGuire Drive, looking north
on Gleason Road. No crashes have been reported in this location in the past ten years.
After review, staff recommends denial of this request. A lack of crashes in this location as
well as a lack of warrants for removals of stop signs, which was a suggested solution by the
requestor, was the main reasons that staff considered for this decision.
B2. Request for a “Signal Your Turn” sign on 74th Street for left turns onto Ohm’s Lane
A requestor asked that a “Signal Your Turn” sign
be placed on 74th Street, for eastbound traffic, as
it approaches Ohm’s Lane. In an hour long audit
of the intersection, of 50 left turns from 74th
Street to Ohm’s Lane, six (6) drivers failed to
signal, and five (5) additional drivers did not signal
100 feet or more from the intersection, as
required by Minnesota law. In the opposite
direction, there were only 39 right turns, with five
(5) drivers failing to signal, and eight (8) drivers
signaling within 100 feet of the intersection. There
have been no reported crashes at this intersection
in the last ten years.
After review, staff recommends denial of
this decision. Reasoning included that this
was not seen as a pressing safety issue, and
the ninety degree turn is not the typical
application of this signage.
B3. Request for a crosswalk across Tracy Avenue,
at McGuire Road
This request comes from a resident who wishes
to access McGuire Park and other community
amenities from the east, and believes that vehicles
on Tracy Avenue are unobservant of pedestrians
and often exceed the speed limit. A crosswalk is
believed by the requestor to bring attention to
pedestrians and highlight the crossing. In a video
study, a maximum of 12 crossings were observed
in a two-hour period. This does not meet the
volume warrants for a crosswalk to be placed.
Tracy Avenue is classified in this location as a local
connector, and carries a higher amount of traffic
than its neighboring streets. There have been no
reported crashes at this location in the last ten
years. Historic counts indicate Tracy Avenue has a volume of about 1,500 in this location, with an 85th-
percentile speed of approximately 32 mph.
Map : Tracy Avenue and McGuire Drive, 70th Street is on the
southern edge, and Antrim Road is on the western edge of this map
Traffic Safety Committee Report of October 07, 2015
Page 5 of 10
Map : Concord Avenue as it intersects Lexington Avenue
After review, the number of crossings observed did not approach the number required for
warranting a crosswalk, and other safety issues did not present themselves in the analysis
or video study.
B4. Request for slowing traffic through the intersection of Concord Avenue and Lexington
Avenue
This request regards the offset intersection of
Concord Avenue and Lexington Avenue. The
requestor believes that a large amount of traffic
travelling on Concord Avenue continues on
Concord Avenue, requiring two turns in short
succession. The volume of this section was seen
in 2012 to be 243 vehicles from 5 AM to 10 PM,
a video study from this summer confirmed this
number. Further, the 85-th percentile speeds on
Lexington Avenue between Concord Avenue and
Concord Avenue were seen as 16.8 mph and 19
mph in the 2012 study, and a radar study this
year, respectively. All approaches to this
intersection are uncontrolled. This intersection is
scheduled for reconstruction next year. There
have been no reported crashes in this location
for the last ten years.
After review, staff recommends this item for denial. This recommendation is based off of
the low volumes and speeds observed through this segment. Further, a 2016 summer
reconstruction of the area will reduce street widths and add curbs to the streets, calming
traffic without further changes.
Photo : Concord Avenue and Lexington Avenue, looking east
Traffic Safety Committee Report of October 07, 2015
Page 6 of 10
Photo : Vernon Avenue, where a crosswalk is being investigated
Section C : Items on which staff recommends further study
C1. Request for a crosswalk across Vernon Avenue at the entrance to Jerry’s Foods
This request concerns a large number of elderly persons who are crossing Vernon Avenue at the
entrance to Jerry’s Foods as opposed to nearby signalized intersections. Vernon Avenue is a county
road, and thus, this recommendation will be forwarded to the county for their consideration. Vernon
Avenue is a minor arterial. In a video study, a maximum of 16 crossings were observed in a two-hour
period. There have been no reported crashes between pedestrians and drivers of motor vehicles in the
past ten years.
After review, staff recommends waiting for the results of the upcoming Grandview District
Transportation Study, which will include recommended pedestrian improvements in the
area.
C2. Request for moving, alteration, or removal
of the 30 mph speed limit sign from Valley
View Road, east of Antrim Road
This request comes from a resident who lives
within the area designated for a school speed
zone, where Valley View Road’s speed limit is
reduced to 20 mph when children are present.
However, two blocks (nearly 650 feet) before the
school speed limit zone ends, there is a sign
stating that the speed limit is 30 mph. The
requestor believes that this makes for a confusing
situation, especially for emerging skill drivers, who
Map : Valley View Road and Antrim Road, red is the school
speed limit area, the 30 mph speed limit sign is marked
with a star.
Photos : These photos illustrate the order of the signage along Valley View Road, the requestor would like to move the
Speed Limit 30 sign such that it is not within the school speed zone.
Map : Vernon Avenue at Jerry’s Foods
Traffic Safety Committee Report of October 07, 2015
Page 7 of 10
may not be aware that they are still in the school speed zone. The requestor believes that this will also
assist the movement of vehicles into and out of the driveway of the requestor’s residence on Valley
View Road. A similar situation can be seen on Antrim Road, in front of Our Lady of Grace. No crashes
have been reported during school release or start times in the last ten years along this stretch of
roadway. The 85th-percentile speed of this section of Valley View Road is 38.1 mph and Valley View
Road has an ADT of 7543 in this segment.
After review, staff recommended further study on the lawfulness and placement of the
school speed zone at this distance from the school property, and to consider changing the
school zone itself instead of the signage currently in place.
Section D : Other items handled by traffic safety
D1. A person called with concerns about the speed of traffic on Division Street and asked for what
could be done immediately for lowering traffic speeds. The requestor was informed of the item in the
August Traffic Safety Report, and told that enforcement efforts were targeting those who were speeders
in the area. Further, the requestor was informed of ways that residents could calm traffic themselves,
such as parking on the street.
D2. A requestor called engineering to investigate the RRFB at 64th Street and Xerxes Avenue, as it was
not flashing long enough for the requestor to cross, and was not stopping vehicles quickly enough. The
crossing was measured and a crossing time was computed. This was sent to Hennepin County, which
increased the crossing time allotted from 30 to 40 seconds. Further, the Traffic Safety Coordinator is
investigating the design of the RRFBs in this location, as there is a pedestrian island in this location, but
all RRFBs light up when a pedestrian actuates the crossing.
D3. A requestor from Dewey Hill Road wanted to see if reflector strips could be added to Dewey Hill
Road’s stop signs with Shannon Lane, as Dewey Hill Road is east-west in this location, and the requestor
was concerned that the setting sun prevented westbound drivers from seeing the stop sign.
D4. A requestor asked for an investigation into light timings at the Northbound TH 100 exit ramps at
70th Street, stating that TH 100 had too long of a green. This was forwarded to MnDOT, after a short
investigation showed that the period of light timings was close to accurate as described by the
requestor.
D5. A requestor asked for moving some “No Parking” signs further from her driveway, to ensure that
people do not park close to her driveway, as the state statute prevents parking within five feet of a
driveway. This request has been forwarded to Hennepin County, for these signs to be placed further
from the driveway to ensure that the resident can leave her driveway. Additionally, the resident was
advised to call the police non-emergency line, which was also provided, to ask for enforcement of this
issue when it arises.
D6. A requestor asked for a speed study on Malibu Drive, an earlier request with a similar study was
completed and the data was forwarded to the requestor.
D7. A request for painting of Blake Road, at Interlachen Boulevard was fielded after Blake Road had a
minor resurfacing. No action was taken specific to this request, as the road was being marked out for
painting at this time. The road has been painted to completion at this time.
Traffic Safety Committee Report of October 07, 2015
Page 8 of 10
D8. A requestor asked for the removal of loading zone signage on Edgebrook Place, as the resident who
it was installed for has since passed and the loading zone is not needed. A quick review found that this
requestor was the original requestor for the signage, and thus the request was forwarded to the sign
shop for removal when possible.
Traffic Safety Committee Report of October 07, 2015
Page 9 of 10
Appendix A:
Crosswalk Warrants
A. Marked crosswalks are placed at locations that are unusually hazardous or at locations not
readily apparent as having pedestrian movement.
B. Marked crosswalks will only be placed in an area that has 20 or more pedestrian crossings in a
two-hour period.
C. Marking for crosswalks will be established by measuring the “Vehicle Gap Time”. This is the
total number of gaps between vehicular traffic recorded during the average five minute period in
the peak hour. Criteria for markings are:
1) More than five gaps – pavement marking and signage only.
2) Less than five gaps – add actuated pedestrian signals.
D. Crosswalks will not be placed on arterial roads or roads with a speed limit greater than 30 mph
unless in conjunction with signalization.
E. Other conditions that warrant crosswalks:
1) Routes to schools
2) Locations adjacent to libraries, community centers, and other high use public facilities.
3) Locations adjacent to public parks.
4) Locations where significant numbers of handicapped persons cross a street.
5) Locations where significant numbers of senior citizens cross a street.
F. Crosswalks will only be placed at intersections.
Traffic Safety Committee Report of October 07, 2015
Page 10 of 10
Appendix B:
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: October 22, 2015 Agenda Item #: VII.C.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Results of 2015 Open Streets on 50th Event Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
Please recall that on Sunday Sep 27 the City of Edina hosted its first "Open Streets on 50th" event.
Staff wishes to thank the members of the ETC who hosted the Living Streets booth at the event.
Minneapolis Police estimated that the successful event was attended by over 9,000 people without
incident.
For your information, attached are the results of several surveys conducted by volunteers both
during and after the event that can assist staff and officials in planning for next year's Open Streets
event.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Open Streets on 50th Attendee Survey Results
Open Streets on 50th Non-Business Vendor Survey Results
Open Streets on 50th Merchant Feedback
City of Edina Inaugural Open Streets on 50th
Survey Results
October 2015
Overview
On September 27, 2015, the City of Edina hosted its first Open Streets on 50th event along West
50th Street from Browndale Avenue in Edina to Chowen Avenue in Minneapolis. The event was
a culmination of several months of planning by City of Edina staff members representing
several departments, the 50th and France Business Association and Bloomington Public Health.
The purpose of the event was to promote health and wellness, alternative transportation, local
business and connecting community. . Open Streets events invite people into public streets to
experience a temporary car-free environment. Community members are encouraged to walk,
bicycle, jog, rollerblade, socialize, play, and generally use the street for purposes other than
moving automobiles. Car-free initiatives have increased in popularity across North America with
more than 100 documented events throughout the United States. Surrounding Edina, the Cities
of Minneapolis and Richfield have hosted Open Streets events for the past several years.
Funding for the event was provided by the 50th and France Business Association, Bloomington
Public Health through the Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) grant and Allina
Health. The City of Edina also contributed to the event by covering staffing costs for City staff
who participated in the planning process.
The Open Streets on 50th planning team, following recommendations from the Open Streets
Guide published by the Open Streets Project, implemented an evaluation plan to collect
feedback from Open Streets on 50th vendors, businesses and visitors. The evaluation plan
consisted of in-person and on-line interviews.
Visitor Surveys: Methodology
The planning committee developed a nine-question survey for Open Streets on 50th visitors
based on published survey tools used at Open Streets events across the nation. The committee
revised questions from these examples to fit the community and event.
Surveys were conducted during the Open Streets event at two information stations by
volunteers. Another volunteer walked through the event and asked visitors to participate in the
survey. Initially, the planning committee requested the volunteers to read the questions to
visitors and fill out the survey themselves. However, in practice, there was too much activity
and too many people for the volunteers to read questions to the visitors, so the visitors read
and answered the questions on their own. Each respondent was given a water bottle for
completing the survey.
A total of 100 surveys were collected at the event. To collect additional information, the
committee also created an on-line survey and posted the link to the survey on the City of
Edina’s facebook page the day after the event. An additional 22 surveys were collected from
the online survey from September 28 – October 7.
The survey tool can be found in Appendix A at the end of this report.
Visitor Surveys: Results
Q1. How did you hear about the Open Streets on 50th event?
118 respondents answered this question. Multiple answers were allowed. The most common
answer was Facebook with 37 responses, followed by friend/neighbor/word of mouth with 30
responses.
N=118, multiple answers allowed
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Q2. How did you get to the Open Streets on 50th event today?
117 respondents answered this question. The majority of respondents arrived via automobile
(50%), followed by 34% who walked or ran to the event and 13% who biked to the event. Two
respondents reported taking the bus, one arrived on moped and another by canoe.
N=117
50%
1%
13%
34%
2%
Automobile
Bus
Bicycle
Walk/run
Other
Q3. What is the main reason you came to Open Streets on 50th today?
This question was open-ended. Multiple answers were allowed. 114 people responded to this
question and 173 responses were recorded. The most common response was to check it
out/curiosity (40 responses), followed by enjoy a nice day/be outdoors (23 responses) and
walking/biking/exercising (17 responses). For a full list of responses see Appendix E.
N=114, multiple answers allowed
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Q4. What types of activities have you participated in/will you participate in at Open Streets
on 50th?
116 participants answered this question. Multiple answers were allowed. 375 responses were
collected for an average of 3.2 answers per respondent. The most common activity was walking
as noted by 82 respondents followed by visiting with vendors (66 responses) and eating at a
restaurant or food stand (57 responses). Other common responses included participating in a
kids’ activity (42 responses), shopping (40 responses) and watching entertainment (38
responses).
N=116, multiple answers allowed
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Q4. Did you learn of a new store, restaurant or organization by attending today’s event?
111 responses were collected for this question. Nearly half (48%) of all respondents reported
learning of a new store, restaurant or organization during the event. Over 25 different stores,
restaurants and organizations were specified by respondents as new to them (for a list, please
refer to Appendix B).
N=111
48%
52%
Yes
No
Q6. An Open Streets event strengthens our community.
Over 95% of the 116 respondents agreed or strongly agreed that an Open Streets event
strengthened the community.
N=116
]
56%
39%
4%
1%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Q7. Edina provides friendly environments for walking and biking.
The vast majority (91%) of the 88 respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement
that Edina provides friendly environments for walking and biking.
N=88
43%
48%
7% 2%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Q8. What is your home zip code?
115 respondents answered this question. The two most common zip codes were 55410 (21%)
and 55424 (21%), which are the two zip codes represented in the location of the Open Streets
on 50th event. Seven zip codes are represented in the City of Edina. The 55436 zip code is
completely within the City of Edina borders. The majority of zip codes 55424, 55435 and 55439
reside within the City of Edina borders. A small portion of zip codes 55410, 55416 and 55343
are within the City of Edina borders. All zip codes of Edina were represented, except for the
55343 zip code, which represents a small portion of NW Edina, which borders Hopkins. 22% of
respondents reported other zip codes that were from the Twin Cities metro area and greater
Minnesota.
N=115
21%
21%
13%
8%
8%
7%
22%
55410
55424
55436
55439
55435
55416
Other
Q9. Do you have any suggestions for improving the Open Streets on 50th event?
This was an open-ended question. Of the 122 surveys administered, 98 respondents answered
this question and 24 left it blank. 22 of the 98 responses indicated that there were no
suggestions for improvement. Of the 22 respondents who wrote no, 10 left positive responses
such as “it was great”, “do it again”, and “good first attempt”.
The 76 respondents who provided suggestions for improvement provided a variety of ideas.
The most common included having more food options or food trucks (16 responses), more
vendors and/or activities (15 responses) and more and/or different types of music (10
responses). For a full list of responses see Appendix D.
N=98, multiple answers allowed
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Non-Business Vendor Survey: Methodology
An eight-question online survey was developed by the planning team to collect feedback from
non-business vendors who participated in the event. Non-business vendors were e-mailed a
link to the survey during the week after the event. From September 28 – October 7, 17 non-
business vendors completed the survey (out of XX e-mailed).
Non-Business Vendor Survey: Results
Q1. The logistics and planning for Open Streets on 50th prepared me well for the event
17.65%3
58.82%10
11.76%2
11.76%2
Q1 The logistics and planning for Open
Streets on 50th prepared me well for the
event
Answered: 17 Skipped: 0
Total 17
#Comments Date
1 Very little instruction provided prior to set up. City should provide tables to non-retail exhibitors.10/7/2015 2:40 PM
2 Great e-mail communication 10/5/2015 1:43 PM
3 I knew we'd have a space, approximately where that place was, had information about other venues that would be
there, appreciated the info
10/2/2015 1:50 PM
4 With this being the 1st of these events to the area, it would have been good to have an overview of the event
distributed...only communication we received was via email the day before the event
10/2/2015 1:44 PM
5 We needed to be able to park much closer than the city streets allowed to haul our heavy equipment to the stage.
There was no one from the City of Edina present to answer questions. We saw that Captain Bob had pulled into the
parking lot next to the stage, so asked him how he arranged to park there. He told us to talk to the policeman on the
nearby street corner, so we did. Then we were able to park close enough to haul our heavy equipment. We also had
some problems with the microphone cutting out. Captain Bob had stayed for our set, so he helped fix the mic problem.
10/1/2015 10:08 AM
6 It is possible that as a late registrant, not all information was recieved in terms of what side of the street to set up on,
or exactly what to expect with this event.
10/1/2015 9:51 AM
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
1 / 10
Open Streets on 50th Booth Participant Survey
7 The event planning process was led well by Lisa Firth and there was great collaboration and cooperation amongst the
various entities involved.
9/30/2015 11:44 AM
8 The event seemed well organized with a thoughtful layout and placement of vendors. It would have been great to get
the Activities sheet and marketing info a little sooner. Maybe ask the City of Minneapolis to be a little more involved
with promotions. I did the best I could within my area, but don't have the outreach that the City has.
9/30/2015 8:28 AM
9 We were surprised that the street was opened back up to car traffic at 5pm instead of 6pm as we'd been told via email
ahead of time and would appreciate more heads up next time, but everything else was great.
9/29/2015 2:06 PM
10 We had very little information coming our way as far as where our booth was supposed to go.9/28/2015 2:24 PM
2 / 10
Open Streets on 50th Booth Participant Survey
52.94%9
23.53%4
11.76%2
11.76%2
Q2 I knew what type of activities to provide
to meet the goals of the Open Streets on
50th event
Answered: 17 Skipped: 0
Total 17
#Comments Date
1 If there were 80 'vendors' participating, I could only see two from where I was.10/7/2015 2:40 PM
2 The Edina Art Center's "Community Canvas" met with great response from participants 10/5/2015 1:43 PM
3 "open streets=about health, wellness, and connection in the community"10/2/2015 1:50 PM
4 Same point as previous question 10/2/2015 1:44 PM
5 The Grange often tables at events across the state and country and often have hands on activities. This event was
presented as more of an informational setting and we wish we had been better informed so we could have provided
hands on activities.
10/1/2015 9:51 AM
6 We focused on things that were engaging to people of all ages (connecting communities) and promoted healthy
lifestyles
9/30/2015 8:28 AM
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
3 / 10
Open Streets on 50th Booth Participant Survey
75.00%12
25.00%4
0.00%0
0.00%0
Q3 I prepared in advance for my booth at
the Open Streets on 50th event
Answered: 16 Skipped: 1
Total 16
#Comments Date
1 I was a performer so did not have a booth.10/5/2015 10:48 AM
2 We're invited to do "tabling" at many events from spring-fall and are prepared.10/2/2015 1:50 PM
3 We were well rehearsed to play our set of music.10/1/2015 10:08 AM
4 We were performers, so didn't have a "booth"10/1/2015 9:54 AM
5 Our organization often tables at events and were well prepared with information and visuals.10/1/2015 9:51 AM
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
4 / 10
Open Streets on 50th Booth Participant Survey
23.53%4
23.53%4
23.53%4
29.41%5
Q4 There was a lot of foot traffic at my
booth
Answered: 17 Skipped: 0
Total 17
#Comments Date
1 You need to compress the area-- leave out the retailers at 50th and France. Focus on community organizations. Get
food trucks and food vendors. Activities for kids would be great too.
10/7/2015 2:40 PM
2 Our crowd was about 20 - 30 people.10/5/2015 10:48 AM
3 We had a consistent stream of visitors at our booth. In fact, as we were setting up & taking down our booth there were
still people wanting to talk with us.
10/2/2015 1:50 PM
4 We were located further away from France and the. Booths to the west were spread out to one per block, so foot traffic
was a little slower down there
10/2/2015 1:44 PM
5 The park was almost empty when it was time for us to play. We did end up getting a small audience after we began to
play. It was disappointing. All the action seemed to be at the other end of 50th.
10/1/2015 10:08 AM
6 We were the only table on our block. Things were so spread out that it seemed foot traffic had died out by the time
anyone reached us.
10/1/2015 9:51 AM
7 We were thrilled with the turnout at our booth.9/30/2015 11:44 AM
8 The event could be less spread out toward Utely Park....too much space between vendors 9/29/2015 12:11 PM
9 It was decent for the 1st annual Open Streets in Edina 9/29/2015 9:02 AM
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
5 / 10
Open Streets on 50th Booth Participant Survey
10 Our booth was near the intersection of Wooddale and 50th. We didn't even have a fraction of the people who were at
50th and France. That was disappointing since we spent a lot of money on materials for our booth! I felt worse for the
musicians who performed for one or two people at a time at Utley Park.
9/28/2015 2:31 PM
11 We were near Utley Park and probably got 5 to 10 percent of the actual foot traffic at our booth compared to those
closer to 50th & France.
9/28/2015 2:24 PM
6 / 10
Open Streets on 50th Booth Participant Survey
35.29%6
58.82%10
5.88%1
0.00%0
Q5 It was worthwhile to participate in the
Open Streets on 50th event
Answered: 17 Skipped: 0
Total 17
#Comments Date
1 Our results were positive, but better City organization would bring us even better results.10/7/2015 2:40 PM
2 I continue to be amazed at how many people aren't aware of the plight of bees/pollinators and once they hear about it
they want to learn more and help.
10/2/2015 1:50 PM
3 Yes, but still somewhat disappointing because of lack of crowd.10/1/2015 10:08 AM
4 It is always worthwhile to participate in strengthening communities, though this event needs a lot of work to be
concisered a successful event.
10/1/2015 9:51 AM
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
7 / 10
Open Streets on 50th Booth Participant Survey
29.41%5
70.59%12
0.00%0
0.00%0
Q6 I would participate in the Open Streets
on 50th event again in the future
Answered: 17 Skipped: 0
Total 17
#Comments Date
1 Providing it works into our schedule.10/2/2015 1:50 PM
2 I think we would prefer to play 45 minutes instead of 30. I didn't know that 45 minutes was an option until I saw the
schedule on the Open Streets Facebook page 2 days before the event.
10/1/2015 10:08 AM
3 Assuming a better turnout - and, perhaps, a larger fee 10/1/2015 9:54 AM
4 Can't wait!9/30/2015 11:44 AM
5 If our booth was closer to the action, we might participate again 9/28/2015 2:26 PM
6 If our booth was more in the center.9/28/2015 2:24 PM
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
8 / 10
Open Streets on 50th Booth Participant Survey
Q7 Where was your booth located?
Answered: 14 Skipped: 3
#Responses Date
1 West 50th St. by St. Stephens Church 10/7/2015 2:40 PM
2 The Edina Art Center booth was located in front of St. Stephen's Church. Great location - would love to have same
location next year!
10/5/2015 1:43 PM
3 At stage number 2.10/5/2015 10:48 AM
4 Originally across from The Waters on 50th Street between Beard & Chowen. However we were thee only table there
@ the end...so we walked the table up a block and joined the group!
10/2/2015 1:50 PM
5 Bruce 10/2/2015 1:44 PM
6 Near Dairy Queen 10/2/2015 9:51 AM
7 Utley park stage 10/1/2015 10:08 AM
8 Utley Park (showmobile)10/1/2015 9:54 AM
9 East of St. Stephens Church.10/1/2015 9:51 AM
10 In front of Agra Culture 9/30/2015 11:44 AM
11 On 50th St (across from the Red Cow stage)9/30/2015 8:28 AM
12 50th & Drew 9/29/2015 2:06 PM
13 By Wooddale and Utely Park 9/29/2015 12:11 PM
14 Right by the Open Streets tent. 50th & Chowen 9/29/2015 9:02 AM
9 / 10
Open Streets on 50th Booth Participant Survey
Q8 Suggestions to improve the Open
Streets on 50th event in the future
Answered: 16 Skipped: 1
#Responses Date
1 Designate a bike traffic section only on 50th-- people were riding by a mere few inches from our table! Get music, food,
all City departments and elected officials involved!
10/7/2015 2:40 PM
2 Compress booths a bit more.10/5/2015 1:43 PM
3 Move the children's music to an area that is more crowded so people can hear the music while they are strolling
around.
10/5/2015 10:48 AM
4 We were so busy I didn't get time to walk up the street and visit the other booths. However, I recommend having the
booths closer together--more festive and inclusive. Fabulous police support. Excellent 1st time event.
10/2/2015 1:50 PM
5 It would have been nice if we could have coordinated our booth with our partners (Agra, Aspire, and the EBA). Would
have given us a better opportunity to coordinate some cooler activities...
10/2/2015 1:44 PM
6 In the area around my booth I noticed that there were only booths set up on one side of the street and the other side
remained vacant. I am not sure if this was true all the way down 50th but I would suggest encouraging people to set
up on both sides of the street.
10/2/2015 9:51 AM
7 There could be more vendors or activities to draw interest to the Utley Park end of the event, too. Community program
booths did not draw crowds.
10/1/2015 10:08 AM
8 More signage to drive people to the performance venue and a listing of acts posted at the venue.10/1/2015 9:54 AM
9 I heard a lot of grumbling from other participants who were disappointed in the number of organizations boasted as
participants. It did seem that most of the organizations were the businesses at 50th and France or High School Sports.
People I talked with thought that if you decided to do the event next year, the length should be condensed. I'm not
sure that's the problem. The problem is there weren't enough organizations (we were the only one on our block). I
think this could be a very successful event with food vendors and other events to make the event seem more like a
festival and not just a lazy string of poorly attended block parties. Other feedback I heard was that the event didn't
seem to be very publicized.
10/1/2015 9:51 AM
10 Review the feedback from attendees and explore different activities to offer. Get more organizations involved. It was a
great first year and can only get better.
9/30/2015 11:44 AM
11 I mentioned this to Rachel at the event, but maybe try to coordinate which vendor is doing which activity. For instance,
we don't need four different vendors doing face painting, but maybe only one on each end of things. Although I must
say our face painter was busy the entire time she was there so it seemed like it was needed!
9/30/2015 8:28 AM
12 Only block 50th through Wooddale? Move music out into the street? the park did not get a lot of traffic 9/29/2015 12:11 PM
13 More vendors. Very solid event Open Streets committee. Bravo!9/29/2015 9:02 AM
14 Don't close down as much of the street so that everyone is closer together. Booths can be much closer together, too.
In addition to participants, we would have liked to have interacted with other community groups with booths at the
event. Consider bringing in food trucks to compliment the restaurants at 50th & France.
9/28/2015 2:31 PM
15 It seemed like there were two different events going on. The part of 50th that was adjacent to Minneapolis had booths
that were pushed together and the crowd was hopping. The further into Edina, the booths suddenly became almost
blocks apart and it became less and less crowded. Those of us at the western part of the route hardly had any people
at all. The experience was disappointing.
9/28/2015 2:26 PM
16 Close less of 50th Street so that the booths are closer together and people don't need to walk as far. Otherwise, we
think it's a great idea and hope to see it done again next year!
9/28/2015 2:24 PM
10 / 10
Open Streets on 50th Booth Participant Survey
50th & France Business Association
Open Streets Merchant Feedback
1. How Many people came into your business or did you engage in conversation with this past
Sunday?
• Talked with lots of people interested in my business
• Ton of traffic
• Was great and talked a lot about my business and booked some appointments
• Great networking for people that did not know we were at 50th & France
2. Where you open during the whole event?
• Most said yes that participated
3. Did you provide an activity or something interactive?
• Yes gave out samples
• Had live music-people liked it
• Lots of people participated in our classes
• ½ and ½ but the ones that had activities were more busy
4. Did you see an increase in sales from a normal Sunday day of business?
• Sales were good
• It was our neighborhood customer- very fun
• Same as a normal Sunday
• Lower but good exposure
• Better sales outside than inside restaurant during event
• Great sales after the event- my restaurant was very busy
• Good awareness to the area
• Lower but hope people come back another day
5. Other?
• Very successful event
• Will participate again
• Good event competitive with the Lyndale Open Streets ( for sales and foot traffic)
• New favorite event – clothing boutique
• Loved the involvement with the pets
• Have more businesses get involved
Date: October 22, 2015 Agenda Item #: VIII.A.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Correspondence
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Board and Commission Communication with
City Council
Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is a memorandum from City Manager Scott Neal that clarifies the purpose and
expectation of advisory boards and commissions submitting an Advisory Communication to City
Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
City Manager Neal Memo re: Advisory Communications
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
To: Edina’s Advisory Board and Commission Members
From: Scott Neal, City Manager
cc. Lisa Schaefer, Assistant City Manager, MJ Lamon, Project Coordinator, Board and
Commission Staff Liaisons
Date: October 8, 2015
Subject: Board and commission communication with City Council
The City of Edina has several options for advisory boards and commissions to communicate with City Council;
however, the intention of an Advisory Communication tends to be misinterpreted. I have been asked by City
Council to clarify the purpose and expectation of submitting an Advisory Communication to City Council.
What is an Advisory Communication?
• A form of communication with City Council when a Board or Commission wants to give input on an issue,
but due to timing or the nature of the issue, meeting minutes are deemed insufficient.
• Advisory Communications are written by a board or commission member(s).
When it is appropriate to submit an Advisory Communication?
• Advisory Communications should be used if the Board or Commission wishes to advise the Council on a
topic not included on their approved work plan.
• As noted in the title, an Advisory Communication is purely advice or a suggestion to council.
Where is Advisory Communication located on the agenda?
• Non work plan communications will be included under Correspondence and Petitions.
• Advisory Communications are not typically discussed at City Council meetings.
What if City Council does not discuss the Advisory Communication?
• City Council does read all Advisory Communications; however, given the volume of work City Council takes
on there is no expectation for City Council to respond.
• No response indicates the City Council will take it under advisement but will not be taking action.
Page 2
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
The communication methods with City Council are outlined below:
• Advisory communication is prepared by the Board and Commission members under the direction of the Board and Commission. Advisory communication should be used when the Board and Commission wants to give input on an issue but, due to timing or the nature of the issue, meeting minutes are deemed insufficient.
• Advisory communications should be used if the Board or Commission wishes to advise
the Council on a topic not included on their approved work plan.
• Non work plan communications will be included under correspondence on the City
Council agenda.
Advisory Communication
• Reports and recommendations are prepared by staff to forward a regulatory item or
other goal from the board and commission’s approved work plan to a Council meeting for
approval or direction.
• It is the responsibility of staff to outline the position of the board and commission, as well as staff recommendations, and to highlight any important differences between the two.
• Reports and recommendations will be included under "Reports & Recommendations" on the City Council agenda.
Report & Recommendation
• Meeting minutes are intended to give members an overview of board and commission proceedings. After the minutes are approved, they are included as part of the upcoming
Council packet.
• Council members are very diligent about reading board and commission minutes.
Meeting Minutes
• Joint work sessions are held at least once a year.
• This is an opportunity to update the Council on the Board and Commission’s work plan and to get Council feedback on the progress to date.
Joint Work Session
• The annual work plan process enables boards and commissions to share their goals for the upcoming year.
• The Council reviews those goals and other ideas before giving final direction on board
and commission priorities.
Annual Work Plan
Date: October 22, 2015 Agenda Item #: X.A.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Staff Comments for October 2015 Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
Staff will update the ETC on the following topics:
Construction status of 2015 Neighborhood Street Reconstruction projects
Status of other current construction projects
Grandview District Transportation Study Update
American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan
Date: October 22, 2015 Agenda Item #: XI.A.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Schedule of Meetings Dates/Events Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
Thursday October 22:
Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Thursday November 19:
Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday December 17:
Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday January 21:
Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Thursday February 18:
Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday March 17:
Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday April 21:
Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Thursday May 19:
Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday June 16:
Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COMMUNITY ROOM
ThursdayThursdayThursdayThursday