Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-10-27 Meeting PacketAgenda Transportation Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota City Hall - Community Room Thursday, October 27, 2022 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 15, 2022 V.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 sta% for consideration at a future meeting. VI.Reports/Recommendations A.2023 Roadway Reconstruction Projects B.Draft Equity Criteria for Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund C.2022 Work Plan Updates D.Appoint Commissioner to Cahill District Area Plan Working Group E.2023 Work Plan Proposal VII.Chair And Member Comments VIII.Sta4 Comments A.Sta4 Presentation to PARC IX.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 ampli6cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: October 27, 2022 Agenda Item #: IV.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Minutes From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of September 15, 2022 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the minutes of the Transportation Commission regular meeting of September 15, 2022. INTRODUCTION: See attached draft minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Description Draft Minutes: Sep 15, 2022 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Transportation Commission City Hall Community Room September 15, 2022 I. Call To Order Vice Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. Roll Call Answering roll call: Commissioners Ahler, Brown, Lewis, McCarthy, Plumb-Smith, Richman, Rubenstein, Sweeney Late: Commissioner Kanti Mahanty Absent: Commissioners Kitui, Johnson Staff present: Transportation Planner Andrew Scipioni III. Special Recognitions and presentations A. Welcome Commissioner Isaiah Sweeney Staff welcomed Commissioner Sweeney, who was appointed to serve as a student commissioner through August 31, 2023. IV. Approval of Meeting Agenda Motion was made by Commissioner Richman and seconded by Commissioner Plumb-Smith to approve the agenda. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. Approval of Meeting Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner Richman and seconded by Commissioner Ahler to approve the August 18, 2022 meeting minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried. VI. Community Comment Doug Kenyon, 6100 St. Johns Avenue, testified about Item B2 on the Traffic Safety Report of September 1, 2022, asking the City to consider dynamic display speed signs on Valley View Road between Benton Avenue and Highway 62. Kenyon noted that the speed limit reduction has had minimal impact, the traffic signal at Wooddale Avenue and Valley View Road has made conditions worse and expressed concern for children crossing the street to get to and from school. VII. Reports/Recommendations A. Traffic Safety Report of September 1, 2022 The Commission reviewed and commented on the Traffic Safety Report of September 1, 2022.  Item A2: Request for parking restrictions on east side of Dale Avenue south of W 56th Street Motion was made by Commissioner Richman and seconded by Commissioner McCarthy to recommend a “No Parking Here to Corner” sign. All voted aye. Motion carried. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date:  Item B1: Request for all-way stop controls at Division Street and Rutledge Avenue Motion was made by Commissioner Richman and seconded by Commissioner Rubenstein to recommend that staff reconsider this request given the proximity to Todd Park. All voted aye. Motion carried.  Item B2: Request for traffic calming along Valley View Road Motion was made by Commissioner McCarthy to recommend staff consider other solutions. Motion not seconded. Motion failed. Motion was made by Commissioner Richman and seconded by Commissioner McCarthy to recommend that staff reconsider this request, propose a minimum of two solutions and report on traffic enforcement. All voted aye. Motion carried. Commissioner Kanti Mahanty arrived at 6:20. B. 2022 Work Plan Updates  #1 Tree Boulevard Policy – Initiative completed.  #2 Public Transit Checklist – Commission is terminating this initiative, planning to wrap this into future initiative with Planning Commission.  #3 PACS Fund Policy – Subcommittee provided comments to staff on the equity criteria. No update; considering recommending scenarios to increase funding to address rising construction costs.  #4 SRTS Demonstration Projects – No update.  #5 TIS Process Review – No update.  #6 Transit Connectivity – Initiative completed. C. 2023 Work Plan Proposal The Commission continued to discuss their work plan proposal and ranked their initiatives as follows: 1. Pedestrian Crossing Policy Review 2. Bicycle Network Planning for Bikes as Transportation 3. France Avenue Transit Corridor Review 4. Boulevard Tree Planting 5. Organized Trash Collection 6. Off-Street Parking Parking Lot: Transit service advocacy, pedestrian safety education, speed limit adherence Motion was made by Commissioner Rubenstein and seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve the 2023 Work Plan Proposal. All voted aye. Motion carried. VIII. Chair and Member Comments – Received. IX. Staff Comments – Received. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: A. Introduction to 2023 Roadway Reconstruction Project Staff introduced the proposed 2023 roadway reconstruction project. B. Proposed 2023 Regular Meeting Dates Staff reviewed the proposed 2023 regular meeting dates. X. Adjournment Motion was made by Commissioner Richman and seconded by Commissioner Plumb-Smith to adjourn the September 15, 2022 regular meeting at 8:05 p.m. All voted aye. Motion carried. TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE J F M A M J J A S O N D # of Mtgs Attendance % Meetings 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 NAME Ahler, Mindy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 89% Brown, Chris 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 67% Johnson, Kirk 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 78% Kitui, Janet 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 78% Lewis, Andy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 89% McCarthy, Bruce 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 67% Plumb-Smith, Jill 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 78% Richman, Lori 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 78% Rubenstein, Tricia 1 1 1 3 60% Kanti Mahanty, Stephen (s) 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 67% Sweeney, Isaiah (s) 1 1 100% Kane, Bocar Resigned 0 N/A Clark, Anna (s) 1 1 Term Expired 2 25% Date: October 27, 2022 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:2023 Roadway Reconstruction Projects Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Review and comment on proposed roadway reconstruction projects. INTRODUCTION: Assistant City Engineer Aaron Ditzler and Transportation Planner Andrew Scipioni will present the proposed 2023 roadway reconstruction projects (see attached supporting materials). ATTACHMENTS: Description Draft Engineering Study: Morningside C Staff Report: Valley View Road - West Promenade ENGINEERING STUDY MORNINGSIDE C NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION Grimes Avenue, Inglewood Avenue, Kipling Avenue, Lynn Avenue, Monterey Avenue, West 40th Street IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-462 OCTOBER 20, 2022 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Reg. No. Date DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside C Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-462 October 20, 2022 2 SUMMARY: The project involves reconstruction of local bituminous streets, replacement of existing concrete curb and gutter, installation of new concrete curb and gutter and localized rehabilitation of the sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer systems in the neighborhood. The estimated total project cost is $X_____, excluding the Flood Risk Reduction Strategy costs. The City of St. Louis Park’s share of the estimated total project cost is $X_____. ___% of the roadway cost will be funded by will be funded through property taxes and ___% will be funded through special assessments at a rate of approximately $X_____ per residential equivalent unit (REU). Utility improvements amount to $X_____ and will be funded through the City’s utility funds. Sidewalk improvements are estimated to cost $X_____ and will be funded through the Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund. INITIATION: The project was initiated by the Engineering Department as part of the City’s Neighborhood Reconstruction Program, identified in the Capital Improvement Plan. The project complies with the City’s Living Streets Policy, Vision Edina’s mission statement to “provide effective and valued public services” and “maintain a sound public infrastructure” and the “Strong Foundations” City budget goal. This project addresses updating substandard infrastructure with improvements associated with the roadway condition, watermain system, storm sewer system, sanitary sewer system and pedestrian facilities. LOCATION: The project includes Grimes Avenue, Inglewood Avenue, Kipling Avenue, Lynn Avenue, Monterey Avenue and West 40th Street. West 40th Street is within the Cities of Edina and St. Louis Park. The reconstruction of Natchez Avenue within the Cities of Edina and St. Louis Park has been rescheduled to occur as part of the City of St. Louis Park’s 2024 roadway reconstruction program. A detailed location map of the project is shown in Figure 1. DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside C Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-462 October 20, 2022 3 Figure 1: Project Area Map DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside C Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-462 October 20, 2022 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS: Roadways The roadways in this neighborhood were originally constructed before the 1930s (see Photo 1). Photo 1: Morningside C Neighborhood, 1969 Maintenance records indicate bituminous surfacing and concrete curb and gutter installation occurred in 1978, and seal coating was performed within the project area in 1994 and 2008. All of the streets in the neighborhood have concrete curb and gutter. The roadway width is 30’ (measured from the face of curb to the face of curb). A recent geotechnical evaluation of the project area performed by Braun Intertec showed the roadway section varies from 2.25” to 5.75” of pavement over an apparent aggregate base followed by primarily silty sandy soils. Peat and / or organic soils are present adjacent to the pond on Lynn and Kipling Avenues. As part of the City’s Pavement Management Program, all streets are regularly evaluated and rated on a scale from 1 to 100; 100 representing a brand-new road surface and 0 being extremely poor. This rating is referred to as the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and is determined based on existing conditions and defects (alligator cracking, raveling, potholes, etc.). The average PCI for the City of Edina is DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside C Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-462 October 20, 2022 5 76 and the average PCI for Morningside C is 15. An example of the current pavement condition can be seen in Photo 2. Photo 2: Existing Pavement Condition Traffic and Crash Data Staff measured traffic volumes and speeds at several locations within or near the neighborhood. Average daily traffic volumes within the neighborhood range between 154 and 1,115 vehicles per day with 85th percentile speeds between 25.1 and 27.0 miles per hour. Traffic and crash data for this project is shown in Appendix A. Multi-Modal Transportation Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks are present Grimes Avenue between West 42nd Street and Inglewood Avenue, and Lynn Avenue between West 40th Street and 200 feet south of West 40th Street, and the sidewalks are in average condition. Sidewalks are also present immediately adjacent to the project area on West 42nd Street and on each of the streets north and south of the project limits, with the exception of Inglewood Avenue. Bicycle Facilities There are no bicycle facilities within the project area; however, there is a bike boulevard immediately adjacent to the project area on Grimes Avenue south of West 42nd Street, as well as a signed bike route on West 44th Street (see Appendix C). DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside C Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-462 October 20, 2022 6 Public Utilities Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer system consists of SECTION INCOMPLETE Watermain The watermain system consists of SECTION INCOMPLETE Storm Sewer The storm sewer network is in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The system consists of SECTION INCOMPLETE Private Utilities Gas, electric, communications, cable and fiber optic utilities are present in the neighborhood. These utilities are a combination of overheard and underground facilities located in backyards or along the boulevards. Street lighting consists of standard lantern style lights mounted on fiberglass poles located throughout the project area as shown in Appendix E. DESIGN INPUT: City Council 2018 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan This plan, part of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, was developed to guide the City’s efforts to create a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle network. As shown in Appendix B, there is a proposed sidewalk on Grimes Avenue between Inglewood Avenue and West 40th Street, and on Lynn Avenue between West 42nd Street and 200 feet south of West 40th Street. Appendix C shows proposed bicycle lanes on Grimes Avenue between West 42nd Street and West 40th Street. 2015 Living Streets Policy This policy balances 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. The City will apply the Policy to all street projects, including those involving operations, maintenance, new construction, reconstruction, retrofits, repaving, rehabilitation or change in the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway. The Living Streets Plan includes 15 principles to guide implementation of the Policy, divided into four categories: All Users and All Modes, Connectivity, Context Sensitivity and Sustainability. Below is a summary of how these principles are incorporated into this project: All Users and All Modes – This project will improve mobility and access to the transportation network for a variety of users, including pedestrians, cyclists, children, DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside C Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-462 October 20, 2022 7 seniors and people with disabilities. Replacement of the pavement surfaces and traffic control signage will enhance safety and convenience for all users. Connectivity – This project involves maintaining a transportation system that can accommodate all modes of travel. Existing facilities form a multimodal network within the neighborhood. Context Sensitivity – Engineering strives to preserve and protect natural features within or adjacent to construction sites where feasible, including trees, waterways and sensitive slopes. Residents within the project area were invited to complete a questionnaire soliciting input on project design components, including multi-modal transportation, street lighting and local drainage problems. Sustainability – Engineering works closely with Public Works to implement infrastructure improvements with consideration of lifecycle costs and future maintenance. The new roadway section can be easily maintained long-term with the use of proactive rehabilitation treatments, which will significantly extend the life of the pavement. Reductions in impervious surfaces benefit water quality and may lessen the demand for chemicals to manage snow and ice (such as chloride). Construction operations are required to use the smallest footprint necessary to complete the work; this includes utilizing trenchless technologies, such as pipe bursting or cured-in-place pipe liners. This project will also reduce inflow and infiltration of clean water into the sanitary sewer system, minimizing regional wastewater treatment, reducing the risk of sewage surcharges, and limiting the risk of back-ups to residential properties. Relevant portions of the Living Streets Plan can be found in Appendix F. 2018 Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan SECTION INCOMPLETE Public Works A draft engineering study was provided to the City’s Public Works Department. COMMENTS REQUESTED Police and Fire A draft engineering study was provided to the City’s Police and Fire Departments. COMMENTS REQUESTED Parks and Recreation A draft engineering study was provided to the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. COMMENTS REQUESTED Edina Transportation Commission Prior to the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) regular meeting on October 27, 2022, a draft engineering study was provided for review. DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside C Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-462 October 20, 2022 8 [2022 COMMENTS] Relevant minutes from the ETC meetings are included in Appendix G. Residents As part of the Engineering Department’s practice of notifying residents 2-3 years prior to a potential reconstruction project, virtual neighborhood informational presentations were posted on Better Together Edina in August 2020, March 2021 and September 2022. Residents were notified of the virtual meetings and were able to directly ask questions to staff from the Better Together Edina website, as well as telephone and email. Additionally, residents were invited to a meeting on October 17, 2022 to ask City Staff questions about the project. Materials from the virtual presentation can be found in Appendix H. On June 13, 2022, residents in Morningside C were asked to complete a questionnaire, soliciting feedback on motorized and non-motorized transportation, street lighting and local drainage problems within the project area. The questionnaire was completed by 31 of 139 property owners, a return rate of 22%. The following is a summary of feedback received from residents:  21 of 31 (68%) were concerned or very concerned with the speed of traffic in the neighborhood; 10 (32%) were not concerned.  17 (55%) were concerned or very concerned with motorist behavior in the neighborhood; 13 (42%) were not concerned.  22 (71%) identified an unsafe intersection within the neighborhood.  28 (90%) walk, run, or jog in the neighborhood at least 2-3 times per week.  9 (29%) ride a bicycle in the neighborhood at least 2-3 times per week.  6 (19%) reported parking on the street at least 2-3 times per week; 13 (42%) reported parking on the street less than once per month. *Percentages based on number of returned surveys The full questionnaires and responses can be found in Appendix I. Relevant correspondence from residents regarding the project can be found in Appendix J. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: The proposed improvements acknowledge many of the comments and concerns raised by residents throughout the information gathering process, while still maintaining the desired minimum standards of Engineering, Public Works and other City staff. Roadways Typical Section The bituminous roadways are proposed to be completely reconstructed to the subgrade. The existing bituminous pavement and suitable aggregate material will be recycled for use as base material in the new roadway where feasible. A minimum of DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside C Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-462 October 20, 2022 9 8” of aggregate base material will be graded and compacted as the base layer prior to placement of 2.5” of bituminous non-wear and 1.5” of bituminous wear course. Unsuitable subgrade materials will be replaced as necessary to provide adequate support for the new roadbed. Significant subgrade removals are anticipated where areas of peat and / or organic soils are present. The reconstructed sections will meet the requirements of a minimum 20-year pavement design life based on projected traffic loadings. Grimes Avenue is designated as a Local Connector Street in the Living Streets Plan. Per the plan’s design guidelines, Local Connector Streets have a typical width of 24’ (measured from the face of curb to the face of curb) with a 5’ sidewalk on one side. Grimes Avenue is proposed to vary from the guidelines and be reconstructed to 30’ wide to accommodate parking on both sides of the street adjacent to Weber Park, to match the existing street width at the north project limits in St. Louis Park, and to accommodate traffic volumes related to Avail Academy and Golden Years Montessori schools. All remaining roadways within the project area are designated as Local Streets in the Living Streets Plan. Per this plan’s design guidelines, Local Streets have a typical width of 27’ (measured from the face of curb to the face of curb) without sidewalks or 24’ with a 5’ sidewalk on one side. Local streets that vary from the guidelines are as follows:  West 40th Street is proposed to be reconstructed to its current 30’ width per request of the City of St. Louis Park.  Inglewood Avenue between Grimes Avenue and 175 feet south of city limit is proposed to be reconstructed to its current 30’ width to accommodate traffic volumes related to Avail Academy, as well as bus turning movements.  Inglewood Avenue between 175 feet south of city limit and the city limit is proposed to be reconstructed to 27’ wide to accommodate parking on both sides of the street adjacent to Minikahda Vista Park, and to be closer to the existing street width at the north project limits in St. Louis Park. Parking Per the Living Streets Plan, on-street parking should be evaluated based on classification, adjacent land uses, existing demand and costs of construction and maintenance. Given the existing demand for parking, staff believes that parking changes should not occur in the project area. The existing and proposed roadway widths, sidewalks and parking recommendations are shown in Table 1. DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside C Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-462 October 20, 2022 10 Street Existing Roadway Width (face to face), feet Proposed Roadway Width (face to face), feet Sidewalk Width, feet Boulevard Width, feet Parking Grimes Avenue 30 30 5 0-5 Two-sided Inglewood Avenue, Grimes Avenue to 175 feet south of city limit 30 30 5 0-5 North / west side only Inglewood Avenue, 175 feet south of city limit to the city limit 30 27 5 0-5 Two-sided Kipling Avenue 30 27 - - Two-sided Lynn Avenue 30 24 5 0-5 East side only Monterey Avenue 30 27 - - Two-sided West 40th Street 30 30 - - Two-sided Table 1: Street Widths, Sidewalks and Parking Roadway Signage All traffic signage within the project area, including street name blades, will be replaced to improve visibility and reflectivity (see Appendix E). All new signs will conform to the standards of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Multi-Modal Transportation Pedestrian Facilities Spot replacement of the existing Grimes Avenue sidewalk will occur as necessary between West 42nd Street and Inglewood Avenue. A 5’ boulevard-style concrete sidewalk is proposed on the east side of Grimes Avenue between Inglewood Avenue and West 40th Street. This sidewalk will connect to the existing sidewalk on Joppa Avenue in the City of St. Louis Park. Replacement of the existing Lynn Avenue sidewalk between West 40th Street and 200 feet south of West 40th Street will occur due to utility improvements. A 5’ boulevard-style concrete sidewalk is proposed on the east side of Lynn Avenue between West 42nd Street and West 40th Street. This sidewalk will connect to the existing sidewalks on Lynn Avenue in the City of St. Louis Park. A 5’ boulevard-style concrete sidewalk is proposed on the west side of Inglewood Avenue between Grimes Avenue and the City of St. Louis Park city limits. While this proposed sidewalk is not in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, it will connect to a proposed St. Louis Park sidewalk (recommended by their “Connect the Park” sidewalk plan) and will improve pedestrian access to Avail Academy, Weber Park and Minikahda Vista Park. Figure 8 shows all existing and proposed pedestrian facilities. DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside C Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-462 October 20, 2022 11 Figure 8: Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities Locations were selected by staff based on existing topography, connections to existing facilities and private utility conflicts. The grass boulevard that will separate the new curb and the proposed sidewalk is proposed to be 5’-wide, but may vary depending on construction conflicts. The separation from vehicle traffic creates a more pedestrian-friendly environment and is preferred by Public Works for snow storage. The extra width needed for the sidewalk and boulevard will be balanced between both sides of the street, where feasible. All adjacent pedestrian curb ramps will be reconstructed to meet the current design standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and portions of the existing sidewalk will be reconstructed as necessary. The Inglewood Avenue sidewalk adjacent to the Avail Academy school will be maintained by City staff, including snow plowing. As the remaining sidewalk segments are not along Municipal State Aid routes, adjacent to City property nor included in the City’s Active Routes to School Plan, they will be maintained by the adjacent property owners. Bicycle Facilities DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside C Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-462 October 20, 2022 12 As previously mentioned, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan recommends bike lanes on Grimes Avenue between West 44th Street and West 40th Street. Due to right-of-way constraints south of West 42nd Street, the lack of existing or proposed bicycle facilities on Joppa Avenue in St. Louis Park and the need for on-street parking adjacent to Weber Park, staff recommends constructing a bike boulevard on Grimes Avenue, including pavement markings and signage. This is consistent with bicycle infrastructure scheduled to be installed on Grimes Avenue south of West 42nd Street with the 2022 Morningside D and E neighborhood improvements. Public Utilities Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer main has been televised, and portions will be repaired using a combination of open cut and cured-in-place-pipe (CIPP) methods. These repairs will address the issues of sags, cracks and groundwater infiltration into the sewer main. The manhole castings will also be removed and replaced to reduce inflow and infiltration of stormwater. Watermain SECTION INCOMPLETE As part of the City’s Wellhead Protection Plan, staff plans to engage property owners who have unsealed private wells and encourage them to have them properly sealed. Storm Sewer Based on the scope of utility work, concrete curb and gutter will be replaced throughout the project, providing a continuous, functional conduit for stormwater. The storm sewer network will have modifications to resolve existing drainage issues at various locations throughout the neighborhood. Some of the existing structures will be removed and replaced due to their poor condition. Sump drains will be installed where feasible to allow property owners to connect their sump pump discharges directly into the storm sewer system. Barr Engineering Co. was hired by the City to prepare a Flood Risk Reduction Strategy (FRRS) and to recommend improvements relating to the FRRS “Bigger” option for the Morningside C, D and E neighborhoods. The FRRS can be found in Appendix K. During the project design phase, staff will: 1. Review the feasibility of lowering roadway elevations to facilitate lot drainage to either the front yard or the street. 2. Determine the proposed number of storm drains based on inlet capacity recommendations from Barr Engineering Co. 3. Communicate and coordinate with adjacent property owners as necessary. Private Utilities Staff met with representatives of several private utility companies on November XX, 2022, to discuss the proposed 2023 reconstruction projects and preliminary improvements. Portions of the private utility networks may receive upgrades prior to DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside C Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-462 October 20, 2022 13 construction; however, this work is not part of the City’s project. Currently, the City does not have a standard to determine where and when street lighting should be improved. Unlike other infrastructure improvements, lighting can be installed at a later date with minimal disturbance through the use of trenchless technologies. The lighting in the neighborhood is sufficient to delineate the intersections; therefore, staff is recommending no revisions to the current street lighting. RIGHT-OF-WAY/ EASEMENTS: Existing right-of-way in this neighborhood varies from 50’ to 60’. It is anticipated that the majority of this project can be constructed within existing ROW. Many properties have vegetation, boulders or other landscaped items within the right-of-way. A portion of these landscape items will interfere with some of the proposed infrastructure improvements and will need to be removed to complete the necessary work. PROJECT COSTS: The total estimated project cost is $_________, excluding the Flood Risk Reduction Strategy costs (see Table 2). The total cost includes direct costs for engineering, clerical and construction finance costs from the start of the project to the final assessment hearing. Item Amount Total Cost Funding Source Roadway $ _______ Special Assessments Roadway $ _______ Property Taxes Roadway Total: $ __________ Sanitary Sewer $ _______ Watermain $ _______ Storm Sewer * $ _______ Utility Total: $ __________ City Utility Funds Sidewalk Total: $ __________ PACS Fund Project Total: $ __________ 2022 and 2023 Storm Sewer – Flood Risk Reduction Strategy $ 12,250,000 City Utility Funds Table 2: Estimated Project Costs *Excludes Flood Risk Reduction Strategy costs DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside C Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-462 October 20, 2022 14 ASSESSMENTS: Assessments will be levied against the benefiting adjacent properties pursuant to Chapter 429 of the Minnesota State Statues. Based on the City’s Special Assessment Policy, there are _____ roadway residential equivalent units (REUs) in the Morningside C project area. The estimated assessment per REU is $_______ (see Figure 10). The preliminary assessment roll can be found in Appendix L. Figure 10: Preliminary Roadway Assessment Map All single-family residential properties located entirely within the project area receive an assessment of 1 REU, except for the properties shown in the tables below. PROJECT SCHEDULE: The following schedule outlines the past and future tasks to be performed related to the project: Neighborhood Informational Video Presentations (all 2022 and Future projects) August 2020 March 2021 Neighborhood Informational Video Presentation (all 2023 projects) September 2022 Neighborhood Q and A Meeting with City Staff October 17, 2022 ETC Engineering Study Review October 27, 2022 Receive Engineering Study December 6, 2022 Open Public Improvement Hearing December 6, 2022 Close Public Improvement Hearing December 20, 2022 Public Improvement Hearing Council Decision December 20, 2022 Bid Opening March/April 2023 Award Contract/Begin Construction Spring 2023 Complete Construction Fall 2023 Final Assessment Hearing October 2024 RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the project can be completed during the 2023 construction season. Staff believes the construction of this project is feasible, cost effective and necessary to improve the public infrastructure in the Morningside C neighborhood. APPENDIX: A. Traffic and Crash Data B. Comprehensive Plan Update – Pedestrian Facilities C. Comprehensive Plan Update – Bicycle Facilities D. Sewer Blocks and Watermain Breaks E. Streetlights and Signs F. Living Streets Plan G. Edina Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes H. Neighborhood Informational Video Presentation Materials I. Resident Questionnaire J. Correspondence from Residents K. Flood Risk Reduction Strategy L. Preliminary Assessment Roll DRAFT APPENDIX A Traffic and Crash Data A B E C D F 1 * Location Year ADT 85% Speed A 2021 1700 28.6 B 2014 150 25.2 C 2006 2022 1509* 154 29.6 25.1 D 2005 2022 858 800 32 25.5 E 2022 1115 27 F 2022 586 N/A 1 - Peds 2019 NB+SB = 209 EB+WB = 243 Crash 2016 Northbound driver fail to stop * APPENDIX B City Comprehensive Plan Update – Pedestrian Facilities Map TRACY AVEVERNON AVEWOODDALE AVEHANSEN RD70TH ST W FRANCE AVE SVALLEYVIEWRDMINNESOT ADRGLEASONRDWeberPark EdinaCommunityCenter HighlandsPark CityHall M innehahaCree kNineMileCree kNine Mile Creek ArdenPark SouthdaleLibrary ToddPark YanceyPark Van ValkenburgPark BredesenPark PamelaPark RoslandPark Fred RichardsPark BraemarGolfCourse LewisPark PublicWorks ArnesonAcresPark EdinaHighSchool CentennialLakes LakeCornelia LakeEdina MudLake IndianheadLake ArrowheadLake MirrorLake MelodyLake BraemarArena Canadian Pacific RailroadCanadian Pacific RailroadBLAKE RDSCHAEFER RDVERNON AVECAHILL RD66TH ST W YORK AVE SINTERLACHEN BLVD MALONEY AVE 4 4T H S T W 50TH ST W 54TH ST W 58TH ST W 70TH ST W 76TH ST W DEWEY HILL RD VALLEY VIEW RD VALLEY VIEW RD 78TH ST W October 2022 City of EdinaExisting and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities ± 0 2,250Feet Legend Proposed CP Rail Regional TrailNine Mile Creek Regional TrailExisting Shared-Use PathExisting Sidewalk Proposed Shared-Use PathProposed SidewalkProposed Twin Loops APPENDIX C City Comprehensive Plan Update – Bicycle Facilities Map TRACY AVEVERNON AVEWOODDALE AVEHANSEN RD70TH ST W FRANCE AVE SVALLEYVIEWRDMINNESOT ADRGLEASONRDWeberPark EdinaCommunityCenter HighlandsPark CityHall M innehahaCree k NineMileCreek Ni ne Mile Cre ek ArdenPark SouthdaleLibrary ToddPark YanceyPark Van ValkenburgPark BredesenPark PamelaPark RoslandPark Fred RichardsPark BraemarGolfCourse LewisPark PublicWorks ArnesonAcresPark EdinaHighSchool CentennialLakes LakeCornelia LakeEdina MudLake IndianheadLake ArrowheadLake MirrorLake MelodyLake BraemarArena Canadian Pacific RailroadCanadian Pacific RailroadBLAKE RDSCHAEFER RDVERNON AVECAHILL RD66TH ST W YORK AVE SINTERLACHEN BLVD MALONEY AVE 4 4T H ST W 50TH ST W 54TH ST W 58TH ST W 70TH ST W 76TH ST W DEWEY HILL RD VALLEY VIEW RD VALLEY VIEW RD 78TH ST W October 2022 City of EdinaExisting and Proposed Bicycle Facilities ± 0 2,250Feet Legend Proposed CP Rail Regional TrailNine Mile Creek Regional TrailExisting Shared-Use Path Proposed Shared-Use Path Proposed Twin Loops Advisory Bike Lane Existing Bike Boulevard Bikeable ShoulderExisting Shared Bike LaneExisting Bike LaneExisting Buffered Bike Lane Proposed Bike BoulevardProposed Bike LaneProposed Buffered Bike Lane APPENDIX D Sewer Blocks and Watermain Breaks APPENDIX E Street Lights and Signs 4112 4015 4075 4211 4100 400740064007 4003 4166 422042184219 42144212 4218 4208 4216 4213 4209 4213 4209 4210 4024 4117 430544064011 4120 4221 4021 4226 4220 4109 4220 42164215 42054206 4116 4005 4211 4117 4105 4208 4016 4010 4016 4217 4215 4121 4113 4101 4015 4108 4222 4100 4205 420743244103 4203 4224 4104 4212 4113 4200 4213 4219 4212 421644044026 4100 4109 4121 4212 4221 4019 4101 42144217 4222 4223 4208 4223 4014 4228 4219 4200 4223 4021 420641254124 4212 4005 432142214223 4007 430842134004 4215421743174108430442194200 4004 4228 4102 4000 422845024224 4204 4231 4232 4003 4504421245004227 4000 42024208 4001 4212 4220 44074020 4002 422443004224 4216 4223 4216 4211 4220 4215 4219 44084022 43014120 43304112 4116 4016 4008 43094008 4010 4012 4020 4200 4006 4201421740234022 4025 4205 42044313421541074202 4020 4016 4201 4022 4019 40194021 4001 41094015 40114009 41114005 41134008 4023 4000 4017 4003 4001 4013 4000 400940024003 4014 4000 4024 4013 4015 4018 4004 4008 4012 4022 4009 4005 4011 4008 4018 4007 4010 40104009 4004 4015 4014 4020 4011 4019 40034001 42214016 4011 4005 4017 4020 4004 4017 4012 4002 4012 4006 40134013 42014021 4115 4201 4001 PROJECT LIMITS GRIMES AVEW 42ND STNATCHEZ AVEMONTEREY AVELYNN AVEKIPLING AVEINGLEWOOD AVEW 40TH STCity of St. Louis ParkCity of Edina /Engineering DeptOctober 2022 Existing Street LightsMorningside C Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction CITYOFEDIN A MIN N ESOTAINCORPORA T E D 1888 ,e Existing Street Lights bcdpf !"$-./0!"$-./0ÅÆÇ!"$!"$-./0 bcdpf !"$-./0º»¼¾!"$-./0!"$-./0 !"$ !"$!"$!"$!"$!"$-./0 GFH`!"$-./0!"$-./0!"$-./0!"$-./0 !"$!"$!"$!"$ bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf !"$-./0!"$!"$ÅÆÇ bcdpf bcdpf !"$ÅÆÇ Ë̺»¼¾FGHWFGHWFGHWFGHW©© ©!"$Æô©!"$Æô º»¼¾ ÅÆÇËÌ bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf 4112 4015 4075 4211 4100 400740064007 4003 4166 422042184219 42144212 4218 4208 4216 4213 4209 4213 4209 4210 4024 4117 430544064011 4120 4221 4021 4226 4220 4109 4220 42164215 42054206 4116 4005 4211 4117 4105 4208 4016 4010 4016 4217 4215 4121 4113 4101 4015 4108 4222 4100 4205 420743244103 4203 4224 4104 4212 4113 4200 4213 4219 4212 421644044026 4100 4109 4121 4212 4221 4019 4101 42144217 4222 4223 4208 4223 4014 4228 4219 4200 4223 4021 420641254124 4212 4005 432142214223 4007 430842134004 4215421743174108430442194200 4004 4228 4102 4000 422845024224 4204 4231 4232 4003 4504421245004227 4000 42024208 4001 4212 4220 44074020 4002 422443004224 4216 4223 4216 4211 4220 4215 4219 44084022 43014120 43304112 4116 4016 4008 43094008 4010 4012 4020 4200 4006 4201421740234022 4025 4205 42044313421541074202 4020 4016 4201 4022 4019 40194021 4001 41094015 40114009 41114005 41134008 4023 4000 4017 4003 4001 4013 4000 400940024003 4014 4000 4024 4013 4015 4018 4004 4008 4012 4022 4009 4005 4011 4008 4018 4007 4010 40104009 4004 4015 4014 4020 4011 4019 40034001 42214016 4011 4005 4017 4020 4004 4017 4012 4002 4012 4006 40134013 42014021 4115 4201 4001 PROJECT LIMITS GRIMES AVEW 42ND STNATCHEZ AVEMONTEREY AVELYNN AVEKIPLING AVEINGLEWOOD AVEW 40TH STCity of St. Louis ParkCity of Edina /Engineering DeptOctober 2022 Existing SignsMorningside C Neighborhood Roadway ReconstructionCITYOFEDINAMIN N ESOTAINCORPORA T E D 1888 ,e APPENDIX F Living Streets Plan Living Streets Plan 2015 Safety Health Choice Economy 8 2. Living Streets Policy INTRODUCTION The Living Streets Policy was developed to provide the framework for a Living Streets Plan. The policy initially stood alone and included sections to guide the creation of the Living Street Plan. This revised policy is now an integral part of the Living Streets Plan. The Living Streets Policy ties directly to key community goals outlined in the City’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Those goals include safe walking, bicycling and driving; reduced storm water runoff, reduced energy consumption, and promoting health. The Living Streets Policy also compliments voluntary City initiatives such the “do.town” effort related to community health, Tree City USA and the Green Step Cities programs related to sustainability. In other cases, the Living Streets Policy will assist the City in meeting mandatory requirements set by other agencies. The Living Streets Policy is broken up into three parts: Vision, Principles and Implementation. The Policy is followed by a description of core services provided by the City of Edina that are related to or implemented in part through Living Streets. POLICY Living Streets balance the needs of motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians 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. The Living Streets Policy defines Edina’s vision for Living Streets, the principles Living Streets will embody, and the plan that will guide implementation of their construction. LIVING STREETS VISION Edina is a place where ... • Transportation utilizing all modes is equally safe and accessible; • Residents and families regularly choose to walk or bike; • Streets enhance neighborhood character and community identity; • Streets are safe, inviting places that encourage human interaction and physical activity; • Public policy strives to promote sustainability through balanced infrastructure investments; • Environmental stewardship and reduced energy consumption are pursued in public and private sectors alike; and • Streets support vibrant commerce and add to the value of adjacent land uses. Mini Fact Expect cyclists on the road. Watch for cyclists on the road. Treat them as you would any slow-moving vehicle. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 9 LIVING STREETS PRINCIPLES Fifteen principles guide implementation of the Living Streets Policy in the areas of all users and all modes, connectivity, context sensitivity and sustainability. The City will incorporate these principles when planning for and designing the local transportation network and when making public and private land use decisions. All Users and All Modes Principle 1: Living Streets are high-quality transportation facilities that meet the needs of the most vulnerable users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, seniors and the disabled; and Principle 2: Living Streets provide access and mobility for all transportation modes while enhancing safety and convenience for all users. Connectivity Principle 3: The City designs, operates and maintains a transportation system that provides a highly connected network of streets that accommodate all modes of travel; Principle 4: The City seeks opportunities to overcome barriers to active transportation by preserving and repurposing existing rights-of-way and adding new rights- of-way to enhance connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit; Principle 5: The City prioritizes improvements to non-motorized connections to key destinations such as public facilities, public transit, the regional transportation network and commercial areas; Principle 6: The City will require new developments to provide interconnected street and sidewalk networks that connect to existing or planned streets or sidewalks on the perimeter of the development; and Principle 7: Projects will include consideration of the logical termini by mode. For example, the logical termini for a bike lane or sidewalk may extend beyond the traditional limits of a street construction or reconstruction project, in order to ensure multimodal connectivity and continuity. Context Sensitivity Principle 8: Living Streets are developed with input from stakeholders and designed to consider neighborhood character and promote a strong sense of place; Principle 9: Living Streets preserve and protect natural features such as waterways, urban forest, sensitive slopes and soils; Principle 10: Living Streets are designed and built with coordination between business and property owners along commercial corridors to develop vibrant commercial districts; Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 10 Principle 11: Living Streets coordinate with regional transit networks and regional authorities; and Principle 12: The City will consider the fiscal context of projects and potential financial impacts when implementing Living Streets at the project level. Sustainability Principle 13: Living Streets will improve the current and future quality of life of the public, Principle 14: Living Streets will reduce environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of roadways; and Principle 15: The City will increase the life span and resilience of its infrastructure and will build infrastructure with consideration for lifecycle costs and ease of maintenance. LIVING STREETS IMPLEMENTATION The City of Edina will develop Living Streets in the regular course of business of maintaining, expanding or redeveloping the road network and will be guided by the Vision and Principles established above. Implementation will happen predominantly through the neighborhood street reconstruction program, but also though specific stand-alone stormwater utility, pedestrian, bicycle or safety projects. Project prioritization is not specifically part of the Living Streets Plan. Prioritization of projects takes place in the City’s Capital Improvement Program and Budget and is determined by the City Council with guidance from the Living Streets Vision and Principles. The City will actively promote and apply the Living Streets Policy and Plan by: • Applying the Living Streets Policy and Plan to all street projects, including those involving operations, maintenance, new construction, reconstruction, retrofits, repaving, rehabilitation or changes in the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway. This also includes privately built roads, sidewalks, paths and trails. • Drawing on all sources of transportation funding and actively pursuing grants, cost-sharing opportunities and other new or special funding sources as applicable. • Through all City departments supporting the vision and principles outlined in this Plan in their work. • By acting as an advocate for Living Streets principles when a local transportation or land use decision is under the jurisdiction of another agency. Projects that implement Living Streets will be guided by pedestrian and cyclist network plans and roadway classifications and will consider the physical, social, ecologic, regulatory and economic context in a given project area. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 11 The project delivery system used to build Living Streets will: • Systematically engage Edina residents and project stakeholders to better inform project-level recommendations. • Keep Edina residents and project stakeholders informed about Living Streets and the range of services they help provide. • Follow minimum Living Streets design requirements and standards. • Manage construction impacts to residents and users of streets. Network The creation of a Living Streets network of road, pedestrian and bicycle facilities provides mobility, accessibility and access to people, places and spaces. The resulting interconnection of neighborhoods links people to goods and services and to one another, and increases quality of life for those who live in, work in, or visit the city. Existing and planned transportation networks are identified in the City of Edina Comprehensive Plan and other approved/adopted plans. Network plans include: • Roadway Network (Functional Classification, Jurisdictional Classification) • Sidewalk Facilities • Bicycle Facilities (Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan) • Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan • Transit Service Network plans are approved by the City Council. In most cases, modification requires an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion, creation and improvement of pedestrian and bicycle networks will be well planned and prioritized: • Expansion of existing networks and providing connections to key traffic generators or destinations provide immediate benefit to all network users and is a top priority. • Network connections serving vulnerable users such as children, seniors and the disabled are a top priority. • Network connections serving high-volume uses such as schools, retail destinations or regional public transit are a top priority. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 12 Context Contextual variety can either constrain or create opportunity in roadway and other infrastructure projects. The following are contexts that will be considered and will influence the planning, design and implementation of Living Streets. Exceptions Living Streets principles will be included in all street construction, reconstruction, repaving and rehabilitation projects, except under one or more of the conditions listed below. City staff will document proposed exceptions as part of a project proposal. • A project involves only ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition, such as mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair, concrete joint repair or pothole filling, or when interim measures are implemented on a temporary detour. Such maintenance activities, however, shall consider and meet the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. CONTEXTS OF LIVING STREETS Ecological Water resource, ponds, wetlands, lakes, streams Natural resouces, trees, and urban forest Air quality Climate Sun and shade Materials, waste, energy, sustainability Regulatory State Aid roadway Watershed rules Operational Maintenance operations Traffic control or functional constraints Project Type Public Neighborhood street reconstruction Neighborhood street reconstruction with major associated utility work State Aid street reconstruction Stand-alone sidewalk, bicycle or utility project Public partner lead State County Transit agency Parks district Private development Will remain private Future public Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 13 • The City exempts a project due to an excessively disproportionate cost of establishing a bikeway, walkway or transit enhancement as part of a project. • The City determines that the construction is not practically feasible or cost effective because of significant or adverse environmental impacts to waterways, flood plains, remnants or native vegetation, wetlands or other critical areas. • Available budget is constrained or project timing allows more efficient construction at a later date. Engagement Members of the public have an interest in understanding and providing input for public projects. Project recommendations will be developed with a transparent and defined level of public engagement. The public will have access to the decision-making process and decision makers via public meetings and other correspondence and will be provided the opportunity to give input throughout the process. Project reports will discuss how their input helped to influence recommendations and decisions. The City of Edina’s Living Streets will continue to engage and solicit public input as a vital component of the project implementation process. See Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion regarding the purpose of and opportunities for public engagement. Design The guidelines contained in the Living Streets Plan will be used to direct the planning, funding, design, construction, operation and maintenance of new and modified streets, sidewalks, paths and trails. The guidelines allow for context-sensitive designs. The Design Guidelines (see Chapter 6): • Keep street pavement widths to the minimum necessary. • Provide well-designed pedestrian accommodation in the form of sidewalks or shared-use pathways on all arterial, collector and local connector streets. Sidewalks shall also be required where streets abut a public school, public building, community playfield or neighborhood park. Termini will be determined by context. • Provide frequent, convenient and safe street crossings. These may be at intersections designed to be pedestrian friendly, or at mid-block locations where needed and appropriate. • Provide bicycle accommodation on all primary bike routes. • Allocate right-of-way for boulevards. • Allocate right-of-way for parking only when necessary and not in conflict with Living Streets principles. • Consider streets as part of our natural ecosystem and incorporate landscaping, trees, rain gardens and other features to improve air and water quality. The Design Guidelines in this Plan will be incorporated into other City plans, manuals, rules, regulations and programs as appropriate. As new and better practices evolve, the City will update this Living Streets Plan. Minimum standards will guide how vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle networks interact and share public right of way. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 14 Benchmarks and Performance Measures The ability to measure the performance of a plan, as well as knowing that it is functioning as it is intended, is vitally important to overall success and the ability to sustain it. With this in mind, the City will monitor and measure its performance relative to the Living Streets Policy. Benchmarks that will demonstrate success include: Every street and neighborhood is a comfortable place for walking and bicycling. This does not mean that every street in the city will have walking and biking facilities. It means that each neighborhood will provide a network of these facilities such that walking and biking to and through neighborhoods is a comfortable experience. Every child can walk or bike to school or a park safely. It is essential that alternatives to driving to school or parks be provided to children and their caregivers. These alternatives – walking or bicycling – will be both safe and convenient modes of transportation. See the Edina Active Routes to School Plan for more information. Seniors, children, and disabled people can cross all streets safely and comfortably. Opportunities to cross all streets in Edina, including local, collectors and arterial streets, will be provided. These crossings will be safe and comfortable for all users, regardless of age or ability. An active way of life is available to all. Opportunities for active living should be made available to all members of the Edina community by connecting centers of activity via active, multimodal transportation. Each resident of and visitor to Edina will have the ability to lead an active way of life. There are zero traffic fatalities or serious injuries. Perhaps the ultimate safety benchmark is zero traffic fatalities or serious injuries. Modeled from the Vision Zero Initiative (www.visionzeroinitiative.com), an aspirational yet primary goal of Living Streets is to achieve this high level of safety on the City’s roadways. Reduce untreated street water flows into local waterways and reduce storm water volume. Cost-effective stormwater best management practices (BMPs) are strategically selected to go above and beyond regulatory requirements to provide for flood protection and clean water services through the use of infrastructure that retains, settles, filters, infiltrates, diverts or reduces the volume of stormwater that flows to local surface waters. Retail streets stay or become popular regional destinations. Part of Edina’s Living Streets vision is that “streets support vibrant commerce.” While most of the city’s streets are residential, Edina’s business districts are a vital part of the community. The benefits of Living Streets extend to retail streets as well, making them more attractive to businesses and consumers alike. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy 15 The City will draw on the following data to measure performance: • Number of crashes or transportation-related injuries reported to the Police Department. • Number and type of traffic safety complaints or requests. • Resident responses to transportation related questions in resident surveys. • Resident responses to post-project surveys. • The number of trips by walking, bicycling and transit (if applicable) as measured before and after the project. • Envision ratings from the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. • Additional performance measures may be identified as this Policy is implemented. Mini Fact Motorists must stop behind all crosswalks. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy APPENDIX G Edina Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes APPENDIX H Neighborhood Informational Meeting Materials The CITYofEDINA2023 Neighborhood Roadway ReconstructionInformational Meeting The CITYofEDINAAgenda•Introductions•Why Reconstruct•Project Scopes•What You Can Expect•Funding Sources•Timeline•Communication•How to Prepare•Questionswww.EdinaMN.gov2-A The CITYofEDINAwww.EdinaMN.gov3-AEngineering - Design & Construction DivisionChad MillnerDirector of EngineeringAaron DitzlerAssistant City EngineerEvan AcostaGraduate EngineerEdinah MachaniEngineering TechnicianLiz MooreEngineering CoordinatorCharlie GerkProject EngineerTom HaatajaSr. Engineering TechnicianJon MooreSr. Engineering Technician The CITYofEDINAwww.EdinaMN.gov4-C2023 Projects Area•Morningside C•- 139 Properties•- 128 Properties w/o Natchez Avenue The CITYofEDINA•Streets grouped into neighborhoods•- Maximizes economics of scale•- Extends pavement life•Proactive Pavement Management Program•Prioritized based on;•- Pavement condition•- Underground utility issues5-Cwww.EdinaMN.govWhy My Street? The CITYofEDINAWhy Reconstruct?•Previously reconstructed in the 1970s•Utility issues to address beneath roadway•More cost-effective than other maintenance strategies (mill & overlay, seal coat)www.EdinaMN.gov6-A The CITYofEDINAExisting Conditions - Roadways•Pavement reaching end of useful life•Streets have curb and gutter•Most properties already have concrete driveway apronswww.EdinaMN.gov7-A The CITYofEDINAExisting Conditions - Utilities•Watermain- Loss in pipe wall thickness- Main and service breaks- Undersized mainswww.EdinaMN.gov8-C•Sanitary Sewer- Cracks, breaks, sags, etc.- Inflow and infiltration•Storm Sewer- Structure deficiencies- Undersized pipes- Curb and gutter failing The CITYofEDINA•Mailboxes•Irrigation systems and pet fences•Landscaping•Outwalks/stepsExisting Conditions – Right-of-Waywww.EdinaMN.gov9-C The CITYofEDINAWhat / Where is the ROW?•Surface and space above and below public roadways used for travel purposes and utilities•Typically, 60’ width•(MSA Streets 66’)•Property corners located during surveywww.EdinaMN.gov10-A The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements - Roadways•Replacement of curb & gutter (all or sections)•Subgrade corrections as needed•New roadbed and pavement surfacewww.EdinaMN.gov11-A The CITYofEDINALiving Streets Plan•Approved by City Council in 2015•Balances needs of motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders•Incorporates;•- Minimum roadway design elements•- Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Planwww.EdinaMN.gov12-C The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements - Driveways•Aprons will be replaced / installed to comply with City standards•Special driveway materials•Reimbursement Policywww.EdinaMN.gov13-A The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements - Utilities•May include localized watermain and service replacements•New fire hydrants and gate valves•May include localized sanitary sewer repairs and rehabilitation•Storm sewer upgradeswww.EdinaMN.gov14-A The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements – Sump Drain•Installed when feasible and warranted•Homeowners encouraged to connect to City Sump Drain•Notification will be given when connecting is available•Sump connection permit available thru City websitewww.EdinaMN.gov15-C The CITYofEDINA•Recommend inspecting private services prior to construction•Repairs/upgrades can be coordinated with street work•Associated costs can be added to special assessmentUtility Ownershipwww.EdinaMN.gov16-AResident Owned UtilitiesB –Water ServiceC & D – Sanitary Service The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements –Ped / Bike•Based on Pedestrian and Bicyclist Master Plan•Final design evaluated based on network consistency and construction conflictswww.EdinaMN.gov17-C The CITYofEDINAPrivate Utilities•Gas, Electric, Telephone, Cable may upgrade or repair their utilities before construction begins•Potential City-required relocations•Goal: streamline projects and minimize neighborhood disturbance•Streetlight upgrades typically not included with projectwww.EdinaMN.gov18-A The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Dust, mud, noise, and vibrations•Localized flooding during rainfall•Occasional delays due to inclement weather•Residents will be asked to limit water use occasionally•Homes may be connected to temporary watermainwww.EdinaMN.gov19-A The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Construction materials stored temporarily in ROW•5-10 feet of disturbance behind back of curb•Construction equipment stored on streets•Tree removals as necessary (property owners notified)www.EdinaMN.gov20-C The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Driveways and roads will be periodically inaccessible•Driveways will be inaccessible for 7 days to allow driveways to curewww.EdinaMN.gov21-C The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Items within the City’s right-of-way may be damaged•-You can remove plants and other landscape features before the project•- Irrigation and pet fences will repaired•Disturbed areas will be seededwww.EdinaMN.gov22-A The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•We will;•- Provide opportunities for input•- Keep you informed•- Do our best to minimize inconveniences•Our contractor will accommodate residents with special access needswww.EdinaMN.gov23-A The CITYofEDINACity Utility Funds•Collection of utility service charges paid to the City•Covers 100% of:•- Storm sewer •(curb and gutter, •driveway aprons, •sump drain pipe) •-Sanitary sewer•-Watermainwww.EdinaMN.gov24-C The CITYofEDINAPedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund•Revenue from Xcel and CenterPoint Energy franchise fees•Promotes non-motorized transportation throughout the City•Covers 100% of:•-Sidewalks /shared-use paths•- Bike lanes•-Associated signage and pavement markingswww.EdinaMN.gov25-C The CITYofEDINADo Taxes Cover Street Projects?•~22% of property taxes go to the City for expenses including Police, Fire, Parks, and Public Works•- Snowplowing•- Pothole repairs•- Other street maintenance (sealcoating, overlays, patch repairs)•Beginning in 2022, taxes will pay for a portion of street reconstructionwww.EdinaMN.gov26-A The CITYofEDINASpecial Assessments•Assigned to benefitting properties of public improvements•Covers portion of roadway costs•- Roadway and driveway removals•-Asphalt pavement•- Restoration•- Indirect Costs – engineering, finance, soil investigations, mailingswww.EdinaMN.gov27-A The CITYofEDINAResidential Equivalent Units•Assessments distributed based on REUs•- Factor used to compare properties to a single-family residence•Additional factors for commercial, industrial, and public-use propertieswww.EdinaMN.gov28-CScenario Land Use Class REU FactorA Single-Family Residential 1.0B Multi-Family Residential – Duplex 0.8C Multi-Family Residential – Apartment/Condos 0.5H Institutional – Schools 0.2* The CITYofEDINAProject Details – Morningside C•128 properties (133.11 REUs)•1.4 miles of road•Full removal and replacement of curb & gutter•Spot sidewalk repair•Full watermain replacement, water services•Storm sewer improvements•5’ sidewalk on Lynn Ave, Grimes Ave, Inglewood Avewww.EdinaMN.gov30-C The CITYofEDINAMorningside Flood Infrastructure Project•Improvements in 2022 and 2023•Separate but coordinated project with roadway reconstruction•https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningsidewww.EdinaMN.gov31-C The CITYofEDINARevised Roadway Cost Assessment - Local www.EdinaMN.gov32-ASample Assessment During TransitionConstruction Year% of Local Roadway Costs Assessed $10,000 $15,000 $20,0002020100%$10,000 $15,000 $20,000202178.90%$7,890 $11,835 $15,780202273.64%$7,364 $11,046 $14,728202368.38%$6,838 $10,257 $13,6762024-203563.12%-5.26%$6,312-$526 $9,468-$789 $12,624-$1,05220360% $0 $0 $0 The CITYofEDINARevised Roadway Cost Assessment - MSAwww.EdinaMN.gov33-ASample Assessment During TransitionConstruction Year% of MSA Roadway Costs Assessed $5,000 $7,500 $10,000202020%$5,000 $7,500 $10,000202115.78%$3,945 $5,918 $7,890202214.73%$3,682 $5,523 $7,364202313.68%$3,419 $5,129 $6,8382024-203512.62%-1.05%$3,156-$263 $4,734-$395 $6,312-$52620360% $0 $0 $0 The CITYofEDINAPreliminary Assessments*Residential equivalent unit (1 single-family home = 1 REU)www.EdinaMN.gov34-ANeighborhood% of Roadway Costs Assessed Estimated Assessment Range per REU*#of REUsSquareYards of PavingSquare Yards of Paving per REUMorningside C(2023)68.38% $8,500 - $14,000 133.11 19,273 144.8Morningside D/E(2022)73.64% $6,900 - $10,200 248.04 27,928 112.6 The CITYofEDINATypical Project Timelinewww.EdinaMN.gov35-AJuly –September2022 Engineering studies/estimates providedDecember 2022 Public hearingsJanuary – March 2023 Plan preparation and biddingApril – May 2023 Construction beginsOctober – November 2023 Construction concludesSpring 2024 Warranty workFall 2024 Final assessment hearing The CITYofEDINAAssessment Timingwww.EdinaMN.gov36-CInitial Public Hearings December 2022Project Constructed Summer 2023Final Assessment Hearing October 2024Assessment Filed with County November 2024Assessment on Tax Statement January 2025 The CITYofEDINAPayment Options•Pay entire amount upon receiving bill to avoid interest charges•Pay min. 25% ; balance rolls to property taxes over 15 years •Roll entire amount to property taxes over 15 years•Defer payment if 65 years of age or older and meet specific income requirements•- Finance charges are 1% over City’s borrowing interest rate•- 2021 interest rate was 2.55%•-Assessing Department – 952-826-0365www.EdinaMN.gov37-C The CITYofEDINACommunicationwww.EdinaMN.gov38-A•Regular Mail-All meetings, public hearings, and questionnaires- Final assessment notices (one year after construction)•Door hangers and flyers -Time-sensitive information (water shut-offs, concrete, temporary inaccessibility)•Better Together Edina – City Website Project Page The CITYofEDINABetter Together Edina•Best way to stay informed•www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningside-c•Free, access to periodic updates on project progress and scheduleswww.EdinaMN.gov39-A The CITYofEDINAProviding Input•Questionnaires mailed to your home, weigh in on;•-Traffic/pedestrian issues•- Street drainage issues•- Streetlight upgrades•Public hearing in December 2022•- Opportunity for residents to voice comments and concernswww.EdinaMN.gov40-C The CITYofEDINAQuestionnaire Resultswww.EdinaMN.gov41-CNeighborhoodResponses Received to DateMorningside C22% (31 / 139) The CITYofEDINAHow To Prepare•Complete project questionnaire•Begin financial planning•Coordinate home and yard improvement projects around street reconstruction schedule•Review Better Together Edina updates•Ask questions, stay informedwww.EdinaMN.gov42-A The CITYofEDINAEngineering Department7450 Metro BoulevardHours: 7:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.952-826-0371Contact Uswww.EdinaMN.gov43-ALiz MooreEngineering Coordinator952-826-0449LMoore@edinamn.govAaron DitzlerAssistant City Engineer952-826-0443ADitzler@edinamn.gov The CITYofEDINAQuestions?www.EdinaMN.gov44-A•Ask questions on Better Together Edina Q&A page•‐www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningside‐c•Call or email The CITYofEDINAThank you for your time!www.EdinaMN.gov45-A APPENDIX I Resident Questionnaires Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey SURVEY RESPONSE REPORT 30 January 2019 - 28 September 2022 PROJECT NAME: Morningside C Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction SURVEY QUESTIONS Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 1 of 33 Q1 How concerned are you with the speed of traffic in your neighborhood or on your street? 10 (32.3%) 10 (32.3%) 13 (41.9%) 13 (41.9%) 8 (25.8%) 8 (25.8%) Not Concerned Concerned Very Concerned Question options Optional question (31 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 2 of 33 Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2022 02:30 PM Lynn Ave. Mostly construction and contractor pick-up trucks racing through the neighborhood. Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 06:19 AM Cars race down Lynn Ave in front of our house all the time. Some going 40+ miles per hour. Also, on 42nd. With stop signs seeming to be optional on 42nd. Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 08:39 AM Grimes Avenue Grimes from Morningside Road to 40th: Motorists go well over the speed limit 42nd and France This intersection is a nightmare: Motorists speed on France, cut corners, speed through turns, drive around cars turning, ignore pedestrians crossing France, ignore pedestrians crossing 42nd. I know of a dozen people who feel they narrowly escaped bodily harm trying to cross this intersection in the east west and north south direction. Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2022 01:56 PM Grimes and Inglewood. Cars sometimes roll through stop signs and accelerate down Grimes quickly. Usually it seems intentional. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 05:15 AM Morningside Road. Street is narrow and parking on both sides makes it difficult to pull onto road from side streets. Garbage trucks, school buses and morning/evening rush hour times are most troublesome. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 05:23 AM Monterey Ave. No sidewalks and lots of children and walkers. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 06:55 AM Coming down south on Grimes from 40th. Should be a stop sign at 40th and Grimes going south. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 08:46 AM Cars speed up the hill on Lynn Ave between 41st and 40th, and this most concerns me because I have 3 children and there are many other young children on this block who play in the driveways and edge of the street because we have no sidewalks Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 12:37 PM 4005 Grimes. Grimes seems to be somewhat of a thoroughfare for traffic - often travelling too fast. Q2 If concerned or very concerned, please enter the location(s) of concern and why you feel that way. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 3 of 33 Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 12:40 PM Kipling Avenue between 40th and 42nd streets - people use Kipling as main road between 38th and 42nd and when coming down the hill the speeds can get excessive. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 02:47 PM Monterey ave. We often see traffic speeding down Monterey as a cut- through to reach 42nd st. We have major issues with 42nd st as well (including traffic blowing through the stop sign at Monterey and 42nd, that we've told the city about multiple times, and the city doesn't seem to care!) Screen Name Redacted 6/23/2022 04:46 PM Traffic on 40th is too fast. There is no sidewalk. Screen Name Redacted 6/26/2022 06:48 AM 40th street is very busy, with cars often racing down the street at high speed. There are many pedestrians (including lots of kids) who walk this way, yet there is no sidewalk for safe passage. It’s also a bus stop route. Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2022 04:01 PM At times, vehicles appear to be driving too fast on W. 40th and 42nd Streets. W. 40th Street has no sidewalk. Screen Name Redacted 6/28/2022 11:40 AM MONTEREY AVE - SPEEDING Screen Name Redacted 7/08/2022 06:19 AM Kipling Ave.42nd St to 40th St. Some cars go way to fast, evn 30 mph is to fast for this area with kids and dogs, etc. St Louis Park residents north of 40th St have lawn signs saying 20 mph is enough Screen Name Redacted 7/12/2022 02:36 PM Stretch of Kipling Avenue between 40th and 42nd Street. Cars passing though at high speeds. Seems to be a short-cut to France Ave. Screen Name Redacted 7/18/2022 05:04 PM 40th, Monterey, 42nd, Grimes Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2022 09:09 AM All of Kipling Ave Cars think it is a speedway, drive very fast. Also W 42nd St from France to Ottawa Screen Name Redacted I am very concerned as I live on the corner of 40th and Natchez, Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 4 of 33 8/12/2022 03:11 PM which is an odd 5-way stop intersection. MANY vehicles are both speeding and do not stop when traveling eastbound on 40th street crossing Natchez as the stop sign is to the far right and difficult to see. Screen Name Redacted 8/14/2022 07:35 AM Speed downhill around curve on Inglewood Speed through Inglewood/Grimes intersection, both SB and NB Grimes Screen Name Redacted 8/14/2022 03:30 PM Speeding down the Inglewood ave hill. Optional question (22 response(s), 9 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 5 of 33 Q3 How concerned are you with the volume of traffic or number of vehicles in your neighborhood or on your street? 13 (41.9%) 13 (41.9%) 14 (45.2%) 14 (45.2%) 4 (12.9%) 4 (12.9%) Not Concerned Concerned Very Concerned Question options Optional question (31 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 6 of 33 Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2022 02:30 PM Lynn Ave. Contractor vehicles. Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2022 06:41 PM We have a lot of cars parked on our street which causes a lot of blind spots for kids and pedestrians since we don’t have sidewalks (Lynn Ave on the hill between 42 and 40th) Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 06:19 AM Mostly 42nd and somewhat on Lynn Ave. Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 08:39 AM The volume only becomes an issue during school drop off & pick up times. I avoid leaving home during these times as I can't back out of drive in a safe manner. Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2022 01:56 PM Because of 2 schools along Grimes we get a lot of morning and afternoon traffic. Some parents are in a hurry to get in line for school pick up and can make quick turns into your driveway to turn around which has put our pets and family in danger. Another issue is on 42nd for Montessori school pick up. The cars line up and block one side of road for a long distance which makes it unsafe when you have to drive in other lane. Street needs to be widened or a different way for directing pickups. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 05:15 AM In front of Golden Years school at Weber park. The parents form a line on Grimes for pickup in the afternoon which narrows traffic flow for residents, bicyclists, and school busses. Creating a separate lane for them to wait would be beneficial. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 12:40 PM Kipling Ave - with the development of the Excelsior Grand area along with development of the 50th & France area the increase in density causes increased traffic Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 02:47 PM see above. Monterey ave. We often see traffic speeding down Monterey as a cut-through to reach 42nd st. Screen Name Redacted School traffic, traffic in general, and no sidewalk—all on 40th. Q4 If concerned or very concerned, please enter the location(s) of concern and why you feel that way. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 7 of 33 6/23/2022 04:46 PM Screen Name Redacted 6/24/2022 03:05 PM Many vehicles parked on the street. Screen Name Redacted 6/26/2022 06:48 AM It seems like people use 40th to cut through and drive at unnecessary speeds Screen Name Redacted 7/12/2022 02:36 PM Stretch of Kipling Avenue between 40th and 42nd Street. Cars passing though at high speeds. Seems to be a short-cut to France Ave. Screen Name Redacted 7/18/2022 05:04 PM Avail Academy parents in particular speed through the neighborhood in a hurry to pick up/drop off and there are no speed humps or other traffic calming measures Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2022 09:09 AM All of Kipling Ave & W 42nd St from France to Ottawa. This is a cut through area that drivers use from Excelsior Blvd. Screen Name Redacted 8/12/2022 03:11 PM Same reason as above. I believe many cars are cutting through our neighborhood to avoid traffic on Excelsior Blvd. Screen Name Redacted 8/14/2022 03:30 PM During drop off and pick up at Avail academy. Screen Name Redacted 8/15/2022 07:53 PM Too much construction traffic plus the huge construction vehicles and trailers that are always parked along our streets, narrowing streets. Exacerbates crowding from school pick up/ drop off traffic on Grimes and on 42nd during morning and evening “rush hour”. Optional question (17 response(s), 14 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 8 of 33 Q5 How concerned are you with motorist behavior in your neighborhood? (Excludes speed and traffic volumes. Examples of poor motorist behavior include rolling through stop signs, failing to yield and driving aggressively) 10 (33.3%) 10 (33.3%) 13 (43.3%) 13 (43.3%) 7 (23.3%) 7 (23.3%) Concerned Not Concerned Very Concerned Question options Optional question (30 response(s), 1 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 9 of 33 Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2022 03:28 PM Rolling through stop signs is frequent Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 06:19 AM Primarily on 42nd. It is a major cut through and almost no one adheres to the speed limit. Less than half stop at the stop signs and quite a few barely slow down. Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 08:39 AM Intersection of Morningside Road & Grimes: People roll through stop signs Intersection of 42nd & Grimes: People roll through stop signs. School drop off & pick up times create traffic issues Intersection of Interlachen & Grimes: School drop off & pick up times create traffic issues. Parents picking up line up at all stop signs, creating confusion on how to behave at stop sign and confusion between who is picking up and who is through traffic. Entrance into Weber Park parking lot , this is shared by school and park users. It does not feel safe being a pedestrian, bicyclist or dog walker on this drive. Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2022 07:11 AM Avail parents block traffic on our street--often in both directions--so no one can get through and most often at their release time around 3:30pm during school days. Also lots of reckless behavior at drop off especially at the intersection of Grimes and Inglewood. Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2022 01:56 PM As stated above, 42nd and Inglewood. Sometimes speeders accelerate on Grimes near park. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 05:15 AM See answers above. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 12:37 PM Excelsior and France Ave - failure of motorists to stop at pedestrian crossings. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 02:47 PM Monterey and 42nd street. Cars regularly blow through this stop sign. no cross walks are marked. School students must cross these streets (in total darkness in December and January) to reach bus stops. City must put up cross walk signs before a child is hit! Q6 If concerned or very concerned, please enter the location(s) of concern and why you feel that way. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 10 of 33 Screen Name Redacted 6/23/2022 04:46 PM More stop signs please between 5-way stop at Natchez and 40th and Grimes/Joppa and 40th. Screen Name Redacted 6/26/2022 06:48 AM Speed on 40th (as mentioned above). Frequent rolling through (or ignoring) stop sign on 40th and Grimes and on Grimes near Weber Park Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2022 04:01 PM See answer # 2. Also, Morningside Road, Grimes & W. 44th Street. Screen Name Redacted 6/28/2022 11:40 AM SPEED, LACK OF STOPPING AT STOP SIGNS Screen Name Redacted 7/12/2022 02:36 PM Increased incidents of people being distracted and rolling through, or completely ignoring stop signs and understanding right of way. Screen Name Redacted 7/18/2022 05:04 PM The stop sign at Natchez/40th is ignored or not clearly visible Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2022 09:09 AM Speed very fast - all of Kipling. Traffic volumes - all of Kipling Ave between peak work traffic 7am-8am & 4pm-630pm. Rolling through stop signs W 42nd St & Kipling Ave, Crocker & 42nd Ave. Screen Name Redacted 8/14/2022 07:35 AM Avail Academy (formerly Calvin Christian) parent pickup -- vehicles queue at stop signs on NB and SB Grimes and queue on Inglewood between intersection and school driveway. Drivers do not obey posted signs. Queuing at intersection causes confusion for through motorists. It crowds area for pedestrians, who do not have sidewalk on Inglewood. Although p.m. pickup queues are an issue at many schools, this issue was entirely created by the school's 2008 project. The school appears not to be in compliance with its CUP with regard to landscaping. Queue on park access road also obstructs park traffic and pushes peds onto grass. Optional question (16 response(s), 15 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 11 of 33 Q7 In general, these behaviors impact you most when you are: 7 (26.9%) 7 (26.9%) 2 (7.7%) 2 (7.7%) 17 (65.4%) 17 (65.4%) Driving Bicycling Walking, jogging, or running Question options Optional question (26 response(s), 5 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 12 of 33 Q8 Do you feel any intersection in your neighborhood is unsafe? 22 (71.0%) 22 (71.0%) 9 (29.0%) 9 (29.0%) Yes No Question options Optional question (31 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 13 of 33 Q9 Which, if any, of the following factors contribute to your feeling that the intersection is unsafe? (select all that apply) Lack of traffic control (traffic signal, stop sign, yield sign)Issues with sight lines or clear view Drivers failing to stop at stop sign Drivers failing to yield Drivers turning corner too fast Street(s) too wide Insufficient lighting Other (please specify) Question options 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 10 11 15 7 4 1 1 3 Optional question (24 response(s), 7 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 14 of 33 Q10 In general, the intersection feels most unsafe when you are: 9 (34.6%) 9 (34.6%) 17 (65.4%) 17 (65.4%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Driving Walking, jogging, or running Bicycling Question options Optional question (26 response(s), 5 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 15 of 33 Q11 How frequently do you walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood? 24 (77.4%) 24 (77.4%) 4 (12.9%) 4 (12.9%) 2 (6.5%) 2 (6.5%)1 (3.2%) 1 (3.2%)0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month)Never Rarely (less than once per month) Question options Optional question (31 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 16 of 33 Q12 If you walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood, what are your primary reasons for doing so? (select all that apply) Health/exercise Travel to/from destination (such as store, coffee shop)Commute to/from work Access transit Other (please specify) Question options 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 25 12 1 1 7 Optional question (30 response(s), 1 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 17 of 33 Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 06:19 AM Better side walks and traffic control. Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 08:39 AM I would feel safer with signs stating pedestrians have right of way Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2022 07:11 AM More sidewalks and marked crosswalks! Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2022 01:56 PM Slower traffic. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 05:15 AM Sidewalks. LOVE the sidewalk on 42nd street! Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 08:46 AM Sidewalks! Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 12:37 PM Pedestrian/bike bridge over France/Excelsior. Avoid traffic interaction. Screen Name Redacted 6/23/2022 04:46 PM Sidewalk on 40th. Screen Name Redacted 6/24/2022 03:05 PM Better roads. It's too easy to trip on uneven roads and loose gravel from messy pothole fixes. Screen Name Redacted 7/18/2022 05:04 PM Speed humps and other traffic calming measures Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2022 09:09 AM Sidewalks needed on Kipling Ave & Lynn Ave by the pond. Screen Name Redacted 8/12/2022 03:11 PM I think it would be fine if something were done about the intersection at 40th and Natchez. Q13 If you don't walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood as often as you would like, what reconstruction improvement might increase your walking, jogging, or running? Please list all that you can think of. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 18 of 33 Screen Name Redacted 8/14/2022 03:30 PM Having sidewalks on Inglewood ave., on the side of Avail Academy Screen Name Redacted 8/15/2022 07:53 PM Please don’t narrow streets any further. With residents’ parked cars, cars on Grimes for Weber park, huge construction vehicles, and cars lined up on Grimes and on 42nd for school drop off/pick up twice a day, we need enough room for moving cars, bikes and pedestrians to safely navigate around all the parked vehicles. Appreciate the sidewalks. Optional question (14 response(s), 17 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 19 of 33 Q14 How frequently do you ride a bicycle in your neighborhood? 4 (12.9%) 4 (12.9%) 5 (16.1%) 5 (16.1%) 13 (41.9%) 13 (41.9%) 4 (12.9%) 4 (12.9%) 5 (16.1%) 5 (16.1%) Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month) Rarely (less than once per month)Never Question options Optional question (31 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 20 of 33 Q15 If you ride a bicycle in your neighborhood, what are your primary reasons for doing so? (select all that apply) Health/exercise Travel to/from destination (such as store, coffee shop)Commute to/from work Other (please specify)Access transit Question options 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 21 11 1 2 Optional question (25 response(s), 6 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 21 of 33 Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 06:19 AM Safer streets. Both speed and stop signs. More enforcement. Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 08:39 AM I would feel safer if there are dedicated bike lanes. I would also feel safer if there are signs stating be on the lookout for bicyclists. Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2022 07:11 AM Marked bicycle lanes. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 12:37 PM Pedestrian/bike bridge over France/Excelsior. Avoid traffic interaction. Screen Name Redacted 7/08/2022 06:19 AM fixing all the bumps in road,i.e., making it smooth Screen Name Redacted 8/15/2022 07:53 PM Please don’t narrow the streets. Leave us room to safely cycle. Also, I notice many fellow cyclists riding thru intersections at Grimes & Inglewood and Grimes & 42nd without slowing down, let alone stopping. I understand wanting to maintain momentum but I’m worried they’re going to get hit. Q16 If you don't ride a bicycle in your neighborhood as often as you would like, what reconstruction improvement might increase your bicycle riding frequency? Please list all that you can think of. Optional question (6 response(s), 25 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 22 of 33 Q17 How frequently do you or a member of your household park on the street? 4 (12.9%) 4 (12.9%) 2 (6.5%) 2 (6.5%) 5 (16.1%) 5 (16.1%) 13 (41.9%) 13 (41.9%) 7 (22.6%) 7 (22.6%) Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month) Rarely (less than once per month)Never Question options Optional question (31 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 23 of 33 Q18 How frequently do visitors to your household park on the street? 2 (6.5%) 2 (6.5%) 8 (25.8%) 8 (25.8%) 15 (48.4%) 15 (48.4%) 5 (16.1%) 5 (16.1%) 1 (3.2%) 1 (3.2%) Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month) Rarely (less than once per month)Never Question options Optional question (31 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 24 of 33 Q19 How satisfied are you with the availability of on-street parking in your neighborhood? 14 (45.2%) 14 (45.2%) 11 (35.5%) 11 (35.5%) 5 (16.1%) 5 (16.1%)1 (3.2%) 1 (3.2%)0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Question options Optional question (31 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 25 of 33 Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2022 06:41 PM I don’t like that all of my neighbors park their cars in front of my house because they have many cars for teenagers Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 06:19 AM Parking on the street is a big safety issue. I would like to see less of it. Almost every house in Edina has a garage and a driveway. Eliminating or reducing on street parking would be a better solution. Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 08:39 AM There is more than enough parking for residents - even if they have people visiting on a daily basis. Screen Name Redacted 6/24/2022 03:05 PM There are many driveways and a fire hydrant nearby. We've had problems with people parking cars in front of our house for days at a time. When there are service vans/trucks on both sides of the street, it is hard to back out of the driveway safely. Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2022 04:01 PM construction vehicles parked close to intersections and close to each other can obscure views for motorists and pedestrians. Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2022 09:09 AM Parking laws need to be enforced in the winter season on Kipling Ave and need to enforce parking on the corners of streets & fire hydrants Screen Name Redacted 8/12/2022 03:11 PM No change needed. Screen Name Redacted 8/14/2022 07:35 AM We live at bottom of a hill. During construction, if vehicle access to our home is restricted, please ensure an offsite parking location that is not at the top of the hill. Screen Name Redacted 8/15/2022 07:53 PM Most of my neighbors park one of their cars on the street overnight during the summer, and often into the evening during winter. We need to continue having parking access on both sides of our street. Q20 Any additional comments about parking? Optional question (9 response(s), 22 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 26 of 33 Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2022 06:41 PM Lynn and 39th - this is an absurd intersection with no stop signs or yield signs. It is only a matter of time before someone is in a serious accident. I realize it is t edina but feel this should be addressed. Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 06:19 AM Need more enforcement from Edina PD. I see them less than 1 time a month in our neighborhood. If there is no fear of traffic enforcement, stop sign running and speeding will only get worse. Regardless of street improvements. Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 06:49 AM The pavement is in extremely bad shape! Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 08:39 AM My only other concerns about parking surround the schools. Parents park at Golden Years and drop off their children, some also drive up and drop off. It does make navigating the corner at 42nd and Grimes tricky. However this pickup and drop off seems much more under control, maybe because there are few students, than at Avail. Also cars at the 42nd and Grimes location are parked and turned off. The parking & drop off for Avail is much tougher to navigate especially driving south on Grimes because cars are idling in line at both sides of the stop sign on Grimes and at the stop sign on Inglewood. Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 04:13 PM Though I expect that the sidewalk on Lynn will connect the existing east sidewalk down the hill along the City property, I do have concerns about the more challenging grade on the east side. Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2022 07:11 AM Avail should be required to have a traffic safety patrol adult hired to be on duty directing traffic at the intersection of Grimes and Inglewood at their start and release times to ensure their parents don't block the intersection or road and allow traffic to flow on the streets. If there is a way to improve signage or intersection markings in any way there I would love to see that. I'm not sure what exactly it would be but any improvements would be much appreciated. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 05:23 AM The street surface is constanly developing potholes, A dip forms yearly across the street, curb an gutter cracks and crumbles often. Q21 Please tell us anything else you would like us to know about existing traffic or street conditions in your neighborhood. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 27 of 33 Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 12:40 PM Would like to see a speed bump on Kipling Avenue Screen Name Redacted 6/24/2022 03:05 PM Don't know what noise rules are, but someone with a motorbike guns the engine up and down the street in front or our house for 15-20 minutes at a time. Doesn't happen often, but is very disruptive when it does. Screen Name Redacted 6/26/2022 06:48 AM The entire stretch of 40th is dangerous, as are the intersections (starting on Natchez and ending on Grimes) Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2022 04:01 PM Streets needed reconstruction over a decade ago. Poor conditions are affecting drainage and driving (some motorists swerve to avoid potholes). Screen Name Redacted 7/17/2022 09:45 AM The streets work for us. Traffic is light and there is no need for sidewalks or changes. Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2022 09:09 AM Currently - the entire neighborhood is a mess. Lots of potholes not being filled, lots of sand left on the streets from construction and not cleaned up. The traffic is fast on all streets in the neighborhood & volumes are up at peak traffic times in neighborhood. Screen Name Redacted 8/12/2022 03:11 PM Thank you for all you are doing to improve the streets! Screen Name Redacted 8/14/2022 07:35 AM Sidewalk should be added to Inglewood on school side. Going from memory, R-O-W is limited on that side but perhaps could be adjusted. Some creativity could address sidewalk ending at top of hill and likely need to take road space for sidewalk. School should have been required to add sidewalk during 2008 project. It is a school, after all, adjacent to two parks, with regular ped traffic. Sidewalk should be added to W. 40th if street is part of this project. There is a sidewalk on 39th but 40th remains heavily used by peds and school children. East-west street should be prioritized for sidewalks due to very real issue of sun blindness. Please consider 6' sidewalks rather than 5'. See 39th in SLP as an example. In regard to question below about street lights, off hand I can't think of where any are needed, but I do support adding ped level lighting where needed. Optional question (15 response(s), 16 skipped) Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 28 of 33 Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 29 of 33 Q22 Do you favor improving streetlights in your neighborhood? (residential streetlights are 100% funded by special assessment) 8 (25.8%) 8 (25.8%) 20 (64.5%) 20 (64.5%) 3 (9.7%) 3 (9.7%) Yes No Other (please specify) Question options Optional question (31 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 30 of 33 Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2022 01:48 PM Kipling Ave Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2022 02:30 PM Lynn Ave Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2022 03:28 PM Kipling Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2022 06:41 PM Lynn Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 06:19 AM Lynn Ave Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 06:49 AM 4019 Lynn Ave. Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 08:39 AM Grimes Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2022 04:13 PM Lynn Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2022 07:11 AM Inglewood Ave S Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2022 01:56 PM Grimes Ave S. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 05:15 AM Monterey Ave. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 05:23 AM Monterey Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 06:55 AM Grimes Q23 What is your street name? Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 31 of 33 Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 08:46 AM Lynn Ave Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 12:37 PM Grimes Ave S Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 12:40 PM Kipling Avenue Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2022 02:47 PM Monterey & 42nd Screen Name Redacted 6/23/2022 04:46 PM Lynn and 40th Screen Name Redacted 6/24/2022 03:05 PM Monterey Ave Screen Name Redacted 6/26/2022 06:48 AM Lynn Ave Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2022 04:01 PM Lynn Avenue Screen Name Redacted 6/28/2022 11:40 AM MONTEREY AVE Screen Name Redacted 7/08/2022 06:19 AM Kipling Ave. Screen Name Redacted 7/12/2022 02:36 PM Kipling Ave Screen Name Redacted 7/17/2022 09:45 AM Kipling Screen Name Redacted 7/18/2022 05:04 PM Lynn Ave Screen Name Redacted Kipling Ave Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 32 of 33 8/08/2022 09:09 AM Screen Name Redacted 8/12/2022 03:11 PM Natchez Ave. S. Screen Name Redacted 8/14/2022 07:35 AM Inglewood Screen Name Redacted 8/14/2022 03:30 PM Inglewood. Screen Name Redacted 8/15/2022 07:53 PM Kipling Ave Mandatory Question (31 response(s)) Question type: Single Line Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 28 September 2022 Page 33 of 33 APPENDIX J Correspondence from Residents APPENDIX K Flood Risk Reduction Strategy APPENDIX L Preliminary Assessment Roll October 27, 2021 Transportation Commission Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Valley View Road - West Promenade Background On June 15, 2021, the City Council approved the Cornelia View Apartments redevelopment project at 4040 West 70th Street. The redevelopment will replace the existing office building with a three-story, 118-unit senior affordable housing project (see Figure 1). The project will also widen the existing 5’ boulevard-style sidewalks adjacent to 8’. Following approval, Council directed staff to investigate the feasibility of constructing a portion of the West Promenade on Valley View Road adjacent to the site (between W 70th and 69th Streets). The West Promenade, as described in the 2019 Greater Southdale District Design Experience Guidelines, is a new north-south woonerf (shared street for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists) intended to provide access to new developments along France Avenue and serve as a transition zone between the District and adjacent low- density residential. The alignment proposed by the Design Experience Guidelines parallels France Avenue between W 66th Street to Gallagher Drive, partially along Valley View Road and partially mid-block to divide larger development blocks (see Figure 2). Figure 1: Cornelia View Apartments Site Plan (Ecumen and Lupe Development Partners) STAFF REPORT Page 2 The 2018 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan was developed on a framework of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are separated from motor vehicle traffic. Community feedback at the time indicated that these facilities were more comfortable and desirable for everyday uses. The backbone of the infrastructure recommendations of the Plan is the Twin Loops, a shared-use facility spanning all four quadrants of the city that connects to schools, parks and community amenities. The Cornelia View Apartments are located between the Inner and Outer Loops. No new facilities are recommended on the adjacent segment of Valley View Road, but shared-use paths are recommended to the west on Cornelia Drive and W 70th Street and to the east on France Avenue and W 69th Street. Proposed Improvements Staff has developed a concept for Valley View Road that is a compromise of these two guiding documents (see Figure 4). This concept envisions reducing the existing 35-37’ roadway to 24’, maintaining the existing 5’ boulevard-style sidewalk on the east side, and constructing a new 10’ boulevard-style shared-use path on the west side from W 70th to W 69th Streets. To the west of the shared-use path, staff is working with adjacent property owners on screening options including trees, landscaping, and/or fencing. Figure 2: West Promenade Alignment (Greater Southdale District Design Experience Guidelines) Figure 3: Edina’s Twin Loops with Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail (Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan) STAFF REPORT Page 3 This concept achieves the objectives of the Design Experience Guidelines to provide access to adjacent commercial developments and a transition zone between low-density residential. However, staff recommends an off-street pedestrian and bicycle facility rather than a woonerf given the traffic volume on Valley View Road (2,700 vehicles per day in 2018) and the increased community preference for mode separation. This facility could supplement or replace the proposed Twin Loop facility to the west on Cornelia Drive and is more comparable to the existing Promenade (a facility for pedestrians and cyclists only). Funding The improvements on Valley View Road are eligible for funding from the Centennial Lakes Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District. The current Capital Improvement Plan includes a $600,000 project in 2024 for Promenade Phase V funded from this TIF district. It is anticipated that this West Promenade project can be completed within that budget. Figure 4: Valley View Road - West Promenade Concept Date: October 27, 2022 Agenda Item #: VI.B. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Draft Equity Criteria for Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Review and comment on the draft equity criteria for Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund project scheduling. INTRODUCTION: See attached supporting document. ATTACHMENTS: Description Draft Equity Criteria for Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund Equity Criteria for Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund Project Scheduling Background The Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund was created in 2012 to finance creation, improvements and maintenance of non-motorized transportation facilities (NMTF) for the primary benefit of pedestrians and cyclists in Edina. The primary sources of revenue for this fund are utility franchise fees imposed on customers of Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy. Other potential revenue sources include grants, gifts and transfers from other City funds. With input from the Transportation Commission and City Council, staff developed a policy that established parameters and expectations for the expenditure of this fund. Several factors were included in that policy, but the majority focus on the cost of proposed projects (correlation with scheduled roadway or utility projects, cost-sharing opportunities, etc.). In 2016, the Transportation Commission recommended staff utilize a set of equity-based criteria for prioritizing capital investment in NMTF rather than focusing primarily on cost. These criteria would be used to quantifiably evaluate the extent to which proposed projects support the objectives of approved plans and community visions. The Commission recommended a combination of community, neighborhood, infrastructure and cost criteria generated from multiple data sources. In 2018, the City’s Race and Equity Task Force (RETF) furthered the Transportation Commission’s proposal by recommending the application of “race equity criteria for allocating funds” for PACS Fund projects. The criteria below support community goals as outlined in the following guiding documents: • Climate Action Plan (2021) • Living Streets Plan (2015) • Comprehensive Plan (2018) • Parks, Recreation and Trails Strategic Master Plan (2015) • Race and Equity Initiative Final Report (2018) • Active Routes to School Plan (2014) • Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018) Criteria specifically recommended by either the Transportation Commission or the RETF is noted. As these guiding documents are updated or new data sources are available, it is recommended that these criteria are also updated with input from the Transportation Commission to continue to support community goals and visions. How This Works Proposed improvements to NMTF are given an objective score for 12 criteria divided among three categories: • Community Characteristics include resident demographics in the vicinity of proposed projects. • Neighborhood Characteristics include the geographic context of proposed projects. • Cost Characteristics include considerations for opportunities to reduce and/or share costs of proposed projects. Community and Neighborhood Characteristics are given more weight overall to prioritize projects that support community goals and visions over those that are merely cost-effective. Criteria Categories Maximum Possible Points These criteria will be proactively applied to projects proposed by the guiding documents and reactively applied to other projects requested by residents or Council. Staff will prioritize projects which score the highest number of points for implementation within the limits of the annual PACS Fund budget. This prioritization will be presented annually to the Transportation Commission and Council. Community Characteristics (25 of 70) Population Density12 5 Age Distribution12 5 Racial Demographic12 5 Disabled Population1 5 Income1 5 Neighborhood Characteristics (30 of 70) Network Growth 10 Transit Access12 5 Education Access12 5 Commercial/Industrial Access12 5 Parks Access12 5 Cost Characteristics (15 of 70) Proactive Pavement Management Program12 10 External Funding12 5 Bonus Resident Support12 5 1 Transportation Commission Recommendation 2 Race and Equity Task Force Recommendation Community Characteristics (25 out of 70 possible points) These criteria reflect resident demographics in the vicinity of proposed projects. The source of the data used for this analysis is the 2020 U.S. Census (administered by the U.S. Census Bureau) unless stated otherwise. For each criterion, the metric intervals were selected to evenly divide the number of Census Block Groups between the intervals. Projects within or abutting multiple Census Block Groups will be assigned the highest of the points available. Population Density (5 out of 70 possible points) About the criterion: This is calculated as the number of residents per acre. Population/Acre Points Why this is important: Facilities within areas of high population can be utilized by the greatest number of people, including residents, employees and visitors. High-density areas tend to have high volumes of vehicular traffic and are more likely to have walkable or bikeable destinations including employment, retail, and restaurants. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in these areas makes it easy and convenient for more people in Edina to reduce their use of single-occupancy vehicles1 and choose alternative travel options for a greater portion of their mobility needs2. Over 10.0 5 7.4 – 10.0 4 6.5 – 7.4 3 4.5 – 6.5 2 3.1 – 4.5 1 Less than 3.1 0 Age Distribution (5 out of 70 possible points) About the criterion: This is calculated as the combined percentage of the population under the age of 18 or over the age of 65. Percent Under 18 /Over 65 Points Why this is important: This criterion acknowledges two demographics that are most likely to rely on pedestrian, bicycle or transit facilities rather than motor vehicles for independent mobility. Providing affordable and reliable mobility options for populations with special transportation needs (including older adults and youth) can significantly improve transportation equity3. This criterion also supports the principle that Living Streets meet the needs of the most vulnerable users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, seniors and the disabled4. Over 52.0% 5 48.5% – 52.0% 4 44.0% – 48.5% 3 42.0% – 44.0% 2 34.5% – 42.0% 1 Less than 34.5% 0 Racial Demographic (5 out of 70 possible points) About the criterion: This is the percentage of the population identifying as Black, Indigenous, or People of Color (BIPOC). This includes those who identified as being from two or more races. Percent Identifying as BIPOC Points Why this is important: The City has a responsibility to address racial inequities to foster an inclusive community5. Transportation equity requires an understanding of the unique needs and safety concerns of different populations and providing appropriate resources to address them6. Pedestrians from BIPOC communities have higher fatality rates in motor vehicle collisions than white pedestrians7. Additionally, studies have shown that BIPOC feel less safe traveling by bicycle than white people and would be more likely to bike if given more supportive infrastructure8. Providing non-motorized transportation facilities for BIPOC communities has been shown to improve safety, health and economic development6. Over 25.0% 5 15.3% – 25.0% 4 10.6% – 15.3% 3 8.5% – 10.6% 2 5.0% – 8.5% 1 Less than 5.0% 0 Disabled Population (5 out of 70 possible points) About the criterion: This is the percentage of the population identifying as having one or more disabilities (hearing, vision, cognitive, or ambulatory). Percent with Disability Points Why this is important: People with disabilities are less likely to own or have access to personal vehicles than people without disabilities9. Providing affordable and reliable mobility options for populations with special transportation needs can significantly improve transportation equity3. This criterion also supports the principle that Living Streets meet the needs of the most vulnerable users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, seniors and the disabled4. More than 10.0% 5 9.0% - 10.0% 4 6.8% - 9.0% 3 6.0% - 6.8% 2 5.0% - 6.0% 1 Less than 5.0% 0 Income (5 out of 70 possible points) About the criterion: This is the median reported household income. Median Household Income Points Why this is important: Lower income households are less likely to own a motor vehicle and are more likely to walk, bike or roll to get around10. People walking in low-income neighborhoods account for a disproportionate percentage of fatal pedestrian crashes11. Even though Edina is a prosperous community, there are locations within the City where low-wage workers and households reside2. Additionally, some neighborhoods in Edina have fewer housing and transportation options than others. Providing affordable and reliable mobility options for populations with special transportation needs (including persons with reduced income) can significantly improve transportation equity3. Less than $110,000 5 $110,000 – $140,000 4 $140,000 – $164,000 3 $164,000 – $203,000 2 $203,000 – $230,000 1 More than $230,000 0 Neighborhood Characteristics (30 out of 70 possible points) These criteria reflect geographic proximity to local and regional amenities and services. The source of the data is the City of Edina unless stated otherwise. The distance intervals used reflect average walking and biking speeds: Distance, miles Average Walk Time (at 3 miles per hour) Average Bike Time (at 10 miles per hour) 0.25 5 minutes 1.5 minutes 0.50 10 minutes 3 minutes 0.75 15 minutes 4.5 minutes 1.00 20 minutes 6 minutes The closer a proposed facility is to each of the following amenities or services, the more points it receives in each associated category. The distances used for these criteria are route-based (not radius-based) to account for more accurate walking and biking travel times. Distances are measured along the roadway centerlines (distances required to cross the street between facilities are ignored). Projects that are within multiple intervals will be assigned the highest of the points available. Network Growth (10 out of 70 possible points) About the criterion: This is how many existing pedestrian or bicycle facilities connect to a proposed improvement. Number of Adjacent Facilities Points Why this is important: Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are most utilized when they have logical endpoints or connect to other facilities. This criterion promotes improvements that fill gaps or otherwise branch out from the existing pedestrian and bicycle network, concepts which are promoted in the Living Streets Plan, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and the Climate Action Plan. New Upgrade 2+ 10 6 2 8 4 1 6 2 0 0 0 Transit Access (5 out of 70 possible points) About the criterion: This is the distance between a proposed project and a public transit stop. Proximity to Public Transit Stop Points Why this is important: Transit service supports many community goals including improving mobility, relieving traffic congestion, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting sustainable development and growth1 3 4. The success of transit is reliant on pedestrian access12. Transit is a more attractive option when there is adequate pedestrian or bicycle infrastructure connecting transit stops to riders’ origins and destinations (home, work, retail, etc.). Immediately Adjacent 5 Less than 0.25 miles 4 0.25 – 0.50 miles 3 0.50 – 0.75 miles 2 0.75 – 1.00 mile 1 More than 1.00 mile 0 Education Access (5 out of 70 possible points) About the criterion: This is the distance between a proposed project and schools (public, private or charter) and libraries. Proximity to School Points Why this is important: This criterion prioritizes facilities that improve access to educational institutions, recognizing the importance of extending the benefits of education to the entire community1. Walking, biking or rolling to school gives children and families the opportunity to incorporate physical activity into their daily lives and can help children form healthy habits that last into adulthood13. Improving pedestrian and bicycle facilities adjacent to schools cannot eliminate all the concerns residents may have, but it can remove some barriers and make it feel safer to walk, bike or roll. This, in turn, can reduce vehicle use for these types of trips3. Immediately Adjacent 5 Less than 0.25 miles 4 0.25 – 0.50 miles 3 0.50 – 0.75 miles 2 0.75 – 1.00 mile 1 More than 1.00 mile 0 Commercial/Industrial Access (5 out of 70 possible points) About the criterion: This is the distance between a proposed project and a commercial or industrial area. Proximity to Commercial/ Industrial Area Points Why this is important: Commercial or industrial areas tend to have higher volumes of vehicular traffic than residential areas. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in these districts promotes safe alternatives to motor vehicle travel, potentially easing traffic congestion and reducing space required for motor vehicle parking1 3. These facilities also improve access to key destinations such as employment opportunities, retail, restaurants and other amenities2 4. Within/Immediately Adjacent 5 Less than 0.25 miles 4 0.25 – 0.50 miles 3 0.50 – 0.75 miles 2 0.75 – 1.00 mile 1 More than 1.00 mile 0 Parks Access (5 out of 70 possible points) About the criterion: This is the distance between a proposed project and a public park. Proximity to Public Park Points Why this is important: The City offers numerous parks and trails that provide recreational, fitness and transportation opportunities for people walking, running, biking or rolling. This includes several regionally significant parks as well as smaller neighborhood parks. The parks generally have limited vehicle parking (via surface lots or adjacent on- street parking) and could be more easily accessed by non-motorized modes if dedicated facilities were provided. Improving access to the parks increases health and wellness opportunities, strengthens community and safety and provides an additional source of recreational activity14. Immediately Adjacent 5 Less than 0.25 miles 4 0.25 – 0.50 miles 3 0.50 – 0.75 miles 2 0.75 – 1.00 mile 1 More than 1.00 mile 0 Cost Characteristics (15 out of 70 possible points) These criteria reflect the financing of proposed projects. The source of the data is the City of Edina unless stated otherwise. These criteria will be updated annually to conform with anticipated budgets and maintenance operations. Proactive Pavement Management Program (10 out of 70 possible points) About this criterion: This is whether a proposed project coincides with a scheduled pavement management activity in the City’s 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan. Maintenance Activity in 5-Year CIP Points Why this is important: Pavement management projects can provide opportunities to reallocate portions of the public right-of-way for new pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Construction costs and property impacts can be significantly reduced when the work is combined with adjoining construction projects2 4. Reducing construction costs allows the City to maximize use of the PACS Fund and accelerate implementation of the proposed pedestrian and bicycle networks. Reconstruction 10 Overlay 5 None 0 External Funding (5 out of 70 possible points) About this criterion: This is whether a proposed project is eligible to receive additional funding and to what degree. These funding opportunities may include Municipal State Aid funds, partnerships with other agencies, grants, gifts or donations. Opportunity for External Funding Points Why this is important: The Comprehensive Plan and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plans recommend continual pursuit of additional funding sources for transportation infrastructure. Supplementing the PACS Fund with external funding sources allows the City to maximize use of the PACS Fund and accelerate implementation of the proposed pedestrian and bicycle networks. Yes; more than 50% estimated project cost 5 Yes; less than 50% estimated project cost 3 No 0 Bonus - Resident Support (5 additional points) About the criterion: This is whether a resident petition is submitted in favor of a pedestrian or bicycle improvement and how many of the adjacent impacted properties are represented on the petition. Petition Submitted; Percent of Impacted Properties Points Why this is important: Though the City has several documents and plans that guide construction of new pedestrian and bicycle facilities, these plans are only as good as public engagement that contributes to their creation. This criterion reflects the fact that some potential improvements may not be accounted for in current plans. This criterion also gives special consideration for improvements that are desired by many adjacent property owners, which supports the City goals to engage and seek input from stakeholders regarding transportation-related issues and projects1 4. Yes; more than 50% 5 Yes; less than 50% 3 No 0 Works Cited 1. Comprehensive Plan, City of Edina, 2018. 2. Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, City of Edina, 2018. 3. Climate Action Plan, City of Edina, 2021. 4. Living Streets Plan, City of Edina, 2015. 5. Race and Equity Initiative Final Report, City of Edina, 2018. 6. “Equity | Pedestrian & Bicycle Information Center.” Pedestrian & Bicycle Information Center. https://www.pedbikeinfo.org/topics/equity.cfm. 7. Maybury, Rubie Sue, et al. “Pedestrians Struck by Motor Vehicles Further Worsen Race- and Insurance-Based Disparities in Trauma Outcomes: The Case for Inner-City Pedestrian Injury Prevention Programs.” Surgery, no. 2, Elsevier BV, August 2010, pp. 202-08. 8. “The New Majority: Pedaling Towards Equity.” League of American Bicyclists, https://www.bikeleague.org/sites/lab.huang/radicaldesigns.org/files/equity_report.pdf. 9. “Travel Patterns of American Adults with Disabilities.” U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018. https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/2022-01/travel-patterns-american-adults-disabilities-updated-01-03-22.pdf 10. Turrell, Haynes, et al. “Can the Build Environment Reduce Health Inequalities? A Study of Neighborhood Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Walking For Transport.” Health & Place, Elsevier BV, January 2013 pp. 89-98. 11. “Dangerous by Design 2021.” Smart Growth America, https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design. 12. “Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies.” Federal Highway Administration, February 2008, pp. 175-180. 13. Active Routes to School Plan, City of Edina, 2014. 14. Parks, Recreation and Trails Strategic Master Plan, City of Edina, 2015 Date: October 27, 2022 Agenda Item #: VI.C. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:2022 Work Plan Updates Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: Commissioners will provide updates on the status of 2022 Work P lan initiatives (unless an item is elsewhere on the current agenda). See attached work plan. ATTACHMENTS: Description 2022 Work Plan Progress Report Approved by City Council December 7, 2021 Commission: Transportation Commission 2022 Annual Work Plan Initiative # 1 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Boulevard Tree Policy Research, develop and recommend a citywide boulevard tree policy that addresses planting, protection, maintenance, removal and funding. Deliverable Policy for consideration by City Council Lead Lori Richman Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: No funds available. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours per month from Staff Liaison, periodic support from City Forester and/or Community Development Director. Jan: Looking for committee members to assist in developing the policy, reviewing other agencies’ policies. Feb: Met with City Forester, planning to talk to other Commissions about their thoughts. Mar: Met with representatives from Planning, Energy & Environment, and Park and Recreation Commissions, will meet with Manager Neal Apr 6 to discuss how to move forward. Apr: EEC has work plan initiative to propose revisions to tree ordinances that will support Climate Action Plan. Once ETC approves draft boulevard tree language, it will be submitted to EEC to be included in their ordinance recommendations. May: Commission reviewed draft ordinance. Jun: Commission reviewed and approved an updated ordinance for submission to the EEC. Jul: EEC reviewed draft ordinance, city attorney is reviewing language. EEC expected to approve ordinance at their August meeting. Aug: The Commission approved an advisory communication to City Council supporting EEC’s proposed tree ordinance amendments. Approved by City Council December 7, 2021 Initiative # 2 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☒ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Public Transit Checklist Develop a transit checklist to review on the proposed development projects. Planning Commission will review and comment Deliverables Report to City Council Lead Andy Lewis Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: No funds available. Staff Support Required: 1-3 hours per month from Staff Liaison; periodic support from Community Development Director. Jan: Reached out to members of the Planning Commission and Met Council for updates on transit operations in the city in 2022. Feb: Met with Metro Transit staff; service levels are expected to decrease due to driver shortage and ridership decline. Next step is to take information and start formalizing checklist. Mar: Reviewed example frameworks, putting together a draft. Apr: Working with document currently used by Planning Commission, making revisions based on ETC discussions. May: Commission discussed ideas/topics to include in checklist. Jun: Commission reviewed revised list of ideas/topics. Subcommittee will reach out to Planning Commission members to review. Jul: Work paused to determine whether Planning is interested in deliverable and to better understand Commission’s role in development review process. Aug: Not sure that this deliverable is valuable to Planning Commission, as it overlaps with guidance they already have. Future work may including reviewing Planning’s transportation guidance and creating a work plan initiative around that. Sep: Commission terminated initiative, planning to wrap into future initiative with Planning Commission. Approved by City Council December 7, 2021 Initiative # 3 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) PACS Fund Policy Review and recommend changes to the Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund policy. Deliverable Report to City Council Lead Chris Brown Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: No funds available. Staff Support Required: 1-3 hours per month by Staff Liaison; periodic support from Finance and/or Administration Jan: Would like to meet with staff to understand expenditures and buying power of the fund. Admin and Engineering are preparing a report on fund to bring to Commission for review and comment. Feb: Scheduling meeting with staff to discuss next steps. Mar: Met with staff to learn about PACS Fund, staff work and current challenges. Apr: Reviewing data provided by staff, trying to determine what the objective is and how this initiative can be helpful to staff. May: Organized data provided by staff, working on how best to structure deliverable. Jun: No update. Jul: No update. Aug: No update. Sep: Subcommittee provided comments to staff on equity criteria. Considering recommending scenarios to increase funding to address rising construction costs. Approved by City Council December 7, 2021 Initiative # 4 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☒ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) SRTS Demonstration Projects Study Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and report on potential Safe Routes to School demonstration projects. Deliverable Report to staff Lead TBD Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: No funds available. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours per month from Staff Liaison. Jan: No update. Feb: No update. Mar: No update, change lead to TBD. Apr: On hold until new Commissioner is appointed. May: No update. Jun: No update. Jul: No update. Aug: Lead resigned, Commission terminated initiative. Approved by City Council December 7, 2021 Initiative # 5 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☒ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) TIS Process Review Study and report on other agencies' process for completed traffic impact studies related to development/redevelopment projects. Deliverable Report to City Council Lead TBD Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: No funds available. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours per month by Staff Liaison; periodic support from Director of Engineering and Community Development Director. Jan: No update. Feb: No update. Mar: No update, change lead to TBD. Apr: On hold until new Commissioner is appointed. May: No update. Jun: No update. Jul: No update. Aug: Lead resigned, Commission terminated initiative. Approved by City Council December 7, 2021 Initiative #6 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Transit Connectivity Review the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and recommend changes to proposed facilities to improve connectivity to public transit. Deliverables Report to City Council Lead Andy Lewis Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: No funds available. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours per month from Staff Liaison. Jan: Committee will meet to discuss first steps. Feb: This initiative will follow the lead of Initiative #2. Mar: Discussed limited transit opportunities in Edina, considering reviewing the Southdale Transit Station and surrounding area, which is a key connector. Apr: Driver shortage continues to be a problem for Metro Transit. Subcommittee recommends focusing efforts on E Line and Southdale Transit Center, ignoring services that are currently suspended, and will incorporate last year’s work into this initiative. May: Subcommittee is considering refocusing initiative to advocate for improvements at Southdale Transit Center or for transit service reinstatements. Jun: Subcommittee is considering including in the deliverable a recommendation that City Council advocate to Metro Transit for improvements to the Southdale Transit Center as part of the E Line project, as well as for general transit service restoration. Jul: Commission is considering drafting an advisory communication to City Council about the proposed relocation of the Southdale Transit Center. Aug: Commission approved an advisory communication to City Council about transit service and the proposed relocation of the Southdale Transit Center. Parking Lot: (These items have been considered by the BC, but not proposed as part of this year’s work plan. If the BC decides they would like to work on them in the current year, it would need to be approved by Council.) Organized trash collection Date: October 27, 2022 Agenda Item #: VI.D. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Appoint Commissioner to Cahill District Area Plan Working Group Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to appoint a Commissioner to serve on the Cahill District Area Plan working group for the remainder of 2022 and 2023. INTRODUCTION: Staff has decided to add an initiative to ETC’s 2023 work plan; “appoint a Commissioner to the Cahill District Area Plan Working Group.” This work is expected to wrap up by spring 2023, and their next scheduled meetings are November 15 and December 13. Staff expects that Council will approve of this initiative in early December, but the working group would like to have the new representative added sooner rather than later. Date: October 27, 2022 Agenda Item #: VI.E. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:2023 Work Plan Proposal Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: Staff will review staff comments on the 2023 work plan proposal following the joint work session with City Council on October 6. Staff recommendations will be presented to City Council at the November 1 work session. ATTACHMENTS: Description 2023 Work Plan Proposal Template Updated 2021.06.08 Commission: Transportation Commission 2023 Annual Work Plan Proposal Initiative #1 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Pedestrian Crossing Policy Review Review existing crossing policy and recommend changes with consideration for local amenities such as parks and schools. Deliverable Report to Council Leads Chris Brown Target Completion Date Q4 Sub-Committee Budget Required (Completed by staff): No funds available. Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): 1 hour per month from Staff Liaison, ~5 hours from other staff (Engineering, Parks & Recreation) Liaison Comments: The Pedestrian Crossing Policy, adopted in 2018, provides guidance to ensure the consistent application and treatment of crossings throughout the City. This initiative supports Comprehensive Plan goals to improve safety and mobility. City Manager Comments: Initiative #2 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☒ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Bicycle Network Planning for Bikes as Transportation Develop recommendations to make high-traffic corridors more bike- friendly Deliverable List of recommended improvements and priorities Leads Andy Lewis, Mindy Ahler, Jill Plumb-Smith Target Completion Date Q4 Sub-committee Budget Required (Completed by staff): No funds available. Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): 1 hour per month from Staff Liaison. Liaison Comments: The 2018 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan provides guidance on bicycle infrastructure within the City. This initiative supports Comprehensive Plan goals to improve multi-modal transportation. Staff recommends the following amendments: Initiative Description: Study existing bicycle infrastructure on high-traffic corridors, recommend improvements and priorities for implementation. Deliverable: Report to staff. City Manager Comments: Template Updated 2021.06.08 Initiative #3 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) France Avenue Transit Corridor Review Review the safety, accessibility, and amenities along the existing France Avenue Transit Corridor for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders between Minnesota Drive and Highway 62 (Southdale District). Investigation will include site visits and review of similar case studies that promote non-automobile transportation modes along similar scale roadways and will include input from key stakeholders. Inquiry is in response to the Climate Action Plan and new parking ordinances. Deliverable Report with recommendations based on Commission review and resident/stakeholder input Leads Tricia Rubenstein, Bruce McCarthy, Lori Richman Target Completion Date Q4 Sub-committee Budget Required (Completed by staff): No funds available. Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): 2-5 hours per month from Staff Liaison, ~10 hours from Communications for stakeholder engagement/website Liaison Comments: A number of guiding documents provide recommendations for improvements on France Avenue, including the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, the Greater Southdale District Plan and Design Experience Guidelines. The City is limited in its capacity to advance improvements on this corridor because it is a Hennepin County road. Staff recommends the following amendments: Deliverable: Report to staff Council Charge: Study & Report City Manager Comments: Initiative #4 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Boulevard Tree Planting Recommend replacement and new boulevard tree planting in top priority areas identified by the Climate Action Plan (Greenspace + Trees Strategy GS1) with guidance from the City Forester. Deliverable Recommendation based on Commission review Leads Tricia Rubenstein Target Completion Date Q4 Sub-Committee Budget Required: (Completed by staff) No funds available. Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): 1 hour per month from Staff Liaison, ~5 hours from City Forester. Liaison Comments: This initiative builds on work completed by the Commission in 2022. The City does not actively plan boulevard trees because boulevards are privately maintained. Staff recommends the following amendments: Deliverable: Report to staff. Council Charge: Study & Report. City Manager Comments: Template Updated 2021.06.08 Initiative #5 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Organized Trash Collection Review and comment on the Energy & Environment Commission’s initiative to develop a strategic plan for the City to adequately assess organized trash collection as an alternative to the open system. Deliverable Review and comment on EEC report/recommendations Leads Jill Plumb-Smith Target Completion Date Q4 Cross-Commission Committee (EEC) Budget Required (Completed by staff): No funds available. Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support? Liaison Comments: This initiative builds on work completed by the Commission in 2021. This initiative supports Comprehensive Plan goals to minimize the impacts of the transportation system on Edina’s environment and Climate Action Plan goals to reduce carbon emissions and vehicle miles traveled. City Manager Comments: Initiative #6 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Off-Street Parking Participate in cross-commission committee with Planning and Energy & Environment Commissions to recommend what parking initiatives the City should pursue over the next 10-15 years. Engage in consulting support via Planning Commission funds. Recommend a bike rack addition strategy to accelerate bike parking installation. Deliverable Recommendation to City Council Leads Kirk Johnson, Janet Kitui Target Completion Date Q4 Cross-Commission Committee (PC lead, EEC) Budget Required (Completed by staff): Potential consulting fees would come from the Community Development Department budget, if needed. Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): 2-5 hours per month from Staff Liaison, ~5 hours from other staff (Planning, Engineering) Liaison Comments: This initiative supports Comprehensive Plan goals to manage parking provision and reduce dependence on single-occupancy vehicles. City Manager Comments: Parking Lot: (These items have been considered by the BC, but not proposed as part of this year’s work plan. If the BC decides they would like to work on them in the current year, it would need to be approved by Council.) Transit service advocacy, pedestrian safety education, speed limit adherence Date: October 27, 2022 Agenda Item #: VIII.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Staff Presentation to PARC Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: At the Parks and Recreation Commission's November 1 regular meeting (held at Braemar Golf Course), staff will present on the P edestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and the Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund. Members of the Transportation and Energy & Environment Commissions are welcome to attend.