Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-15 Meeting PacketAGENDA Regular Meeting of the Edina Transportation Commission 6:00 PM, Thursday, November 15, 2007 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Council Chambers I. Call to Order II. Comments a. Chairman Comments b. Public Comments III. Old Business a. Northeast Edina Traffic Study Implementation* b. Edina Gateway – Pentagon Redevelopment* IV. New Business a. Bike Edina Task Force – Bike Comprehensive Plan* V. Approval of Minutes a. Regular Meeting of October 18, 2007* VI. Planning Commission Update (Commissioner Brown) VII. Open Discussion VIII. Staff Liaison Comments (Sullivan) a. December 20, 2007 ETC Meeting Cancelled b. W. 70th Roundabouts* c. “Pace Car” signage IX. Adjournment * Note: Attachment included. During "Public Hearings," the Chair will ask for public comment after City staff members make their presentations. If you wish to speak on the topic, you are welcome to do so as long as your comments are relevant to the discussion. To ensure fairness to all speakers and to allow the efficient conduct of a public hearing, speakers must observe the following guidelines: • Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes or less. The Chair will modify presentation times, as deemed necessary. • Try not to repeat remarks or points of view made by prior speakers and limit comments to the matter under consideration. • In order to maintain a comfortable environment for all those in attendance, the use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not allowed. During "Public Comments," the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to speak about something not on the agenda. Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes or less and cannot speak to an issue for which a public hearing was previously held and closed or a matter scheduled for a future hearing. Individuals should not expect the [Board or Commission] to respond to their comments. Instead, the [Board or Commission] might direct the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Page 1 of 1 Item III. a. Edina Transportation Commission G:\PW\CENTRAL SVCS\TRANSPORTATION DIV\Transportation Commission\Agendas & RR's\2007 R&R\20071115_NE_Edina_Traffic_study.doc REGULAR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Transportation Commissioners Agenda Item No.: III.a From: Jack Sullivan, PE ACTION: Assistant City Engineer Recommendation/Motion Date: November 15, 2007 Discussion Subject: Northeast Edina Traffic Study Implementation Information Recommendation: If so desired by the Transportation Commission, adopt a motion recommending that the residential area safety improvement measures for the Country Club area are consistent with the recommendations of the Northeast Edina Traffic Study and the goals and objectives of the City of Edina Transportation Commission Policy. Info/Background: The Edina Transportation Commission along with City Staff and consultants have completed the Northeast Edina Transportation Study to address long term complaints from area residents regarding traffic volumes and speeds on residential streets in Northeast Edina. The Study was approved by City Council on November 11, 2006. Implementation of the study's recommendations will begin 2008-2009 in conjunction with the reconstruction of the Country Club neighborhood. The information presented at the November 15, 2007 ETC meeting has been presented to the Edina Heritage Preservation Board on October 9, 2007. See the attached meeting minutes. The residential area safety improvements will be shown to residents of the Country Club at a meeting scheduled for November 14, 2007. The consulting firm of S.E.H. will be able to give an overview of the feedback from residents. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Kojetin, Chris Rofidal, Lou Blemaster, Connie Fukuda, Laura Benson, Karen Ferrara, Jean Rehkamp Larson, and Sara Rubin MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Scherer STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant Wayne Houle, City Engineer Jesse Struve, Utility Engineer Paul Pasko, Short Elliott Hendrickson - SEH (utility consultant) Mike Kotila, Short Elliott Hendrickson - SEH (traffic consultant) I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: September 11, 2007 Member Rofidal moved approval of the Minutes from the September 11, 2007 meeting. Member Rehkamp Larson seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT - Survey Progress Report — September: Consultant Vogel explained that work continued on updating and reorganizing the inventory of heritage resources in the Country Club District. Final preparations were made for the National Historic Preservation Conference field session in Edina, to be held on October 4. Some recommendations relating to the number of contributing heritage resources in the district and revisions to the plan of treatment were prepared for discussion at the Heritage Preservation Board meeting on October 9. Mr. Vogel stated that the Country Club District derives its historical significance from being a unified entity composed of more than 500 individual heritage resources. The quality of significance is the result of the interrelationship of the houses and streetscapes, which together convey a sense of the district as a cohesive historic environment. The primary heritage preservation resource is the planned neighborhood designed and built under the auspices of the Thorpe Brothers Realty Co. The component heritage resources (houses, streets, Minutes — October 9, 2007 Edina Heritage Preservation Board sidewalks, trees, and open spaces), which are relatively equal in importance, are united historically by Thorpe's design plan for the development of the district, which is the basis of the district's Heritage Landmark designation and the focal point of its plan of treatment. For purposes of design review, it is critically important that we determine which houses contribute to the overall significance of the district, and which do not. As a practical matter, the city needs to ensure that every house that adds to the historic qualities of the district is afforded the same level of protection against the adverse effects of teardowns and new construction. To do this, we much reach some kind of consensus on what constitutes a heritage preservation resource (i.e., a "contributing" property) within the district boundaries. Vogel pointed out that the overwhelming majority of the homes in the district were constructed between 1924 and 1944, when Thorpe Bros. controlled development in Country Club, including the architecture of individual homes. Unless its principal (street) facade has been substantially altered from its original appearance, a house built prior to 1945 would have to be classified as a contributing resource, regardless of its architectural style or aesthetic value. Furthermore, Consultant Vogel opined that in order to qualify as a contributing resource in the Country Club District, a house built after 1944 would need to meet one of the Heritage Landmark criteria for significance by being associated with an important historic context and by retaining historic integrity of those architectural features necessary to convey its significance. Individual significance or high aesthetic values is not required, as most of the homes constructed before 1945 also lack individual distinction. Mr. Vogel than recommended adopting the following policy with respect to evaluating Country Club homes constructed after 1944: To be considered a contributing resource, a house must: 1) Be more than 50 years old; 2) Embody the basic form, plan, and materials characteristic of one of the traditional early 20th century period revival or "American Movement" architectural styles; and 3) Retain historic integrity of the primary (street) façade. The style classifications encompassed by criteria #2 include: Colonial Revival, Tudor, French Eclectic, Italian Renaissance, Mission, Spanish Eclectic, Prairie, and Modern (after McAlester and McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses). Vogel added that Minimal Traditional and Ranch style homes should also be included because these styles reflect popular house forms built from the 1930s through 1950s. Although they share little of the architectural character of the homes built in the district in the 1920s and 1930s, these later homes still show the influence of Thorpe's original plan of development; they are also important because they represent changing standards and tastes in the community during the last phase of its development (which ended in the late 1950s—only a relative 2 Minutes — October 9, 2007 Edina Heritage Preservation Board handful of new homes were built in the district after 1960). The Edina Historic Context Study provides the framework for dealing with these properties as preservation resources. Vogel pointed out that in addition to the historic homes, a number of landscape features appear to meet the minimum criteria for consideration as contributing resources. These include: public open spaces designed and developed for outdoor recreation (Browndale and Dwight Williams parks), circulation networks related to the original plat and development plan (public streets, sidewalks, "islands"), original plat boundary demarcations delineating areas of ownership and land use (lot lines and subdivision boundaries), and historic vegetation (specimen boulevard and park trees, trees pre-dating Country Club platting, relic elms, catalpas). For preservation planning purposes, Mr. Vogel recommended treating the Browndale Bridge and Edina Mills Archaeological Site as separate heritage resources, although they are situated (partially) within the district boundaries. Regarding the Plan of Treatment revisions, Mr. Vogel stood by his earlier recommendation that no Certificates of Appropriateness should be approved for demolition of any contributing resource in the Country Club District. Demolition of noncontributing homes would be permitted. Regarding the guidelines for new construction in the Plan of Treatment, Vogel recommended that the Board retain the preference for period revival style ("Eclectic") design in new homes because Colonial, Tudor, etc. dominate the aesthetic character of the district. While every effort should be made to prevent teardowns of contributing resources, Mr. Vogel added that he saw no reason not to allow teardowns of noncontributing properties, provided that the new construction is compatible with the predominant architectural character of the district. Regarding the definitions of demolition and new construction, Mr. Vogel recommended including the removal, covering up, or substantial alteration of any principal historic character defining exterior feature on the principal (street) façade; corner houses would be required to obtain Certificates of Appropriateness for work on both street elevations. The principal historic character defining features of historic homes in the District are: • Roof shape, pitch, and height • Front wall width, height, and cladding • Front wall window and door openings • Entrances, porches, vestibules, and porte-cocheres Mr. Vogel concluded that he did not recommend expanding the COA requirement to include structural additions or exterior alterations on the rear or side elevations. The survey data compiled strongly indicate that, to a considerable extent, the street facades of historic homes are being preserved voluntarily; that in most 3 Minutes — October 9, 2007 Edina Heritage Preservation Board cases, side and rear additions do not detract from the district's historic character; and that the major threat to the district's historic integrity is from teardowns and inappropriately designed new construction, which can be effectively controlled under the current ordinance. Mr. Vogel pointed out that later in the evening's agenda, a workshop was planned to establish criteria for determining "contributing" vs "non-contributing" homes. Due to the amount of information yet to be discussed on the agenda, he recommended that a special workshop meeting be set to address the recommendations proposed for the district's Plan of Treatment. Board members agreed that more time should be spent than would be available during the meeting - it was agreed that a special meeting would be held on Monday, November 5th at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Room. III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT UTILITY/ROADWAY PROJECT: Planner Repya reminded the Board that in 2005 a Certificate of Appropriateness (H-05-6) was issued for a Sewer, Water, and Street reconstruction project in the Country Club District. The proposed 2 year project included the following improvements: • Mainline sanitary sewer and water main pipe replacement • Replacement of city owned portion of individual sanitary sewer and water services • Storm sewer pipe replacement • Street replacement (except Bridge Street) • Street light replacement • Pedestrian safety improvements (crosswalks) Conditions accompanying the approval included the following: 1. Changes shall be considered to the street at major intersections with islands to ensure vehicles come to a complete stop, and 2. Brick pavers shall be used for pedestrian crosswalks at major intersections. After the project received Certificate of Appropriateness approval from the Heritage Preservation Board, public hearings were held by the City Council. As a result of the input from residents at the public hearings, the project was put on hold to allow for a traffic study of the Northeast section of Edina to ensure that the traffic elements included in the project would be consistent with the needs identified for the northeast quadrant of the city. 4 Minutes — October 9, 2007 Edina Heritage Preservation Board The Northeast Traffic Study was completed earlier this year, and the recommendations for traffic calming and pedestrian improvements have been added to the revised project plan moving forward at this time. Ms. Repya advised the Board that since there are changes to the original Certificate of Appropriateness issued in 2005, a new Certificate of appropriateness will be required. She added that at this time, the revised plan would be explained to them for review and consideration, with no action to be taken. However, at the November meeting of the Board, clarification of the project will be addressed and a motion on the appropriateness of the project will be requested. City Engineer, Wayne Houle recognized that a majority of the current HPB board members were not serving in 2005, thus he briefly retraced the history of the proposed project. Paul Pasko, the utility consultant with SEH presented a power point presentation highlighting the non-invasive methods proposed for installation of the new utility lines. He pointed out that the utility section of the proposal is relatively unchanged for the 2005 plan. Board members were pleased to see sensitivity to preserving the boulevard trees inherent in the plan. Addressing the traffic and safety improvements proposed for the project, Engineer Houle explained that the proposal is part of the Northeast East Edina Transportation Study. The major goals of the plan include: • Reducing diversion of traffic through the neighborhood • Keeping vehicle speeds in neighborhood at, or below the posted speed limit • Enhancing pedestrian/non-motorized travel and safety Mike Kotila, traffic consultant with SEH presented the proposed traffic calming and pedestrian improvements recommended for the district. Major changes identified in the plan include: • Speed Humps at major entrances to the district. • Realigned intersections • Choker or street narrowing at intersections • Raised and brick crosswalks • Median island added to south end of Wooddale Ave. Board members briefly discussed the proposed changes to the traffic/pedestrian patterns in the district. All agreed that the proposal is a step in the right direction to addressing the neighborhoods traffic concerns. Several questions arose relative to the signage required for some of the changes. Concern was expressed relative to the bright neon yellow signs typically used at pedestrian crosswalks and paint identifying speed hump locations. Engineer 5 Minutes — October 9, 2007 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Houle stated that he was not sure if there was a legal requirement for the signage, or if the city had any leverage to reduce the number and color of signs installed. However, Houle promised to consult the City Attorney and report back at the November meeting. A suggestion was also made that a sign could be installed at the entrances to district identifying it as a historic neighborhood and advising that "traffic safety measures are in place" might be a good compromise to a proliferation of signs that could be required. Houle agreed that was a suggestion worth considering. Preservation Consultant Vogel advised the Board that the proposed changes to the traffic/pedestrian plan are not subject to the HPB review, however determining the appropriateness of materials and signage related to the improvements are areas that should be addressed. IV. NATIONAL PRESERVATION CONFERENCE FIELD SESSION: Recap Consultant Vogel recapped the highlights of the October 4th National Trust tour of Edina. The weather was perfect for 23 conference attendees from all corners of the country. From the Mayor's welcome greeting as they entered the city to the final farewell at Southdale Center, a good time was had by all. Board members Kojetin, Rofidal and Blemaster participated in the tour; and each shared their favorite memories with the Board. Members Rofidal and Blemaster were both very impressed with the Cahill School and Grange Hall pointing out that the structures are so well preserved, and the school marm's presentation made one feel they were back on "Little House on the Prairie". Chairman Kojetin was pleased with the luncheon put on by the Historical Society at the Edina Historical Museum. Not only did everyone enjoy a tasty Minnesota- style lunch, but they also were able to enjoy the current Edina Fire and Police exhibit. Mr. Vogel and Planner Repya agreed that the tour was a worthwhile venture which can be offered to interested groups in the future. No formal action was taken. V. PENTAGON PARK AUAR REPORT: Consultant Vogel explained that as part of a potential redevelopment of the property, the City's Director of Planning, Cary Teague asked that he conduct a preliminary heritage resources assessment of the Pentagon Park of Edina office complex located at Highway 100 and 77th Street West. The purpose of this investigation was to identify and gather information on potential heritage preservation resources in the Gateway Study Area. 6 Minutes – October 9, 2007 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Vogel reported that the Pentagon Park office complex comprises sixteen freestanding buildings that were constructed in phases between 1963 and 1970. The multi-tenant office park is designed to house up to approximately 300 tenants and incorporate a wide range of space types, including offices, lobbies, conference rooms, rest rooms, mechanical and service areas, restaurants, banks, postal and copy services, vending areas, daycare, and small shops. The office park's primary amenity, the Fred Richards Executive Golf Course, is located outside of the Gateway Study Area boundaries. Vogel explained that he was unable to verify the accuracy of the statement, which appears on the Wayzata Properties webpage, that Pentagon Park represents "the first planned office park in the Twin Cities." (A recent article in Minneapolis/St Paul Business Journal refers to it as "one of the first corporate campuses in the Twin Cities"; it is not mentioned in Gebhard and Martinson's Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota [1977] or Scott and Hess' History and Architecture of Edina [1981].) According to the National Building Museum, the General Motors Technical Center at Warren, Michigan, was the first modern suburban office park in the country. Designed by the Finnish American father-and-son architectural team of Eliel and Eero Sarrinen, the 25-building, 330-acre facility was designed in 1949-51 and built in 1955-56. Like the Pentagon Park buildings, the GM Tech Center is a Modernist composition dominated by low-rise "Miesian" style buildings, abundant parking, and landscape amenities. The Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M) headquarters on 1-94 in Maplewood, designed by Ellerbe Architects and built in the late 1950's, would appear to have a good claim to the title of first corporate office park in the Twin Cities and is also an example of Modernist architecture. It may well be that Edina's Pentagon Park represents the first speculative office park development in the Twin Cities—more intensive research will be required to clarify this historical association. Pentagon Park was designed and built by Rauenhorst Construction, a company founded by 25-year-old Gerald A. Rauenhorst in 1953. It was one of the company's biggest early projects, along with the Normandale Center Industrial Park (1961-70). In 1982 Rauenhorst Construction became Opus Corporation, one of the largest real estate development companies in the country. Consultant Vogel explained that for a building or group of buildings to qualify for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark it must meet one of the landmark eligibility criteria by being associated with an important historic context and retaining historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance. Built between 1963 and 1970, the Pentagon Park property certainly meets the minimum requirements for consideration as a heritage resource. The buildings physically and spatially comprise a specific environment shaped by historical processes of land use. Architecturally, the buildings are the product of the dissemination of the Modern or "International" style that dominated commercial architecture from the early 1950's through the late 1970's. 7 Minutes – October 9, 2007 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Mere association with a particular period or architectural style is not enough for Pentagon Park to qualify as historically significant: it must be shown to have been significant in commercial or architectural history. Contextually, it relates to the broad theme of postwar suburban development delineated in the City of Edina Historic Context Study (which provides the framework for identifying and evaluating heritage resources within the city limits). Although office park was not specifically identified as a significant heritage property type in the historic context study, the general theme of Modern style commercial architecture is recognized as one aspect of the postwar suburban built environment. Unlike the National Register of Historic Places, which disqualifies buildings less than 50 years old from consideration unless they are of "exceptional" importance, the city's landmark code sets no arbitrary restrictions on how old a property must be before it can be considered a heritage resource. For planning purposes, the City uses 1974 as the terminal date for the historic context dealing with suburban development. The Pentagon Park property falls well within the chronological limits of "The Suburban Landscape" study unit. While it clearly possesses the defined characteristics required to represent the theme of suburban commercial development, it is unlikely that Pentagon Park represents the sole surviving example of a 1960's office complex in Edina— comparison with other, historically-related properties will be essential for determining its preservation value. It is certainly not the best surviving example of Modern style commercial architecture in the city, though its association with the early career of professional engineer/real estate developer Gerald A. (Gerry) Rauenhorst, the founding chairman of Opus Corporation, may be significant as well. Vogel further observed that with respect to the draft AUAR, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) inventory database for historical and architectural resources is not considered a reliable indicator of the presence or absence of significant cultural resources within a given area. While it is true that the Gateway Study Area contains no properties that have been listed in or determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the reason for this would appear to be obvious: until the present investigation, no one has even looked for these resources on the ground. Given that the developer's own website refers to the Pentagon Park property as "the first planned office park in the Twin Cities," even declaring that it "has achieved virtual landmark status within the community," one wonders why the AUAR preparers did not undertake even a perfunctory assessment of the project's effects on potential heritage preservation resources. Mr. Vogel recommended that the potential heritage value of the buildings be given proper consideration during the development planning process. At a minimum, more intensive survey is needed to provide the information needed to fully evaluate its historical and architectural significance. This will require a close and careful look at the property to identify all heritage resources within the area of 8 Minutes — October 9, 2007 Edina Heritage Preservation Board project effects, detailed inspection of the individual buildings, and thorough documentation of their physical history. Vogel added that he would like to do more research on the history of office parks in the Twin Cities area to better determine how Pentagon Park represents the property type and to develop a better perspective on the potential significance of being "the first" example of the type. Given the rising level of preservation interest in heritage resources from the "recent past," the SHP° could be expected to require intensive survey and mitigation of adverse effects if any future project involving the Pentagon Park locality would require compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act or the National Historic Preservation Act. (Any projects using Community Development Block Grants, State Aid transportation funds, or other federal assistance would be subject to SHP° review and compliance.) Assuming that all or part of the Pentagon Park office complex will eventually give way to redevelopment, several mitigation options are available to avoid complete loss. Before demolition occurs, the tower and the other office buildings should be permanently recorded with archival-quality drawings, photographs, and written data so that a body of information will remain about them. As a matter of policy, the Heritage Preservation Board has adopted the Secretary of the Interior's standards for historical and architectural documentation, which provide an appropriate format for recordation products. (The same mitigation standards used in National Register of Historic Places program). It may also be appropriate to salvage some architectural elements for curation in a museum. Board members briefly discussed the report, finding it interesting that while the owners of Pentagon Office Park boast about being the 1st office park in the state, no heritage research had been done on the site prior to Mr. Vogel's report. Mr. Vogel explained that he presented the report to the Board for information; no action being required at this time. He added that he would keep them posted if the Heritage Preservation Board should need to get involved. VI. DEMOLITION OF FIRE STATION NO. 1: Consultant Vogel explained that Fire Station No. 1 was demolished earlier this year and a new fire station is being constructed on the site. He recommend that it would be a very good idea for the Heritage Preservation Board to have an opportunity to weigh in on the historic significance of City buildings when they are being considered for demolition. Chairman Kojetin agreed that would be a very good policy. He recalled that when the old City Hall was being considered for demolition, the collective memories of those who had worked for the City for many years had some trouble remembering 9 Minutes — October 9, 2007 Edina Heritage Preservation Board what buildings preceded the soon to be demolished structure. It would have been very helpful to have a record of the bygone structures. Planner Repya stated that she felt sure the process of documenting the history of city buildings would be well received by city staff. She offered to report back to the Board regarding city buildings which might be considered for demolition or replacement. The Board agreed that was a good idea. No formal action was taken. VII. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT WORKSHOP: Establishing criteria for determining "contributing" and "noncontributing" Homes Continued until November 5, 2007, 7:00 p.m. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: None IX. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS: None X. CORRESPONDENCE: Member Rofidal announced that the City will be holding community meetings at the elementary schools to discuss the update to the City's Comprehensive Plan. A schedule of the meetings was presented to the Board and Mr. Rofidal encouraged his fellow board members to attend one of the meetings. Planner Repya thanked Mr. Rofidal for his support of the Comprehensive Plan process and also encouraged the Board to attend one of the meetings. XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: November 5, 2007 — Special Meeting November 13, 2007 — Regular Meeting XII. ADJOURNMENT 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Reyya 10 11 EH DRAWING NO. 1 FILE NO. AEDINA0503 DATE T1/08/07 EDT NA MINNESOTA RESIDENTIAL AREA SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS COUNTRY CLUB AREA SEWER, WATER AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION F 42:4 , 1; • I 4 •• _ , (1)SIGN DETAIL UNDER DEVELOPMENT , _ _s_•• • COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT WARNING SPEED HUMPS RAISED CROSSWALKS AHEAD EDINA MINNESOTA FILE NO. AEDINA0503 COUNTRY CLUB AREA SEWER, WATER AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION A MEI DRAWING NO. 3 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS DATE 11/08/07 P.\AE\E\EDINA\050301\5FINAL\GRAPHICS\I1TERSECTIONS\COUNTRY CLUB INTRSCTN I.OGN 11 SEH rA OA EDINA MINNESOTA COUNTRY CLUB AREA SEWER, WATER AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION COUNTRY CLUB ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS FILE NO. DRAW I NG AEDINA0503 NO, DATE 4 11/08/07 PI\AE\E\EDINA\050301\5FINAL\GRAPHICS\I4TERSECTIONS\COUNTRY CLUB INTRSCTN 2.0GN Ar' p r."'"ft --srmiagmart mes1WWk. ARDEN AVE. EDINA MINNESOTA FILE NO. AEDINA0503 COUNTRY CLUB AREA SEWER, WATER AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION COUNTRY CLUB ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS DRAWING NO, 5 DATE 11/08/ 07 P.\AE\E\EDINA\050301\5FINAL\GRAPHICS\INTERSECTIONS\COUNTRY CLUB INTRSCTN 3.DGN EDINA MINNESOTA SUNNYSIDE ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS FILE NO. AEDINA0503 ii SEH DATE W08/07 COUNTRY CLUB AREA SEWER, WATER AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION DRAW INC NO. 6 P \AE\E\EDINA\050301\5FINAL\GRAPHICS\INTERSECTIONS\SUNNYSIDE INTRSCTN I.DON EDINA MINNESOTA SUNNYS IDE ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS pianq cinp lupin 03 PI\AE\E\EDINA\050301\5FINAL\6RAPHICS\INTERSECTIONS\SUNNYSIOE INTRSCTN 2.DON SINN YS IDE ROAD DRAW INC NO. 7 COUNTRY CLUB AREA SEWER, WATER AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION FILE NO. AEDINA0503 DATE 11/08/07 SEH PP1',N qup I — SUNNYS IDE ROAD EDINA MINNESOTA COUNTRY CLUB AREA SEWER, WATER AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION SUNNYSIDE ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS FILE NO. AEDINA0503 DATE 11/08/07 DRAWING NO. 8 P,\AE\E\EdIno\050301\5FInal\GrophIcs\In1erseo1-Ions\Sunny8Ide Intractn 3.dgn EDINA MINNESOTA COUNTRY CLUB AREA SEWER, WATER AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION BRIDGE STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS A SEH DRAWING NO. 9 FILE NO. AEDINA0503 DATE U/08/07 PI\AE\E\EDINA\050301\5FINAL\GRAPHICS\INTER9ECTIONS\BRIDGE INTRSCTN LIMN SECTION Y-Y NTS ALTERNATIVE PAVEMENT MARKING - DURATHERM SEE DETAIL DRAWING 12 ii SEH DATE 11/08/07 DRAWING NO. 11 FILE NO. AEDINA0503 EDINA MINNESOTA COUNTRY CLUB AREA SEWER, WATER AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION TYPICAL PARABOLIC SPEED HUMP 1.5 0.5' 1 5' 0.5' X X Fror r r A / 15.0' AND VARIES 15.0' & VARIES 14.0' B618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) MILLED ASPHALT KEY PLAN VIEW KELLER LAKE DRIVE BURNSVILLE, MN TYP PARABOLIC TYPICAL 12" TYP ? WHITE REFLECTIVE SIGN MARKER 2% (t NEW PAVEMENT 2% • -TT-CONCRETE CURB, TYPICAL BOTH SIDES NOTE: CLEAN AND APPLY TACK COAT TO ALL SURFACES TO BE PAVED SECTION X-X NTS 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 2.0 2.4 2.8 2.9 3.0 0.0 0.00 1.0 0.8 2.0 1.5 DISTANCE (FEET) FINISHED HEIGHT (INCHES) L-3" TYP ASPHALTIC MILLING (TYP) EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT NEW PAVEMENT EXISTING PAVEMENT ASPHALT MILLING (TYP) PARABOLIC (TYP) N M \ MOM \ 5F I WL MAPH cs TmNsnuAT I ON \ SPHO HUMP. OGN Page 1 of 2 Item III. b. Edina Transportation Commission G:\PW\CENTRAL SVCS\TRANSPORTATION DIV\Transportation Commission\Agendas & RR's\2007 R&R\20071115_Revised_Edina Gateway_Traffic_study.doc REGULAR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Transportation Commissioners Agenda Item No.: III.b From: Jack Sullivan, PE ACTION: Assistant City Engineer Recommendation/Motion Date: November 15, 2007 Discussion Subject: Revised Edina Gateway Traffic Study Information The following is the revised staff report for November 15, 2007 for the Edina Gateway Pentagon Park Redevelopment. All information in italics has been modified from the original recommendation. The development team, City staff and our consultant firm of WSB Inc. have held recent meetings to better define the project status and process. The City now considers the Transportation Report application complete. The uniqueness of zoning district MDD 6 requires a three step application process; a usual project requires only two steps. Thus this is the catalyst for the change from an incomplete to complete application. The three steps are: 1. Preliminary Development Plan 2. Overall Development Plan 3. Final Development Plan The development team is only on step 1, Preliminary Development Plan. This requires the Transportation Commission review the traffic study for concurrence with the recently approved AUAR. The Transportation Commission and staff will receive a much more detailed traffic study for review and action in steps number two and three as outlined above. In addition, the City has contracted with WSB to look at ”traffic triggers”. The “traffic triggers” will help determine when physical improvements to the roadway network will be necessary. Improvements will be required when traffic volumes approach or will exceed the capacity at the time of a development or phasing of the project. This data will help the Commission and staff with review and recommendations. Page 2 of 2 Item III. b. Edina Transportation Commission G:\PW\CENTRAL SVCS\TRANSPORTATION DIV\Transportation Commission\Agendas & RR's\2007 R&R\20071115_Revised_Edina Gateway_Traffic_study.doc Recommendation: Review the attached traffic study submitted by Miller Dunwiddie and Kimley-Horn dated September 28, 2007 for Edina Gateway Pentagon Park Redevelopment-preliminary development plan. In addition, review the attached email correspondence dated November 14, 2007 from Jack Sullivan. If so desired by the Transportation Commission, adopt a motion recommending that the Edina Gateway Pentagon Park Redevelopment traffic study is within the parameters set forth in the AUAR study and that the transportation component of the development application can move forward to the “Overall Development Plan”. The Development team will meet the following conditions at the time that they submit an application for the Overall Development Plan. Conditions of the recommendation are as follows: 1. The Traffic Study needs to follow the requirements set forth in the ETC Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) guidelines adopted by the Transportation Commission. 2. All comments outlined in the WSB review memo dated October 31, 2007 should be addressed in the TIA. 3. All assumptions in the TIA need to be clearly identified, including but not limited to, development densities, phasing plans, background traffic growth, etc. 4. Relocation of the Fred Richards Golf Course entrance. 5. Acknowledgement and incorporation of a future roadway realignment and right of way dedication at the intersection of Parklawn and W. 77th. 6. All service entrances along W. 77th and other city roads be right-in/right out only. 7. Any other reasonable conditions as the project becomes further refined and defined in the Overall and Final Development Plans. Info/Background: The developer came to the City in the spring of 2007 about a possible redevelopment of the area near 77th Street from Trunk Highway 100 to Minnesota Boulevard. The consulting firm of WSB and Associates completed an Alternative Urban Area wide Review (AUAR) of the project site. One of the components of an AUAR is transportation impacts to the project site. The ETC have reviewed the AUAR and recommended that the draft AUAR document be released for public comment on June 21, 2007. Since that time the final AUAR document has been approved by all regulatory agencies as well as the Edina City Council on November 5, 2007. Traffic Study for Edina Gateway, LLC Pentagon Park Redevelopment Mixed-Use Community Edina, Minnesota Traffic Impact Analysis September, 28 2007 Prepared for: Miller Dun widdie Architecture TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 STUDY AREA 1 2.1 EXISTING LAND USE 2 2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRAFFIC 2 3.0 TRIP GENERATION 2 4.0 TRIP DISTRIBUTION 2 5.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES 3 5.1 HISTORIC TRAFFIC GROWTH 3 5.2 TRIP ASSIGNMENT/ FORECAST VOLUMES 3 6.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 3 6.1 2007 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 6.22014 NO BUILD CONDITIONS 4 6.3 2014 BUILD CONDITIONS 4 7.0 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT 5 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 GRAPHIC T-2 & T-3 6 1.0 INTRODUCTION The proposed development is a mixed use development with office, retail and housing components on two sites along W 77th Street between TH 100 and France Avenue in the City of Edina. It is expected that the proposed redevelopment would be completed by the year 2014, and would include approximately 820,000 gross square feet (s.f.) of commercial office space and hotel on the Pentagon Towers site along with 850 residential units and 29,000 gross s.f. of retail on the Pentagon Quads site. The primary objective of the traffic analysis is to determine the expected impacts of these developments on nearby intersections and the roadway network. This report represents a preliminary analysis of the Pentagon Park redevelopment, based on land use and site plan information at the Master Plan level of detail. It is intended to identify the key traffic issues associated with the development and serve as a basis for discussion and design parameters as the project moves into the detailed site plan phase. This report documents the existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site, estimates the traffic generated by the developments as they are currently proposed, distributes and assigns these trips to the adjacent roadway system, and evaluates the traffic operations of key intersections near the site and those providing access to and from the site. Based on the analysis, the report evaluates mitigating roadway and/or traffic control measures to accommodate future traffic levels in the system. The Gateway Study Area Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) covering both the Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quads sites has already been prepared and encompasses a larger area of redevelopment in the City of Edina. The type and density of development proposed for the Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quads sites most closely resembles the development included in Scenario 2 of the AUAR. This Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will therefore assist in the identification of the specific proposed mitigation measures recommended in the AUAR that would be needed to accommodate the increased traffic specifically due to the Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quads redevelopment. 2.0 STUDY AREA The study area for this TIA is generally bounded by TH 100 to the west, 1-494 to the south, France Avenue to the east, and W 76th Street to the north. The land uses in this area currently consist of a mix of light industrial/warehouse, commercial, office, and residential uses that are 60 to 100 percent occupied, with the exception of Pentagon Tower SE, which is currently unoccupied. The proposed developments include the Pentagon Towers site, in the southeast quadrant of W 77th Street and TH 100, which will include 740,000 s.f. of office/retail development and a 150-room hotel. The Pentagon Quads site, located in the northwest quadrant of W 77th Street and Parklawn Avenue, will include retail, townhomes, senior independent living units, assisted living, nursing, and memory care. The study area for this analysis includes the following key intersections: • W 77th Street / TH 100 NB • W 77th Street / Pentagon Towers access • W 77th Street / Computer Avenue • Viking Drive / TH 100 Frontage Road • Viking Drive / Computer Avenue • TH 100 Frontage Road / Pentagon Towers access • Viking Drive / West Pentagon Towers access Edina Gateway Study — Pentagon Towers and Quads Traffic Impact Study • Viking Drive / East Pentagon Towers access • Computer Avenue / Pentagon Towers access • Three internal intersections on the Pentagon Towers site • W 77th Street / Parklawn Avenue • W 77th Street / West Pentagon Quads access • W 77th Street / East Pentagon Quads access • Parklawn Avenue / Pentagon Quads access • W 77th Street / Minnesota Avenue / Johnson Avenue It should be noted that although the level of service (LOS) results and queues are being reported and discussed for the 17 intersections listed above, the analysis was based on the traffic model developed for the Gateway AUAR, which includes 10 additional intersections on France Avenue and Bush Lake Road. The inclusion of these intersections in the analysis gives a clear picture of any system congestion that may impact the operations at the study site. The primary external access to the Pentagon Towers site will be provided by the center north/south roadway that intersects with W 77th Street and Viking Drive. In order to provide efficient access to the two parking ramps on the Pentagon Towers site and distribute the traffic onto the surrounding roadway network, each ramp will have two entry/exit points, as shown on Sheets T-2 and T-3, including direct access from the east ramp onto Computer Avenue. Access to the hotel will be on Normandale Road with a secondary access from the hotel drive into the west parking ramp. External access to the Pentagon Quads will be via two accesses on W 77th Street and one access on Parklawn Avenue, with mai circulation provided by a primary east-west roadway and both east-west and north-south walkways to provide pedestrian circulation throughout the site. 2.1 EXISTING LAND USE The study area currently contains a mixture of light industrial/warehouse, commercial, office, and residential uses. The existing trip generation of the Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quads sites, as included in the AUAR, are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Existing Triv Generation. Land Use ITE Land Use Size Units Occupancy Time of Day Trip Rate Tel) Generation Total In Out % Trips % Trips Pentagon Tower 710 142,876 sf 69.3% Daily 11.01 1090 50 545 50 545 AM Peak 1.55 153 88 135 12 18 PM Peak 1.49 148 17 25 83 123 Pentagon Tower SE 710 25,620 _ sf 0.0% Daily 11.01 0 50 0 50 0 AM Peak 1.55 0 88 0 12 0 PM Peak 1.49 — 0 17 0 83 0 Gateway Towers Site To al Trips Daily 1,090 545 545 AM Peak 153 135 18 PM Peak 148 25 123 Pentagon Quads 710 297,054 _ sf 60.0% Daily 11.01 1962 50 981 50 981 AM Peak 1.55 276 88 243 12 33 PM Peak 1.49 266 17 45 83 221 Senior Living Center To al Trips Daily 1,962 981 981 AM Peak 276 243 33 PM Peak 266 45 221 9/28/2007 10:22:00 AM page - 1 - 2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRAFFIC Existing traffic counts were conducted for the Gateway Study Area AUAR from January through May 2007, with the exception of the counts at the Computer Avenue / Viking Drive and Viking Drive / TH 100 Frontage Road that were conducted in August 2005. Only the PM peak hour counts were available for these two intersections, so the AM peak hour counts were estimated based on the counts at adjacent intersections. 3.0 TRIP GENERATION Traffic generation for the proposed redevelopment was determined using information provided by Miller Dunwiddie Architecture that documents the planned land uses at the Master Plan Level. For this analysis, it was assumed that 10 percent of the gross square footage of the Pentagon Towers site (72,000 s.f.) would be retail. This is a conservative estimate for the purposes of the traffic analysis, as it is proposed that only the first floor of each building would be used for retail, and retail uses generally have greater trip generation rates than office uses. Expected post-development traffic volumes were determined for the AM and PM peak hours at each of the key intersections. The traffic forecasts were developed by adding the estimated new development traffic to the background traffic that was estimated in the AUAR. Traffic generation for the proposed development was estimated using trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manuall . The IIE Trip Generation Manual also provides directional trip distributions that give the percentages of vehicles entering and exiting the site based on the proposed land use. The estimated net trip generation for the proposed development is shown in Table 2. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D. C., 2003 Edina Gateway Study — Pentagon Towers and Quads Traffic Impact Study Table 2. Pro nosed Trin Generation. Land Use ITE Land Use Size Units Time of , Day ,Trip Rate Trip Generation Total In Out % Trips % Trips Office 710 192,000 sf Daily 11.01 2114 50 1057 50 1057 AM Peak 1.55 298 88 262 12 36 PM Peak 1.49 286 17 49 83 237 Office 710 227,000 sf Daily 11.01 2499 50 1250 50 1250 AM Peak 1.55 352 88 310 12 42 PM Peak 1.49 338 17 57 83 281 Office 710 247,000 sf Daily 11.01 2719 50 1360 50 1360 AM Peak 1.55 383 88 337 12 46 PM Peak 1.49 368 17 63 83 305 Retail - Towers Site (assume 10%) 814 74,000 sf Daily 44.32 3280 50 1640 50 1640 AM Peak 6.84 506 48 243 52 263 PM Peak 5.02 371 56 208 44 163 Internal Retail Trips Daily -787 -394 -394 AM Peak -101 -49 ' -53 PM Peak -89 -50 -39 Hotel 310 150 Rooms Daily 8.17 1226 50 613 50 613 AM Peak 0.52 78 55 43 45 I 35 PM Peak 0.61 92 58 , 53 42 39 Gateway Towers Proposed Trip Generation Daily 11,051 5,526 5,526 AM Peak 1,516 1,146 369 PM Peak 1,366 380 986 Gateway Towers Site.Total (Prop. Trip Generation - Exist. Trip,Generation Daily 9,961 4,981: 4,981 AM Peak 1,363 1,011 351. . PM Peak 1,218' . 355 863 Senior Adult Housing - Attached 252 850 Units Daily 3.48 2,958 50 1,479 50 1,479 AM Peak 0.06 51 50 26 50 26 PM Peak 0.11 94 53 50 47 44 Retail - Senior Housing 814 29,000 sf Daily 44.32 1,285 50 643 50 643 AM Peak 6.84 198 48 95 52 103 PM Peak 5.02 146 56 82 44 64 Internal Retail Trips . , Daily -488 -244 -244 AM Peak -67 -32 -35 PM Peak -77 , -43 -34 Senior Living Center Proposed Trip Generation , Daily 3,755 1,878 1,878 AM Peak 182 89 94 PM Peak 163 89 74 Senior Living Center Total' Prop: Trip Generation - Exist. TOP Generation Daily 1,793 897 897 A MIPeak r ` -94 -154 61 PM:Peak -103 44 -147 4.0 TRIP DISTRIBUTION The directional d'stribution of trips generated by the proposed development onto the local and regional roadway network were taken directly from the trip distribution developed for the Gatewa,KALJAR using the 2000 Metropolitan Travel Demand Model. 9/28/2007 10:22:00 AM page -2 - 5.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES 5.1 HISTORIC TRAFFIC GROWTH Historic traffic growth is the increase in the volume of traffic due to usage increases and non-specific growth throughout an area. The Gateway Area AUAR used a background growth rate of through volumes of l_percent_per year, which is appropriate for an inner-ring suburb that is fully built out. This study used the 2014 No Build volumes from the AUAR as a basis for the projected 2014 Build volumes. 5.2 TRIP ASSIGNMENT / FORECAST VOLUMES The estimated trip generation associated with the proposed development was added to the 2014 No Build volumes, which account for background traffic growth, to develop total traffic volumes for 2014. Internal circulation on the Pentagon Towers and Quads sites was determined based on parking availability and the relative sizes of the office and residential buildings. The final step of the traffic forecasting process was to assign the estimated new external site- enerated trips to the surrounding roadway system based on the directional trip distribution of traffic. A hand assignment of the estimated trips was performed for each intersection turn movement within the study area. This method assigns the future vehicle trips to the most logical travel route, for both arriving and departing dir tions, and takes into account the following: • Directional access to local and regional roadways d • Intersection control w v_7( e • Roadway characteristics Applying the new development trips to the background traffic produces the estimated post-development traffic volumes. 6.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Capacity analyses for the intersections within the study area were performed for the weekday AM and weekday PM peak hours for the following scenarios: • Existing (2007) • No-Build (2014) • Build (2014) In order to determine the impacts of proposed developments on the transportation network, a traffic operations analysis was performed on the surrounding roadway network. The analysis process included determining level of service and queue lengths at each of the key intersections for existing, future, and post-development conditions. The approach to the traffic operations analysis is derived from the established methodologies documented in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The HCM contains a series of analysis techniques that are used to evaluate the operations of transportation facilities under specified conditions. The Gateway AUAR traffic models developed in Edina Gateway Study — Pentagon Towers and Quads Traffic Impact Study Synchro, a software package that implements the HCM methodologies, were also used for this TIA in order to be consistent with the previous analyses. The inputs into the Synchro model include lane geometries, turn movement volumes, traffic control, and signal timing characteristics in the study area. This information was then transferred to SimTraffic 7, the traffic simulation model, to produce the analysis results for each intersection. SimTraffic is a microscopic computer model that simulates each individual vehicle's characteristics and behavior in response to traffic volumes, signal operations, turning movements, pedestrians, and intersection configuration. The model can simulate drivers' behaviors and responses to surrounding traffic flow as well as different vehicle types and speeds. It can reasonably estimate vehicle delay and queue lengths at intersections and can create visual animations of the traffic operations. In this study, as in the Gateway AUAR, SimTraffic was used to report results for all intersections in the study. By simulating the individual vehicles, SimTraffic is able to most closely approximate the impacts of queuing at adjacent intersections. One of the primary measures of effectiveness used to evaluate intersection traffic operations, as defined in the HCM, is level of service (LOS)—a qualitative letter grade (A-F) based on seconds of vehicle delay due to the traffic control device at an intersection. By definition, LOS A conditions represent high-quality operations (i.e., motorists experience very little delay or interference) and LOS F conditions represent very poor operations (i.e., extreme delay or severe congestion). In accordance with the Minnesota Department of Transportation guidelines, this study used the LOS D/E boundary as an indicator of acceptable traffic operations. Figure 1 displays the LOS thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections. ,, Av e r a g e D e la y ( s e c o n ds /v e hic le ) .. , (. ,. ,, . 0, , . . E , 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c , . c Ve ,i.- LOS F .4.. . ' v. P• ".:: r LOSE ,. ,.> ... • :-• . ..,*.......*".....,•,4:- ' .. ........ - i ::::::::: .,::::: .:;.LOS D i.: i 11111111 LOSE 11111111 /7,"1. r..OSACi .,,A LOS D VFLOS C •:.:•:•. • .LOS B A :. LOS B I.. LOS A L\.\\‘,...LOS A Signalized Unsignalized Figure 1. Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service Criteria. 9/28/2007 10:22:00 AM page - 3 - 843 6.1 2007 EXISTING OPERATIONS In the AM peak hour, the existing conditions analysis showed that all intersections and movements in the study area operate at LOS D or better. However, it was noted that the W 76th Street / France Avenue and W 78th Street / France Avenue intersections had NB left-turn movements that operated at LOS E. In the PM peak hour, the existing conditions analysis showed that the EB through and right-turn movements at the W 77th Street / TH 100 SB intersection and the EB left-turn and through movements at the W 77th Street / TH 100 NB intersection operate at LOS F. Also, several intersections adjacent to the study area had LOS E operations in the existing conditions. The Minnesota Drive / France Avenue intersection, which is approximately 1,290 feet east of the W 77th Street / Minnesota Drive / Johnson Avenue intersection, was shown to operate at LOS F, with the EB, WB, and SB movements operating at LOS F. The WB through movements had 95th percentile queues1 of close to 1,500 feet and the EB through movements had 95th percentile queues of more than 600 feet. This congestion on Minnesota Drive is due to the significant congestion and queuing on France Avenue, which receives the majority of the signal green time but still operates with significant congestion and queuing due to the very high volume of vehicles on France Avenue in the peak hours. 6.2 2014 NO BUILD OPERATIONS In the 2014 AM No Build scenario it was noted that the EB and WB through movements, as well as the NB left- turn turn movement, at the Minnesota Drive / France Avenue intersection operated at LOS F, with an overall intersection LOS E. In addition, the EB left-turn and WB through and left-turn movements would be expected to operate at LOS F at the W 78th Street / France Avenue intersection. The AUAR discussed modifying the lane assignment on southbound France Avenue at the intersection to provide exclusive lanes to westbound and eastbound 1-494, but that improvement would be expected to have secondary benefits for the eastbound and westbound movements at the intersection. In the 2014 No Build PM peak hour at the W 77th Street / TH 100 NB intersection, the analysis showed that the WB right-turn movement had queuing that spilled back past the W 77th Street / Computer Avenue intersection. The queue spillback blocked the W 77th Street / Pentagon Towers access and W 77th Street / Computer Avenue upstream intersections and inhibited the turning movements from the cross streets onto W 77th Street. The AUAR identified this issue in all development scenarios and the recommended mitigation was to build a second WB right-turn lane at TH 100 NB to accommodate the 741 right-turning vehicles expected in the 2014 No Build PM peak hour. Also in the PM peak, the eastbound left turn lane at the W 77th Street/TH 100 NB intersection operated at LOS F with queuing past the end of the turn lane that failed to clear during each signal cycle. This issue was noted, although it is not a critical movement for the proposed redevelopment. 1 The 95th percentile queue is defined as the queue length that would be exceeded only 5 percent of the time and is the standard queuing measure that is evaluated in traffic operations. Edina Gateway Study — Pentagon Towers and Quads Traffic Impact Study 6.3 2014 BUILD OPERATIONS The 2014 Build operations assumed that signal timing optimization would be necessary at most intersections within the study area to accommodate background traffic growth and traffic pattern changes. The same issues identified in the 2014 No Build AM peak hour also occur in the 2014 Build scenario. All other intersections operate at LOS D or better. In the analysis of the 2014 Build PM peak hour at the W 77th Street / TH 100 NB intersection, the WB right-turn queue extended past Computer Avenue, which blocked the NB left-turn movement out of the Pentagon Towers site and caused additional delay for the NB left-turn movement from Computer Avenue to W 77th Street. The AUAR recommended adding a second NB left-turn lane from Computer Avenue to W 776 Street to improve the left-turn LOS and reduce the queuing. However, the NB left-turn volume is expected to be 275 vehicles in the PM peak hour, which would not warrant a dual left- turn lane configuration in terms of capacity needs. The addition of a second WB right-turn lane at the W 77th Street / TH 100 NB intersection, as recommended in the AUAR, would be expected to at least partially address both the left-turn operational issues from the Pentagon Towers access and the Computer Avenue intersection: the operations of the NB left-turn from the Pentagon Towers access would be significantly improved and the queuing of the NB left-turn movement from Computer Avenue to W 77th Street would also be reduced. The AUAR 2014 Synchro model shows the W 77th Street / Pentagon Towers access and W 77th Street / Computer Avenue signals operating semi-actuated/uncoordinated, which contradicts other information from the City of Edina indicating that these signals are interconnected and coordinated. More analysis is needed to determine what impact the lack of coordination in the model has on the LOS and queuing at these two intersections. However, from a purely capacity perspective, dual NB left-turn lanes at W 77th Street / Computer Avenue would not be necessary given that the projected peak hour NB left-turn volume is 275 vehicles and the projected volume on the entire approach is only about 400 total vehicles. If the second WB right-turn lane at the W 77th Street / TH 100 NB intersection was not built, northbound left turns out of the Pentagon Towers site onto W 77th Street may need to be restricted to avoid significant congestion and queuing on the interior roadways of the Pentagon Towers site. If the left-turns out of the site were restricted, northbound through and right- turn movements at the W 77th Street / Pentagon Towers access could still be allowed, as well as all southbound movements. Also at the W 77th Street! TH 100 NB intersection, the EB left-turn movement had LOS F operations and the WB through movement had LOS E operations in the PM peak hour under both the No-Build and Build scenarios because the overall intersection had a volume/capacity (v/c) ratio greater than 1. Implementing the additional mitigation measures in the AUAR (exclusive NB and EB right-turn lanes) would improve the overall intersection operations to LOS D with a maximum v/c ratio of 0.9, which would vary depending on the exact parameters of the signal timing optimization. Also in the 2014 Build PM peak hour, the analysis at the W 77th Street / Minnesota Drive / Johnson Avenue intersection showed that the SB left-turn operated at LOS D/E and the average queue spilled back out of the turn lane. The Gateway AUAR Scenario 2 also identified this issue and recommended constructing a second SB left-turn lane on W 77th Street. However, the second SB left-turn lane at the W 77th Street / Minnesota Drive / Johnson Avenue would not solve the other 9/28/2007 10:22:00 AM page - 4 - /0/I underlying issue, which is the congestion and very long queues on Minnesota Drive at the France Avenue intersection. The poor operations and long queues on France Avenue cause significant queuing for EB vehicles on Minnesota Drive even in the existing conditions, so addressing the SB left-turn capacity issue at W 77th Street / Minnesota Drive / Johnson Avenue would improve the operations at that intersection but would not completely alleviate the issues on EB Minnesota Drive. 111 The internal circulation for the Pentagon Towers site is sufficient to accommodate the approximately 3,000 proposed ramp parking spaces. In the AM peak, there are expected to be approximately 1,150 entering vehicles and in the PM peak, there are expected to be 990 exiting vehicles. No speed ramps are necessary to accommodate these traffic volumes. The ability for vehicles to efficiently enter and exit the ramps will be dependent primarily on: the internal circulation of the ramps, the enter/exit demand being spread throughout the peak hour (through travel demand management strategies such as staggered start times), and the control strategy for the ramp. With regard to control, an automatic vehicle identification (AVI) gate system can process 8 vehicles per lane per minute, or 480 vehicles per hour per lane. This would mean providing 3-4 total exit lanes (over the 2 access points) for the larger 1,700-space ramp and 3 total exit lanes (over the 2 access points) for the 1,300-space ramp to accommodate 3,000 exiting vehicles. It should be noted that from a trip generation perspective, there is no scenario in which 3,000 vehicles would be expected to enter or exit the ramps in a single peak hour. It is understood that no parking system with pay-at-exit control is currently being proposed for this project, which is important because a cashier at exit can only accommodate 2 vehicles per lane per minute, or 120 vehicles per hour per lane. This type of system on the Pentagon Towers site could cause significant internal congestion in the ramp, depending on the mix of monthly employee parking versus visitor parking and how these different traffic streams were separated or processed. As the pay-at-exit control strategy is not being considered, no issues are anticipated regarding the internal circulation or congestion within the ramps and no speed ramps are expected to be needed. The impacts of the specific ramp control strategy chosen will be considered when moving forward with the design to ensure that the ramps and the internal circulation roadways of the Pentagon Towers site operate efficiently. 7.0 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT As mentioned in the 2014 Build Operations discussion, travel demand management plan strategies will be necessary to accommodate the peak hour traffic demands on the roadway network as well as within the development sites, articularly Pentagon Towers. A complete Travel Demand Management Plan will be developed and submitted to the City at the Final Site Plan stage of the project. The focus of the Travel Demand Management Plan will be to outline measures to encourage residents, employees, and visitors of the Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quads redevelopments to use alternative modes of transportation and to make trips outside the peak hours. Some of the strategies that may be incorporated into the Travel Demand Management Plan include: • Provide improved ADA-compliant transit shelters on or adjacent to the development sites for the existing Metro Transit bus routes (6, 540, and 578) that currently run along W 77th Street and Parklawn Avenue and provide direct service to downtown Minneapolis, the University of Minnesota, Edina, Richfield, and Bloomington. Edina Gateway Study - Pentagon Towers and Quads Traffic Impact Study • Provide secure bike racks or bike lockers for employees, residents, and visitors at key entrance locations. • Restrict large delivery vehicles to accessing the sites outside the AM and PM peak traffic periods. • Support and promote car and vanpooling by employees. • Provide information on transportation alternatives including bus route map and schedules, flex-car programs, flexible work schedules, staggered work hours, and telecommuting. 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of this analysis, the following roadway improvements are expected to be necessary into the future to accommodate redevelopment at the Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quads sites: •W 77th Street / TH 100 NB o Construct second WB right-turn lane o Construct exclusive EB and NB right-turn lanes o Adjust signal phasing to provide concurrent NB/SB left-turn movements • W 77th Street / Minnesota Drive / Johnson Ave o Construct second SB left-turn lane In general, the signal timing plans for the W 77th Street and France Avenue corridors should be optimized, including cycle lengths, phase splits, coordinated offsets, and other parameters as traffic volumes in the area grow. By the year 2014, the capacity on France Avenue is expected to be insufficient and improvements are anticipated to be necessary in the 2014 No- Build conditions, regardless of the redevelopment of the Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quads sites. 9/28/2007 10:22:00 AM page - 5 - LEGEND STOP STOP SIGN Si TRAFFIC SIGNAL ;, ll'111111:1 ,1EI 111111111111:1: IIHIMAL111111{1a SHEET T-2: T-2: SITE CIRCULATION AND ACCESS DIAGRAM Edina Gateway Study - Pentagon Towers and Quads Traffic Impact Study - 9 - e 5e d I N V 00 :Z Z :0 1 L 0 0 3 / 80 /6 LEGEND STOP STOP SIGN S TRAFFIC SIGNAL 4111-1-1111+1d) I 11111_1 1m 111,111k 11.1 I,..151,11,14./.4.1..!!,.1.:. I I f if r I r 11144- I i 016,1- I 1111;11PN -1'1 HIMIIIHill 11(.11,1.1.11L1111L11_11111:111:11J E-1 .1-- — 11111111111111111111ft iff i] LIn - -71 1 1_1_1_1_1 1 I 1 11111(11r t)1,1111 11 11 11111 1111111 111111111111,1111,1 11' SHEET T 3: SITE CIRCULATIO AND ACCESS DIAGRAM WSB A11111n 11b. Infrastructure • Engineering a Planning • Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South & Associates, Inc. Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 5414800 Fax: 763541.1700 Memorandum To: Wayne Houle, PE, Public Works Director/City Engineer Jack Sullivan, PE, Assistant City Engineer City of Edina From: Chuck Rickart, PE, PTOE Transportation Engineer WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: October 31, 2007 Re: Edina Gateway — Paragon Park Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Review City of Edina WSB Project No. 1686-02 As requested, we have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates for the proposed Edina Gateway — Paragon Park Redevelopment. The proposed development is located along 77th Street between TH 100 and Minnesota Street. The redevelopment is proposed to include 740,000 square feet of office, 80,000 square feet of hotel, 492 independent-living units, 151 assisted-living units, and 62 townhome units. The proposed project is planned to replace the existing Paragon Park Office development. The proposed redevelopment area was included in the Alternative Urban Area Review (AUAR) for the Gateway Area. One aspect of the AUAR reviewed the traffic impacts of the entire area. Based on the review of the Paragon Park Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis, the following questions/comments are made: 1. In general, the Traffic Impact Analysis needs to follow the requirements outlined by the City for preparation of such documents including all maps and graphics. 2. The report indicates that existing (2007) traffic counts were used at all intersections except the intersections of Computer Avenue at Viking Drive and Viking Drive at the TH 100 frontage road. The counts at these intersections were based on a PM peak-hour count in August 2005. Typically, traffic counts more than two years old are considered outdated and should be recounted. In addition, the AM peak hour was estimated and an actual count should be completed. 3. The traffic generation for the proposed site was prepared using the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The following trip generation issues should be addressed: A. Are the trip generation estimates consistent with the AUAR trip generation estimates? B. Was the Burgundy Place Development included as part of the trip generation estimates? If not they need to be included. C. \ Documents and Settings \jsullivankDesktop MEMO-whoule-103107 doc Mr. Wayne Houle, PE Jack Sullivan, PE City of Edina October 31, 2007 Page 2 of 3 C. The proposed trip generation indicates that there are three buildings for the proposed office development. The site plan shows a fourth office building in the development. In the text, there is an indication of 820,000 square feet of office and on the site plan and in the trip generation table, it indicates 740,000 square feet of development. This should be clairified. D. There was an internal retail trip reduction taken as part of both the office development and the senior-living development portions of the project. What percentage was used for both of these reductions? Explain the rationale in using a reduction for the proposed projects. E. The trip generation rates for the senior-living development should be split into the actual uses. A rate for the townhomes, independent living, and assisted living, should be developed. 4. In the Projected Traffic Volumes Section, Historic Traffic Growth, it is indicated that a 1 percent per year growth factor was used to develop the future traffic volumes. It is unclear if this was a rate used on top of the projected traffic volumes from the AUAR or if the 1 percent per year growth was the only background traffic that was used. Please clarify the historic traffic growth for the proposed project. 5. The text summarizes some of the results of the traffic study with respect to levels of service (LOS). The report should include tables and/or figures showing the level of service at each intersection including any intersection approach movement that has an unsatisfactory LOS, the delays at each of these intersections and approaches, and the queue lengths at these intersections. 6. Figures should be included showing the existing traffic volumes, the traffic distribution, anticipated traffic generation at each intersection, and future traffic volumes for the proposed study area. 7. The City's transportation plan, as well as the AUAR, identified an east/west collector roadway that would realign the intersection of 77th Street and Minnesota Drive. The future plans for this roadway should be accommodated as part of the planned redevelopment. This future intersection should also be analyzed in its ultimate configuration. 8. The Traffic Impact Analysis indicates several roadway improvements that would be necessary to accommodate this redevelopment in the future. An analysis of how these improvements would impact the roadway system and the anticipated level of service should be provided. 9. It is unclear from the document if the site access locations were analyzed as part of the study. These intersections should be included in any future analyses. 10. The analysis of the proposed future conditions including the entire AUAR area should be included in the study. This should include a discussion on what additional right-of-way and/or improvements may be necessary in the future and how this proposed development is planning to accommodate those future conditions. Based on these comments and my general review of the site configuration and the Traffic Impact Analysis, additional information and analysis should be provided before any approval recommendation can be made. CADocuments and SettingsVsullivanWesktapIMEMO-Ishoule-103107.doc Mr. Wayne Houle, PE Jack Sullivan, PE City of Edina October 31, 2007 Page 3 of 3 C:IDocuments and Setangsystd1ivanIDesktopIMEMOalhou1e-103107.doc miller dunwiddie ARCHITECTURE November 8, 2007 Jack Sullivan Assistant City Engineer City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 RE: Traffic Study Memorandum from WSB Associates dated Oct 31, 2007 Dear Mr. Sullivan: On behalf of Gateway Development LLC we respectfully submit the following response to comments by Mr. Chuck Rickart (WSB Associates) to the City of Edina on October 31, 2007 regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis for Edina Gateway Preliminary Development Plan dated September 28, 2007. This response is in the form of an addendum to the original Traffic Impact Analysis and this letter. The Development team appreciates the opportunity to continue the development review process for Edina Gateway with the City of Edina staff and believes that continued interaction will benefit the project and City of Edina. In addition to the attached addendum, the Development Team offers the following comments. 1. Pentagon Park is misspelled on the Memo Re: line. 2. Regarding the conceptual East/West Collector identified in comment #7. As the project is in initial review (Preliminary Development Plan Phase) with the City, there exists adequate time and additional review processes to resolve and enhance transportation improvements with the Gateway area. A diagram of a conceptual alignment for an east/west collector was provided to the Development Team by the City on November 7, 2007. Specific attention was requested to be made toward the W 77th and Parklawn Ave. intersection. The Development Team submits the attached diagram as information for discussion of the alignment and its potential impacts to the Preliminary Development Site Plan. As noted on the diagram, a portion of one building could be impacted by the curving roadway alignment; however, project phasing estimates for construction timing at that location allow adequate time for any modifications necessary to accommodate the conceptual roadway. 123 North Third Street Suite 104 Minneapolis MN 55401-1657 VA vw.millerdunwiddie.com p 612-337-0000 f 612-337-0031 Miller Dunwiddie cture , AIA LEED A Mr. Jack Sullivan 11/8/2007 Edina Gateway Preliminary Development Plan — Traffic Impact Analysis Page 2 It should be noted that the east-west collector is not a required mitigation measure for the Gateway Study Area. However, mention of the need for continued discussion of this possible collector occurred in the City of Bloomington's comment and WSB's response. The Development Team is in agreement with this suggestion. Also, additional discussion regarding the cost related to taking of property at the 77th and Minnesota Drive intersection should be initiated when a specific alignment is identified. Please feel free to contact me or Paul May with any questions. Sincerely, C: via PDF MG Kaminski, Gateway Development LLC Jim Nelson, Eberhardt Advisory LLC Dan Coyle, Kimley-Horn and Associates Jonette Kuhnau, Kimley-Horn and Associates Beth Kunkel, Kimley-Horn and Associates Craig Lau, Miller Dunwiddie Architecture Paul May, Miller Dunwiddie Architecture Walter Rockenstein, Faegre & Benson Attachments: Kimley Horn Addendum Sheet S-5tc diagram ragu 1 01 Green, Daniel J. From: Green, Daniel J. Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:32 AM To: 'Jack Sullivan'; 'Cary Teague' Cc: jnelson@eberhardtadvisory.com; May, Paul G.; Lau, Craig R.; 'mgk@wayzataproperties.coml; JoNette.Kuhnau@kimley-horn.com; Dan.Coyle@kimley-horn.corn'; 'Beth.Kunkel@kimley- horn.com1; 'Rockenstein II, Walter H.' Subject: KAM0612 - Gateway Traffic Review - Developer Response Importance: High Attachments: KAM0612-Traffic Memo Response JSullivan-110807.pdf; 20071107-from-city- Edina_gateway_EW_connector.pdf; KAM0612_S-5tc_TRAFFIC_11072007- Quads E.pdf; Edina Gateway Kimley Horn - Memo-Response to Traffic Comments-110807.pdf Tracking: Recipient Read 'Jack Sullivan' 'Cary Teague' jnelson@eberhardtadvisory.com May, Paul G. Lau, Craig R. Read: 11/8/2007 11:32 AM Imgk@wayzataproperties.com' JoNette.Kuhnau@kimley-hom.com 'Dan.Coyle@kimley-horn.com' 'Beth.Kunkel@kimley-horn.com' 'Rockenstein II, Walter H.' Jack, Attached are 3 documents as the developer's response to the Traffic Analysis Review Memorandum dated Oct 31, 2007. Also attached is the diagram of a conceptual centerline you provided for everyone's information. Please contact me with any questions or if you need had copies of the color diagram. Regards, Dan Daniel J. Green, AIA, NCARB, LEED° AP Architect miller dunwiddie architecture 123 North Third treet Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN 55401 d: 612-278776W f: 612-337-0031 p: 612-337-0000 Visit our website at wwwmillerdunwiddie.com Dan, There is no cad file for the E/W concept, however I have attached a sketch of a realistic alignment for the concept. The critical corner for your office to look at would be Parklawn and 77th. A educated guess at a future design would be a 30 mph curve that meets or exceeds state aid standards (min. 300' radius) of the SB/WB 11/8/2007 Page 2 of 2 lanes. The right of way required would stay consistent with the width on 77th and Parklawn. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, jds <<Edina_gateway_EW_connector.pdf>> Jack D. Sullivan, PE Assistant City Engineer City of Edina Direct: 952.826.0445 fax: 952.826.0389 jsullivan@ci.edina.mn.us From: Jack Sullivan [mailto:jsullivan@ci.edina.mn.us] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 4:26 PM To: jnelson@eberhardtadvisory.com; Green, Daniel J. Subject: FW: Gateway Traffic review Jim and Dan, Attached is the traffic memo from our consultant Chuck Rickart at WSB. Please review the memo and contact me with comments or questions. We'll be sending out the Commission Packets for the November 15th meeting by Thursday November 9th. We'll want to coordinate this comments and responses prior to this Thursday. Regards, jds Jack D. Sullivan, PE Assistant City Engineer City of Edina Direct: 952.826.0445 fax: 952.826.0389 jsullivan@ci.edina.mn.us 11/8/2007 El= 1/11 Kimley-Hom ME 1 and Associates, Inc. Suite 345N 2550 University Avenue West St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 Memorandum To: Wayne Houle, PE, Public Works Director/City Engineer, City of Edina Jack Sullivan, PE, Assistant City Engineer, City of Edina Chuck Rickart, PE, PTOE, WSB & Associates, Inc. From: JoNette Kuhnau, PE, PTOE Date: November 8, 2007 RE: Addendum to Traffic Study for Edina Gateway, LLC, September 28, 2007 The purpose of this memorandum is to address City Consultant comments (the "Comments"), dated October 31, 2007, from City review of the Traffic Study for Edina Gateway, LLC (the "Study"), dated September 28, 2007. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) reviewed the comments with the City's traffic consultant on November 6, 2007. Many of the comments on the Study are appropriate for a Final Development Plan level of detail. Specifically, Comments 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 are in response to the City of Edina's requirements for a final Traffic Impact Analysis. The City's consultant from WSB & Associates concurred with this understanding. Given the master plan level of detail in the Preliminary Development Plan, the Study is not intended to meet those requirements. The Study was conducted to specifically look at the Pentagon Park Towers and Pentagon Quads sites to determine the compatibility with the recently adopted Gateway Study Area Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). The City process requires further site engineering and traffic analysis after the Preliminary Development Plan stage. An Overall Development Plan for the entire Pentagon Park area and a number of Final Site Plans for individual building projects will come before the City for review. The Final Site Plan process requires a detailed traffic impact analysis that would typically address Comments 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10. The remainder of this memorandum will address Comments 3, 4 and 7. The City Consultant comment is show in italics followed by the response in normal text: 3. The traffic generation for the proposed site was prepared using the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The following trip generation issues should be addressed: A. Are the trip generation estimates consistent with the AUAR trip generation estimates? TEL 651 645 4197 FAX 651 645 5116 November 8, 2007 Page 2 of 4 The trip generation estimates of the Pentagon Park redevelopment are consistent with those in the Gateway Study Area AUAR trip generation rates for Office, Retail, and Senior Independent Living land uses. B. Was the Burgundy Place Development included as part of the trip generation estimates? If not they need to be included. The trip generation for the redeveloped Burgundy Place site is part of the No-Build analysis of the Pentagon Park redevelopment. The Burgundy Place site will include 15,000 square feet of commercial development and 36 residential units. C. The proposed trip generation indicates that there are three buildings for the proposed office development. The site plan shows a fourth office building in the development. In the text, there is an indication of 820,000 square feet of office and on the site plan and in the trip generation table, it indicates 740,000 square feet of development. This should be clarified. The "fourth office building" shown on the site plan in the northeast corner of the Pentagon Towers site is considered part of the larger building to the southeast. Also, the 820,000 square feet referenced in the first paragraph of the introduction includes all office, retail, and hotel uses on the Pentagon Towers site. The 740,000 square feet referenced elsewhere includes only the office and retail uses, but not the 80,000 square feet of the hotel. D. There was an internal retail trip reduction taken as part of both the office development and the senior-living development portions of the project. What percentage was used for both of these reductions? Explain the rationale in using a reduction for the proposed projects. The internal trip reductions were based on the methodologies in Chapter 7 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. As defined by ITE, a multi-use development is one that: • Is planned as a single real-estate project (one developer) • Is between 100,000 and 2 million square feet • Contains two or more land uses • Would be expected to have some trips between on-site land uses • Has trips between on-site uses that do not travel on the external street system The Pentagon Park redevelopment fits these criteria and therefore the internal capture rates for office, residential and retail uses were applied to the trip generation results. Each internal trip type (e.g., office to retail or retail to office) has a different internal capture rate based on the ITE data. These rates range significantly based on the internal trip type (i.e., no internal trips between office and residential uses were assumed) and these rates are applied separately to the entering and exiting trips by each land use type. The highest numbers of internal trips were from residential to retail and from retail to residential. Overall, the average internal capture rate for the AM peak hour was 7.2 percent and the PM peak hour average internal capture rate was 7.9 percent. November 8, 2007 Page 3 of 4 E. The trip generation rates for the senior-living development should be split into the actual uses. A rate for the townhomes, independent living, and assisted living should be developed. The AUAR did not include land uses for Senior Townhomes and Senior Assisted Living, which generate trips at lower rates than traditional apartments and townhomes that are different than the rate for Senior Adult Housing — Attached. To account for these lower trip generation rates for the other senior housing uses (townhomes and assisted living), the appropriate trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual were used, as shown in Table I. Table 1. Proposed Pentagon Park Redevelopment Trip Generation. Land Use _ ITE Land Use Size Units Time of Day Trip Rate Trip Generation Total In Out % Trips % Trips Office A 710 207,000 at Daily 11.01 2279 50 1140 50 1140 AM Peak 1.55 321 88 282 12 39 PM Peak 1.49 308 17 52 83 256 Office D 710 222,000 sf Daily 11.01 2444 50 1222 50 1222 AM Peak 1.55 344 88 303 12 41 PM Peak 1.49 331 17 56 83 275 Office E 710 234,000 sf Daily 11.01 2576 50 1288 50 1288 AM Peak 1.55 . 363 88 319 12 44 PM Peak 1.49 349 17 59 83 290 Retail -Towers Site (assume 10%) 814 74,000 sf Daily 44.32 3280 50 1640 50 1640 AM Peak 6.84 506 48 243 52 263 PM Peak 5.02 371 56 208 44 163 In ernal Capture Trips Daily -739 -281 -458 AM Peak -74 -33 -41 PM Peak -63 -30 -33 Hotel 310 • 150 Rooms Daily 8.17 1226 50 613 50 613 AM Peak 0.52 78 55 43 45 35 PM Peak 0.61 92 58 53 42 39 Gateway Towers Proposed Trip Generation Daily 11,066 5,622 5,445 AM Peak 1,538 1,157 381 PM Peak 1,388 398 990 Gateway Towers Site Total (Prop. Trip Generation • Exist. Trip Generation) Daily 9,978. 5,077 4,000 AM eek P 1,385'. . ton 383 pm p ak 0 _ 1,240 373 887 Senior Independent Living 252 366 Units Daily 3.48 1,274 50 637 50 637 AM Peak 0.08 29 45 13 55 16 PM Peak 0.11 40 61 24 39 16 Senior Townhomes 251 62 Units Daily 3.71 230 50 115 50 115 AM Peak 0.2 73 38 28 62 45 PM Peak i 0.26 95 61 58 39 37 Senior Assisted Living 254 206 Units Daily 2.74 1,003 50 502 50 502 AM Peak 0.17 62 73 45 27 17 PM Peak 0.29 106 52 55 48 51 Retail - Senior Housing 814 29,000 at Daily 44.32 1,285 50 643 50 643 AM Peak 6.84 198 48 95 52 103 PM Peak 5.02 146 56 82 44 64 In ernal Capture Trips Daily -667 -372 -295 AM Peak -62 -35 -27 PM Peak -75 -39 -36 Senior Living Center Proposed Trip Generation Daily 1,892 908 985 AM Peak 165 73 92 PM Peak 111 67 44 i • Senior UWitt) Center Total • -. (Prop. Trip Generation . Exist. Trip Generation) Daily -70 . • 4 • AM Peak. -111 -170 • 59 PM Peak, - -155. 22 - -177 November 8, 2007 Page 4 of 4 4. In the Projected Traffic Volumes Section, Historic Traffic Growth, it is indicated that a 1 percent per year growth factor was used to develop the future traffic volumes. It is unclear ([this was a rate used on top of the projected traffic volumes from the AUAR or ([the 1 percent per year growth was the only background traffic that was used. Please clarify the historic traffic growth for the proposed project. The background traffic growth included in the Pentagon Park redevelopment analysis was the same as was included in the Gateway Study Area AUAR, as specified in the Trip Assignment section of item 21.0 in the AUAR document. The future year volumes for the No-Build scenario were identical for both the AUAR analysis and the Pentagon Park redevelopment analysis. 7. The City's transportation plan, as well as the AUAR, identified an east/west collector roadway that would realign the intersection of 77117 Street and Minnesota Drive. The future plans for this roadway should be accommodated as part of the planned redevelopment. This future intersection should be analyzed in its ultimate configuration. The AUAR does not provide specific details about an anticipated east/west collector roadway near the Gateway Study area, although it is referenced by comment to the AUAR by the City of Bloomington. In addition, there is no information provided regarding the need for realignment of the intersection at 77th Street and Minnesota Drive. The AUAR Mitigation Plan does not include road realignments or right of way needs as mitigation measure for the Gateway Study Area. The only improvement identified in the AUAR near this intersection is the addition of dual left turn lanes from southbound 77th (Johnson Avenue) to Minnesota Drive. Our analysis was conducted based on the alignments/assumptions used for the AUAR. The concept of an east/west collector being implemented at some point in the future was raised during general discussions with the developer. A specific alignment or right of way needed for such improvements have not been provided to the development team. On November 6, 2007 the City of Edina provided the development team with a conceptual centerline for a possible east/west connector for the purpose of opening discussion about right-of-way preservation in the northwest quadrant of the W 77th Street / Parklawn Avenue intersection. An analysis of the expected changes in trip distribution patterns in this area due to the possible east/west collector roadway (i.e., diversion of trips to/from W 77th Street and the east/west collector) are outside the scope of this Study. Such an analysis should be completed as part of the City's planning for this possible future roadway and would best be conducted using the 2000 Metropolitan Travel Demand Model. Ark 40' SETBACK USING MDD-6 REQ. AND PRELMINARY PLAN BUILDING HEIGHT w I I FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE aft Mir -53 4 c;').;11 1 85 160' 1010 Tormaimpr, 111 0C) 88 aim MO L 122' ® 12$ II W 7TTFI ST AREA 05 PROPOSED BUILDING IN PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED BY CONCEPTUAL COLLECTOR ALIGNMENT Mir P110/6(1, S-5TC Edna, MINArralm PUN. PrOMIOM DIMPG 1711. PROPOSED SITE FLAN QUADS SRE-EAST EDNA GIATBNAY NortlabkiSinvotSuk IO 14NANMAIIA11111560111-1460 ProvunAhnItanoliSe.opp p 8124:0-DXSf 02-317-0131 miller dunwiddie AANNIICANI EDINA GATEWAY Pentagon Park Redevelopment Re-Zoning and Preliminary Plan Kimlopilom orAiiir and Associates, Inc. EXISTING PHASE • EAST/WEST COLLECTOR CONCEPTUAL CURVE IMPACT TO PRELIMINARY PLAN PREPARED 11-07-2007 BASED ON CITY OF EDINA DIAGRAM OF 11-07-2007 KEYNOTES — SITE 0 BUILDING ENTRY/DROP-OFF 0 SERVICE/LOADING/TRASPI 0 PAWING ENTRY/EXIT o VEHICLE DRIVE 0 PLAZA PAvExert SOEWALK/PATIL 5' TrP. 0 PEDESIRPN CROSSING 0 PERvious vAvEmert 8 AGIL4o couRT RooF 0 PROPERTY eoutoury 0 REINNIAG/SCREEN ROLL ® cowman GARDEN 0 PEROOLA/SESING 88601 0 SICPANY/LPAC anERGEREPAnow. RECREADON AREA / , e / / • / ' .::::a::::::....:, ., •.,/ . 4 .....41,m ... r 1 Is „ : .:::.:. / / ..... .. „ „ / / • / 4,.. . ... , , PROPOSED LANE AND BOULEVARD DIMENSIONS FOR EAST/WEST COLLECTOR - CONTINUATION OF PARKLAWN AVENUE SECTION 1320 7219 - 7301 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 ' ..4(111-N-""^-1"":ii;" 7204 1 /4913 4909 --,- • 4805 4801 7200 k 4917 t_ 4905 j ii e , , , , 1 I i 72041 r7205 7209 4908 4904 4812 4808 4800 L _ 7201_1_4 7208 1 I 7213 475_,e4 7225 7252 7248 \j7312 7300 ,7312 7329 7320 C 4733 24 \ 4129 Lake Edina 7404 7408 4280 7403 24 , 4928 4924 4020 49321 i 4916 ,4936(4(3PPY 4912 7440 11 \ 4944 e- 49°5 t 49403, \, 70 13 14::9 \ A 4949 ---"1 4948x \ 1504 400.149°4 4900 7448 re k 7444 :i A \ 4952,\,1 1 -i ,...-c- 7453 2 i N751/1 , , cc-7461 7457 1509 /505 1 1467 \I 1469, k OM H Jill 1 1 I 1 / 4909 4905 4813 4805 4801 4901 4157 4153 4749 4745 4741 1/4-14137 1117 7221 ,7232;17230028 72126 el I 1 WORTH < 7 / 4448 (-4.. 4433,4420 4425 4417 4409 4405 ,7317I I -r-r-4-r- 4429 4421 1 44409'44 4401)51 !7324 1 1 4520 5700 4702 4704 7328 IIIIII 1144164408 1 1 1 1_,.,1_447--i 2 47316 73'13 H7316 4721.0u,.....47:08,1 7320 ; 4604 4600, 4508 4500 4428 4424 4412 4404 4400 4721 4711 „:7-444,14 4440 T- 13 ,7305 4453 i 4301 --1----1 ' 4428 4T24-r446 4404404 4432 I ( 4436-14421 4413 1 ;441 J131. 44491 443--4----7 i "1 ' 4445 443441 2,0 ,.. , FON,D4ELL, DR I I-1_4441 / 1 4425 441 4724 !7332 7432 7 7436 • MI _At \ 4517 4509 1421 g417 4521 7...1743;7 1729 7425 7441 )7433 7445 7449 7217 I ' 44244. 4404 7212 1212 7213 i1228,7224 7221 / I 7212 m6,1208 n 7212 7220 7276 aoyRqssi 4609 4605 4529 4521 ,1175,509 :150i 4425 44211 440 4405 4116 4601 4525 II 1513 Id 141174413 1 -7405 - 1451/3 -1'4409/ 4405 I 4505,4445 4441 4437 4424 .1416 . 4436 44124'4 44 414201 77220084 7.213 7\25"122) 7236 7 304 74013,304 I 7305 1240,73°8 j 7308 8,7 424 7416 7420 I 4416 44121 14400 17216 1 17224 7220 7217 4405 7209 4501 44 4 4C7/4433 4429 7200 7204 ts. 7208 4453.--- i i 4449,, 7212 r•---1,s1 4445"--- 4452 4441 44371-'- /7084104 4604 4600 4516 4512 4504 4500 I I 1 I 1008 I I 7401% 4521,1 4509 4505 74081 7405 4515 7472 7409 4508 4504 74 6 L 4520456 J I 1413 4 4712 7333 7324 7330 7326 7334 1338 7323 7331 • r- 701 7400 7401 -7409- -7411 7417 1421 .7501 -7505 24 7600 1600 4530 12oi 72,00-1 I I I 7200 4/2051-7 204 7206 7200 _7201-- 7;04. q72091- - 1 2, 7204-47705 1 7206 7208 72131—'7113 72,08-- 72171 7212-7212 - 7216 - 7220 - 1224 - 73'00 - 7304 - 7308 - 7321,7312) 1312- 7325,73181 73'16- 7320 - 7317,7308, 722772161 730 872201 770572241 7 30973001 7313,73040 ( Co PEC__ i,(e A c-e 30 — C o cu -P) calc__(.207 C u 3c)c) http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS_ArcIMS/ims?ServiceName=ed_LOGISMap_OV&ClientVersion=4.0&Fonn=... 11/6/2007 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 4 c4- _ 4. e e" - cit *L --- 0 (i t C) \ "67 c „5-ks41 http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS_ArcIMS/ims?ServiceName=ed_LOGISMap_OV&ClientVersion=4.0&Fon-n=... 11/7/2007 - •••‘•;., 4-1; • .. • ••; • 9 V*. • ,••••-••••• I I • — ; 0 , • I i CT 1•••• '410 4 40 44 I . i e4S. , ° yl I ":; n •n • I i- , 4 .4, • . , • , t Wo' r/. r_•44, '1 0 r • lirilL.1; LI a • • ; r', : — L.,-, ,,.‘,!,41,- 1 .' i.., r.1; ii :44,,,,.....:;ti,,•. • --,..ir '!•.-.4 ,.,i ,,,:!!„:itrii.;;,,,, , 4, --ti .,l,.'o ..7.11. „lit r i J 1 xio,...... -... .:.,,,,:. ,...,i 4/ - ,Tydr• rir; :7-.A.• I qi 1 r • -; 7 ' • " ro. • . . , r • 1.-1 •441(.4.,4) --"T • 4 1. ! !Tv — • - • • I* 1,4,1 • , ”\. ?1"I s' '• •-• '••1.P:AF 4' ' 4,• _e, N-,c! 34 4 (1, . • • - • -; ;•-• - •••• •; • • 1 ittfl, ,_•4 , ' r- • ' ''''rltt7,t '4 • .„ , i • •''''t . .# , r 1 .) 0.- '51.-: . •r `11,..a,,..1 -.1.'t•-•-•-.1111K7 - IV- • 0 ,,;",'r.,,,-7-4,•1 z„,,.. ; loi ' •: • 160, -,, ' ... '1'-' r•o0v,‘?..t .•t• • , ow *m.o. 11. 4.1 , , • • 41 •10 11 i , • I • • '' • I !•• 0.11 1 • 11„;''• , • 141 M -- , 40-211-txperenir4,. Lk-91 21 .1.1 4., ;;,..• .);-=',i1,--,•-•1 • . '• • • •-••n (fir)) • ; • • ti • • Tr:• I • , mit!...-t, • --" ir4 74:11 - , • 7'.1 ; ; 4, • • O•i'- •11444‘. 1••••n •••• 11-1- rs ; 71 - 1 JC., j . , - ••,,141't••' ; • , . 4 I-4? %.F1 Alf - . l'i,' ; • 41•Por .: ': -•• . . ,: !,1 -4 1 rL 714. ; . _, ' A ,- . , , ' '.,- 1 - ',' n 1 .,' ,_ 0 . ! ." -1 - 1 -4 4 '0 f 1, , a • 4 4's '41 t 4(" iv N ;o e '• y ' , '. " ! . 0 .t "- •0 . , 4 ipe - 1:Iw .i 7 - f • - .'.. 7 ' • - . 1 t -,r,vi • ,- 44.r4 --"---''' --,- ii.P 1- ' " ' 4 ^ : _ '1 ' '. I . 1 -:"-'21.....„....___,—:.. , , . . i; 1 nr.' J. n P rtr, 't "' ./ • Astsnew 71"." Vr• — •••• " I . I Afir- f I 1. --• ••• I • ••• •alr: Sa.r, IrW 42.3•:-.r.r1774 f,'.7r1,r..17!"."!".n • • to i• t: ti .,'••n e' r•11;, , .1 . • 14 ' 0,1-1'114, - :- , ' tri,;..,V,. . i --- ..1 !I', ", :C. r. , .11 :, 1 '1 4.1..._.;XL.' ' 4 4- 44 1!: r - , ,i. . a, . • r 4' [. ! . • , -.1 or-. ;3.......:., 1., -__-_,..., .. . -, 'TRANCE AVE - .• • • 11 t • - • . O V 4,- • lot C. hati:a •ra•Pi n ! t • Tr' I , • • - ..t.tatArtztis,47* • 0 1 TA ••• V.V.P414s ‘; • • ,11r, ". • 711 II -.0.• -• ''-;;Y; , , E1;1,01.--• " 10_„44-4rA 4 le • n 14 -r1f4 it WstV,4,.„ • .„,. , • FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 0 0 0 00 0 - 0 0 _et 0 0 Oullralowe 00 0 ta7-: !33TED-0.11.•• tot. =co r . ELI :Aft 000 000 AL-0 020 0 0 0 VIKING DRIVE IT 111n • .n 111M miller dunwiddie kran 1.`1:1tERE EllaSECT: \ Kimisy-liocrt and Assoctates, Inc.. Lp..,1yez; rim KAIL0512 T ARCHITECTURE 23 Sepbleriber 2007 PROPOSED SI E PLAN EDINA GATEWAY.- FULL Si I E ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN 123 North Third Sired Seats ICK Farinespatis M11 53401-1657 www.offlerektraviclrffexern 612-337-0000 f 612-337-0231 L-1 ilx17 info COIX- NO PATF. DRAWN: CCEM3,. EDEMA GATEWAY • Pentagon Park Redevelopment Re-Zonlng and Preliminary Plan Wayzata Properties, LLC. Eftna, Minrtesota ©2027 0 125 250 SCALE IIN FT. TOWER SETE -ADDITIONAL DATA 740,000 GSF OFFICE + 80,000 GSF HOTEL GFA/300 = 2733 STALLS REQUIRED 2733 STALLS ACTUAL 7-11 - D - SW BUILDING , 250 K GSF OFFICE (4-12 STORIES) 100 STALLS t10' %Cali:KM 11 +41P-1 * _ - ASSISTED LIVING 151 UNITS 105 STALLS @ GRADE WIMEgr.-4F-7—,„:".1• • • ow' 1,1 - 41 DO ;id - A - NW BUILDING 230 K GSF OFFICE (4-10 STORIES) 100 STALLS C - WEST PARKING I 7 LEVELS 11350 STALLS t-t B - HOTEL 80,000 GSF 150 ROOMS G - TOWNHOMES 62 UNITS 124 ENCLOSED STALLS 011111111119 „ teSa. ' I H - INDEPENDENT ; LIVING n 492 UNITS 369 EN CL. STALLS 1 . r !- 1.1 if 77,41t, EXISTING .BULLD,E ,NIG PROPOSED BUILDING E - E BUILDING 260 K GSF OFFICE (4-10 STORIES) 100 STALLS '4C*. F- EAST PARKING 5 LEVELS 1050 STALLS 4 • 0 41).0.1-417711, • 4ro, • 41(iltale . B 7 "t4S• , cs. ...) • r Ili17:1AiT2Cf.; C."3113 L. InEkSiNC MILE: miller dunwiddie 12:3 North Third Stag Suite TCLii Frump& MN WIN4657 vemetruliertimmicfrffezam 612.-337-011E f 61Z-327 Wayzata Properties, LLC. EDINA GATEWAY • Pentagon Park Redevelopment Re-Zoning arid Preliminary Plan Edina, krtninesota 2 1110.1:a7r. DATE Ill'att*Nt CRECKEDr. :Cri7 rtt7i,tt.:10f.. PROPOSED SITE PTAH EDNA GA_ iWAY - FULL SETE I 1 \ KimietKom N and Associates, Inc‘ QUADS SITE - ADDITIONAL DATA ON-STREET PARKING 104 STALLS PARKING AND UNIT CALCULATION FOUND IN NARRATIVE DOCUMENT MINUTES OF THE Edina Transportation Commission Thursday, October 18, 2007 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Les Wanninger, Steve Brown, Marie Thorpe, Jean White, Marc Usem, Geof Workinger, Paul Mooty MEMBERS ABSENT: Hilah Almog, Warren Plante STAFF PRESENT: Wayne Houle, Jack Sullivan, Sharon Allison I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Wanninger. II. Comments a. Chairman Comments None. b. Public Comments None. III. Old Business a. City of Edina Comprehensive Plan – Transportation Chapter Assistant City Engineer Sullivan said a series of public meetings are planned by the Comp Plan Task Force to review and receive feedback on the Comprehensive Plan. He said each meeting will cover an individual chapter and the Transportation Chapter is scheduled for November 8 and 13, 6:30 p.m., at Cornelia Elementary School. Commissioners and the public can continue to review and submit comment on the draft plan through December 2007. IV. New Business a. Bike Edina Task Force – Bike Comprehensive Plan This item was stricken from the agenda because the task force has not presented their plan to Council as of this date. It should be back on the Council’s agenda November 5. b. Southeast Edina Traffic Model Presentation Traffic Consultant Chuck Rickart of WSB said the purpose of the model is to provide consistency and continuity in traffic studies that come out of the southeast area. The boundaries are Highway 62 to the north, Highway 494 to the east and Highway 100 to the west. The model will be used to analyze traffic data when redevelopment proposals are presented to the City. The Edina Gateway – Pentagon Redevelopment is currently using the model. c. Edina Gateway – Pentagon Redevelopment Assistant City Engineer Sullivan said the presentation tonight is for informational purposes only, no action is required; he said it will be back on the agenda as an actionable item on 2 November 15. The plan was presented by Paul May of Miller-Dunwidde, architect for the project and JoNette Kuhnau of Kimley-Horn and Associates, traffic consultant. Mr. May gave a quick overview of the very large multi-phase and multi-year project. He said the area includes three levels of study including the AUAR which is an environmental study. The redevelopment will include Pentagon Park (businesses), townhomes and senior living. The first phase in the 10-year plan would be the Pentagon Park where a hotel is to be built. Mr. May said they are using the traffic model submitted by WSB, however, the mitigations measures being used does not include everything. He said specific details will follow as each individual building/phase is implemented. The ETC expressed concerns that traffic will increase drastically in the area at a time when they would like to make it easier to travel east and west between Edina and Richfield. d. Northeast Edina Traffic Study Implementation City Engineer Houle said in 2005 a utility and roadway reconstruction plan was brought to the Council for approval, but the Council decided to wait for the Northeast Edina Traffic Study to be completed. He said SEH has been working on the implementation and reconstruction plans and the project is almost ready for approval. They will give a brief overview of the project and in November it will be presented again with a recommendation for approval. An open house for residents in the NE area and Country Club is scheduled for November 14, in City Hall. Michael Kotila, Traffic Engineer for SEH, presented an overview of the treatments that are proposed for the NE and Country Club areas based on the traffic study that was completed in 2005. He said the project will be done over two phases with Bridge Street being the dividing street. Paul Pasko, SEH, project manager for this project, explains the project schedule as follows: 2008 All streets north of Bridge Street to be completed 2009 All streets south of Bridge Street to be completed 2008 November 13 –Meeting with Heritage Preservation Board November 14 – Open House November 15 – Presentation to the ETC for approval December 4 – Public Hearing 2009 January 24 – Open House March 6 – Open bids e. W. 70th Street/Cornelia Area Traffic Study – set dates for Open House and Public Hearing The tentative dates are January 24, 2008, Open House; and January 30, 2008, Public Hearing. V. Approval of Minutes a. Regular Meeting of September 20, 2007 The following correction was made: Paul Mooty was added to the ‘Members Present’ section. All voted aye to approve minutes. VI. Planning Commission Update (Commissioner Brown) Commissioner Brown said the primary focus has been the Comprehensive Plan. 3 VII. Open Discussion None. VIII. Staff Liaison Comments (Sullivan) a. Election of ETC Chair and Vice Chair To be discussed in January. b. Final AUAR – Gateway Study Area A few comments were received on the second round. It is anticipated that the Council will adopt the study on November 5. c. “Pace Car” signage As part of the educational component, a sticker for cars telling drivers to slow down was suggested. Sullivan said there is funding to order 500 each. Chair Wanninger suggested having them available for the open house, putting it on the City’s website and the ETC’s webpage and Engineering Houle said if approved, the stickers would also go on the City’s fleet of vehicles. d. York Avenue and Hazelton Pedestrian Indicators Joint effort is underway with Hennepin County to do pedestrian count-down head crossing indicators. The City will purchase the equipment and Hennepin County will maintain them. e. Project updates W.70th roundabouts is nearing completion and the education component will include a brochure to businesses for distribution to customers and there is a video on our website that was done by Mn/DOT. Channel 5 is also doing a series on roundabouts and there was an article in About Business. IX. Miscellaneous Articles for Information Various articles distributed to Commissioners. X. Correspondence from Residents A letter was received from a resident regarding the flashing pedestrian light at Halifax. It is not being addressed as part of the mill and overlay. A suggestion was made to do some striping in the area and the light will be looked at then. Speeding was also noted as a concern but the speed limit is set by the State. Meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m. ,-synarmossionov ROUNDABOUT TUTORIAL Roundabouts: The Basics EN toundabouts: Large Vehicle CI* Kstp.com Page 1 of 1 KSTP.com - 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Posted at: 11/08/2007 06:09:21 PM Updated at: 11/08/2007 10:01:59 PM Nicole Muehlhausen, Web Producer ..dina debuts roundabouts Drivers in Edina might be a little confused about which way to turn between York Avenue and France Avenue on 70th Street. Efforts to improve traffic flow led to the opening of three roundabouts Thursday. City workers stood at the roundabouts and handed out brochures to help drivers learn to maneuver them. "I was so glad that we had helpers there in vests to show me which way to go and tell me that it was okay to go because it was very confusing at first," said motorist Karen Aklestad. City officials said the roundabouts were designed to improve traffic flow, increase safety by reducing speed and accidents, and decrease pollution from cars by eliminating idling at stop signs. Roundabouts: The Shield "It's all a yield condition. Right Roundabouts: Pedestrians IN turns only, so when you're Roundabouts: Three Lane approaching the roundabout, you Entry ela have to yield for somebody that's Roundabouts: Hold Back Do already in the roundabout...that's going to be practicing a little bit more patience for the motorist," said city engineer Wayne Houle. The roundabouts debuted with no traffic incidents Thursday. City officials will continue to monitor movement on them. http://kstp.com/article/Pstories/S251210.shtml 11/9/2007 October 12, 2007 7204 Monardo Lane Edina, MN 55435 City Council and Planning Commission (all members), As a resident who lives south of 70th Street, I would like you to vote yes on a proposal to turn 70th into Arneson Parkway. We who live south of 70th don't have any exits from our property to the west or south. Our only choice is to leave by way of 70th or 1 uncontrolled exit onto France. With all the traffic and speeding on 70th I have a tough time crossing 70th so I can take 66th Street to the east. A stoplight at West Shore is needed and a crosswalk at Christ Presbyterin Church would be helpful for people taking the bus to work. The only stoplight now is by the school and we shouldn't be directing traffic there. Sincerely, 0-1,441, /a.44--r-L L. Morgan Larson I / Deb Mangen From: Jennifer Bennerotte Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:44 PM J: Ann Swenson; Jim Hovland; Joni Bennett; Linda Masica; scot.housh@willis.com Cc: Deb Mangen Subject: FW: Children Safety on 70th From: Tom DeBoom [mailto:Tom.DeBoom@genmills.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:29 PM To: Jennifer Bennerotte Subject: Children Safety on 70th To: City Council and Mayor, Each day 4 of my children attend Cornelia Elementary School. They all cross 70th Street in the AM and PM at the Stop Light at Cornelia Drive. I feel it is horrible to have a stop light at this intersection. Cars and trucks speed through the intersection at 30+ mph when kids are flooding into and out of the school. You have to make those cars slow down and stop. Please put a 4-way stop in at this intersection. Make all vehicles stop in the school zone. Stop lights are the worst option and it must be fixed. You have your high rise on 70th at the Galleria, now what are you doing to prevent your high priced friends from running more high speed SUVs past our school? Who is going to protect our kids? I need to know. T^m DeBoom 3 Point Drive Eaina, MN 55435 952-922-2230 10/30/2007 November 10, 2007 Lyle 8z Marlys Larson 4432 Fondell Drive — Edina, MN 55435 NECEIVED molt 73 av cilY OF EDINA ENGINEERING DUI City of Edina — City Hall % Save 70th Street Project 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear City Officials: As a resident of Edina, we are very concerned about the outcome of the 70th street project. Recently while visiting our daughter's home in Mt. Dora, FL, we discovered that they had the same traffic problem that we are experiencing. Donnelly Street in Mt. Dora goes from the mail highway 441 to the downtown area, similar to our 70th street going from Highway loci to the new Target store and surrounding businesses. They studied the problem and came up with a solution that has worked very well for slowing down traffic through this residential and commercial area. The city of Mt. Dora and its residence are extremely pleased with the outcome plus it has beautified the area also. I took several pictures of the street I am describing and have attached them to this letter. Please give this configuration some consideration for 70th street in Edina between Highway loc• and France Avenue. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please feel free to contact us at using the information at the foot of this letter. Sincerely, Lyle & Marlys Larson J \ f r' ...,•-•/ r-y-‘ jc. -1--Vn iN -e..0,`-) k^L3 cd. ) 1( Phone: 952-925-4597 — E-mail: Lyle (interactsuccess.com Lyle & Marlys Larson 4432 Fondell Drive — Edina, MN 55435 Phone: 952-925-4597 — E-mail: Lyle(&interactsuccess.com Lyle & Marlys Larson 4432 Pondell Drive — Edina, MN 55435 They also have turn lanes where it is appropriate, but I did not take pictures of those turn lanes. Phone: 952-925-4597 — E-mail: Lyle ainteractsuccess.com Published by the City of Edina West 70th Street Turns Heads And Cars AbOUtBusiness, Voreit aar:4- (continued from previous page) which had a supermarket at 5013 Vernon, also on the south side of the street. He wanted the Olsons to lease space in their supermarket building that was occupied by a Super X drug store, which Kroger had decided to close. In November of 1964, the Olsons relinquished the former Super X space to the City of Edina to make way for Edina's third municipal liquor store. Olson Bros. Drug moved again, this time to space in a new supermarket building being built for Jerry's Foods, a few blocks to the west at 5115-5125 Vernon Avenue, where Olson Bros. Drug and Jerry's supermarket are still located today. As active supporters of their community, Doug and Roy were loyal sponsors of Edina youth hockey and baseball teams for many years. Olson Bros. also endowed a U of M School of Pharmacy scholarship for undergraduates planning to work in community or rural pharmacies. Gathered for a recent "reunion" of three generations of pharmacist/owners of Olson Bros. Drug: (from left) Doug Olson, Randy Pomerening, Chris Beckmann, Josh Lemm and Roy Olson. Olson Bros. Opt For Retirement In 1994, almost 40 years after they founded Olson Bros. Drug, Doug and Roy decided to retire. They sold the business to Randy Pomerening and his partner, Jim Holm, both pharmacists from Hopkins. After owning and operating Olson Bros. Drug for 10 years, Pomerening and Holm sold the business in 2004 to pharmacists Josh Lemm and Chris Beckmann, its present owners. West 70th Street Turns Heads And Cars By Laura Fulton Over the summer, part of West 70th Street underwent a massive facelift. As the wraps come off, some local business owners and many Edina residents might ask, "Just what are those roundabouts in the road and how do we drive around them?" Roundabouts have been in place in Europe and Australia since the 1950s in place of four-way intersections. Only in the past 20 years have roundabouts made their way to road construction drawings in the United States. Today, roundabouts are being built in Edina and elsewhere in Minnesota. Three roundabouts have been installed on West 70th Street between France and York avenues. "Roundabouts increase safety at pedestrian crossings, as well as limit the number of automobile accidents that might occur at alternative four-way intersections," said City Engineer/Director of Public Works Wayne Houle. "In addition to improving safety, by using roundabouts we are able to add different geometric shapes to the area and beautify the circles with numerous types of vegetation and lighting systeme According to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, roundabouts enhance mobility in interregional transportation corridors linking regional trade centers, enhance mobility within major regional trade centers and ensure the safety and security of the transportation systems and their users. West 70th Street, as a state-aid route, is the first roundabout project in Edina. "With the redevelopment of Target and the construction of the Westin Galleria, West 70th created the perfect opportunity to incorporate roundabouts into road reconstruction," said Houle. "Currently, the Council is working on a project at Highway 169 and Valley View that would incorporate four more roundabouts into the roadways of our City." AUTUMN 2 0 0 7 NOITH AmEesc. BANK". COMPANY 4999 France Avenue South Suite 120 Mpls, MN 55410 Phone: 612.455.1100 Fax: 612.455.1140 memberFDIC AtibutBusiness, Vol 6 N& 4 Roundabouts may be intimidating to a driver who has never driven through one, but once a basic understanding is reached, driving through a roundabout becomes easy. Three roundabouts on West 70th Street near the Galleria are the first in Edina. More could be considered with future road projects in the community. Following are some rules to follow when approaching and driving through roundabouts. • Slow down to 10-15 mph when approaching roundabouts. • Watch for merging bicyclists and yield to pedestrians. • Move up to the yield line and yield to traffic already in the roundabout. • Wait for a safe gap in traffic and then enter the roundabout. • Travel in a counterclockwise direction. • When exiting, watch for pedestrians and bicyclists to the outside who may continue to circulate around the roundabout. The circular intersection design promotes efficient traffic flow, as cars that would have had to stop and line up for a red traffic light are allowed to access the roadway after yielding to traffic in the circle. This efficient traffic flow also reduces car emissions and fuel consumption by reducing stop-and-go traffic. "Traffic is going to move more freely [around the Galleria]," said Jill Noack, Vice President and General Manager of Gabbert & Beck/Galleria. "And the beautification in the center of the roundabouts is going to offer pedestrians, bikers and shoppers a more boulevard-type feel. We are very excited that [roundabouts] are coming to Edina." Edina is not the only metro city to add roundabouts to its road infrastructure. Just next door, Richfield has built one roundabout, with another on the City Council's radar. 'The installation of the roundabout at Richfield Parkway and 66th Street has improved the safety and appearance of the area, as well as acted as a traffic calming function," said Richfield Transportation Engineer Tom Foley. "We will see how it stands up to the traffic that will increase with the building of our new shopping center, but we haven't heard any complaints yet." The West 70th roundabout project is expected to be complete by Oct. 31. For more information, contact Houle, 952-826-0371 or visit www.CityofEdina.com/Engineering. AUTUMN 2 0 0 7 (continued from previous page) Paulsen is proud that throughout the 40-year expansion, Jerry's Enterprises has remained a family business, with his daughter and son-in-law holding prominent positions in the company. Paulsen and his wife, Shirley, celebrated the award with four generations of their family. Jerry's Enterprises is located at 5125 Vernon Ave., in the same complex that houses Jerry's Foods. Cub Foods is located at 6775 York Ave. S. —Compiled by Doug Leskee and Ryan Olsen Usem Named Edina-Morningside 'Rotarian Of The Year' By Doug Leskee Rotary is about giving back to the community. This year, the Edina-Morningside Rotary Club gave back to one of its own members for all the time and effort he has given to the service club. Marc Usem was presented with the 2007 "Rotarian of the Year Award." Usem has been a Rotarian for five years. After joining the club, which meets at 7:30 a.m. every Tuesday at the Edina Country Club, Usem quickly stepped into its leadership. Since July 1, he has been the club's president. "I am still shocked," said Usem of receiving the award. "It is an honor to be recognized by Rotary. I certainly didn't expect the recognition and am proud to be part of such a great organization." Usem was presented with the Rotarian of the Year award at a Club meeting in June. He received the award for his diligence and dedication to all aspects of the Edina-Morningside Rotary Club. He has also been instrumental in Camp Enterprise, an extensive three-day camp sponsored by the Edina-Morningside Rotary Club and Rotary Club of Edina which offers students the opportunity to participate in leadership activities focusing on the Free Enterprise System. Through the program, the two Edina Rotary clubs invite high school seniors to Camp Courage to attend seminars given by local business leaders. Usem served as Camp Enterprise Director in 2005 and has worked with Camp "E" in many different positions. Mark Usem is the Edina-Morningside Rotary Club's 2007 Rotarian of the Year. Previous winners of the club's Rotarian of the Year include Paul Nelson, Kevin Ries, Annie Kennedy, Eric Anderson, Charlie Vezina, Patrick Kennedy and Mary Brindle. Usem is a partner with Usem Bergstrand Capital Management. Usem and his partner manage a hedge fund that is called "Quant One The company is completely electronic and is unique because it scientifically calculates which companies to include in its portfolio. Usem's partner in the company lives in Colorado, but between the two of them, the company is a great success. A graduate of Edina High School, Usem has been involved in the community for a number of years and he and his wife enjoy raising their two children in Edina. When he has free time, Usem enjoys fly-fishing for trout in western Wisconsin and plays bandy field hockey. He is also a member of Edina's Transportation Commission. Rotary is a worldwide organization of business and professional leaders that provides humanitarian service, encourages high ethical standards in all vocations, and helps build goodwifl and peace in the world. Approximately 1.2 million Rotarians AUTUMN 2 0 0 7 MEMORANDUM CITY OF EDINA DATE: November 9, 2007 TO: ETC Members ----- FROM: Jack Sullivan - , SUBJECT: November 15 , 007 ETC Meeting ETC Members, Enclosed you will find the Commission Packet for the November 15, 2007 regular Edina Transportation Commission meeting. There are a few large topics to discuss this month that do not have resolution at this time: The first one is the Edina Gateway — Pentagon redevelopment. As you can see from the staff recommendation we believe the current submittal is incomplete. Staff will continue to work very diligently with the developer to reach an acceptable application prior to the Nov. 15th meeting. I anticipate that we'll have some updated recommendations for you at that time. The second item is the Bike Comprehensive Plan. This was accepted by the Council on November 5, 2007. They have directed City Staff and the ETC to review the document. We require additional staff time for a complete review and recommendation and anticipate we'll have our report by November 15th. You were mailed the Bike Edina Task Force's Bike Comprehensive plan for the October 18, 2007 ETC meeting, therefore I an not going to resend this large colorful document to you. Please review back the previous ETC packet. If information becomes available for either of these projects prior to the ETC meeting I will email that to you for your review and incorporation in to the Commission Packet. Otherwise, well discuss the night of the meeting and may require that we hold over one or both of the projects. Contact me with any questions you have regarding the process or the information presented. Jack D. Sullivan, PE Assistant City Engineer City of Edina Direct: 952.826.0445 Fax: 952.826.0389 jsullivan@ci.edina.mn.us Edina Gateway Redevelopment 2007 2008 Task F M A MJ J A SONDJ F MAMJ J 1: AUAR (environmental impact, capacity study) Planning Commission City Council-Nov 5 * 2: Preliminary Development Plan (All Phases - basic organization size massing, preliminary zoning, preliminary comp plan change, preliminary traffic) Transp. Commission (info - Oct 18) * Planning Commission (info - Oct 31) * Transp. Commission (action - Nov 15) * Planning Commission (action - Nov 28) * City Council (info - Dec 18) * City Council (action - Jan 16) * 3: Overall Development Plan (All Phases - final zoning, phasing plan, final traffic, final comp plan) Transp. Commission (action - Feb 21) * Planning Commission (action - Feb 26) * City Council (action - Mar 4) * 4: Final Development Plan (individual building projects) Hotel (transp - Feb 21) * Hotel (planning commission - Feb 26) * Hotel (city council - Mar 4) *