Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-07-15 Meeting Packet AGENDA Regular Meeting of the Edina Transportation Commission 6:00 PM, Thursday, July 15, 2010 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Community Room I. Call to Order II. Approval of Minutes a. Regular Meeting of May 20, 2010 * b. Work Session Meeting of June 17, 2010 * c. Work Session Meeting of July 1, 2010 * III. Old Business a. Finish discussion of Scope and identify next steps IV. Adjournment * Attachment included + Item requiring action by the ETC # Item for information only 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. MINUTES OF THE Edina Transportation Commission Thursday, May 20, 2010 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Usha Abramovitz, Tom Bonneville, Jennifer Janovy, Paul Nelson, Michael Schroeder, Josh Sprague, Jean White, Geof Workinger, Nathan Franzen MEMBERS ABSENT: Julie Sierks STAFF PRESENT: Jack Sullivan, Sharon Allison I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by chair Janovy. II. Approval of Minutes a. Regular Meeting of April 15, 2010 The following corrections were made: page 2, item V.a., remove parenthesis from …”(even though the County is not in favor of bike lanes);” page 3, item X, ‘and’ was added to “..local and collector…” III. Old Business a. 66th Street Speed Study Assistant city engineer Sullivan said a petition to lower the speed limit was received in 2007. He said the Traffic Safety Committee reviewed the request and forwarded it to the Council to approve a speed study. February 2010 it was forwarded to the ETC by Council for review and after discussion, the ETC passed a motion to table further discussion to allow staff to research adding bike lanes, changing road to park designation, and getting clarification on state statute to determine when it is necessary for Mn/DOT to perform a speed study. Mr. Sullivan said staff’s findings were as follow: • Adding bike lanes is not an acceptable solution because the road width is 28 ft. and Mn/DOT’s Bikeway Manual recommends 6 ft. bike lanes and minimum travel lane width of 11 ft. Based on roadway width and Mn/DOT’s requirement only 3 ft. remains for the bike lane. • Changing road to park designation in not an acceptable solution. While state statute allows 20 mph on park roads, the roads must be fully located within the park and this is not the case with Rosland Park being adjacent to W. 66th Street. • The area is considered Urban District and if Mn/DOT had done a prior speed study, it would be necessary to do one again; however, because Mn/DOT does not have a speed study on file, and the lawful speed limit for an Urban District roadway is 30 mph, 2 the speed limit can be reduced from 35 mph to 30 mph without a speed study. Therefore, this is an acceptable solution. Mr. Sullivan said staff is recommending lowering the speed limit to 30 mph and if the ETC agrees with the recommendation, Council will need to adopt a resolution to do so. He said if the recommendation is acceptable, the resolution could be sent to Council by their June 1 meeting and if passed, re-signing of the new speed limit could be done before the pool at Rosland Park opens. He said in an effort to educate drivers of the new speed limit, the variable speed sign monitor “Your Speed Is…” would be set up. The Commission asked questions of Mr. Sullivan about the road’s right-of-way width to preserve right to have bike lanes, Blake Road’s 5 ft. bike lane, 85th percentile speed of 38 mph, restriping to allow buffer between cars and cyclists, recounting after speed limit is reduced, consider merging traffic on the other side of Valley View for pedestrian safety at crosswalk, having two 11 ft. lanes and a left lane on the south side and tabling for BETF to review, and using signage in addition to reducing speed since the 30 mph may not slow vehicles. The Commission then reviewed and revised the resolution as follow: RESOLUTION NO. 2010-44 REDUCING THE SPEED LIMIT ON WEST 66TH STREET BETWEEN TH-100 AND VALLEY VIEW ROAD WHEREAS, on February 16, 2010, the City Council requested the Edina Transportation Commission review residents’ request to reduce the speed limit from 35 mph to 30 mph on West 66th Street between TH-100 and Valley View Road; and WHEREAS, after much research, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has not established a speed limit pursuant to an engineering and traffic investigation for this portion of roadway; and WHEREAS, West 66th Street between TH-100 and Valley View Road meets the definition of an urban district as defined in State Statue 169.011 subd. 90; and WHEREAS, State Statute 169.14 subd. 2 establishes the speed limit at 30 mph for an urban district; WHEREAS, the Edina Transportation Commission concurs with these findings per the May 20, 2010 Edina Transportation Commission Meeting; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Edina, authorizes the resigning of the speed limit signs on West 66th Street between TH-100 and Valley View Road from 35 mph to 30 mph. Dated: June 1, 2010 Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of June 1, 2010, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this ______ day of __________, 20___. _______________________________ City Clerk Commissioner Nelson motioned to accept staff’s recommendation to “Recommend to the City Council adoption of the revised resolution lowering the speed limit on West 66th Street from 35 mph to 30 mph from TH 100 to Valley View Road.” The motion was seconded by Commissioner White. All voted aye. Absent: Sierks Motion passed. IV. New Business a. Edina’s GreenStep Cities Dianne Plunkett-Latham, chair of the Energy & Environment Commission, explained what GreenStep Cities was and how it relates to transportation. She explained that the program grew out of a 2009 report to the Legislature on what cities could do to help the State meet greenhouse gas reduction goals, and to improve economic, environmental, and social responsibility. She said it is a voluntary program that offers cost-effective, simple pathway leading to implementation of sustainable best practices that focus on greenhouse gas reduction. She said the Statewide GreenStep Cities are made up of various partnerships and five pilot cities, including the city of Edina. Ms. Plunkett-Latham explained that as a pilot city, they are required to implement eight to ten of 27 best practices, but they have selected 14, including Transportation. She said there are seven categories to choose from, plus a required category which is – (1) Adopt a complete streets policy and modify street standards accordingly. She said Edina minimally qualifies at this level because there is a Complete Streets plan in place for the arterial streets. She said if the ETC would like to do some things beyond the minimal qualification, and Council approves the steps, the ETC can choose two additional steps from the following six categories: 2) Document installation of trees and rain gardens or other green storm water infrastructures and sewer water pipe restorations as needed, as part of at least one street construction project. 3) Identify and remedy non-complete street segments (at least one existing non-complete segment) to better facilitate walking and biking. 4) Identify and remedy gaps (at least one existing gap) between city streets and walking trails/bike trails to facilitate walking and biking. 5) Implement traffic calming measures in at least one street redevelopment project. (Done) 4 6) Adopt level of service standards for street types including ped/bike performance goals. (Done) 7) Adopt zoning language for selected areas equivalent to LEED for Neighborhood Development. Discussion included status of Complete Streets Policy which Mn/DOT recently approved and is working on guidelines that cities will need to incorporate into their State Aid streets design, lack of funding source could affect implementation, items 2, 3, & 4 looks like they can be done without much expense, would like to talk to staff about how item 2 could be implemented (this involves maintenance), and Complete Streets is in the Comp Plan but should consider adopting a formal policy. b. CVS Transportation Impact Analysis (69th and York Avenue) Assistant city engineer Sullivan explained that redevelopment of this site was first presented to the ETC in 2006 for 85 senior apartments and 39,000 sq. ft. of retail space; it was again presented in 2008 for 114 apartments and 18,000 sq. ft. retail space. In 2008, the ETC approved the traffic study with the condition that the developer improve their W. 69th exit across from the car dealership. Mr. Sullivan said the apartment building was completed in 2009 and the improvement was made to W. 69th Street. He said CVS Pharmacy is requesting approval to develop the retail space into a 13,013 sq. ft. building with 90 parking stalls and two drive-thru windows. Mr. Sullivan said in 2006 and 2008 the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) policy was not in existence but is required now. He said the focus of the TIA was on W. 69th Street and York Avenue, the right in/right out off York Avenue, the right out from the drive thru windows, and full shared intersection on W. 69th Street to determine the build and no-build level of service. Mr. Sullivan said the analysis showed that the level of service would remain the same after development. He said the signal timing at W. 69th and York can be improved but this area is Hennepin County’s jurisdiction and the developer will work with them to make improvements after the store is open. Mr. Sullivan said staff is recommending that the ETC “adopt a motion recommending that the Transportation Impact Analysis for CVS Pharmacy at 69th Street and York Avenue does not adversely affect the adjacent transportation system.” During discussion, concerns raised included the number of parking stalls/do they need that many; is there a reciprocal parking agreement between CVS and the apartment building; reason for placing building in the northwest corner of site; drivers exiting onto W. 69th and cutting across to go north could be unsafe; installation of bike racks; traffic exiting onto York Avenue will cross to go left on W. 69th Street even if signed not to do so; and, is closing the York Avenue access an option. Addressing the concerns, Mr. Mike Spack, the traffic engineer of Spack Consulting, explained that the parking ordinance requires 80 parking stalls but no maximum; there is a shared use agreement for parking; the building was moved to the northwest corner of the site at the request of planning staff; research shows that exiting on W. 69th and dealing with traffic on one side first and then the next side is actually safer than cutting straight across to the other side; bike racks will be installed at the entrance; and, the expectation is that at least 2/3 of the traffic will exit onto W. 69th Street instead of York Avenue. Mr. Kevin McGhee, The Velmeir 5 Companies, said one delivery truck, on a weekly basis, can only enter the site from York Avenue so it is a useful access. Commissioner Nelson motioned to accept staff’s recommendation “…that the Transportation Impact Analysis traffic for CVS Pharmacy at 69th Street and York Avenue does not adversely affect the adjacent transportation system.” The motion was seconded by Commissioner Franzen. Commissioner Sprague requested an amendment to the motion to include an agreement with the developer that delivery trucks do not use W. 70th Street between TH-100 and France Avenue. The amendment was accepted. All voted aye. Absent: Schroeder, Sierks Motion passed. c. Upcoming Workshops Chair Janovy said the idea is to schedule workshops when they do not have official business to review and discuss such things as bylaws, policies and scope and responsibilities. After discussion the consensus is to schedule June and July for workshops and the meeting format would be the same and open to the public. V. Planning Commission Update (Commissioner Schroeder) None. VI. Public Works Small Area Guide Process Update (Commissioner Sprague) Commissioner Sprague said the study is completed and a number of principles were written, plus renderings of those principles which are online. VII. Bike Edina Task Force Update (Commissioner Janovy) Commissioner Janovy said the 3rd annual ride with the Mayor is scheduled for May 27, 4:45 p.m. Participants should meet at the Bush Lake parking lot in Bloomington for a ride to Quality Bike Products. The event is co-sponsored by the Energy & Environment Commission. VIII. Staff Liaison Comments a. 70th Street Reconstruction Update This project is delayed until the Variance Board meets on June 17 to review the City’s request to reduce the parking lanes from 10 ft. to 8 ft. A letter and City Extra email was sent out to the residents updating them on the status of the project. At the April 15 meeting, Commissioner Workinger asked to hear the types of options given to residents on W. 70th Street for driveway turnarounds to prevent backing out onto the street. Mr. Sullivan said the contractor will work directly with homeowners on this matter. IX. Commission Comments Commissioner Sprague said he attended a SW Transit meeting and he encouraged everyone to look at SWTransit.org. Also, the Center for Transportation Study has a research conference annually and their presentation is online. He encouraged Commissioners to review the handout he brought in and to visit the website for topics of interest. Commissioner White said she attended the final SW PAC meeting and the formal process is now under the Met Council. She also said Metro Transit is taking public comment until July 9 6 for the new I-35/46th Street transfer station, and that they will be realigning certain bus routes into Edina. X. Adjournment. MINUTES OF THE Edina Transportation Commission Work Session Thursday, June 17, 2010 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Community Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Bonneville, Jennifer Janovy, Paul Nelson, Josh Sprague, Jean White, Geof Workinger, Nathan Franzen MEMBERS ABSENT: Usha Abramovitz, Julie Sierks, Michael Schroeder STAFF PRESENT: Jack Sullivan, Sharon Allison Chair Janovy opened the meeting and explained the purpose of the meeting was to talk about scope. Bonneville said the ETC needs to look at why we do what we do; need to advise citizens so that they may have opportunity for input, e.g. The Colony and public notification; Planning issues that come before the ETC do not get publicly noticed. Janovy said they could invite Director Teague to attend a session. White gave an overview of how the ETC started. She said it started with the Traffic Taskforce that identified issue areas and in 2003 a decision was made to create the ETC and they began meeting in 2004. Janovy elaborated on the issue areas - northeast, northwest, high school area, community center area, W. 70th Street, France between crosstown & TH-494 and Southdale corridor was looked. She said the issue areas have been looked at. Franzen asked what triggers something coming to the ETC. Bonneville said Sullivan’s team does not tell them what’s coming up regarding road reconstruction projects. Sullivan said everything is online. Sprague said the ETC is contact for public; if information is limited online, then limited information is seen by the public. He said issues come in to the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) and the ETC does not have an opportunity to discuss because they do not have a role with the TSC. He said this is disjointed for the average resident. Janovy said they are advisory to the Council so they need to look at scope from this view and send useful information to the Council. She said the ETC is charged with looking at speed and volume. She said when residents approach TSC, they generally supply their own solution to problem, e.g. stop sign to deal with speeding, and they are told no because warrants are not met and so they are still stuck with the problem. She asked why aren’t residents coming to the ETC? Workinger asked if this is a real problem. Sprague said yes, when you hear the same complaints. Workinger said they do get the TSC’s report, so he does not think they are missing information. Sprague said need to delegate certain tasks given to TSC. He said they should be 2 empowered like city of Bloomington to be able to discuss items from TSC report on camera. Workinger thinks process works and staff must have latitude. He said if they see pattern developing they can review. Janovy asked about the process for dealing with speeding on a street. Sullivan said when the call comes in it goes to Boyd, the traffic safety coordinator. Janovy said if ETC is charged with speed and volume on local streets, why aren’t residents being referred to the ETC? Sullivan said because TSC requests are usually tied to regulatory signs. Janovy estimated that nine out of 10 requests are denied because they do not meet warrants. She said the ETC can then maybe focus on education. White said she relies on staff for expertise. Would response be delayed to residents if the ETC had a role in reviewing TSC reports? Sullivan said TSC reports go to Council to review and approve and Council can ask staff to take another look which could require a speed study. All said and done this process could take three or four months. Sullivan explained TSC’s process – Boyd gets call, data gathered, TSC meets, resident notified of TSC’s decision and told they can come to Council meeting if request is denied. Regulatory signs must be approved by Council. Removal of signs is the same process. Janovy said she knows residents are communicated with because she has been through the process. Workinger asked if the role of the TSC is working appropriately. He said he would support an ETC member being on TSC because there would be too many items to be added to the ETC agenda; or, pull item for discussion. Sprague agreed with this as long as ETC can have discussion and then advise Council, if it relates to speed or volume. Janovy said when residents make contact she would like the ETC to be an option instead of automatically going to the TSC. Sprague suggested that TSC reports be on the ETC consent agenda and pulled off for discussion if there is an item concerning speeds, volumes, congestion or traffic calming on local streets, especially if there is a pattern of similar type concerns. Workinger asked what can the ETC do that Council cannot do. Bonneville said TSC has devices that can be used such as speed humps, etc., if so choose. He said it goes back to his memo of 1000 ADT, busy streets, etc. These are large scope items that ETC should give input on then on to the Planning Commission (PC) and then to Council. Janovy estimated they could miss over 90% of Edina if the ETC limits its involvement to streets with 1000 ADT or higher and they would often be looking at streets outside of their jurisdiction (i.e., arterials). Sullivan said he does not know if 90% is accurate. Workinger asked if there are measurements that shows ADT. Sprague said they should focus on system-wide network, maybe on streets with less than 1000 ADT, and let ETC exercise discretion. He said Bloomington has great examples. They merged their Transportation Commission with Planning Commission and created a defined scope and policies to integrate scope. He read their ordinance Sec 2.98.32. Bonneville said Bloomington has fine procedures that are worthwhile studying. Sprague said they developed a collector street restriping policy to fit a more Complete Streets approach. He said they meet with staff at beginning of year to integrate and conflicts go to the body to decide. This allows them to meet strategic goals. ETC does not have a way to do this now. He said if the State passes Complete Streets, it will apply to State Aid roads but not to other local roads. For County roads, he said the County allows staff to come to them with their idea/plans and then the County signs off. Janovy said they could invite Steve Elkins from Bloomington to attend a meeting to explain their process. Sprague suggested (Josh please provide name) 3 Janovy summarized discussion so far: 1) TSC, 2) Road reconstruction - ETC does not have a role. Bonneville said they should not get involved in the detail of the day-to-day stuff which is why he made the recommendations in his memo. He referenced 44th Street as an example:. 44th Street peaks in the morning; road is beyond 80% of capacity – too many parents taking kids to school in car at Cornelia. Sullivan was asked if 1000 ADT is high for local streets; he said 300-1000 is typical for residential road. White asked about the cost of fixing these issues. Response was this cannot be answered at this time. Janovy suggested education and enforcement instead of being so focused on engineering. White said she recalls meeting with the Police regarding enforcement and they have done some marketing campaigns with the communications department. She suggested creating a toolbox that would include enforcement, education, and communication. She also suggested changing up what’s being done so residents do not become bored. Sprague’s noted example of Bloomington’s policies online that explain why they need curb and gutter. Janovy said education could include stop sign function. When would the ETC discuss problem areas identified in the Comp Plan? Would it be at the beginning of the year? Sprague said their responsibility is first to inform self, second is to inform public, and third oversight. He said the City engineer could use TV to explain. Sullivan was asked if staff does similar planning like Bloomington does. Sullivan said yes. He said they generally look at 5-yr plan and generally relates back to the Transportation Plan. Sprague asked if staff do such things as asking Mn/DOT for example, to look at Xerxes where a reliever is needed. Janovy asked what the ETC needs Council’s approval on. She said the ETC is not advisory to staff. Franzen said it’s their job to make Council’s job easier. Janovy said all policies must be approved by Council. It was noted that Council is not getting ETC minutes. Does this undermine their role? Janovy said they will be getting minutes from now on. Council becomes involved in the following: ETC policy – yes - approved Traffic Impact Analysis – yes, but it was not approved by the City Council Comp Plan – yes, approved Local Area Taskforce – yes, approved, and all areas in report have been addressed in some way. Traffic Signs – yes 4 Petition - yes TSC – yes (Janovy said a variety of traffic policies are in the engineering department as handouts) Street Maintenance – approved in CIP Signs/Striping – yes Budget discussion about maintenance dollars, asphalt, commodities bid, fiscal year. Bonneville said there are level of projects: 1) mega project; 2) medium (3-4 blocks long); 3) small (1-2 blocks long); and ETC would get involve with mega and maybe medium projects. Traffic Controls – police enforcements and State Statutes Crash Statistics - no Grants – Council approves acceptance of funds. It was noted that funds were given back for Interlachen bike lanes that would have run from Vernon to city of Hopkins limits. Residents did not want it because it would cross their driveway. Suggestion that maybe there could have been a way to work with residents. Bike Taskforce – yes Metro Transit – yes, though they have final say, but ETC can put pressure on them White said Metro Transit is taking public comments for a route in Edina and suggested that ETC submit a comment. Regional Traffic News – on the web Hennepin County Roadway – yes Statutes – yes, if resolution required, e.g. resolution showing support for Complete Streets Bonneville said ETC could apply for a grant from City to ask Mn/DOT to do traffic study to look at a particular area. Chuck Rickart, City’s consulting traffic engineer’s time is hourly. As a matter of practice, ETC can comment on issues and then they could become agenda items said Janovy. Or, Bonneville said Janovy could assign members to work on certain issues. Franzen asked if the list can be put into a matrix and show for example, trigger points for TSC when issues would come to the ETC. Janovy said extra meetings could be scheduled to continue discussion. She said tonight’s discussion was of scope and what Council weighs in on. 5 Nelson likes idea of matrix; concerned with delving into everything. Likes idea of knowing what’s going on with restriping, etc. so he can talk with residents in community - this is part of our charge he said. If they can get TSC reports earlier, especially if it’s a neighbor, but may not need to do anything unless the issue is big. He asked if there is a master plan that shows all ADT. Sullivan said yes, dates back to 1975 but there are some gaps. He said State Aid roads are done because of requirement and in recent years they’ve been filling in gaps. Data is electronic but not very user friendly. Sullivan was asked if there is a policy for doing traffic counts, speed study. He said not in writing, just general practice – knows days to avoid/include, do not place too close to turning movements because this gives artificially low speeds. And generally count volume and speed at the same time (two tubes). W. 66th St. currently being measured; will be completed in two weeks. Capturing speed before speed reduction goes in effect and then again after and also capturing pool and school traffic. Will put down again in the summer and after the pool close. Final comments: Workinger asked what they are going to do when they get to what “it” is. He said PC’s discussion is to cut out the ETC. Bonneville said they’ll review minutes, modify and send to Council. Sprague said will need to flesh out more. Janovy said whatever they do will go to Council. Sprague said to continue having discussion on TSC and be able to discuss on camera; where do we fit regarding road reconstruction? Bloomington synchronizes with staff annually. Franzen said matrix would be good, especially for new members. Bonneville said he liked Franzen’s idea. Will consider resending his 1/22 memo. He said it would be good if they had better knowledge of what streets are to be worked on so ETC can participate; not trying to infringe on budget. Electronic communication: Janovy said they to need to follow Open Meeting Law and League of MN Cities guideline was emailed to everyone. She said all emails could be sent to Jack and he would then distribute to everyone, but they cannot communicate with each other (for example, cannot email entire group, should not “reply all” to emails that contain ETC business, and should be careful to not email a small group about ETC business because email could end up being read by a quorum of members). And they are not to talk business outside of scheduled meetings with a quorum of members and should be mindful to avoid serial communications with a quorum of members. Sullivan said he has spoken with Heather about doing a presentation on Open Meeting Law. Janovy said 4 people can meet because this is not a quorum and they do not have decision-making power. Regular scheduled ETC meeting: Sullivan said he is only aware of the YMCA project, nothing else. Bonneville asked if the chair could ask members to work on projects via email. Sprague said his approach would be to use the list as a matrix along with Bloomington’s ordinance and discuss using it as a scope. Janovy asked how busy members are to meet bi-weekly. Consensus is to meet again in two weeks. 6 Workinger asked about the chair advising Council of what they’re doing. Consensus was that Workinger would be seeing the Mayor in the morning and could mention it to him. Meeting adjourned. MINUTES OF THE Edina Transportation Commission Work Session Thursday, July 1, 2010 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Community Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Bonneville, Jennifer Janovy, Josh Sprague, MEMBERS ABSENT: Usha Abramovitz, Julie Sierks, Michael Schroeder, Paul Nelson, Jean White, Geof Workinger, Nathan Franzen STAFF PRESENT: Jack Sullivan, Sharon Allison Chair Janovy opened the meeting. She said Workinger talked with the Mayor and that they may want to inform the Council eventually. She restated why they were reviewing scope as follow (taken from her handout): • Recognition that existing ETC policy has been incorporated in Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan • Recognition that areas identified in the Traffic Task Force report have been addressed • Awareness that ETC ordinance indicates bylaws and we have none • Planning Commission discussion of the ETC role in development proposals And as a reminder of the ETC’s authority, Janovy said the Council is policy and legislative body of the City and the ETC is advisory to the Council which means they can recommend policies or ordinances to the Council and they take effect only if approved by the Council. She said the ETC is not advisory to City staff and nor do they direct City staff. City Council directs City staff through the City Manager and only goes to staff for information. Bonneville said another way to look at it is for them to ask Council to allow ETC to do certain tasks and the Council would give staff permission to gather information or perform those tasks which could then go back to Council for approval as a policy. Janovy said if there are existing ways that the City operates, they cannot instruct staff to do something differently. Bonneville said he suggested discussing scope of when they get assigned to perform a tasks and this can come either from Council thru staff and further that they could provide some guidelines for the Council when it is appropriate to ask ETC to perform a task, e.g. whenever there is a street with only 500 cars a day not enough to be concerned because a street with two lanes is capable of handling 1000 cars. He said he picked 1000 cars a day as a guide to be used for the total ADT. Said he likes grid that was suggested at the previous meeting. 1000 cars would be one part of the grid and another would be if the Council wants them to work on something, no matter the parameters. He said they could create a series of reasons for ETC to work on task. Sprague said in lieu of the ETC 2 looking at certain things there is the possibility of having policy that acts in place of having a review and a third category is policy and review or just review. Janovy the minutes from the last meeting shows a working premise that the ETC has the advisory role in those areas related to traffic and transportation in Edina, where the City Council takes action. The areas are defined as (taken from handout): • ETC policies – as stated above, the City Council approves policies o ETC Policy/NTMP o TIA policy not approved by City Council Janovy asked why the TIA was not approved by Council. Sullivan said he is not sure why. Bonneville said they should not let policy get in the way of action. Sprague said policy provides standard operating procedures. Janovy said policies can be well conceived and expedite action and make them clear, and also have directions for when they don’t apply and what to do then. She said it could be as simply as a check-off worksheet. Bonneville said he believe this is going to cause all directions to come down from Council. • Traffic Impact Analyses – the City Council approves development proposals; TIA reports may be a required submittal • Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan – the Council approves the Comprehensive Plan • Local Area Traffic Task Force – the council adopted the “framework” Janovy said she sees this as being done and Sullivan concurred. Sprague said it is mentioned in the ordinance. • Traffic signs – Recommendations for regulatory signs brought forward by TSC; can be posted only with Council approval • Sidewalk petition – Sidewalks approved by the City Council Other than petitioning for a sidewalk, Sprague asked how other segments are implemented. Sullivan said an old State Aid study shows missing links and staff initiates including them when neighborhood projects are done. He said staff does not actively look for locations to install sidewalks due to funding and back-log of projects. He explained further that State Aid sidewalks are paid for using gas tax funds while others are assessed, e.g. the Halifax Ave sidewalk was approximately $1,500/property, payable over three years. If a sidewalk is in a business district or school zone, the business district is assessed and the City contributes 25%. Staff time is included in the assessment also. Janovy asked if a franchise fee on gas or electricity could be used for sidewalks. Sullivan said franchise fee has been discussed for a variety of purposes, including sidewalks and streetlighting. He said the sidewalk on the frontage road was petitioned and because it was not assessable, it was budgeted for over 5-years in the CIP. Janovy asked about the City’s surplus funds and Sullivan said he was not knowledgeable in this area, but he is aware of the cost reductions that Public Works has been doing for the past year or so. Janovy said funding is always a problem and franchise fee isn’t a tax. • Traffic Safety Committee – City Council approves report or directs further action • Street maintenance – Equipment/supplies approved in CIP 3 • Signs/striping – Approved by the City Council Major re-striping that changes the road reconfiguration would go to Council but not a mill and overlay that is going to be redone exactly as it was before. • Grants – Grant funds must be accepted by the Council • Bike Edina Task Force – City Council included Bike Plan in Comprehensive Plan • Metro Transit – City Council may be consulted by Metro Transit on route changes • Hennepin County projects in Edina – Such as France Ave restriping. City Council may be asked to support or not oppose. • State projects within Edina – Such as Bren Rd interchange, or 494/169. City Council may be asked to support, not oppose, and/or pay portion of project costs. State projects usually require a Joint Powers Agreement and Council authorizes fees that Mn/DOT charges. • State statutes – Mn/DOT rules – the City Council may pass resolutions in support of or opposing legislation, rules changes, etc. Janovy said she looked at the 2008, 2009 and 2010 agendas and noted that the ETC is informed on many things for informational purposes. She said they most often take action on developments, but have done almost nothing on neighborhood level traffic concerns. Janovy moved on to what the ETC Role may be, as it relates to the above scope. The following were suggested for consideration: • Recommend policy only o For example, draft and recommend a policy that the Council approves and City staff carries out. No ongoing ETC involvement, apart from periodic policy review. • Recommend review only o Item appears on agenda for ETC review and action. • Recommend policy and review o Draft and recommend a policy that, if adopted, governs the process by which review is given and actions are taken; may provide guidance to both ETC and staff or only ETC. Janovy said if the above is accepted as their scope, there would be no assumption that they would take an active ongoing role in each, but instead would fill gaps with policy where necessary. For example, when a dog is hit on a street, as recently happened, she said this should not have been an issue for the Council. Bonneville said they cannot be involved in every minor traffic issue. He said the dog getting hit is a police issue, not ETC. Sprague said the policy would explain where the complaint goes and how to handle certain issues. Janovy said further that a complaint from a street with 500 cars without a crash record, for example, may not be considered a traffic issue by the City because it is functioning correctly. She said this may not be engineering but may be educational or enforcement and these are two areas that the ETC has not investigated much. Janovy said the ETC’s responsibility, based on the ordinance, is the local streets system. How the scope fits within the ETC ordinance was discussed next. Janovy said the existing purposes and duties are to: 4 1. Advise the Council on matters relating to the operation of the local street system with respect to traffic volumes, congestion, and functional classification, but not maintenance activities of the City. 2. Review and comment on plans to enhance mass transit opportunities to the City. 3. Review the findings of the Local Traffic Task Force and offer recommendations for implementation. 4. Evaluate methods for traffic calming and other speed and volume mitigation measures and recommend their implementation where appropriate. Janovy said some things to think about are: • Define each term in bold above. For example, what does “operation of local street system with respect to traffic volumes,” mean? What does it involve? • How does each of the above areas (scope) fit within the existing ETC ordinance? • What is the connection? What is needed to make the connection? • What, if anything, does the existing ETC ordinance leave out? Janovy said one of the things left out of the ordinance is higher level streets that Bonneville is interested in. She said they will need to keep this in mind if they recommend a change to the ordinance but if they leave it as is it limits their scope to residential and collector streets. What does “local” mean? Does it mean streets within city limits or just streets that are under City’s jurisdiction? Bonneville said the Council could hear ETC recommendation on collector streets even though they do not have jurisdiction. He said they should be able to opine even on Hwy. 100 because of impacts. Sprague said issues come forward in two ways – residents’ complaints or reconstruction. He said he does not see the ETC becoming involved with reconstruction unless it’s a collector street or higher; however, he said they want to discuss something, they could, but it would not be actionable but would be reflected in the minutes as being discussed which the Council would see. Janovy said it sounded like Sprague and Bonneville would like to focus on collector and above. She asked though, what about a street like hers that is close to park and that may be considered for a sidewalk when it comes up for reconstruction, or a neighbor’s tree that is blocking the view. Sprague said a fill in policy would cover local streets and Complete Streets would cover higher level streets, i.e. collector, etc. Janovy said they need a toolbox for residents who believe their street has too many cars. Bonneville said residents need a place to call but not a toolbox. Sprague said Boyd is the filter now when residents call, or, maybe he needs a public information handout that he could send to residents that would be standard for everyone. Janovy gave an example of a resident addressing the Council on stop sign and it was discovered that while the City was following the MUTCD, there was an error in the City’s stop sign policy. She said the petition process is confusing and could be made clearer and that communication with residents needs to be brought to forefront to prevent misinformation or be uniformed and to have documents to back up what is said. 5 Janovy said she thinks the ETC have a role with local traffic, Bonneville said he does not. Sprague said they get the minutes from the TSA but cannot discuss the items. Bonneville said he favors having documentation of standard operating procedures but nothing more. Janovy said she is not sure what “operation of local street system” means. Bonneville said they need to define the word “operation.” He said this could be involvement with the function of the street such as turning movement, speed limits or other important factors for traffic, even recommending stop signs. What does “operations as it relates to traffic volume” means? This could mean striping, lane widths, signalization, stop signs, yield signs, caution, blinkers, etc. What does “congestion” means? This means Level of Service (LOS) A, B, C, and D and is most often used to refer to intersection. LOS D is usually acceptable by most communities, said Sullivan. “…but not maintenance” probably means not getting involved with things like snowplowing, doing repairs due to aging of roadway, etc. Janovy said residents may want to know about pavement management and how this impacts the decision for reconstruction. Sprague said like Bloomington, they would want to be involved in the redesign discussion as it related to traffic volume and calming; therefore, need to be informed each year and so that they can weigh-in and at that time, would also inform the public of the annual reconstruction schedule and they could attend meeting to make public comment. He said Engineering would continue using their established process such as open house, etc., which is well managed. Janovy said there could be times before the feasibility study where it would be helpful for the ETC to review to avoid what happened with the NE reconstruction and to also see if Complete Streets are covered and if so, keep going or ETC could made recommendation. Sprague asked why the ETC is bypassed. Janovy said “maintenance” is probably interpreted to also mean reconstruction. Sprague said it would be a brief review and Janovy said the review would be primarily to see if Complete Streets are being implemented, etc. She said they have a role to play as it relates to volume, speed, and traffic calming, although they still need to define what these mean. Janovy asked if there is a way that they could create a policy that would make the process more efficient for managing residents’ input and feedback. Sullivan said they are always open to new ideas. Bonneville said he is satisfied with the current process; however, it could be publicized in the newspaper. Bonneville said a weakness is not having all the numbers such as a map of all ADTs, for example, he does not know if there is a traffic count for Browndale or W. 44th. Sullivan said this is difficult to show this on a citywide scale and the data is available for State Aid streets and many local streets. Bonneville said definition is needed for development of policy and they do not have all the intelligence to formulate a policy. The data is computerized but is hard to manipulate said Sullivan. Crash data comes to Engineering one year later. The meeting’s discussion was summarized as follows: 1. Worksheet for development review and how to make this easy to use 2. TSA policy for public information 3. Road reconstruction: (a) Does it fall under ordinance as written or need to be redrafted (b) Could they have a limited review role 4. Beginning of year have Sullivan talk about yearly road reconstruction plans Janovy said she the ordinance does not contemplate what Bonneville is interested in so they will need to discuss this further. She asked how do you effect changes when Mn/DOT, for example, as the authority, and when there is an opportunity to influence such as France 6 Avenue. Bonneville said they could have each commissioner bring up a street each month for review. He said he was frustrated because they did not talk about policies and procedures and what their performance and function is and as planned. Meeting adjourned.