Loading...
2024-02-07 TC MinutesMINUTES RICHFIELD TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING BARTHOLOMEW ROOM, CITY HALL Wednesday, February 7th, 2024, 7:00 PM Commission Members in attendance: Husniyah Bradley (Chair), Jim Mahoney, Louis Dzierzak, Adam Knosalla, McKenzie Burke, David Gepner, Jaz Warren, Eli Straub Not in Attendance: Alex Valle-Osornio Liaisons: Sean Hayford Oleary, Tim Brackett City Staff: Joe Powers, Matt Hardegger, Olivia Wycklendt County/Consultant Staff: Matt Huggins, Tyler McLeete, Steven Voelker, Dan Edgerton 1. Call meeting to order Chair Bradley called meeting to order at 7:01 PM 2. Review & approve agenda Motion by Commissioner Gepner to approve agenda. Second by Commissioner Mahoney. Motion carried. 3. Review & approve minutes for January 3rd, 2024 meeting Motion by Commissioner Mahoney to approve previous meeting minutes. Second by Commissioner Dzierzak. Motion carried. 4. Welcome New Commissioners & Introductions Chair Bradley and Transportation Engineer Matt Hardegger welcomed the new Commissioners McKenzie Burke, Adam Knosalla, Eli Straub and Jaz Warren, and gave introductions to other Commissioners as well as City staff, County staff and other organization liaisons. 5. Election of 2023 Officers The Commission took nominations for Chair of the Transportation Commission. Chair Bradley was nominated by Commissioner Mahoney with no other nominees. Chair Bradley was unanimously re-elected to Chair by the Commission. Commissioner Dzierzak nominated Commissioner Mahoney for the position of Vice- Chair of the Transportation Commission. Commissioner Mahoney nominated Commissioner Dzierzak for the position of Vice-Chair, and respectfully declined his nomination. Commissioner Dzierzak was elected to Vice-Chair. 6. Review and Approval of Commission By-Laws The Commission reviewed the Commission's by-laws. Commissioner Mahoney asked if it would be possible to do virtual meetings if needed should another pandemic happen. Transportation Engineer Hardegger stated that per City policy Commissions are no longer able to meet virtually and need to be in person, however that is subject to change depending on current events. MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Dzierzak to approve Commission By-Laws. Seconded by Commissioner Mahoney. Motion carried. 7. Nicollet Avenue Discussion Matt Huggins, the Hennepin County Project Manager kicked off the presentation and discussion on Nicollet Avenue by providing a brief overview of the work so far, which has largely been public engagement for the project. He explained that the presentation will present the community engagement results to date, in addition to several corridor design alternatives and that City and County staff are looking for feedback from the Commission on these options. Huggins turned over the presentation to Dan Edgerton, who is the Public Engagement Lead for the community engagement process. Edgerton revisited the project scope, highlighting that Nicollet Avenue between 66th and 76th St has deteriorated, and that current infrastructure is not ADA compliant or conducive for all mobility modes. This project aims to improve mobility throughout the corridor in addition to revitalizing the roadway, repairing or replacing any public utilities in need and to introduce traffic calming measures. Edgerton provided the results from phase 2 of community engagement. The results showed that a majority, 75%, of participants supported the problem statement of the project. Of different roadway configurations, the three-lane roadway, which consists of one lane in each direction and a two-way center turn lane in the middle, was the most popular. Results also showed compact roundabouts being the most favored tool for intersection treatments. Councilmember Hayford O’Leary asked Edgerton and County staff how the three-lane section of the roadway will encourage cars to travel at an appropriate speed, citing the City’s goal to make local roads have a speed limit of 25 mph. Huggins responded to Hayford O’Leary by noting that intersection treatments, medians, narrowing of the roadway and other traffic control measures would encourage drivers to drive the speed limit. Hayford O’Leary inquired if it’s the County’s goal to have Nicollet Avenue be designed with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour in mind. Huggins replied that while the County does not have a desire or specific policy to design County roads to 25 mph, creating a safe and appropriate design for the roadway is the County’s top priority. Stantec Liaison Tyler McLeete added that the typical cross section of the road will change along the corridor depending on the needs of the area and an intersection. Commissioner Warren asked if other traffic treatments were being considered within the scope of the project, to which Huggins confirmed that other tools like medians and a right-in, and right-out intersections, for example, were being considered. Commissioner Straub commented that he personally drives slower on Portland Avenue because of the pedestrian crossings and medians along the corridor. Commissioner Knosalla asked if the City has any consistency plans with design following several Commissioners discussing the similarities between other County reconstruction projects like 66th Street and Portland Avenue. City Engineer Powers responded that the City aims to create a solution that fits the specific roadway and its respective needs, rather than implementing a blanket design strategy for all roads. MINUTES Chair Bradley inquired if emergency vehicles were included in design considerations and turning movements. Both Edgerton and Hardegger confirmed that they are taken into account during the design process. Edgerton then presented three options for typical cross-sections for the roadway. All cross-sections included a three-lane roadway. The first option included a one-way cycle track adjacent to sidewalk on either side of the road, with separation from the roadway with a boulevard on each side. This option has a slight majority of community support, however it was not exceptionally more popular than other designs. The second option was a two-way cycle track, where a combined bikeway with a lane for each direction, would be on one side of the roadway adjacent to the sidewalk and boulevard. Unlike the first option, the other side of the roadway would only have boulevard and sidewalk. McLeete mentioned that the Three Rivers Park District has expressed interest in having a north-south corridor along Nicollet Ave, however they require a minimum of an 8’ wide shared use path or 2-direction bike path. The third and final bike configuration includes a multi-use trail on one side of the road between properties and the boulevard, while the other side of the roadway only has boulevard and sidewalk. Edgerton and the Commission went through each configuration and evaluated each concept based on what mode of transportation these concepts best serve, starting with the first concept. The Commission found that walking and biking are accommodated for, while buses and cars are more mid-range priority. Councilmember Hayford O’Leary mentioned that he believes this configuration is the best option for bicyclists. Commissioner Mahoney asked if the 3-lane layout would have a bus bump-out, or if it would block traffic while the bus was stopped. Liaison Edgerton said that bump-outs are not being considered and that it is Metro Transit’s preference to have buses stop in the drive lane as it assists with keeping the bus on a timely schedule. Commissioner Straub asked if it’s acceptable to use the center turn lane to get around the bus, to which Liaison Edgerton stated that it’s not really encouraged however there are also elements that could be implemented in the design that could prevent people from doing that. As for trucks, the Commission determined that this concept is not very accommodating. In regards to ROW impacts, Commissioner Gepner expressed that this design should be considered high-impact, however the long-term benefits may be worth the cost. Powers asked the Commission what level of right-of-way impacts would be acceptable. Straub and Bradley both expressed that they did not want to see high- levels of ROW impacts that could include taking a house as a part of the project. The Commission came to a consensus that they are comfortable with medium-high levels of ROW impacts, which would include the taking of some frontage of properties but not entire homes. MINUTES For the second concept, the Commission said that the design accommodates walking highly, however they ranked bike slightly lower than the previous design at medium- high accommodation. Buses and cars were both moderately accommodated, and trucks were once again not very well accommodated. Commissioner Straub mentioned that cars are slightly less accommodated as the layout isn’t symmetrical with bikeway being completely on one side rather than both. Commissioner Mahoney commented that the width of the boulevard could be narrowed, or that trees could be planted on the property-side of the bike path or sidewalk, rather than between the walkway and the road. Commissioners Warren and Burke discussed if the two-way bike facility was a good idea despite public engagement indicating it as a less popular option. Burke brought up the fact that while the ROW impacts are less severe, they are only marginally so by about 3’ per property. Commissioner Knosalla mentioned that there are portions of the corridor where the ROW impacts may be less severe on home-owners by taking more right-of-way or property on larger parcels, like the community center or the park. Chair Bradley questioned who would maintain the boulevards as there are none between the sidewalk and curbline on Nicollet Ave currently. City Engineer Powers stated that per City code, boulevards are maintained by the adjacent property owners upon project completion. For the final concept, the Commission ranked both walking and bike as less accommodated than the other two concepts, but still falling in the moderately accommodated range. Buses and cars were also moderately accommodated, albeit at a slight decrease. This final design had the smallest impact to right-of-way out of the three concepts. Huggins asked the Commission if there is a design that the Commission did not want taken to the public for comment and engagement. Powers added that the Commission should also make the City aware whether there is a concept or design element missing that should be brought to the public. The Commission did not have any further suggestions. The Commission and County staff briefly went over possible options for intersection treatments, however the primary focus of the open house will be the typical cross- sections presented during the meeting. 8. Project Updates Transportation Engineer Hardegger provided a few brief project updates. The 71st St SRTS project went out to bid in January and will be awarded later this spring with the intent to construct later this summer. The 66th St and Richfield Parkway project successfully received a grant for placing RRFB’s, with the hope to construct those later this Summer as well. The highway 62 noise wall is scheduled to be built in 2025, however there is a possibility construction could start sooner depending on MnDOT’s finances. A grant was also awarded to the City for SRTS design study for several schools throughout the City to see what improvements could be made. MINUTES 9. Other Business There was no other business. 10. Upcoming events/meeting(s) There is Commissioner Training on Wednesday, February 21st. The next Nicollet Avenue Open House is at the Community Center on Thursday, February 29th from 4:30 – 6:30 PM. The next regularly scheduled Transportation Commission Meeting is on Wednesday, March 6th. 11. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 8:55 PM