City of Bloomington, MN Planning Commission, 12 May 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: May 12, 2022 Bloomington Planning Commission Meeting

Description

May 12, 2022 Bloomington Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting

0:00:00 Start

0:03:07 ITEM 1 PL2022-69
City of Bloomington
(public hearing) City Code amendments to multifamily parking standards regarding parking ratios and associated flexibility measures, thereby amending Chapters 9 and 21 of the City Code

0:46:18 ITEM 2 City of Bloomington
(study item) Old Cedar Avenue Traffic and Intersection Study Update

1:43:17 ITEM 3 City of Bloomington
(study item) Planning Commission Policy and Issues Update

A

All right good evening and welcome to the may 12 2022 bloomington planning commission meeting planning commission is the planning commission, advises the city council on development proposals, development standards, long-range planning and transportation issues, some of the items the planning commission has final decision authority and others. The city council will make that decision.

A

Planning commission is made up of seven volunteers appointed by the city council for up to three years at a time and tonight. Well, it looks like we have one two, three four five of us. So we do have a quorum and we have one uh public hearing tonight and then the other will be study item. But before we begin, let's go ahead and stand and say the pledge of allegiance.

A

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands. One.

B

C

A

Indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

A

Before we begin tonight, um as has been the tradition of late, we are in a hybrid environment and with that I'll ask mr marker guard to give instructions.

D

Yes, mr chair, we're in person this evening, but if somebody wanted to testify remotely, they certainly can. What you would do is call in to the number that's on the screen and then enter in the access code, and you would be able to to provide testimony remotely.

D

We will have this number on the screen throughout item 1, which is our public hearing this evening. Thank you.

A

Thank you, mr marker guard, and with that we'll go ahead and start item, one which is a city code, amendments for parking standards, and I believe, mr palermo, you have the staff report for us.

E

I do thank you very much. Let me share my screen.

E

All right, mr chair commissioners, I'm here to bring back multi-family parking standards. As you recall, we had done a study session. uh It kind of led us to now an ordinance amendment. So with that input from you and city council we've kind of now, we have the organs to look forward to nice.

E

I had some comments in the last one. Yes, you did uh so. As you recall, our our goals uh were to kind of simplify our parking requirements um right size. The approach make sure we're adequate, have the adequate amount of parking not too much not too little, and continue to provide flexibility and understanding that each site is a little bit unique and sometimes flexibility is needed.

E

And that's it for the evening.

F

On the animation.

E

But to give you a little overview of our existing code, which you you may recall, we currently require for multi-family properties.

E

We require it by bedroom type. So one bedroom two, three four bedrooms: we have different parking ratios so for a one bedroom or efficiency, it's 1.8 spaces per dwelling unit, going all the way up to three spaces per trillion unit.

E

We also have additional standards where one space per unit must be enclosed within a garage, and then we have a party room requirement for one space, for every 100 square, feet of a party room must be provided account for our guests.

E

We also have our ev charging requirements. One space per 50 units for the building must be equipped with a level two charger or higher, so we also provide flexibility in our code. Don't look too much into the opportunity, housing audience we'll talk about this in a little bit, but the proof of parking we do. Allow you to show that you have room to adequately provide parking, but not necessarily constructed at the time of the project, but if parking warranted, we may require you at a later date to provide that shared parking.

E

In some situations, you may have different parking park, parking peaks, think of an office that peaks during the day people come there, whereas residential you might be able to share parking with them, because residential is typically in the evening.

E

We also allow for travel demand management. These are kind of policies to help reduce parking need with a travel demand. Management plan will allow up to a 10 percent reduction. We also have enhanced linkages to transit. This is on based on a transportation study. You need to show that that transit will get you that reduction and same with our plan development.

E

You may do a plan development overlay, but you can also can ask for reduction as part of that in your parking, but you need to have some sort of uh parking study to to show that there won't be negative impacts.

E

So when we started this, we were looking at what other communities do. Where does bloomington fit within the metro area and we're?

E

You can see that there's a wide range out there on kind of what we consider peer cities, either size or geographic brooklyn park, was the highest at 2.5 spaces per unit, whereas st louis park was just one space per unit and so most kind of fall in between there.

E

But, as we know, we have all those flexibility measures when you're. Looking at that actual number, it's probably a lot different than what they require same with ours. You know we have this 1.8 for one bedroom up to three for four bedroom, but in all actuality, what are we actually requiring?

E

Our requirement ends up us averaging about 2.0 spaces per unit, but end up. What actually ends up being constructed is about 1.7 spaces per unit for developments that were approved before the opportunity housing ordinance in 2019. After that, the opportunity housing ordinance, which has reductions we were averaging about 1.45 spaces per unit or 30 reduction.

E

So, looking over the past 10 years, it's about a 20 reduction or 1.66 spaces per unit, and our parking counts. That uh kind of corroborate this that that's maybe about our demand, is 1.45 or 1.5 around there.

E

So we conducted some outreach as part of this project. We were working with the bloomington housing action team. This is a group of housing advocates, tenants, property owners, property managers, lots of different people that work in housing that work on different issues.

E

We presented that to them and they actually were pointed out quite clearly that we have this designated transit area and the and the operating housing ordinance, but some of those areas that fall within that the transit's still not that great it's it meets our definition of high frequency transit, but it's maybe not at a level that would have as much of an impact on your car dependency. So that was one tweak that we got from them, but talking with developers, they explained what their issues were in property managers.

E

It was interesting because they have different perspectives as a developer. It really depends on if you're a developer, who's thinking, you'll hold on to it or sell a property, they might have different ideas on what their parking ratio should be, but talking with them, we kind of came to the conclusion um that and I'll get to that later, but some of the issues that we ended up not changing in the ordinance, but we also look at uh with our racial equity impact assessment.

E

This is what we're doing now with our our policies right now, it's still kind of in a pilot phase, but we want to point out that in our renter population is it's a higher proportion of our black indigenous people of color population, bypack population, so understanding that this is focused on parking, it will disproportionately impact our bipoc community. So we want to look at making sure that our parking is adequate, that we're not creating a situation where we'll have increased number of towing.

E

We know that there's been studies in minneapolis that show there is a disproportionate rate of towing. That's been happening, we're continuing to do some outreach with different residents on whether that's happening in bloomington or not. Our public health is doing a survey, a renter survey and that's actually a question that they'll be including in that survey this fall. So it's important to point out that you know. As we discussed. This is kind of maybe a first step, an incremental increase, especially as some new properties come online as a result of the oho.

E

It will continue to kind of look and refine and see if we need to adjust that number again early next year, but at the flip side this will increase, affordable housing unit production, hopefully with the incentives in the ohl.

E

So I alluded to what this update is so we're looking at that parking ratio. What is that parking ratio and kind of understanding that it probably was maybe a little higher than it needs to be, um and in reducing that? We also want to make sure that we're addressing our opportunity, housing ordinance, which allows flexibility, and while that flexibility is technically discretionary, it is a little bit more baked in a little bit more expected that you'd be able to achieve those flexibility.

E

If you provide those affordable units, what we decided not to address are the other flexibility measures, because they were either discretionary or not as impactful. So when it is discretionary, you'll still have that ability to go to what number you find appropriate with the parking study.

E

We also didn't address the enclosed parking requirement, because that was one that came out with outreach that wasn't as much of a barrier as we were expecting, and it actually ends up being a pretty good amenity for residents and well utilized, especially during winter months, and there is some existing reductions already in the opportunity. Housing ordinance that yeah could potentially be updated at another time too, but uh there wasn't just a there. Wasn't a huge outcry to address that requirement, uh and I also just wanted to point out that this is looking at multifamily.

E

We treat senior housing differently. It has a different parking ratio for a multi-family senior. It's a lower requirement, and this won't be touching that.

E

So what we're proposing is addressing our our parking ratio, we're looking to get rid of our three and four bedroom requirement and just say two or more bedrooms to kind of, simplify it and then continue with one bedroom and efficiency units and having a ratio for that and here's a cleaned up version for you to read, but essentially for one and one bedroom and efficiency units we are proposing 1.6 spaces per dwelling unit and for two bedroom units or more it would be 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit.

E

We are also looking at removing the parking room requirement. It didn't add a whole lot of parking, so it wasn't overly burdensome, maybe three or four percent, sometimes in a property. But you know it could range quite a bit, but it's just added complexity to it where it didn't need to be and you'll see. Here we also added some language within clothes that we would also can count structured parking ramps that we consider that enclosed as well as we're seeing more and more of that structured ramps within buildings.

E

And so in reducing that base amount that base ratio. We need to adjust our opportunity housing ordinance so that we're not reducing too far. What that parking requirement would be kind of that lower end threshold, so a little overview of what the current requirements are.

E

It's based on the affordability you provide and the number of affordable units so how deeply affordable and how many affordable- and you can see here- we call extremely low income. We call these income bans extremely low income units are affordable to households. Making thirty thousand area median income or below very low income is that middle thirty to fifty percent area, median income and low income is between and the technical definition is 50 to 80 ami, but we use 60 as our threshold, and so these are kind of what our current standards are.

E

If you provide kind of our base amount, the percent of low income units at sixty percent um within a designated transit area, which you'll see most of the city, um where we'll we expect multi-family, would fall within that designated transit area.

E

It's a 20 reduction. If you provide a little bit more, it's a a deeper affordability at nine percent. You get that 30 reduction for extremely low income, which is the units that we're in most need of. You can get up to a 40 reduction with just nine percent of the units being that and if you're able to provide 20 of your units at extremely low income, you could get up to a 50 reduction. So you can imagine now. If we, our average was two and we were offering up to a 50 reduction.

E

We were willing to go up to about a one per unit ratio. So if we're now going to 1.6, potentially for one bedrooms and a 50 reduction, you're you're you're getting below kind of what maybe might be acceptable or not.

E

um So I want to point out our met. Council goals is our in our comprehensive plan.

E

This is our kind of allocation of the need for the region, and these are meant for our 2030 goals, whereas our comp plan goes to 2040., but for our 60 area, median income units we were our goal, was 151 units and we've surpassed that already. We've had that built so we're at 196 units. In fact, we have over 400 that are approved uh or under construction.

E

So uh we don't need to incentivize that as much anymore, that our goal is not uh for those sixty percent units uh we'd like to see more of those. Fifty percent and 30 percent units.

E

And then here's a map that kind of outlines that designated transit area so that orange area was the original is the designated transit area. So it covers a lot of bloomington.

E

Bloomington is the has the third most bus stops in the region behind saint paul and minneapolis, but having the stops doesn't mean that it's frequent enough, our our you can. Our definition was between 7 a.m and 6 p.m. Hourly service on weekdays, so on weekends, you might not have service and hourly service might not be enough to kind of have a huge impact on uh car.

E

It still is impactful, it's still useful for families and may be able to go to a one car, but really what's going to be most impactful is on the metro line. So the metro lines are: are the orange line, bus rapid transit that just opened up the station here at 98th and lindale, and one at penn american? So those show up in the pink bubbles?

E

uh These are a half mile distance from the stations these have fixed stations, they operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, they're generally about 15 minutes. I think nights and it can get a little bit longer, but still very frequent enough that you won't be waiting too long, so much more reliable and it's a station. So it's not going to be moving anymore. There's physical infrastructure.

E

That kind of you can you know it's always going to be there and enhanced features that come with that station like boards that tell you how long the bus will be coming. um So those really kind of influence make it uh able for households to reduce their car dependency and maybe not even need a car.

E

So our light rail, you can see blue line, the red line that goes uh to apple valley and the d line is under construction, so it should be opening soon here as well, so we're proposing to create kind of a two-tier system we'll keep with that designated transit area. Knowing that there is some impact to that having that transit axis, that is, it is helpful, but understanding that there's a greater impact with the metro lines and focus on that transit, oriented development.

E

Where you get to that density, where maybe we don't want to encourage surface parking as much that we can better utilize that land.

E

So, as you saw in the proposed ordinance, we now have three: I guess designations. You have the areas that are outside the designated transit area.

E

You have the areas that are in our current designated transit area or tier two, and then you have an additional tier tier one, which provides the the best access to transit near those station areas so differentiating between those three areas and then, as you can see, we also removed the incentive for sixty percent ami units.

E

Like I had said, we we have enough of those units we in the pipeline already constructed. We want to encourage those 50 and 30 percent, where we can so uh you can see here for nine. If you provide um nine percent of your units, uh I think I have the yeah extremely low income, so a minimal amount you can get uh 15 transit reduction, all the way up to a 45 transit reduction.

E

So not quite that 50, but we also reduced our base number, and so we understand that, if you're doing 50 of your units as extremely low income, that's there's a impact to your development, uh your revenue stream, so trying to make that up a little with a deep subsidy with uh parking understanding. That parking is a large, a large cost and it really kind of it comes down to not just construction costs but also that land cost that, if you're utilizing land for surface you're, not able to surface parking.

E

If you can free that up, you now get additional units which will help kind of offset some of that revenue. So it gets to be a complicated puzzle and what that true value is. But um we want to provide that for that incentive.

E

So with that, those are really the changes and opening up for any questions.

A

All right, thank you, mr palermo. Any questions for staff on the items in front of us today, I'll ask one question here: just as you were talking about, maybe.

A

It was really, uh I think it was in relationship to something that was happening in minneapolis and a disproportionate amount of towing where they had reduced some of the parking I'm and maybe more so for future thought is those multi-family units that we have, how many of those are adjacent to roadways that don't allow parking and versus other streets that allow it might be something that would be interesting for us. As that sounds like it will be developed more.

E

Right and uh thank you, mr chair, that is something that engineering is actually kind of working on, making sure that on street parking is available near uh multi-family uh buildings. Now, sometimes it is signed, no parking and now they're kind of changing how they approach that, so that there is some kind of overflow parking yeah and I I will provide a little more clarity on that minneapolis study it.

E

It is unique because they they also the city hires uh contractors to tow- and that was part of it too, is that the city is hiring contractors and where are those contractors kind of searching the neighborhoods? And you know because they do have that more on street parking and kind of a lot more restrictions, and you know constraint throughout, whereas we do have that kind of overflow. In some cases on on our streets, okay,.

D

A

Right who's first, commissioner corman. No commissioner, roman.

G

Thank you, mr chair, uh a couple of thoughts and one spins off of what we were just talking about.

G

um I saw in this month's issue of the briefing there was a it was in the briefing there was a little bit of a blurb, reminding people about parking rules uh and it kind of fits into the conversation we've had off and on over the last couple years about our street standards, our youth standards- and you know, we've talked about- do we still need to be building streets as wide as our standards call for in the 2002 standards? um You know what are our sidewalk standards and maybe what are our parking standards is?

G

We talked about. We talked with the hra about how we make housing more affordable. We talked about you know. Should we eventually be looking at our garage standards? I mean all of those things fit together, but there's a theme of- and I know staff has talked about working on on kind of a comprehensive approach to looking at it's a time to update that, and I think this you know whether it's here where we talk about you know overflow parking or you know.

G

If we're going to continue to build big streets, we may as well let people park on them for perhaps more than 24 hours. um So that's that's a piece that just is a it's more of a comment, and I know it's something that the the staff are working on and and I would encourage them to again think think about the future, not about the past on that.

G

As I know, they're they're good at uh the only other question I had with mr palomar, was you know the designated transit area with the bubbles, and I don't expect that anybody has this information. So it's more of an out loud wondering um you know of the of the folks who fall in the either the 30 or the 50 ami category who are able to work outside of their residence.

G

Do we, you know, be curious to know what types of hours do the the the work that folks do and does that line up with our assumption I mean our assumption. Here um is a fairly you know, traditional.

G

You know, uh nine to five kind of a job assumption, and uh especially in bloomington, where we are highly service focused in our in our uh especially in our work that pays less than some of our other. uh We have. We have a whole range of types of jobs and types of salaries in bloomington, but we have a large number of folks in the service sector, which I believe, if that was your sole source of income, would make you eligible for some of these housing needs. So yeah.

E

G

I'm not expecting that we have an answer, but that I think our bubbles would look different if we needed that to be midnight. Yep.

E

And mr chair, uh commissioner, roman, that that's that is part of the reason why we're adding or tweaking it so that we have that you know acknowledge that yeah there might be a little bit, but not as much as we were kind of relying on before on on that transit or on the car reduction um yeah and this transit area.

E

This is this aligns, with the met council's what definition for high frequency transit it's in our comprehensive plan and that that's kind of where that originally derived from you know three years ago we didn't have the orange line open. We didn't know if d-line was going to get funded or not so now that we have actual project that open and one that's under construction and we're. You know more comfortable to kind of utilize that new definition in that way, but I think you're right on that.

E

That's that's part of what came out of the b-hat discussion was that yeah there's transit there, but it doesn't really work for me most of the time on weekends and yeah.

G

And again, it's it's not that it's not that there's not value in what what there is it's just that if I was a person who needed to rely on that to get to a job that wasn't an eight-to-five job that would be.

D

G

We want to make sure we're incentivizing the right thing um and not nothing wrong with incentivizing it, but a map, that's overly generous. Then we don't want to perpetuate a problem, but nice work.

A

Okay, commissioner corman I'm going to get you this time.

B

Okay, I was just trying to figure out how to ask the question, but mr palermo, could you go back to the chart that you showed after the racial equity impact assessment, where you have all the different ethnicities there it is and then um and then I think it was the following one. When you have the number of parking spaces by city.

B

So I was just thinking here just wondering um considering some of the other cities where they have like a 0.5.

B

I'm sorry a 1.5 or a 1.. um What have you seen? What have you seen in terms of the impact that that has caused within their different communities, and how has those cities handle that that type of impact do they have any type of system in place? That uh will probably allow us to look into? Oh, this is something we could probably be expecting as well in bloomington. I understand all cities are different right, but is there anything else that, as you look into reducing these spaces, that you could foresee happening in what possibilities also?

B

um Could we look into to propose later on and then the other question that comes along with that is, um and I I didn't. I didn't find that in the notes from the the council meeting. But uh did the council seem to be sort of concerned about this?

B

Did they have any type of input on how to address that situation, because obviously it's going to have an impact, and, like commissioner roman were saying and was saying, there is obviously people that don't necessarily work nine to five, but we also have people that work nine to five and then go to a second job right and then depend on um different ways of transportation, so yeah. Thank you.

E

uh Mr chair commissioner, uh corman uh to address your first question about other cities. um It's kind of hard um to really like you said: each city is different and each city is changing too. So uh you look at a city like st louis park, where they're they're soon maybe have lightroom.

E

uh um So you know they've been preparing and changing their code to to change that, but then they have existing so and that's where we're going to be interesting too, as we have some, you know, properties from the 70s we've had properties. Now that, like I said pre-oho that had a requirement now, we've got uh post. Oh now I have another parking requirement, so it's really understanding what that ratio is it? I you know most cities, probably don't, have a clear understanding of what that kind of average is.

E

You know I looked back 10 years on properties that were approved to just get an idea, and but knowing that all those flexibilities are in there, it can be quite an undertaking. So I I don't really have a great answer for that other than you know. Anecdotally.

E

We've talked with colleagues and colleagues in burnsville and they feel that projects that less than 1.5 were too much and that's for burnsville, you know and so kind of keeping in that that development context as well, whereas bloomington's maybe a little bit different, but bloomington's development plan pattern is going to be much different than st louis park or uh or edina uh different development patterns, so different reliance on cars.

E

So it's really hard to get a clear expectation understanding of issues, but I think that's kind of what led us to well, let's really hone in on what our requirement is and kind of do. Some of those parking counts and work with developers who had put things out and now I'm forgetting. Your second question was relayed to council and you know to be honest during that discussion. We we had some council members who were thinking. Do we even need a parking requirement?

E

Will the market take care of it uh and there was some of that discussion, um but I think there were other council members who kind of eventually spoke up. That said, no I'm not comfortable with not having a requirement and and part of that- and I talked about this earlier- is that some you have two different kinds of developers: the one who's going to hold on to it and kind of manage their property. I think like mwf, that's come in.

E

They work closely with valera management and they're kind of work together on their properties, but then you have other developers who put it up and then they sell it right away so they're trying to maximize or minimize their costs and so they're, not as concerned what that long-term impact might be as other developers. So that's kind of the advantage of having at least a minimum to say: hey, we can be flexible, but we we don't want someone to come in and just kind of take advantage of that situation.

E

And what we're finding out is some communities like miami they they had gotten rid of a minimum parking requirement and now they're reinstating it because they're finding that they do have some of those situations. Or so you know you, you have the best intentions for everyone, but some some will take advantage of it. So that's where we allow that kind of flexibility to accommodate that.

A

All right, uh commissioner, goldsman.

H

Thanks, mr chair, I guess my mind's more a comment versus a question. I guess the question that I have is if we could go back to the map that you had so one of the things that we've heard as a commission is obviously transit lines and I always question how much transit is really available to residents that work and live in bloomington.

H

We know that there are lots of opportunities going north into the city.

H

Development is going into both minneapolis and further st paul, but I'm interested to hear if we've looked into um what type of transit is available to people that want to potentially live closer to east marsh lake park, but they they work by the mall and what opportunities are available to them to both live and work in bloomington.

H

And how does that impact our parking standards, and I think the work that you're doing is is great, but as somebody who lives and works in bloomington, I like to stay here and keep people here um and just wondered if you've looked into that as well- and I know we've had a conversation with um you know the american boulevard line and and trying to to get development there.

I

H

So um that's just a question comment there. Mr.

E

Chair commissioner goldsmith, um I think you're right, you know, I think historically, that has always kind of been the focus of metro transit is how do you get people from where in transit market area 2, I believe, into transit market area 1?

E

But I think what I've been noticing the last couple years, especially as these these brt and lrt, are, are on metro, transit's, really kind of rethinking all right. How do we get people to and from the station to the destination so like normandale lake or to from maybe 98th to mall of america, and as we get those kind of cross connections, I think we're going to find more of that um right now, there's just kind of more in that studies soon to be.

E

You know, I think metro transit's scrambling right now to figure out what long-term impacts on transit are going to be, but that has been. I know, there's been study, especially on the 98th street station and kind of the connector routes and how they best fit those connector routes. So I think, as those get flushed out, you'll be able to have more of those inter bloomington intra bloomington connections.

A

All right to commissioner abdi.

I

Thank you, mr chair. I got two questions and just another observation or comment related to what was just mentioned right now, I'll just start with that. I think bloomington has better transit than other suburbs to minneapolis, but we don't have even bus the bus stops, don't have benches or um shelters.

I

So how good is that, if I'm standing in somebody's yard in the dead winter, so that's just an observation, and hopefully metro transit picks up on that, and I don't know if residents of bloomington can actually request, shelters or bust bus benches to be installed at bus stations. So that's just um the highlight, so there's no need to follow up on that. I guess the question I had for folks even watching at home is if they're reading the.

I

If you could go back to the proposed uh change, uh changes to the parking in numbers uh from two to one or two. So I guess what I'm wondering is. How do you interpret 1.6 like do? I got one parking spot and a half an extra paved half, but not a full parking lot. I'm trying to visualize that and I'm wondering do you carry that round that out to become two parking spaces.

E

Yep, uh mr chair commissioner, abdi yeah, so it really becomes a numbers game because, when we're having that requirement, we're we're not saying every unit will get exactly 1.6 for that specific unit, right we're talking uh on a whole. If you have a hundred unit building, we want 160 parking spaces, one of which 100 of which, because we have that one to one should be enclosed, which means 60 spaces at least, should be surface parking.

E

We don't get into the details of how the developer or the property manager manages that in the future we do have some provisions in the oho to make sure that underground parking is not being charged for affordable units, so we have a little bit there, but for the most part we leave it up to the property manager on how they're going to manage those spaces. So that is part of that was part of the discussion. uh One of the properties went to he.

E

He was candid and said you know it's winter time right now, so we have lots of people utilizing the garage because they're willing to pay for it, but come summer a lot of people will pull out and they won't. They won't utilize that and though our surface lot will be heavily used, so we're looking to just figure out that total number that needs and try and also manage that expectation with the enclosed resurface.

E

So yeah, it's not a you're. In this unit you get uh 1.6. I do believe if it's a if it's 0.5 on our calculation, we round up and below 0.5 it rounds down. So okay.

I

Thank you um that was just uh yep even for people watching this later.

E

Right, yeah and enjoying how.

I

They provide 1.5 parking and trying to visualize that in the actual landscape. So thank you so much for that. I guess the the other question is more of a clarification on my part and for folks watching at home for a developer coming in. They get the incentive, or that is proposed here um if they require or need additional parking reductions. There's the option for variance is that correct.

E

Typically, we do a plan development; they can also utilize that plan development and go and if they and with that plan development, we would have that kind of parking study requirement just to kind of verify that there or make sure that the impacts aren't extremely negative. You know looking at that, so we typically don't do a variance so to speak as much as the plan development option.

A

Okay, any other questions.

I

I'm good thank you so much. Okay,.

A

Any other questions from commissioners for staff all right, not seeing any. I myself have some thoughts, but I think I better hold those for a little bit, so um you guys laughing at me all right uh at this point: we'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this item and um mr marker guard is there anybody online that would like to speak to this item.

D

Yeah, mr chair, everybody online is either staff or a consultant. So nobody here to speak to this item.

A

Okay and I'll just verify because we do have people in the audience, but does anybody in the audience like to speak to this? I didn't think so all right all right, uh commissioners with that not seen anybody in the chambers tonight or online. That would like to speak to this item or to entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

G

A

Right we have a motion closed public hearing by commissioner roman. Is there a second? Second all right? We have a second by commissioner corman, all right. uh Commissioners. We have a motion, closed public hearing, all those in favor say: aye, aye, aye, aye. All right uh motion passes. Public hearing is now closed. uh Discussion on this item, commissioners, uh okay, commissioner, cookton.

J

Thank you, mr chair, uh mr palermo.

J

How often do we go back and visit some of these metrics so we're we're kind of updating it now, and you know we don't really know how it's going to go so, do we check in annually every so often? How does that work for the city.

E

uh Mr chair, uh it really can vary quite a bit. I think on this one specifically, we will glenn can talk to our our work plan, we'll likely re-examine this next year, as some of these projects come online and kind of do some more parking counts, um knowing that uh lindell flats was kind of the first uh property to have a deeper reduction and that just opened in january.

E

So now we're able to kind of actually observe what some of those impacts would be, and so we'll likely update this next year and then, if needed at least, provide some information on what we've observed and then from there, maybe not for I don't know until we uh find out uh other issues in the future that might pop up great. Thank you.

A

Right other thoughts, I'll just uh chime in here, I really appreciate staff working through this um there's complications with trying to be equitable, with trying to understand the impacts with also trying to make sure we're affordable, and you know I I think you've done a lot of good homework here to to research.

A

What are the impacts to the people versus also? What are we trying to do with the ordinance?

A

um I I have questions on it, but I think getting to this ground of of the uh the current proposal is is a good start, and I appreciate the fact um that you recognize it as it's a start and from there we'll modify and move as necessary.

A

That's the one thing I really appreciate about bloomington is that over the years I've seen, let's, let's do something: let's try it and let's move uh something forward, um and then, if that's not right, we'll we'll we'll change it so um good thing, and I would uh support uh the the proposal as written for us here tonight. So commissioners go ahead. Commissioner, roman thank.

G

You, mr chair, and I realized that yeah. I ventured a little bit out of questions for staff and into the discussion. I don't know we're out of practice a couple weeks off. um I too am supportive of this. I think one of the things that at least I know I have said- and I think I've heard from others is that we are- um we are generally speaking- we are over parked as a city uh in retail in multi-family, so this is good work. um Thank you um and I too am supportive.

A

Other commissioners go ahead, commissioner, gorman.

B

I'm also in support of this recommendation- and I know stat works really hard and you're really always trying to keep up with the different ways that this impacts our community. But please continue to carefully look for any ways that that this could have a negative impact, possibly in in some communities, especially.

A

Okay, other commissioners at all or otherwise, they're to entertain a motion.

J

Commissioner cookton, I just have one more comment. um I I really think that this is kind of a win-win. uh When I look at this because when we first talked about it, the hesitation was well. What are we gonna do with the oho and are we gonna? Are we gonna lessen? Are we de-incentivizing what the oho is gonna do and when we look at the numbers we've it's another problem we have is we're getting those units at 60 ami, but we're not getting the 50 to 30 percent. I think we're solving two problems at once.

J

Here, we're um you know we're lessening the parking. I agree with commissioner roman we're well over parked in this city and now we're getting a better chance at getting those deeply affordable units. So I appreciate the creativity there and I think this is a win-win. So I like it a lot good.

A

Good go ahead. Go ahead, uh commissioner. Abdi thank.

I

You in case pl 2022-69. I move to recommend adoption of the ordinance attached to the staff report, amending chapters 9 and 21 of the city code to amend parking requirements for multi-family and multi-family buildings and associated flexibility in the opportunity. Housing ordinance.

A

All right, thank you! Is there a second second all right. We have a second by commissioner goltzman and with that commissioners, we have a motion and a second in front of us to recommend in case pl 2022-69 the adoption of an ordinance attached to the staff report, amending chapters 9 and 21 of the city code to amend parking requirements for multi-family buildings and associated flexibility and the opportunity housing ordinance. Is there any further discussion all right, not seeing any all those in favor say: aye aye all right motion passes.

A

This will move forward to the city council on june 6th as a public hearing again june 6th at the city council. Moving on to item number two, which is a study item brought to us from our city engineer, but I believe we have phil kulas is presenting.

A

K

Can jump in first yeah, I'm jeremy melquest, I'm a civil engineer in the traffic and transportation group at the city here, I'm here tonight with phil kulas with srf who's, our consultant on the old cedar, avenue traffic and intersection study.

K

So phil will be given an update on what we got going on over the last few months on the study along the corridor and then also at the intersection of old shock, p old cd that that works been ongoing for about five years now.

K

So with that I'll pass it over to phil cooles with srf to give the presentation. Thank.

A

You, mr malcolm.

K

C

Jeremy, go ahead and share my screen here. All right, just confirming everyone can see my screen and can hear me before I jump in weekend.

A

C

Coolest great awesome well good evening, everyone. I appreciate the opportunity to get in front of you guys and share what we've been working on here with the public works department over the past few months and talk about what we'll be looking at here going forward.

C

So, as jeremy mentioned, I'm talking about the old cedar avenue corridor. So, first to kick things off.

C

I'm gonna go through a project overview talk about really what the project is, what we're looking at with it and what we're hoping to get out of it as part of this project, there's been a pretty decent amount of public engagement so far, and so I want to recap what we've done to date and what we've heard and then I'm going to talk about the concepts both for the corridor that jeremy had mentioned so old cedar avenue, as well as the intersection on the southern end, at old, cedar and old shock, p I'll talk about those concepts, what we're seeing in terms of evaluation so I'll present those and then lastly, I'm going to talk about next steps here with the project.

C

So what we're hoping to accomplish here over the next couple months.

C

The first the project is, there's two pieces to it. So there is the pavement preservation project that is occurring next year and that is roughly 87th down to east old shakopee there on old cedar avenue. So with that we're going to be looking at pavement, rehabilitation so be looking at maintaining the existing curb lines out there more or less with then restriping, potentially and modifying the the lanes out there, and then the second part of the project is actually looking at the intersection of east hill, chaka pee, road and old cedar avenue.

C

So that's at the southern end, and that is an intersection that has quite a bit of skew to it. So I'm going to highlight some of the concerns with that intersection and some of the issues that have been raised here over the past few years and then present concepts that are that we're looking at to help mitigate some of the concerns that are at that intersection and help improve the intersection for the coming years. Here and, as I mentioned, that's kind of a separate piece of the project.

C

So that's not actually going to be constructed next year. So the pavement preservation project is more on the corridor, focus where um the intersection there at the south isn't planned to be constructed until 2027, at least is what is estimated right now with this project and now also some other funding opportunities that are going on right. Now, we're looking at applying for funding to help secure that project and be able to construct it in the future.

C

So this slide right here, there's a couple of them that show engagement, so there's been I'd, say two rounds of public engagement. So far, so two or so months ago we kicked off the project from the public engagement side, which involved, let's talk bloomington using the website and providing residents commuters, uh just general people in the area the opportunity to comment on the corridor comment on the intersection.

C

So we had that open for about a month and with that there was a survey that people could partake in to help us really just gain insight about how the core is being used and any concerns that the area residents and commuters have so obviously we're trying to be cognizant of what people see. I mean there's a lot of people that live along the corridor that travel it daily. So they can see things that we might not not necessarily have the opportunity to just looking through some data.

C

So we were looking to gather some input to help, inform the study and uh later make the the decisions.

C

So the first slide here uh was getting at how people are using the corridor. So we asked a couple different questions here as to whether people are driving the corridor, whether they're bicyclists, whether they're pedestrian walking along in the corridor.

C

So I'm going to show a couple, different pie, graphs here with the first one being on the left. This one is looking at how often people are traveling the corridor via a car, um so you can see green that is daily, so that is roughly 50 of the respondents are traveling the corridor daily and then next part is weekly with the yellow and then more on the couple times a year or never.

C

So, for the most part, a lot of the respondents we have are traveling the corridor on a fairly frequent basis and then flip side. Here, on the right hand, side we have, how do you travel the corridor as a bicyclist, so this is looking at. How often are the people that responded to the survey using the corridor to bike so that could be on-road or on the regional trail? That's on the west side of the corridor and this one's a little bit different.

C

So this one pink is never and then purple is a few times a year and you can see those dominate the graph here. So most of the people that responded are not necessarily using the quarter on a very frequent basis to bike that doesn't necessarily mean that there's not bicyclists using the corridor and that there's not needs for that.

C

This is just a small snippet of the people that we captured, which you can see, there's roughly 25 people that answered the survey. So it's a subset, so we're not taking this necessary with that. This is like the holy grail here that this is really how the quarter is being used and we have captured everyone, but it does just allow some opportunities to see how people that have completed the survey are using the corridor and provide some insight into that.

C

Again here the one last pie chart is the pedestrian. So now this is looking at pedestrians and using the corridor, whether that be crossing the corridor or walking along the corridor on the regional trail, and with this you can see, the blue is never and then the pink is a few times a year, so very similar to the bike. We didn't necessarily capture a ton of people that are necessarily walking the corridor on a very regular basis, but you can see we do have some green and yellow there.

C

So we did capture some respondents that are walking the corridor on a weekly basis, at least, and then the graph here on the right. This is looking at more comprehensive, look at the corridor and kind of combining all that information that I had just gone over. So you can see the pink is the drive, but then we also do have other people that are using the core or with the walking biking at nine people that we received surveys from so it is a it is a good mix.

C

I mean the corridor does carry thousands of vehicles a day. So it's not really a surprise that we mainly captured people driving the corridor, but it is good to get other input from the other users here to see their thoughts on the corridor, particularly as we're looking at improvements that could be implemented to improve the safety of pedestrians. Obviously they're the most vulnerable users of a corridor.

C

So we're wanting to make sure that what we're doing is addressing their needs as well from a safety perspective, as well as just the general comfort as they're using the corridor.

C

So what I just went over was the first round of public engagement, so that was all virtual that was completed on. Let's talk bloomington, so we received input virtually and then the second round of public engagement here was actually completed earlier this week, where we held an open house at wright's lake park, actually just on tuesday in the evening, so it was a great night for it. It was super nice out, we probably captured around 25 or so people walking through the area.

C

So we had some people that specifically drove to the open house as well as being at a park on a nice day. We definitely also got people that were just out and about walking. So we kind of got a a good good cross-section of people that are in the area, so we had some people that were just general commuters of the corridor as well as some of the people more on the active side with the walking and bike. So overall I mean I thought it was a great great open house.

C

We got a lot of good input on the concepts, so the concepts I'm going to be showing here for the corridor and the intersection were presented to the public. So we got public input that we can then use to help inform some decisions that we're making with regards to the preferred alternative, as well as some of the geometric designs of that alternative.

C

So pivoting, here a little bit can change from public engagement to actually showing what the concepts are.

C

So the first slide here is looking at the corridor and then I'm going to go through a little bit of pros and cons with the different alternatives and what some of the trade-offs are with that, as I had mentioned before with the corridor here, we're mainly looking to keep the curb lines the same. This is a pavement preservation project so based on the fundings allocated for that project.

C

We're mainly looking at pavement rehabilitation, maintaining those curb lines, but that, with this there is the opportunity to restrike the roadway and allocate the available space to different modes of transportation, whether that's vehicles bikes pedestrians.

C

So we do have this opportunity here with this project, and I mean overall, the city's been really proactive with their pavement uh rehabilitation projects and taking this as an opportunity to re-evaluate the corridor and determine if the current needs of the corridor are being met or if there's something better, we could do as well as recognizing that things do change over time and that there could be development in the future. So also want to be cognizant of what is needed going forward here.

C

So with that there's the two concepts so the first one we'll call alternative a is essentially the existing four lane concept, which maintains two lanes of travel in each direction. So there's two lanes in the northbound direction and then two lanes in the southbound direction. So it's really perpetuating what is out there today and keeping that in place the alternative b. So that's what we would call the three-lane concept.

C

This is repurposing the roadway to narrow up the travel lanes and really just allocate one in each direction. So there would be one northbound lane and then one southbound lane, with the additional space being used for a center two way left turn lane. So in this graph you can see the bus down here in the middle or the van I should say so.

C

What that allows is the opportunity for vehicles that are turning off of the corridor and even turning onto the corridor to use that space to make their respective maneuvers it allows them to get out of the through lanes and then decelerate and then wait. If there's any oncoming cars in that lane, instead of a through lane, so there's definitely been proven safety benefits of this type of cross section.

C

With some of these, uh with some of the geometry that's out there I mean it allows vehicles to queue in their own dedicated space, as well as from the pedestrian perspective, you're only crossing one traffic at a time or not at a time you're only crossing one lane traffic in each direction. I should say so: you're not crossing two in each direction. So there's less exposure in that sense, as well as there is the elimination of the dual threat, which is when one vehicle stops, but then another doesn't.

C

So what you might have is uh in this top graphic here, where you have the van this van might stop, but then this car might not realize why this van is stopping, even though, if there's a ped here and then you can run the risk of that car hitting them. So with the three lane alternative, you definitely have the benefit of eliminating that dual threat. So if the volumes are appropriate, looking at three lanes is being done more commonly both in bloomington and around the twin cities. As a.

C

Whole with this slide, I just want to highlight some of the trade-offs between the three lane and four-lane and really why we're looking at a three-lane as a potential alternative here.

C

So the first step here is looking at the current traffic volumes, as well as looking at traffic volumes in the future. So looking at really, what is the expected growth on the corridor based on land use in the area as well as the region and how this corridor gets used, and what we're seeing from that is that the current traffic volumes along the corridor are within the range of capacity volumes on the corridor.

C

So that's both for today and in the future we're seeing that if we did reduce this corridor down to a three-lane cross-section, so the one lane in each direction that there would be adequate capacity for vehicles here, we wouldn't really see much of a degradation of vehicle operations. I mean there's still capacity for the three vehicles to make their movements, as well as the vehicles to utilize that two-way left turn lane to turn onto and off of the corridor, in particular with this corridor.

C

There is quite a bit of access along the corridor on the southern end, it's more high-density residential with more of the apartment buildings, as well as there's some commercial access down there and then, as you, transition to the north there's more single-family homes with driveways each connecting onto old cedar. So there's quite a bit of access which the three lane provides that benefit of allowing them to queue and decelerate in that turn lane.

C

So that's definitely some benefits with the three-lane and then also one other item to point out here with the three-lane concept is at the intersection of 90th street. There are medians currently at that intersection, so that intersection is a signalized intersection and there are medians in the middle of the roadway. So if we did go down to the three-lane cross section, we would be looking at modifying those medians in the middle to adjust for the lanes with that three-lane concept and how those lanes would align with each other.

C

Well, that summarizes the corridor so now I'm going to pivot and talk about the second part of the project, which is the intersection of east old, shakopee, road and old cedar avenue. So this is the intersection on the very southern end of the corridor.

C

The intersection is currently a signalized intersection. That is on a skew, as you can see here, where the lines do not align with each other perpendicular. So there's a skew here and for anyone to travel through this area. I'm going to tell you anything new, but this intersection does take diversion traffic from 494. So a very heavy movement here is the westbound right and then the southbound left. So those two complementary moves up to 90th.

C

So that's a fairly heavy diversion route that can be experienced when there's operational issues on 494 and then east old shock fee, just in general, that carries a fair amount of traffic as well. So this intersection is a fairly busy intersection and if you look here on the map, there are currently two lanes both eastbound and westbound, but there are not any dedicated turn lanes and particularly left turn lanes.

C

So right now, if someone is wanting to make say an eastbound left here, they're having to queue here in this through lane and then judge gaps in the westbound through traffic and based on the volumes that are here. That can be a challenge for drivers to find those gaps in traffic, so they're having to wait there for a fairly long time at some times of the day, especially during the pm peak.

C

When volumes are higher to make that movement and without the dedicated left turn lanes, they also do not have a dedicated signal phase so that they aren't ever receiving like a green arrow. There's no flashing, yellow arrow out there that can um be protected by certain times of day. So there's never a part of the cycle where those left turns at the intersection truly have the right of way where they do not have to judge gaps in the traffic and they are able to make their movement unimpeded.

C

So that's some of the concerns out there and on the right here. This highlights some of the safety issues that exist with the geometry that is currently there and with those left turns, and the lack of left turn lanes is.

C

This graphic is showing this eastbound left car if they're waiting here to queue or if they're waiting here queued and they're waiting to judge gaps in the westbound traffic to make this left turn. If there's opposing traffic here, what can happen is they're blocking the sight line. So then, this driver is unable to see what is around that car that's cute here, and they they can't see the oncoming traffic.

C

So then, what that can lead to is these cars turning in front of other cars and a crash occurring, and that's a frequent type of crash that is occurring at the intersection today, is based on the geometry and then the lack of signal phasing for those left turns.

C

Just expanding upon the crashes you're a bit more really, the crash pattern has been fairly consistent over the years. It's been something that's been documented, both recently as well as a longer looking in the five to ten year time frame. Just due to that geometry.

C

uh So I'm going to go too much in the detail here, but these tables do show the crashes that we pulled for the intersection and what you can see is that old chalk view road and old cedar. That's really the intersection! That's sticking out here in terms of the frequency of crashes, so you can see for the most part, the inner other intersections along the corridor. There's not really too many crashes occurring.

C

uh There are two over this five year period from or at 90th. So that's also a signalized intersection, so not terribly surprising there. Those were pdo crashes, so uh fairly low severity crashes that occurred there and then, when we look at you sold choco being old cedar we're seeing 12 crashes, so definitely an elevated amount of crashes there and we are seeing the crash trends with the the left, turn crashes and the angle crashes.

C

Due to the geometry in the signal phasing that I had just talked about, so we are seeing those type of crashes and that trend uh recurring throughout the years here. So that's what we're looking to address with the concepts.

C

So this slide is showing the two alternatives that have been developed previously and then refined as part of our efforts with this project. So there's the one on the left, which is maintaining the signal at the intersection.

C

But with this we're looking at adding some additional turn lanes and some signal phasing here so in the westbound direction, there would be the addition of the westbound left turn as well as the westbound right and then in the eastbound.

C

We're looking at the addition of the eastbound left, and so with this we're allowing the left turns to cue in their own lanes as well as by providing their own lane to queue in they. We can provide the opportunity for dedicated left turn phasing, so that can be through like a flashing, all arrow head or other types of signal heads where we do allow at least a part of the cycle where there would be a green arrow that gives those left turns the right way so they're not having to judge gaps in traffic.

C

That is oncoming, which is what's leading to some of the crashes. Today is just due to the high conflicting volume and the poor sight lines that exist with the geometry and the poor, skew that is at this intersection.

C

And then here on, the right is a roundabout concept, so what this one will do is replace the existing signal. That's at the intersection with a three-legged roundabout at that intersection. So there would be the one leg on the north side for old cedar, and then there would be the eastbound and westbound approaches on old shakopee road that would tie into this roundabout and then old. Cedar avenue would actually come up and tee into old shakopee road here, and that would be what we would call a stop control.

C

So the northbound approach here would have a stop sign. That would then have to wait for gaps in traffic here to make their movement and with the roundabout here the regional trail that is currently on the west side of old cedar. That would come up here and cross at the side. Tree stop intersection before then proceeding up north along old cedar.

C

So both of these alternatives get out addressing the left turn crash that we're seeing occur at this intersection due to some of the constraints that we just talked about. So both both alternatives mitigate those and would look to improve the safety of the intersection.

C

Talk a bit more about some of the details and some of the trade-offs with the alternatives that we're looking at here to help feed into the decision of what ultimate will be recommended to move forward.

C

So with the roundabout, we are seeing lower delay there for vehicles, so just the general purpose vehicles they are able to traverse through the roundabout more efficiently than with a signal, and so that gets to just the nature of roundabout vehicles are having to stop and wait for their light to turn green to go. They can go as long as there's no one's conflicting approaching them on the roundabout, so we are seeing lower overall delays with the roundabout compared to the signal.

C

However, one of the trade-offs is the old cedar avenue there. On the south end. I'd mentioned that that would be stop control with the stop sign here, but we are seeing higher delays with that movement to turn on to old, shakopee road, and that gets at some of the higher volumes that are along old shock, p road that make it more challenging for those drivers to be able to turn on to that. With those higher conflicting volumes they're having more difficulty, judging and finding gaps in traffic.

C

You can also see with the roundabout that it pushes it up into the northeast quadrant here more so there's this property here that, with the roundabout, we are looking at having to take more of that property.

C

I should know also that there are impacts, though, with the signal alternative too. Some of the buildings are right up against the roadway so to provide some of the facilities here and modifications with some of the pork chops, as well as sidewalk that there would be impacts to that property with both alternatives.

C

So that is something to keep in mind that, while the roundabout does have a larger footprint that there are impacts with both of them but other than that, other properties aren't really expected to be touched in the sense of needing to take buildings or acquire anything like that uh there would. There would be some modifications to some of the access around here, particularly with the roundabout, just to get some of these driveways to tie into the roundabout and on that topic uh with the roundabout.

C

There is some more challenges with how this would operate from the local business and local residential access here down on the southern end.

C

So right now, there's this parking lot for the apartments that only has access here and some of these turn angles with the roundabout to tie into that are difficult to to make just due to the tight constraints that we're talking about here. um So we have geometric constraints as well as then, just from an operations perspective.

C

How do those vehicles that are exiting there? How would they then get going northbound or eastbound on an old shakopee road? um Because with the right about here there is the splitter island, so this would become a write-in right out. So then these drivers would have to turn right and then find another way to then go here, northbound or eastbound. So some of the axis through here is definitely more challenging with the roundabout.

C

So that is something we're definitely keeping in mind here, whereas with the signal for the most part, most of the access maintains, in its current nature, of uh being able to ride that access there, particularly as full access where they can make their respective maneuvers in either direction. So something definitely keep in mind.

C

Is the axis challenges with the roundabout, so those are some of the more vehicle related metrics that were looked at and then with that we also were looking at pedestrians and bicycles and how they would navigate through the concepts and then the benefits that each of them would provide.

C

So with the roundabout there are the channelized right turns here for the pedestrians that they would have to cross, and really these are needed from the skewing.

C

Let's here so to be able to have some of the larger vehicles make their turns at this intersection and even passenger cars just due to the severe skew that the channelized right turns definitely help with that, and that's accounting for that skew angle, to allow them to make that right turn without having to swing it into other lanes of traffic or clip off like drive on the curb on the inside of those turns. So that's something we're seeing and uh keep in mind right now, we're at the alternative evaluation stage and concept development.

C

Some of the specific geometry of those turn lanes can be looked at too if the roundabout is or sorry. If the signal is selected here to move forward, there's definitely new strategies with channelization to try to make them more pedestrian friendly and tighten them up a bit more and improve sight lines for drivers than have to judge gaps in traffic. So there are opportunities for improvements for those channels right turns with the roundabout.

C

They do have the advantage of crossing each lane of traffic separately, so they're able to cross one one direction. Traffic then there's the splayer island and then cross the other direction, so there's that benefit from the pedestrian perspective of being able to uh cross those separately and not have to judge gaps in traffic in both directions.

C

However, one thing the note here is the trail crossing here would occur at this uncivilized intersection of old cedar and old shakopee road. So that's not a signalized phase like it is today where they're able to cross uh with a signal phase. So that's something to keep in mind and if the roundabout were to continue to move forward, we'd probably be looking at some enhancements of that crossing to improve the safety from a pedestrian and bicycle perspective.

C

But really the good news is both of these. Alternatives are looking at mitigating the crashes that are occurring out there, so safety is obviously a high priority of the city. So that's what we're looking at addressing here and both these alternatives do that, through the roundabout, with the slower nature of vehicles traversing through there and the lower speed of crashes that would occur, and then the signal with providing some of those left turn phasing and left turn lanes were definitely helping mitigate the left turn crashes that are currently occurring at the intersection.

C

With that, I've now talked about the public engagement and then the concepts so now here looking forward we're going to be looking at refining the concepts, if there's any additional enhancement, enhancements that we're looking at incorporating to them, we'll be modifying the concepts and then here in june, 1st, there's the deadline for the hsip funding.

C

So that's the funding that we're looking at submitting on for the old cedar, avenue and old shock p road intersection, so not too long here in the future, we'll be submitting that application so we're needing to provide a recommendation for the traffic control at the intersection there, so, whether that's the roundabout or signal and then a bit further down the road there's the old cedar avenue corridor. So what I had first talked about with the existing four lane cross section or the three lane coming up with the recommendations for that.

C

So taking all the input that we've received today from the public, as well as all the technical analysis and then recommending an alternative for that which will ultimately go to planning commission and city council. Where, then, after that, we'll be looking at actually pulling together the striping plans for that concept for the pavement rehabilitation project next year. So that's where we'll be looking at specifying where actually lane markings go that then the contractor can bid on and that can go to construction next year.

C

So with that, that's wraps up the presentation part of what I plan to talk about now and definitely looking for any comments or questions here that I can help answer and looking for any input to help guide us here over the next couple of months. Here with the work we're looking to complete.

A

All right, thank you, uh mr kulas. um Just if I can, um I don't know mr melquist or mr cooles are you guys are going to decide on the type of intersection before this goes in for the uh h, sip application?

A

Or are you you looking for guidance from us or, what's the maybe the question there, that's being asked of us tonight, yeah.

K

So, mr chair, commissioners, at this point we are just looking for input on any comments that the the commission has um by june 1st. We will be submitting funding a phone application, but the study will go until june june or july time frame before we finalize the study recommendations so yeah at this point, it's just getting comments from the commission.

A

Okay, all right! Thank you! So commission members go ahead, go ahead.

I

Great, this is my neighborhood, so I commute on the actual proposed study area that you just prese. All the street that you presented on right now is like where I live. I shop and I take transit in terms of like commuting to dropping off my siblings to the kennedy high school so practically live on, and we recently just discovered uh old cedar bridge and the trail over there. So um I have a lot of concerns about obviously the traffic so to go back on the original part of the presentation about the four-way four-lane to three-lane.

I

I'm I'm not opposed to the three-lane. Actually, it's it's gonna, look pretty good um there! The streets are we drop, including myself. We drive really fast on that lane.

C

I

So it doesn't slow for traffic in terms of like pedestrians, so a three-way lane would definitely slow and allow for people to turn in the middle lane versus just all of a sudden, just stopping um and I'm really looking forward to kind of seeing how bike friendly that street would be um so I'll. Just leave it at that when it comes to the intersection of old cedar and just that turn lane that you were just talking about.

I

That is a nightmare, and I'm really glad that you guys are saying that right now, I'm very excited about it. I'm so much concerned about the roundabout, I'm generally not a fan of roundabout, especially in this corner.

I

Maybe a left lane designated left lane and a light that allows for folks to go onto the lane, because it's really hard right now, as you talked about the crash when two of us are turning facing each other on old shakopee is really hard because we don't have enough space to pass each other, and if we make eye contact, I know I'm turning and you're turning, so we don't try to hit each other, but sometimes we don't pay attention.

I

I guess what I would be concerned about the roundabout is how that is going to be so removed from the uh the uh the trail.

I

um A lot of families are just now discovering the you know the, how accessible and and the nature connections to the the bridge and the trail that's existing over there and I think the with improved pedestrian, as is with improved pedestrian um crossing. I think it would be continued. It would be a better solution than the roundabout. The roundabout is beautiful and all, but I feel like with the proposed design it kind of removes the pedestrians and kind of takes them into a longer path to get to the.

I

If they're gonna walk from their apartments or their houses to go to the to the bridge and kind of get connect to that nature, amenity, that's just right in our backyard. I think I'd be concerned in terms of like how that what that would do to.

I

I know, you're providing a solution but you're, also taking away accessibility and the desire for folks to connect, I feel like roundabouts, would create higher traffic in terms of like people not stopping as frequently it's just for the cars watching for the other car to go into the circle per se.

I

I see that a lot on richfield by the target and toward um I think they have like two roundabouts in richville that I mostly frequent um and I don't see many pedestrians, but I see more cars just going in circle. So I guess what I'm advocating for selfishly here is.

I

um I really do appreciate staff, here's presentation and the thought that's going through this and the need improvement for this area, but also just thinking strategically about what that does to the livability, and I know that you're looking at that, but also for how do we connect better to nature that's available to us, uh but also improving the pedestrian pedestrian nests? If that's a word.

A

Close enough right.

I

I'll leave it at that. Thank you, but I really do appreciate you guys. Looking to that.

C

All right, uh your commissioner definitely appreciate all that input.

A

Go ahead, commissioner, goldsmith. Thank you, commissioner abdi, for that. That was really good.

H

Thanks, uh mr chair, I will second commissioner optis the comments. The one thing that really speaks to me and- and maybe it's more of in principle versus practice- is I do like when you have a roundabout. The crossing for pedestrians is only crossing one direction of traffic.

H

Now I don't know how much it really happens and benefits pedestrians, and I guess I don't see enough roundabouts when I'm walking here in bloomington, because we don't really have a lot. But I I do like that concept of.

H

I only have to look to my right when I'm crossing the street versus looking both directions, but I I agree if you know, especially as you're walking across when I look at the map, it does bring you further away and seems like a deviation and then I think the other thing that I see with the roundabout that I chant that I'm challenged is. We talked the presenter talked about that apartment complex.

H

That only has access in that corner yeah, where your cursor is, and that that concerns me as well is what what will that look like so yeah? I think your comments are spot-on, but you know when I was listening to the presentation I was thinking about that one lane of traffic crossing just was a a benefit um for that roundabout option.

A

Okay, thank you, commissioner goldsman commissioner cookman.

J

Mr chair, thank you, uh mr kulas. um I took my one traffic engineering class in civil engineering school, which makes me an expert but uh I'll lean on you up for this. um At roundabouts, for pedestrian crossings are pedestrians actually using the crosswalks, or do they go closer to the center of the roundabout? I know there's a roundabout in my neighborhood on.

J

I believe it's winstead way now and um it's pretty lightly trafficked right now and I'm guilty of just going closer to the center of the roundabout and crossing up there, because it's a lot shorter way around. What do you see from a traffic engineering standpoint? Do people actually use the cross box or do they cut up where it's a little easier.

C

Mr cherry commissioner, I appreciate the question here. For the most part, we do typically see pedestrians cross actually at the marked crosswalks here, so I would say actually at roundabouts, they do have one of the higher compliance rates of actually pedestrians using the crosswalks that are provided. I think, a lot of that gets to the nature of roundabouts and how how vehicles navigate them and where they're, looking as they're, trying to judge gaps in traffic as well as uh make their maneuvers so they're, obviously having to turn as they enter the roundabout.

C

So I think a lot of it is more just awareness of the drivers here and what what the expectation is from where a pedestrian would be. I think a lot of pedestrians seem to recognize that, and they do utilize that area with the crosswalk, particularly with the splitter islands that are there as well. So it provides that refuge island for pedestrians to cross in one direction traffic. So we typically do see fairly high compliance of pedestrians, actually using the marked crosswalks at roundabout.

J

Thank you and I think, perhaps the difference between my local roundabout, which is very lightly trafficked. I feel more comfortable crossing where this would be a very busy one, and I can understand why people would want to use the sidewalk there so um or crosswalk. Excuse me. um I want to echo a couple of things commissioner abdi said and you're you're a couple years late to the party on the old cedar, avenue bridge, that's an asset and it's been great for a while.

J

If any of our residents haven't been down there, it's fantastic, there's, a bunch of connections to the minnesota river and all kinds of good stuff, and it's a good season for it. So hopefully our residents head down there, um and that is uh what you talked about. Commissioner abdi- was how do we create connections to that and making sure that we use that as an asset, because I think that is an asset and I've said uh in this seat before that.

J

This intersection is one of my very few targets, a place that I really think needs some new life and some new development in here, and I think uh the I think. What could be the catalyst catalyst to that redevelopment?

J

Is the old cedar avenue bridge and so for me, one of the most important decisions that should go into whether it's a roundabout or a signaled intersection is what's best for pedestrians and what is going to catalyze redevelopment, because I think there's potential here and I think, there's a real need for redevelopment. So I would like to see us really put a lot of weight into what's best for development, which really is what's best for pedestrians and walkability.

J

um So I'll leave my comments at that.

A

All right, thank you, commissioner cookton anybody else go ahead. Commissioner. Roman. Thank.

G

You, mr chair, um thank you for the good work on this and for thinking through it um the first part of your question and your presentation about the the four to three all for it. um I anywhere in the city. We can do that. You will pretty much always have my support for that, um especially since that's how the street is striped south of of the intersection. So it seems it's consistent with what we've already done there. If and if your data support that, then I I think it's great, um usually I this is interesting.

G

Usually I am a fan of a roundabout for a lot of reasons, um but in this case I I think I'm not and and the the reason being, as was already discussed about some of the the pedestrian issues, um the redevelopment, I think I you know like it's. The idea of you know the roundabout does help traffic keep flowing, it may create, you know, reduces delay or people running lights and whatnot, but I you know again. I don't know what the data are for for pedestrian experience.

G

I can see where there's some improvements, but this specific design here I find challenging. I appreciate the creativity of it.

G

I I did not have a civil engineering class, although I worked adjacent to a civil engineering building for seven years, so some osmosis- um I also wonder about I also you know a little bit of the the um the deadline for the funding is, puts us in a little bit of a pinch with a project that we, you know, may not get to for five years, um which is is hard because you know if you back, otherwise you usually back up.

G

You know procurement and schematic design, and it gives you kind of three years to chew on it um versus three weeks. um So that's that's kind of a hard one.

G

What I wonder about- and I don't know those of you who do this kind of work- uh I think about what we've done over at maybe maybe we don't like this idea, um but we've done over at 98th and penn, where we have an intersection that is very busy, and so we've we've changed our light timing on the east-west corridor to provide a turn alternate a turn option without a turn lane, and I wonder, if some sort of uh for the next two years or something some sort of a pilot where we we change our signalizing at the intersection to see if that does help with some of the crash issues again thinking about going back to the idea of how do we keep this uh neighborhood friendly?

G

You know if we stick with the intersection proposal, rather than widening it and creating a turn lane. Is there a benefit to just change our signal timing? There may be other problems that that creates, and that's not my expertise, but I know that's an area where I know we do that and clearly we're solving a problem there. I don't know what that does to the rest of the system, and you may have some insights.

G

You want to share with us or maybe not, but I wonder about using that as a if we chose the the alternative a if we did something like that for the next couple years to see what the impact on that is and whether we did or didn't need to expand the roadway further with turn lanes. But otherwise, um thanks for the good work.

A

All right, thank you, commissioner. Rome any others go go ahead. uh uh Commissioner. Abdi.

I

Thank you, chair, um just a quick question for the presenter. Sorry I didn't get your name. um Are you doing engagement with businesses on the corridor like actually dropping by and maybe even showing them the proposed schematic that you have and saying you know these are options that we're considering right now and how that would impact their businesses, because getting online feedback and resident feedback would be different than the property owners event.

I

I don't know if you're probably doing mailing, but as part of your engagement strategy, or is there a plan to visit these properties, especially the ones that are in very close proximity to where the roundabout would be? Should a roundabout be an option?

I

There's a lot of small small businesses that a lot of the residents frequent so it'd be interesting to kind of see what the businesses feedback would be in terms of like how that would reduce accessibility or would that deter businesses.

A

Mr malquez, do you want to address public engagement.

K

Yes, I can cover. I can cover that, mr cherry, so we have sent out uh postcards to 650 properties along the corridor to inform them of the let's talk, bloomington webpage, that we have all of the study information on and then we've also said. We also sent out 650 postcards a second time for the open house that we hosted on tuesday.

K

So that's the efforts that we've we've done so far.

K

We have not gone out uh door to door to each business to to inform them of the study, but um with with our mailings and with the online work, we're hoping that they are aware of what's going on. Thank you.

A

Thank you, and maybe I can address a little bit on the hcip commissioner, roman.

A

All uh the hsip funding right that you're applying through the mech council and the mech council, essentially treats either a signalized intersection or a roundabout as an intersection improvement, so either one would, if it should change later on down. The road generally would move through the process without any uh significant issues. They would only be allowed a certain amount of money um through the award. So um anybody else have any questions go ahead. Commissioner, corman.

B

No questions just um responding to requests of feedback and, of course you are the experts on traffic and streets and all that so you'll do what you'll consider will be best for our community and for our city. But from my personal perspective, yes, three lanes I'll, take that over the four and with the roundabouts I will join. I will second the the sentiment of this likeness for the roundabouts as well.

B

um I'm not a I'm, not a big fan of roundabouts, and I would know that a lot of people that look a little like me, also don't like them and um having gone through a very mild, traumatic, brain injury.

B

um I also know that around the bones will be very confusing um for many people that have suffered any type of injury like that or even more severe, so um in a very busy street, it's just too busy to really um take that kind of risk. That's just my very personal opinion.

A

All right, thank you, commissioner corman. I will uh make a couple comments, but I'll, try and compliment at this level and not my work level. So um a couple things I would just uh recommend yeah. I I like the idea of the four-lane to three-length conversion. um Of course, one of the things I would recommend is to think about, as part of that is maximizing that shoulder for people that would like to bike.

A

Obviously, we have different types of bikers those that want to use the road, those that want to use sidewalks or trails, and so we kind of have to think about both those. I think that makes that connection down to the old cedar bridge, and so maybe that's enough on the on the old cedar alignment.

A

But thinking about the intersection you know, I I I think part of the question for me- comes about the number of crashes and um are we eliminating a certain type of crash with a uh with either one of these alternatives that you might or that you would expect to eliminate? But I think one of the big issues I do see with the roundabout is the current configuration of of putting pedestrians at a non non-controlled intersection on old shakopee.

A

Maybe it's just the the current design of the the roundabout and maybe that could be tweaked a little bit, so it's that trail could potentially make the crossing at the roundabout.

A

But as far as uh choice between those two I I just the data and the public input are really the most important. I think. As long as you're meeting your goals of reducing the crashes, um you know there's all sorts of things that could be uh considered uh in my mind. I I'm not as worried about which is strange for my my craft, but I'm not worried about people going as fast as they want to go.

A

Sometimes it's for the benefit of the city that they drive a little bit slower and so narrower lanes or longer cues can be okay, but I also realize that brings a lot of complaints that you folks have to deal with, and those are are difficult to deal with. So um maybe that wasn't much guidance or much thought, but uh those are my two cents. So anybody else, commissioner cookton.

J

uh Thank you, mr chair, mr kulas. With the roundabout option, can you discuss the asymmetry we have of this with the center of the roundabout being pushed to the east? I'm sure, that's because of land acquisition or other things, but did I'm imagining you looked at the option of making that a more conventional, four and four out type of a roundabout? Can you discuss why that's not what we're seeing here.

C

Mr chair and commissioners, here, yes, what you highlighted there is what's really driving the location of the roundabout. There is in regards to providing access to the surrounding businesses and then trying to minimize the land acquisition, so additional right-of-way that would be required to construct a roundabout. So that would be both looking at property impacts just in terms of land as well as then actual building impacts as well.

C

So the location of that roundabout is largely driven due to the right-of-way land acquisition, as well as trying to maintain vehicle speeds through the roundabout, so using the geometry of the roundabout to help maintain speeds, as vehicles are approaching the roundabout to signal to them that they are needing to slow down for the roundabout uh to navigate it at an appropriate speed both for maintaining their lane through the roundabout, as well as for pedestrian safety. So a lot of that occurs with the geometrics of a roundabout.

C

So maintaining the deflection is what is what that is referred to us looking at maintaining the deflection of those approaches as they enter the roundabout? So that's signaling to the drivers that they are needing to uh turn and slow down to enter the roundabout. So it was kind of a couple factors that went into the location there of the roundabout that we're showing right now.

A

Anything else, commissioner, cook.

J

uh Maybe I could look to my city traffic engineers in the room. Is that a non-starter with having that be a symmetric roundabout with the land acquisition and the impacts to existing? Is that just that's not an option.

A

F

Roberts, mr chairman, commissioner cookton, so as as mr kulas alluded to you, do need some deflection um to make the roundabout work the way it's going to go early on in roundabout design, for instance, if you could look at the old shakopee road approach uh heading over to trunk highway 77, if you just make that straight through you, don't get any kind of speed control, you don't get any kind of track management and you really want people to be a little uncomfortable. You want to see this thing where oh, I need to turn.

F

You have to push the roundabout to the north to get that effect here. If you don't, you create an unsafe situation, and so there's no way geometrically that you can just put a traffic control device in here that that does less right away acquisition and the other thing I want to point out too, is these both come with property acquisition. It's just distributed differently in terms of the impacts whose it's going to take, but they both do have significant right-of-way impacts. Just because of the context here. This is a an area that hasn't been improved.

F

It hasn't seen any kind of street widening and it's one of the older areas older intersections in the city, so the what our task now is to go, find the best traffic control device for this intersection in terms of what improves the safety, maintains the capacity um and is going to serve the neighborhood for a lot of years and that the residents feel like is part of their community. And so that's what we're doing and then we'll start to look at the impacts of the design that we come up with and how much right away.

F

We have to take from each property.

A

Great. Thank you. Both commissioner goltzman.

H

Thanks, mr chair, I guess I have a question about the roundabout. What would the materials be for the center of the roundabout and the reason I ask? Is it's a green circle right now and I'm thinking about green space, and would it be a cement center or could it be something that's visually more interesting?

H

Potentially you know green space or even like you know, public art or something that could give the community more character than just a plain center roundabout. Just thinking thinking creatively here, while we're while we're talking about it.

K

Yeah, mr cherry commissioners, um it is shown as green space in the concept and it could. It could really be any any type of material grass.

K

Concrete it'll depend on truck truck turning movements, at least in the the first eight to ten feet of of that green space, but then yeah the center is not defined yet on what what type of material that will be.

H

Thank you. I think that clarifies um now. Obviously we don't want to make it a park. You know people walking to it to be in the center of traffic, but I think it might be an opportunity for us to bring some character to the community and and bring some identity.

H

um Obviously it's a very cement, focused area, but could we do something kind of unique here make it make it a focal point if we did go that direction so just some feedback.

A

All right and then uh just maybe oh one other question I had and and maybe I'm sure mr coolest, you can answer what are we talking about for traffic volumes on on through the intersection there? Just to maybe help understand the the level of of magnitude of the issue here.

C

Yeah, mr chair commissioners, so for the existing adts uh on the northern approach on old cedar um right at the intersection here, we're looking at nearing ten thousand and then on old shakopee, it's more in the 15 to 20 000 range, and then it drops off down into a couple thousand on the southern end of the intersection and as you progress north around the corner, once you pass 90th, the volumes start to drop quite a bit too, as 90th is a major diverter out there.

C

So traffic tuned from 90th is using that small size, small stretch between 90th and east shakopee, so we're seeing a decent amount of traffic go through the intersection, particularly on east old shakopee, and a lot of that is also concentrated during the peak hours and peak periods. Just to the due to the nature of how east old chocolate is a reliever for some of the other major freeways in the area.

A

All right, uh no, that's good uh appreciate that that's so we got around 25 000 vehicles running through that and I think you got 80 000 90 000 on cedar avenue. So just a comparison for folks to think about it's, it's a quarter or more of the traffic that you see on old cedar. So uh good luck figuring this one out. um I think you heard some some feedback from the planning commission. So hopefully that's good for you.

C

Mr chair and commissioners definitely appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you tonight and we look forward to taking the input here and refining our concepts and moving forward over the next month or so.

A

All right, thank you, and if I can ask uh one other question and um maybe uh well, we talked about at a time that there was going to be another presentation from transportation on maybe was it the scoping or I don't remember, for the upcoming season is that in june july? What is what does that time frame? Look for? Would we see a next presentation for the the pavement management program.

D

uh Mr chair commissioners, um we haven't scheduled that meeting yet because, while summer has completely arrived this week until a few weeks ago, it wasn't here, and so the pmp driver rounds are still occurring. So next week should be the last couple: pmp drive arounds, and then we will have our internal scoping meeting and we do plan on coming back to you, I would say, probably either in july or august,.

A

All right, thank you, miss long appreciate that have fun guys um all right with that. I think that ends uh item number two here tonight and we'll move on to uh well uh item number three, and that is planning commission policy and issue update. Mr marker garden,.

D

Sure, mr mr chair commissioners, looking forward at our next three planning commission meetings, each of them has just one item on the agenda at least so far may 26th. Two weeks from tonight we have an interim use permit for a temporary pandemic service facility on june. Second, three weeks from tonight, we have a conditional use permit for a pet services facility at 90, 56, penn avenue south and then on june 16th.

D

We have a variance preliminary plan and final plat at 3011 and 3015 overlooked drive, that's what we have coming up.

A

All right, thank you all right anything from commissioners for staff that they'd like to bring up anything from commissioners that they'd like to bring up for staff, not seeing anything right off the bat it looks like um with that. We can conclude our may 12 2022 planning commission meeting. Thank you all.

A