Loading...
CR 2014-060 Municipal Consent for the Southwest Light Rail Transit Project-4m (1), of flopkin-', June 12, 2014 Pro)osed Action Council Report 2014-060 Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to approve rove Resolution 2014-028, ) �)rov�hig the _Phy 1�glldcsigq component of the prelitninary Cy for the SOUthWeSt Li it Rail p ect within the --_ _gh— – --poj- City of Hopkins. With this motion, the resolution will be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council. As a city impacted by the proposed construction of the SW LRT, Hopkins is required -under state law to hold a public hearing on the municipal consent plans for the portion of the project within our border. The public hearing was held on June 3, 2014. The City is then asked to either approve or disapprove the plans. A local unit of governincrit that disapproves ttic plalls shall describc, specific anicildinents to die plaris that, if adopted, would cause the local unit to withdraw its disapproval. Failure to approve or disapprove the plans in writing within 45 days after the hearing is deemed to be approval, -unless an extension of time is agreed to by the Metropolitan Council as the responsible authority. The deadline for acting on municipal consent without an extension is July 14, 2014. Preliminary design plans show the general dimensions and location of the light rail alignment, including approximate station locations and related infrastructure. Municipal consent applies only to this level of detail. Future decisions regarding issues such as station design and streetscape will continue to be addressed as the project proceeds through to final design. The plans can be accessed at 1-ittj).'//www.iiietrocc)Ltricil.or Tritis)ortilloii/Pi-ojccts/Curi-clit-PrOiCCtS/SOL)tl'IW(,St-LI2.'1'/MLiiiici.)al- ---------------------- C'c)iisciit/Plari-DOCLliiieiits.c,ist)x. The City of Hopkins will continue to participate in design plans, as well as specific actions related to the operations and maintenance facility. Priman, Issues to Consider • What is included in the Municipal Consent plans'? • What comments were received from the public? SupportW2 Information • Resolution 2014-028 • Pu c Conlin 1rt6n El erum Director I Planning & Development Planning Financial Impact: $0 Budgeted: Y/N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: COL11161 Report 2014-060 Municipal Consent Page 2 Acral, s�of the Issues 0 What is included in the Alunicipal Consent plans? The plans for Hopkins include three LRT stations: Shady Oak, Downtown Hopkins and Blake. The plans also include the Operations and Maintenance Facility (OMF), sited in south Hopkins, and related track and facilities for the line. The Shady Oak Station is generally located one block north of 5th Street South and approximately two blocks south of Excelsior Boulevard. According to the Municipal Consent Plans, the Shady Oak Station area currently includes: a. Construction of a center platform LRT station and related LRT infrastructure; b. Construction of an approximately 500 space park-and-ride SUrt"Ice lot covering approximately 5 acres, including a kiss -and -ride area, bike storage and landscaping; C. Construction of a new roadway located between Excelsior Boulevard and the station, built to state -aid standards, designed with two roundabouts, sidewalks, dedicated bike lane and landscaping; d. Construction of a pedestrian path between 5th Street South and the station; and e. Realignment of the Minnesota River Bluffs Regional Trail from approximately the proposed 17th Avenue South extension to I I th Avenue South with new bituminous surfacing. The Downtown Hopkins Station is generally located between 8th Avenue South and 7th Avenue South along the Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Regional Trail just south of Excelsior Boulevard. According to the Municipal Consent Plans, the Downtown Hopkins Station area currently includes: a. Construction of a center platform LRT station and related LRT infrastructure; b. Design and construction of a new civic plaza area to include softscape (trees, shrubs and perennials) and hardscape (concrete and pavers) landscape elements; C. Design and installation of enhanced bicycle facilities including elements such as short and covered long-term bicycle parking, self-service maintenance kiosk and additional bicycle route signage on or near the proposed civic plaza; d. Construction of an off-street kiss -and -ride area adjacent to the civic plaza; e. Construction of curb extensions and cross walk improvements including ADA - compliant pedestrian signals at the Excelsior Boulevard and 8th Avenue South intersection (cast and north sides); and f. Construction of three (3) bus bays at the Excelsior Boulevard and 8th Avenue South intersection. COL11161 Report 2014-060 Municipal Consent Page 3 The Blake Station is located adjacent to the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail west of Blake Road. According, to the Municipal Consent Plans, the Blake Station area includes: a. Construction of a center platform LRT station and related LRT infrastructure; b. Construction of an approximately 475 -space park-and-ride ramp; C. Construction of a new access road including a bus stop, kiss -and -ride area and associated landscaping located south of the station and north of the park-and- ride ramp between Blake Road and the western terminus of the station platform; d. Construction of a new access road generally located south of the station and west of t , lie station platform and continuing westward and then Southerly along an alignment connecting to Pierce Avenue. Improvements to principally include bituminous resurfacing, a two- foot ribbon concrete curb defining the drive on either side, center striping, wayfinding signs and Utility POIC Mounted lighting (no utility work except for lighting); c. Construction of a new traffic signal at Excelsior Boulevard and Pierce Avenue; and f. Installation of bike storage Eacilitics in the structured park-and-ride ramp near Blake Station. The OMF is generally located south of K. -Tel Drive and 5th Street South along 'l lith Avenue South. According to the Municipal Consent Plans, the OMF and yard area includes: a. Construction of an operations and maintenance facility and yard. The recent award of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds for a Downtown Hopkins station is not reflected in the current plans, but will be incorporated into future design work. The ability to add a park and ride structure at Downtown Hopkins will allow for the parking lot at Shady Oak and the parking structure at Blake to be reduced, having positive impacts on all three Hopkins station areas. 0 What comments were received from the public? In addition to the comments received during the public hearing on June 3, 2014, written comments were received from several other individuals (see attached). The Twin West Chamber of Commerce wrote in support of Hopkins municipal consent and the project in general, as did one resident. Another resident voiced disapproval for the project and encouraged the Hopkins City Council to deny Municipal consent. Two others have expressed concern over specific elements. Jaincs Bcnshoo-f-, part owner of the property at 104.17 Excelsior Boulevard, expressed concerns over "hide and ride" parking occurring at their property adjacent to the Downtown Hopkins station. Staffhas since C011111ILinicatcd with Mr. Benshoof regarding the recent award of CMAQ funds for the construction of a park and ride ramp at this station area that should alleviate many of the concerns. The other issue which has been raised by Stuart Companies is the lack of a station to serve the residents of south Hopkins, including the Greenfield Apartments in Hopkins. Through discussions Council Report 2014-060 Municipal Consent Page 4 with Stuart Companies, staff has agreed to support the exploration of a station at Smetana in terms of cost, ridership and ride time and to design the line in such a way as to not preclude the addition of a station at a later time. Altunatives The Hopkins City Council has the following options regarding this item: * Approve the design plans and give: Municipal Consent * Deny the design plans with specific amendments * ("I ontinue the item for more discussion CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PHYSICAL DESIGN COMPONENT OF THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS FOR THE SOUTHWEST LIGHTRAIL PROJECT WITHIN THE CITY OF HOPKINS RESOLUTION NO. 2014-028 WHEREAS, the Governor designated the Metropolitan Council ("Council") as the responsible authority for the Southwest Light Rail Transit Project ("Project"), which makes it responsible for planning, designing, acquiring, constructing and equipping the Project; and WHEREAS, the Project is now in the preliminary design phase; and WHEREAS, the design at this phase is approximately 15 percent con-iplcte; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statues section 473.3994 allows cities and counties along a proposed light rail route to provide input to the Council on the physical design component of the preliminary design plans; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2014, the Council submitted the physical design component of the preliminary design plans, and WHEREAS, public hearings are then required, which the City of Hopkins held on June 3, 2014; and WHEREAS, within 45 days of a joint hearing held by the Council and the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority ("HCRRA"), which was held on May 29, 20.14, the City of Hopkins must review and approve or disapprove the Plans for the route to be located in the City of Hopkins; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.3994 provides that "a local unit of government that disapproves the plans shall describe specific amendments to the plans that, if adopted, would cause the local unit to withdraw its disapproval; and WHEREAS, approval or disapproval by the City of Hopkins is part of the statutory preliminary design process; and WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins staff has reviewed the Plans and developed a report pertaining to these Plans and has made its recommendation; and WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins supports the implementation of the Project and is committed to supporting the project through its Successful implementation by 2019; and WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins is committed to work with the Council throughout the design and construction process. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Hopkins provides its municipal approval of the Plans pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 473.3994, consistent with the above, and directs staff to submit the City ofFlopkins' approval to the Metropolitan COL11161. Adopted this lith day of June 2014. m Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor Attest: Amy Domeier, City Clerk Froin: Barb Geiser Sent: Wednesday, May 21,20145:48PM To:mw|rt Subject: P|B]5e build the SOUthVVeSt LRT with MOfurther delays! VVewould like toexpress our strong support for the Southwest Light Rail project andurgeyouaUtogetthispnject underway now! We have been dismayed by the objections of very small group of self-interested Minneapo|hansvvho seemingly have the power to delay or even derail an essential resource that will have a positive impact on so many thousands of people in the metro area for years to come. As long time residents of Hopkins we can only hope that the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number will prevail, and that voewill in the not -too -distant future be able totake light rail throughout the metnoarea. We hope the majority who understand the benefits of the system and the risks of further delay can prevail over this small group and get building the project now. Thank you! Barbara and James Geiser 121Wayside Road West Hopkins, K4N5G343 EM C1 iAMBER OF(, 'OMIAERCE June 5, 201.1 City of Hopkins Kersten Elvel'Urn City of Hopkins Director of Planning & Development 1010 First St. South Hopkins, MNT 55'143 Subject: Municipal Consent -Southwest Light Rail Line Ms. Elverum: Last March, TwinWest Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to Metropolitan Council Chair Sue Haigh expressing our support for the Southwest Light Rail line and its continued progress. The benefits of the Southwest line are extensive and provide the catalyst for economic growth all along the corridor. Throughout the long, public process for this phase of development of the Southwest Line, our support has not wavered, TwinWest views this project as vital to helping support the 60,000 jobs that are projected to grow in this corridor over the next two decades. This line will help connect employers with employees from all parts of the metro area; those going into the city and those commuting out of the city to jobs along the corridor. The Southwest Line will facilitate development opportunities that may not exist without this transit option. We ask that you continue to support this project by granting municipal consent. Though the decision you are making is local, the impact of the Southwest Line is far greater and will impact future generations. It is vital to the continued growth and competitiveness of the region. Sincerely, 13VTC , ��eier, President TwinWest Chamber of Commerce Cc: City of Eden Prairie City of St. Louis Park City of Minnetonka Hennepin County Southwest LRT Project Office 10700 Old Couray Road 15, Suite 170 - Plymouth, MN 55441 Phone: (763) 450-2220,, Fax: (76 3) 450-.2221 - www.twiriwest.com Kersten Elveruin From: Bill Johnson <bjohnson@intn.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 1:58 PM To: Southwest LRT Subject: SWI -RT Hi Kersten, I have put some of in), comments on the light rail down in writing. 'Two or three decades ago, when this push for light rail began, citizens were told that this will reduce auto congestion on our roadways. They aren't talking about reducing auto congestion anymore because the fact is this system will not reduce auto congestion. The Hiawatha line has proven this. Auto congestion in the Hiawatha corridor is worse now than it was before the light rail. There are some fundamental reasons why this will not reduce auto congestion. First, we are designing and building an on grade system. Automobiles and light rail do not coexist peacefully. If ),on want a good efficient system, the light rail must be kept separated from automobile traffic. This means the light rail must be elevated or underground or a combination of both. There are cities where light rail works very well. It is not a coincidence that these are cities where the light rail is kept separate from automobile traffic (Manhattan, London, etc.). Secondly, we are designing and building a hub and spoke system where the hub is downtown. Less than 10% Of Our workforce works downtown. This system will be of no use to the more than 90% of us for going to work. People like to compare Minneapolis to Portland, OR. Portland's light rail system currently has a 1% ridership. This compares very well to the light rail system we are designing and building here. The people we are targeting here are less than 10% Of Our work force, so if we get about 10% ridership troirt our target group, we will have I% ridership just like Portland. This I% is very likely what we can expect. We are now being told that light rail is a development tool. I lived in the Longfellow neighborhood of Minneapolis for 13 years before moving out here to Hopkins. I used Hiawatha avenue every day. Driving down Hiawatha avenue today you will see very little development since the light rail came in. There is some bragging about the Central Corridor line and the development that will be taking place. How much of this is publically subsidized'? Our experience on Hiawatha has shown that development doesn't just happen. The Central Corridor line has already displaced several businesses. The ones that are still there are complaining about the lack of on street parking. Does anybody remember when Hopkins had a winding Mainstrect with no on street parking? We had to go back and tear that up and put in a straight street with on street parking. The railroad was a main factor in the industrial revolution of the 19th century. It drove centralization because business and industry needed access to the railroad and this contributed to the development of central cities. Whether you like it or not, we are currently in another industrial revolution. The technology of today is driving de -centralization. Businesses can now locate wherever they want to locate. Why'? Because they, can. There is no need to be in a downtown location. In fact, because of government regulation and the failure of government to maintain infrastructure, businesses are being driven out of central cities. Every one of these rail lines (Hiawatha, Central Corridor, Northstar and the proposed SWL,RT) require subsidies to operate. We will spend tens of Billions of tax dollars building this light rail system. In addition, we are obligating future generations to spend at least tens of millions, more likely hundreds of millions, of tax dollars each and every year just to keep then? operating. This diverts a huge amount of tax dollars for very little benefit. These are tax dollars that could be better spent on other things that provide much more benefit (such as filling pot holes). I would urge a no vote on SWLR'L This is a poor design that will provide tittle benefit and require perpetually increasing subsidies. Bill Johnson 21 East Wayside Road Hopkins, MN 55343 10417 &A-AAAMAtUANIA, 5417 VUWAtaAAWL Wag. eAilma_ 7ft1mmeAaLm 55436 May 1Ci, 2014 Mayor Gene Maxwell and Council Members Molly Cummings, Jason Gadd, Kristi Halverson,and Cheryl Youakirn City of Hopkins 1010 1 11 Street S. flopkini, MN 55343 RE: Request to Disapprove Preliminary Design Plans for Southwest L.ight Rail Transit Project Dear Mayor Maxwell and Council Members Cummings, Gadd, Halverson, and Youakim: As an owner of the office building at 10417 Excelsior Boulevard, this letter is to request that the City Council disapprove the preliminary design plans for the Southwest Corridor Light Rail Transit PrQject. The reason for this request is that the current plans for this project would result in severe negative impacts to our office building. Specifically, the impacts would be loss of parking f6i, our tenants and their visitors due to parking in our lot by transit users. As indicated on the enclosed drawing entitled, "Office Building at 10417 Excelsior Boulevard and Planned Downtown 14opkin% LR:r Station," our office building is located immediately west of the planned Downtown Hopkins transit station. Our property consists of an office building with about 5,650 square feet of floor area and 22 parking spaces. The building presently is occupied by three tenants. Even though our parking lot-, is signed for private parking, we are convinced that many transit users will park in our lot, because it is right next to the transit station, and no public parking spaces are anywhere nearby, 'rhis parking by transit users will be intensified, because the Metropolitan Council has predicted that the Downtown Hopkins Station will have the third highest ridership of all 16 stations along this L.R'f route. The 22 parking spaces in our lot, are the minimum required by City Code. If only a few transit users park in the lot, numerous occasions would arise when our tenants and their visitors could not find a space. Though we have raised this issue on multiple occasions over past years, we have become very frustrated about the lack of serious attention by Hennepin County and Metropolitan Council staff. For example, in art email to me dated June 5, 2013, Daniel Pfeiffer stated: "Metro Transit promotes and publicizes the bus, METRO Blue Line and Northstar park & ride facilities at http;Hwww.iiietrotratisi't..ore,/I)ark-ride•. lots to inform our users. With that, there are instances where transit users may not park in designated areas. To help minimize this, property owners can place their own parking restrictions and have vehicles remove(] from their property at the vehicle owners expense." Yes, indeed, we could take those steps. The problem, however, is Mr. Pfeiffer gives the mistaken impression that these steps would be easy for us to accomplish, when in fact, the opposite is true. We have FIO ort -site Manager to monitor use of our parking lot. We Would have to incur extra and substantial. costs to hire personnel to monitor use of the lot and to call a towing company to remove unauthorize(I vehicles. Further, it would be blatantly unfair for owners of our building to have to incur substantial expense to solve a problem caused by the transit project. This issue of transit users illegally parking in our lot could be easily resolved through installation of a parking control system. As shown in the enclosed drawing entitled, "Concept Plan for Systern to Control Vehicles Entering and Exiting Parking Lot at 10417 Excelsior Boulevard," the control system would consist of a center island on our driveway and gates controlling both entering and exiting movements. Entry will be "free in." This means when a car approaches the gate, the gate will automatically open, Exiting movements will be controlled by a digital keypad. Each tenant will have a unique code to enter Mayor and City Council Members, City of Hopkins May 16, 2014 into the key pad upon exit. Once the code is entered, the exit gate will open. Visitors would get a code from the tenant they rnet with and would enter that code in order to exit. Tire total cost for installation of this parking control system is about $18,000. Air article in the May 8, 2014, edition of the StarTribune indicates the current total estimated cost for the Southwest Light Rail Project is $1.68 billion. 'finis, the solution to this problem represents just 0.001% of the total pr(liect cost. Despite this miniscule cost to the project, Metropolitan Council staff have olliected saying the project cannot pay for this solution, because it would cause a precedence. In raising this objection, Metropolitan Council staff have not identified any comparable situations, Other private parking lots near transit stations which they have suggested are similar in fact are vastly different. The problems at our parking lot are far more severe in terrns of. 0 Lack of on-site staff to monitor use of the lot and to take enforcement actions. * Parking lot is right, next to transit station, and no public parking is anywhere nearby. * Parking lot is very small; even a few transit parkers would prevent tenants and visitors from finding a vacant space. I understand the City of Hopkins may have other issues with the Southwest Light Rail Project, including compensation for loss of taxable property due to the planned light rail maintenance facility. State Statute 473 .3994, which governs the municipal approval process for this prcject states that the city shall review and approve or disapprove tire, plans for the route to be located in the city. This statute ffirther states: "A local unit of goverin-rient that disapproves the plans shall describe specific arnendments to the plans that, if adopted, would cause the local unit to withdraw its disapproval." Given this overall situation, I would urge the City Council at your meeting on June 17, 2014, to disapprove the preliminary design plans for the Southwest Light Rail Project. In your disapproval, I also would encourage you to state that yen would withdraw your disapproval if the plans ar-e amended to include: a) Specific satisfactory resolutions for issues the City may identify 1)) Specific satisfactory resolutions for issues that may be raised by other Hopkins residents or business persons. c) Gate and key pad control system for parking lot serving office building at 10417 Excelsior Boulevard to prevent transit users frorn parking in this lot. Thank you for your attention to this very important issue impacting the viability of our office building at 10417 Excelsior Boulevard. Please include this letter in the record of comments provided at the public hearing on June 3. If you have wry questions about this issue or our recommended solution, you are welcome to call me at'763-533.-1379. Sincerely, 10417 A) LLP, James A. Benshoof, Ntuier Eric.: Drawings entitled, "Office Building at 10417 Excelsior Boulevard and Planned Downtown Hopkins LRT Station" and "Concept Plan for System to Control Vehicles Entering and Exiting Parking Lot at 10417 Excelsior Boulevard" '- C w/ enclosures: Kersten Elverturi, Director ofEconornic Development and Planning N u )j N 9 a At low uj r. ryry CIA ... . ... ...... V51 Cffi 'U U Al u )j N 9 0 uj r. 6z CIA ... . ... ...... V51 Cffi 'U U u )j N 9 0 uj r. 6z CIA u )j N 9 0 uj 6z Cb Cffi 'U U • ^' � ''p Y � • r� Y�svljnil tA nvo� .. l nr n _"oo- CLf� LU R_ UJI cc rM 02L LLI .. t� � �: • � ���Yrr �`�'��ui�l��wW2xr�r„��,�„�om�t� - , R p C,4 4 W0 l i •Y "L CL .+MX^Jq W. x M1 z q rk 54A'�'4'k V, Apr"^ „� i _ •zi LLJ tW , Tj \ a, co if • � .wry '� fn L J1 hd