CR 92-207 Suburban Chev - Bus Stop
('
",
,
\ 1j Y 0
-
o ,,~
P K \.
council Report 92-207
4Itctober 13, 1992
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET - BUS STOP
Proposed Action.
staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to uphold the
approved MTC bus stop plan and continue to designate the location of an MTC
bus stoP. without a shelter. at the southeast corner of Mainstreet and 12th
Avenue.
By adopting this motion the City Council will have resolved questions
regarding the location of a bus stop on Mainstreet.
overview.
As a part of assisting with the design of the Mainstreet Improvement
Project, the Design Review Committee discussed the appropriate locations of
bus stops on Mainstreet. The process involved several meetings of the
Design Review Committee, a public information meeting to solicit input, and
discussion at the city council level.
This plan was subsequently approved by the city Council as a part of
approving the overall design of the project. After approval of the plan, ,
.information regarding the new bus st,op locations was communicated to the
-Iainstreet property and business owners.'
The approved bus stop plan included a west bound stop at the northwest
corner of 11 th Avenue and Mainstreet, and an east bound stop at the
southeast corner of 12th Avenue and Mainstreet. The west bound stop' at
11th Avenue and Mainstreet existed prior to undertaking the Mainstreet
Project. Both of these stops front on property owned by Suburban
Chevrolet. Suburban Chevrolet recently expressed strong concern and
objections to having both stops fronting on its property and more
specifically the east bound stop at 12th Avenue and Mainstreet. Suburban
Chevrolet has requested that this stop be relocated.
,primary
o
o
o
o
o
Issues to Consider.
How was the bus' stop plan developed and approved?
What are Suburban Chevrolet's concerns?
What steps did staff undertake to reexamine this issue?
On what basis does staff make its recommendation?
What other options does the City Council have to address
matter?
this
supportinq Doouments
o
o
o
Analysis of issues
Alternatives
Letter from Suburban Chevrolet
Letter from RLK Associates
aps illustrating bus stop locations before and after the
ainstreet project
.
~
q
l
Director
.
.
.
~
CR92-207
Page 2
Analysis of Issues.
o How was the bus stop plan developed and approved?
To assist with the planning of the Mainstreet Improvement Project, a
Design Review Committee (DRC), made up of property and business owners
along Mainstreet, was organized.
During the months of December 1990 and February 1991 the DRC met and
developed recommendations, with the assistance of staff, on the many
design aspects of the Mainstreet Improvement Project. One of these
design aspects pertained to the location of bus stops on Mainstreet
between 5th Avenue and shady Oak Road.
Initially, members of the ORC proposed that consideration be given to
moving the bus route to First street North due to concerns for noise,
odor, traffic and parking disruption caused by the buses. However,
after lengthy discussion the ORC recommended that the bus route remain
on Mainstreet but that the number of stops be reduced in order to
minimize the impact on the Mainstreet environment as much as possible.
Prior to the Mainstreet Improvement Project 18 bus stops were located
on Mainstreet. The ORC recommended a plan be adopted which provided
for 12 bus stops with the stops located on approximate 3 block
intervals. Attached are drawings showing the previously existing bus
stops and the plan recommended by the DRC.
On January 8, 1991 the city council instructed staff the conduct a
public information meeting specifically on the bus stop plan to allow
parties to comment on the issue of the number and location of the bus
stops and the plan recommended by the DRC. This information meeting
was held on February 13, 1991 in the city Council Chambers. Notice of
this meeting was advertised in the Sailor, on cable, and posted in MTC
shelters and buses. Staff is unsure as to whether notice of the
meeting was mailed to property and business owners on Mainstreet.
Approximately 15 peopl~ attended this meeting. Many of the attendees
lived at Village Apartments. The results of the meeting found that
the 3 block interval bus stop plan was acceptable.
The city Council reviewed this issue and other Mainstreet project
items during a special work session on February 21, 1992. No changes
were made to the plan as a part of this meeting.
On March 12, 1991 the City Council conducted an information meeting on
the Mainstreet Project for the purpose of unveiling the proposed
design aspects of the project, financing, scheduling, etc. As a part
of this meeting specific time was set aside for people to review the
plans and various design aspects on a one-on-one basis with staff.
Notice of this meeting was sent to all property and business owners on
Mainstreet, neighborhood presidents, published in the Sailor and
advertised on cable TV.
x
.
.
.
k..
CR92-207
Page 3 .
During this meeting a question was raised about the bus stop plan with
respect to a proposed stop near Village Apartments.
On March 19 the city council approved the final design, plans and
specs and authorized advertising for bids for the Mainstreet Project.
o What are Suburban Chevrolet's concerns?
Attached is a letter from Tom Grossman, President of Suburban
Chevrolet, which outlines his position on the matter. The following
serves to summarize the items in the letter:
During the time the DRC and City Council were reviewing the bus
stop issue Mr. Grossman was preoccupied with a serious illness in
the family.
..
No one made a personal contact wi th Mr. Grossman regarding the
bus stop plan.
Suburban did not realize the east bound stop was going to be
located at 12th Avenue and Mainstreet until the shelter was being
installed.
It is unfair that two bus stops should front the Suburban
property thereby eliminating additional parking spaces and
affecting the conduct of business. (Staff note - prior to the
Mainstreet Project approximately 16 on-street parking spaces
fronted the Suburban property. Upon completion of the project,
and accounting for two bus stops, approximately 19 spaces exist.)
It is unfair for Suburban to be negatively affected in order to
reduce the overall detriment of the bus stop locations on
Mainstreet.
It is staff's understanding that Mr. Grossman will be in attendance at
the city Council meeting to further explain his concerns.
One point in Mr. Grossman's letter which staff desires to clarify
pertains to notice regarding the bus stop issue. As Mr. Grossman
indicates it appears written notice was received by him regarding the
bus stops. Also, staff does not disagree with his statement that he
was not contacted directly by the City to discuss the matter. ,
However, it should be noted that in April/May 1992, representatives of
RLK Associates did meet with John Peifer, Manager of Suburban
Chevrolet, to discuss the Mainstreet project, as RLK did with all
other property owners on Mainstreet. Notes from this meeting indicate
specifically that Suburban expressed concerns about the east bound bus
stop.
o
What steps did staff take to reexamine this issue?
Upon completion of the Mainstreet Project in front of Suburban
Chevrolet a bus shelter was installed for the east bound stop at 12th
.
.
.
~
CR92-207
Page 4
and Mainstreet. At this point Tom Grossman and John Peifer met with
RLK to discuss the issue. It was agreed the shelter would be removed
as it blocked most of the sidewalk. Additionally, RLK staff indicated
they would see what could be done to relocate the bus stop. At that
point the following activities were undertaken:
RLK and City staff discussed the bus stop location alternatives
with respect to the background of the issue and impact to
businesses.
Discussed moving the stop with the MTC.
Met with property owners west of 12th Avenue and Mainstreet.
These property owners, and especially the property owner at the
southwest corner of 12th Avenue and Mainstreet, expressed strong
concern for relocating the bus stop in front of his property as
it effectively eliminates all parking in front of his property.
Reviewed short and long range solutions to the bus stop issue.
staff withheld installing an MTC sign until analysis was
completed.
As a result of these steps City staff informed Suburban Chevrolet
that, all things considered, the southeast corner of 12th Avenue and
Mainstreet was still the appropriate location. This action resulted
in Suburban Chevrolet formally requesting that the City council
consider relocating the bus stop.
Staff has not installed an MTC sign at 12th and Mainstreet. This
resul ts in a large gap of designated east bound bus stop locations'
between 15th Avenue to 9th Avenue. Although the MTC is picking up
people on a block by block basis between 15th Avenue and 9th Avenue,
the City and the MTC have received numerous complaint calls.
o On what basis does staff make its recommendation?
with several exceptions, in most cases property owners are not usually
pleased or willing to support the location of a bus stop in front of
their property. In Suburban Chevrolet f s case this situation is
exacerbated by the fact Suburban Chevrolet fronts both sides of
Mainstreet between 11th and 12th Avenue. This presents a difficult
situation for the City and the MTC to plan bus stop locations.
Staff has made its recommendation based upon the fo~lowing:
Proposed location maintains a 3 block bus stop interval. During
the design of the bus stop plan the MTC indicated any distance
greater than this was undesirable along the Mainstreet corridor.
..
.
CR92-207
Page 5
Although the proposed location does remove additional on-street
parking for Suburban Chevrolet's use, it does not eliminate all
parking in front of their establishment as it would in other
alternatives.
The proposed location is directly adjacent to or within the
commercial core area of Mainstreet.
o What other options does the City council have to address this matter?
It appears to ,staff that Suburban Chevrolet would find the relocation
of one of the bus stops acceptable to address their concerns. As a
result, the following options appear available:
Option 1 -
option 2 -
.
Option 3 -
Option 4 -
Option 5 -
option 6 -
.
Do not locate an east or west bound stop between 15th
Avenue and 9th Avenue. Staff and the MTC would not
recommend this option as the gap between bus stops is
too great. '
Relocate the east bound stop to the southwest corner of
12th and Mainstreet. Staff would not recommend this
option as it effectively eliminates parking on
Mainstreet in front of this property.
Relocate the east bound stop to the southeast corner of
11th and Mainstreet (in front of Archies). Staff would
not recommend this option for the reasons listed in
option 2. Also it creates a four block interval
between bus stops.
Relocate the west bound stop to the northwest corner of
12th and Mainstreet (in front of Firestone). Staff
does not recommend this option as a node and driveway
is located at this corner.
Relocate the west bound stop to either the northeast
corner of 11th Avenue and Mainstreet (in front of
Boston Garden) or the northeast corner of 13th and
Mainstreet. Staff would not recommend this option due
to the reasons listed in Option 2 or 3.
Relocate the east bound stop to the southwest corner of
13th and Mainstreet (in front of st. Joseph's) with the
understanding that at such time Suburban Chevrolet is
redeveloped a bus stop will be incorporated into the
design and be located at the southwest corner of 11th
and Mainstreet. Although this option ultimately would
add one additional stop to Mainstreet and at least on
an interim basis would result in a 4 block interval
between stops, staff would recommend the use of this
option for the following reasons:
.
.
.
~
CR92-207
Page 6
The 13th Avenue site appears to be a good location
for a stop due to the land uses in this area.
Also, based on the informal bus stop situation now
in place this location experiences a number of
pickups.
A bus stop and shelter was at this location prior
to the Mainstreet project~
The City has reserved 50 feet at this location for
a future bus stop.
MTC would probably support this plan.
Alternatives
The City Council has the following alternatives available to it:
o Approve staff's recommendation.
o Approve one of the options recommended by staff.
o
Table matter for further information. Please note the MTC
desires a resolution to this matter soon due to the complaints it
is receiving.
.
'.
".
1100 Malnstreet . Hopkins,' MN 55343 . 612/938-2751
October9t 1992
"Tom Harmening
ComIrnini ty Development Director
'city.of Hopkins
-1010 First st. So.
, Hopkins, , MN 55343
Dear Mr. Harmening,
. - . '.,' '. -'
.. '
You asked me to 'give you mywri.ttenposition regarding:the bus
stop issue. The situation is that the meetings regarding this
issue arid the final decision were made between December ,t5th,1990
, and March IstJ 1991. ' While I probably saw some written notice of
'these meetings, at the time, I, was dealing with a serious illness
inside my family, and did not 'make the necessary connections. No
one made a,contact with me to discuss the issue or the'decision.
The onlY.other notice we received of this ,decision was.a somewhat
confusing notice in a general mailing in May of 1992.
, ,When they began to in'stall the'second bus stop,infront of our
property (the first time that we realized that, it was' going to
happen) we protested. It ., seems' grossly unfair tomei:, that the
number of bus stops between' 7th and ,12th is reduced by almost fifty
percent,' but the number in front of my property doubles ~ A bus ,',
stop is certainly detrimental, (to Some degree) to both ,the conduct
of a business and the value of oneJs property. I,don't understand
why ina reduction of the overall detriment, it is necessary for
,any individual propertyoilmer to end up worse off than he was
'before the reduction.
.. Everyone has basically, told ,me' that ,: they understand my
position and it appears both fair and logical, hut no one has done
anything'yet to rectify the situation.
,If I can provide you with any additional information, please,
let me know.
sincerely,
'Thomas Grossman'
President
'cc:,John Peifer
, ,:~
" ,,' "
'u 922 Mainstreet
. " ,'Hopkins, Mn. ,:
. 55343.
'. .,' (612)933-0972
'., fax: (612) 933~1153
',~ ' . ,- ,
",- r, '
, ,- I' ~
, ",
. . ,
"October 12,1992
, ,- ..
_, ' -~, :,Me ~' To~' Harine~g _ . - ,
. : Director of ComniunityDevelopment ,: :',
.' ., ':. CitY of HopkinS: ". ' ..
, .... iOlOFirstStreet South _,
., HopkinS,' MN. 55343
"-" , . ',' "" ' , .
> RE: .'BusStop Locatio~, Mainstteet
'Dear.Tom:~ .~" '.
. . ,
.' The property o\mer ofSubUrbanChevrolet,.TomGrossman~ has requested the eastbound bus stop.
. . currently in front ofthefrbuilding at 12th Avenue be removed ~d/orrelocated. Mr. Grossman. u.
". . haS requested the bus stop be:placed on the west .side of 12th Avenue. RLK has contacted Lloyd .:
.,Hansen of the MTC;' noobjeetionwaS ,made' to' relocating the bus stop. .', . : '. . ' ,
'. "
-~, '-
. .
. ,
.'. . <'.' After considerable d,iscussionontherelocationof thebiisstop to the' westsideof 12th Avenue, ,
" itis RLK's recoirimendation to maintain the bus st()p at the designatediocation: Moving the bus,
stop to the west side of 12th AvenUe would completely remove parking in rrotit of three properties,
. which does not appear to be reasonable: . If the eastbound bus st6pwas moved further west to 13th
Avenue~ it would create a four~lockspace betWeen the next stopai 9th Avenue. .'
'p.
" .... '. ..., . If thei3iliAvEmu~.stop i~puisued, ail additio~a1 stop 'at i Ith ~d Mciinstreet should be discuss~~
'inwhkh case, a bus shelter imd plaza at 11th Avenue' cOuld be incorporated 'into the redevelOp1iient..
~of.the Suburban Chevrolet site., ' . "
,,','
. ..... ~Pleasediscussthisissu~~with staff so that we may infotmthe property oWner of their request.' .'. .
.'
. Sincerely.. ::.
. '_,' 'J,'_L ~ _, .
. .
>.~.."'.~'"
- ~j~
. ,
. : John Dietrich', :'.. '
Landscape Architect
.... Lee Gustafson
. ,Dick' Krippy . ,
ChuckPoppler '.
'J ~ '
~ cc:
" "
,:",-.',
:u.
. "
. .
" ., -' '" '
.- , " '" , '
· .Clvil'Engineering:. Transportation'. Infrastructure Redevelopment
, .. Landscape Architecture~ .'ponstruction Mariagement .: .
.. '.. ~~
. .
'--;.,' .. ,,,. ,:., ~
- -- "
'- ,. I
-, \,' , ~
;- -+;."..
J
~~~
~ ~ ~.",;.,.;'
.~I
~--7~~-~:l~~~ [0~ ..:~L~
C -HADY . . ~. ~ :'.::'. ..:...
. . l-:'Y.W........... ";.. 21st AVE
-."'0- ".. .. ............ . ......
. .... ..
I. .
-J . '20th AV. s. 20th AVE. N.
.:. OOlIl~
.; 19th AVE. S. . ~~~L-
.G:J~~E. s]G:Jc:JO[
r- 16th AVE. s. c:Jwl~ N. I
~ ~c:JDc:J~
~ 3:[:]01 I[
~ ~ ~ ~
~ - ~ L- 14th - AVE.~
:uO
lT1 (J)
~ . ~ ~
13th AVE. -I - -I 13t .
WL~ AV:=:J 12th - AVE. [
j~ ~ U5:]C]l AVE J[
~ ~ ~'Oth AVE. s.[::JDIg> AVE. /[
91h [AVE. s.JWDc:=J[
~r~ AVE. SJ ]L:]E::JDE
~- 7th AVE. JQc:JOc
. ~ . @]~~II[
.. - \\{6Ih AV~. ~.cnQ~~__L~~~~~ .
~ @) ][:]Dc:JC ~
~ ~nAK. GLEN ll~ .l
~
~
@
----:-.~~
o
-0
:0
o
-0
o
CJ)
m
c
m
c
CJ)
CJ)
-f
o
"'0
@
-0
:0
o
"'0
o
CJ)
m
C
tD
C
en
CIJ
:J:
m
~
m
::0
o
"'U
^
Z
en
$:
)>
z
en
-i
:D
m
m
-i
:D
m
()
o
z
en
-i
:D
C
Q
o
z
"'C
:c
o
"'C
o
en
m
o
::
C})~
> Z
11\ . en
.-1
.~ :0
o m
~ m
'" -i
<'
CI>
en
-
~
o
o
Co
"'U
-,
o
-
CI>
(J)
(J)
o
::J
e?.
en
co
-,
<
o
co
(J)
::J
o
~
~:~ ^ ==l
'. ."~'
. .
I
/
L'. -+
~~t
=--.~ ~~ 21st ....
@ Q:'2~hAV. s. ~':::::"""'1, ~ N.
:.'19Ih ~VE S. !L:Jc:JC
--~~c:=J~VE. ~G:Jc:JD
"c:J~AVE. s~~l~AVE. .1~
I 161h AVE. s. c:Jc:JI. N. I
~ . JwDI AVE. j
? ~ ~ c:JDI~ AVE. II
T ~~
:u
13th AVE. ~ e ~ ~ 13th
WI~ AV~ 121h AVE.
&~ DwDIA~E I
· " ;'lIOlh AVE.~ c:Jf ~AVE. I
9th I AVE. s. ]I~ 91h= II .1c:=J
LJl~NE. . s9c:JE:JD
\ ~ 7th' AVE. s.IDc:JDI
~f.. h AVE. S~CJc:JDl
~lwDCJ
~ nr AAK GLEN l ;}
L
[
E
--
M
-
--
~.
-
-
-
-
E
~
-
-
-
-
I
~:.L_
. AVE.
~
\ '..::::;J ~ ...
~
~~
r-:- ~ -
--_-..J' , ..1
HAOY:'" ':'. ~ .',
1:~ Xl
~
.
m
x
C/)
-f
Z
G)
I::D
c:
C/)
C/)
-f
O.
"0
e
m
x
C/)
-f
Z
G)
I::D
C
C/)
C/)
-i
o
"0
:E
-i
::I:
C/)
:I:
m
!:f
m
:D
g ,.+
I
o
-0
^
Z
en
s:
)>
z
~
:0
m
m
-f
:0
m
o
o
z
en
-I
:0
C
o
-I
o
Z
~
Jo
c.
'0'
s
"
--s-
m
X
-
(J)
-i
-
Z
C>
~
~.
O:)z
~ CJ)
tJI -I
~~
~f1\
-c -\
'"
~
~
;-
)
.
.
o
,
)
-
')
?
?
)
J
\)
f)
D
...
~
")
D
f)
j
")