CR 99-53 Metro Transit Park And Ride
.,. y
\ 0
V k
~
1- Co>
March 10, 1999 o P K \ ~ Council Report 99-53
.
METRO TRANSIT PARK AND RIDE
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: "Accept the recommendation for a Metro
Transit Park and Ride facility from the Park Board and send these recommendations to Zoning
and Planning for review and to prepare a feasibility study for a pedestrian bridge."
Overview.
A special meeting of the Hopkins Park Board was held on February 22, 1999. The only
business scheduled for this special meeting was the Metro Transit proposal for a park and
ride facility to be located between 5th Avenue South and Highway 169 south of Excelsior Blvd.
This proposal was presented earlier to the Park Board as a new discussion item at the
January 25, 1999 Park Board meeting. The project manager for Metro Transit, George
Serumgard, was present at both meetings to present a preliminary layout for the proposed
park and ride. The Park Board had many questions and concerns regarding both this
proposal and also the impact of any development on the proposed beautification of the
corridor. A work session of the Park Board was also held on February 21, 1999 to analyze
these concerns at depth.
. At the February 22, 1999 Park Board meeting a motion was passed to recommend to Council
that "the feasibility for a Metro Transit park and ride facility south of Excelsior Boulevard
between 5th Avenue South and State Highway 169 be approved, subject to guidelines in
Attachment A."
Primary Issues to Consider.
. Does the City own the proposed site in question?
. Will the project require additional funding from the City?
. What is the time frame for action on this project?
. What are the implications of no action at this time?
. Are there other plans for this corridor pending?
Supportina Information.
. Analysis of Issues.
. Park Board meeting minutes January 25, 1999 and February 22, 1999.
. Presentation - Metro Transit, George Serumgard.
. Park and Ride concept and sketch
e iiJ~~.
Ray Vogtman, Parks/Forestry Superintendent
Analysis of Issues.
. . Does the City own the site in question?
The City owns about 20-25% of the proposed site. The Regional Rail Authority owns
the remainder of the site. Agreement by both parties would be required to make the
project feasible.
. Will the project require additional funding from the City?
The Park Board has placed considerable emphasis on a pedestrian bridge over
Excelsior Boulevard, if a feasibility study supports the concept. Cost sharing on the
feasibility study with Metro Transit would require some City finances. Partnering on a
pedestrian bridge with possibly 3-4 other agencies may also support substantial
financial commitment from the City. The sale of the City owned parcel and dollars
gained from reduced beautification costs on the corridor would help to offset some of
the costs of the pedestrian bridge.
. What is the time frame for action on this project?
It appears that previous failed efforts to work in the vicinity of the Depot contributed to
time delays, which has now compressed the project timetable. The project is linked to
matching dollars between Metro Transit and MnDOT. A fast track is required to keep
e the project moving forward. A spring 2000 opening is the anticipated schedule.
. What are the implications of no action at this time?
This project is going to require a fairly lengthy review and design process by both City
staff and Metro Transit. Accepting the proposed action places Council under no
obligation to approve the project at a later date. No action however, would not allow
the feasibility study for a pedestrian bridge to move forward and would not allow Zoning
and Planning time to review the proposal properly. Any lengthy delays in the process
would in all likelihood kill the project.
. Are there other plans for this corridor pending?
Council has previously asked the Park Board to review this corridor for beautification.
Recent meetings of the Park Board had discussions on how to achieve this goal. The
recent development regarding the Park and Ride proposal has resulted in considerable
discussion surrounding this issue. Many of the conditions found in "Attachment A" tie
the Park and Ride proposal to increased beautification of the corridor.
e
p . fiDl-l ~ D /rtf/--n iij(;'- ;~l\~ ~fj:V2l,;
. (\ j~: r, 'd C I V) 11 (1 (I; 11 f\) OTe' ~
-J \ _
4) The site is to be fenced) staffed by the city, have posted hours of operation and fees charged
/'~~~ for use by both skate boarders and in-line skating. BMX bikes are to be excluded.
. 5) Insurance is to be Tier II provided by the League of Minnesota Cities.
6) The task force recommends that all available money at this time be used for blacktop, fencing,
aggressive equipment and protective equipment. Amenities such as lights, a building for
restrooms and concessions, and a paved parking lot be added in the future as revenues may
support.
7) The size of the site should be a minimum of 14,000 square feet and no larger than 20,000
square feet.
8) Recommendations that remain to be made include seasons of operation, hours and days of
operation, rules and regulations, staffing levels, waiver forms, fees and types of protective
r , equipment.
,
,
C. SUPER V ALU REDEVELOP:MENT
No residents were in attendance to voice concerns over the proposed parking for Buffer Park. C.
Heubach moved and D. Day seconded a motion to recommend to the city council that parking
for Buffer Park be as proposed on the plans for 5th St S, a 8' wide 300' long parking lane as
opposed to an ofT-street parking lot. On the vote; On the vote; D. Day, M. Kuhl, C. Heubach,
P. Schuessler and K. Egger voted motion was approved 5-0.
~'. D. :METRO TRANSIT PARK & RIDE
Project Manager from Metro Transit, George Serumgard, presented a preliminary layout for a
proposed park and ride facility between 5th Ave S and Hwy 169. :Mr. Serumgard then fielded many
questions from the board members about the proposal. Most of the discussion centered round 1)
beautification of the corridor from 8th Ave S to the Hwy 169 over pass, 2) less parking spaces, 3) a
possible pedestrian bridge over Excelsior Boulevard and 4) cooperation with Hennepin Parks to
incorporate a trail head into this proposal. Chairperson K. Egger called a work session on February
21, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. at Hopkins Public Works to discuss this proposal at length. A special meeting
of the Park Board was also called for the following night, February 22, 1999 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall.
It is anticipated that George Serumgard from Metro Transit and Del Miller from Hennepin Parks will
be at the February 22Dd meeting to present additional information and discussion on the proposal.
The Park board will be prepared to make a recommendation to the city council at the conclusion of
the special meeting.
E. 13TH AVENUE S VACATION
The park board would like to see items G and H modified to read as follows:
g. Constructing up to 2 basketball courts on the vacated portion of 13th Ave S, near the northeast
comer of Central Park.
. h. The city will construct additional handicapped parking on the vacated 13th Ave S right-of-way
with access from 1st St S.
CITY OF HOPKINS PARK BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22. 1999
,-,
. A special meeting of the Hopkins Park Board was held on February 22. 1999.
1. CALL TO ORDER
; Chairperson K. Egger called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
" n. ROLLCALL
.
I Present were Park Board members; David Day. Charles Heubach, Mark Kuhl. Pat Schuessler and Karen
Egger. Also present was Hopkins staff Liaison Ray Vogtman and Council Liaison Karen Jensen.
m. BUSINESS
A. METRO TRANSIT PARK & RIDE
The only business scheduled for this special meeting was the Metro Transit proposal for a park and
ride facility to be located between 5th Ave Sand Hwy 169 south of Excelsior Blvd. The project
manager for Metro Transit, George Serumgard was present to discuss the project and field questions
from the park board. The representative from Hennepin Parks, Del Miller. was not present at the
meeting. Mr. Serumgard had extended the invitation but told us that Hennepin Parks chooses not to
participate in the discussion and proposal at this point in the process. G. Serumgard had reviewed a
:". copy of the proposed draft motion and made several comments regarding the motion. He indicated
that Metro Transit would prefer that the exact number of parking stalls be left open as final plans may
require slightly different numbers. Metro Transit is iooking only for an acknowledgment that the
concept for a park and ride on this site is possible, not actual approval for design.
At this point many questions regarding the proposal were asked. with answers as shovm:
1. Will Hennepin Parks participate in a pedestrian crossing bridge over Excelsior Boulevard?
Del Miller of Hennepin Parks feels it is going to be expensive.
.
I
2. Have upper management at Metro Transit reviewed the costs of a pedestrian bridge?
They have and would support a feasibility study for a ped bridge at this point and then review the
concept if the study indicated a bridge was feasible.
3. Was the concept of a ped bridge discussed with the Depot representatives and didn't Metro
Transit pull out of those discussions?
Metro Transit did pull out of the discussions, but only because there appeared to be many
unworkable constraints.
Some discussion then developed to emphasize the importance of this corridor as a trailhead and
the importance of not allowing this to be lost in development opportunities. The park board
indicated that a ped bridge is critical to any development plans.
e
4. If the ped bridge feasibility study indicates that a bridge is possible, but of limited value to
~ bus ridership, will Metro Transit participate in any bridge expenses?
.
No. G. Serumgard indicated at this point that the City of Hopkins is not the sole owner of this
parcel, in fact the Light Rail Transit Authority is a majority holder in this corridor.
5. Mr. Serumgard wanted to know if the park board felt that there were any compelling
reasons why a park and ride facility would not be feasible in this area?
Yes. This proposal could be detrimental to the needs for a trailhead for the regional traH:; and
plans for beautification of this corridor would be diminished.
.
! 6. Will any future plans and needs for an extension of a light rail facility be compatible with
this proposal?
Yes. In fact this is one reason why Metro Transit preferred this site over the Depot location.
Although many changes would have to be made for any light rail station, this site would
accommodate light rail and many of the important components would be used, such as parking.
7. Would a lease be pursued on this parcel of property or land ownership?
The most likely scenario is that Hennepin County Rail Authority would purchase the site and then
lease the site back to Metro Transit.
8. If Metro Transit receives aU necessary approvals, when would an RF.P. be prepared for
this site?
April 1, 1999.
',:. 9. What monies are budgeted for this project?
Approximately $350,000 from Metro Transit. Nearly 70% of the remaining cost are:M:N" Dept of
Transportation dollars. The rough budget, not counting land acquisition for this project is
$800,000. It is unclear if the MN Dept of Transportation money is forfeited if not used in 1999.
Discussion continued on the previous questions and answers.
C. Heubach moved and M. Kuhl seconded a motion to approve the feasibility of the Metro Transit
proposal as written and described in "Attachment A". The motion'passed 5-0.
VI. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING
The next regular meeting of the Park Board will be March 15, 1999 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
ATTEST:
Karen Egger, Chairperson
.
MOTION
. 1vffiTRO TRANSIT PARK AND RIDE
A motion was made by C. Heubach and seconded by M. Kuhl to approve the feasibility for a
Metro Transit Park and Ride facility south of Excelsior Boulevard between 5th Avenue South and
State Highway 169 subject to guidelines in Attachment "N'. The motion passed 5-0.
. Attachment" An
r This proposal requires a pedestrian overpass on Excelsior Boulevard as shown on Concept
.
uAn~ Metro Transit and Hennepin Paries should indicate a financial stake in the proposed
overpass.
. The 10' Hennepin Parks bituminous trail to be relocated to the south side of the proposed
Park and Ride.
. Parking be limited to 155 parking spaces; deleting 12 spaces on the 5th Avenue South side, 8
spaces along Excelsior Boulevard and the entire 35 parking spaces on the east side. This
additional area to be dedicated to green space and landscaping.
. A new concept plan must include a cooperative effort between Metro Transit and Hennepin
Parks. This concept should include an architecturally pleasing building that meets the needs
of both user groups and supports beautification efforts of the corridor.
. Existing Park and Ride on 8th Avenue South site to be vacated.
,.. . New concept plans to be reviewed by the Park Board and recommendations made to the
appropriate City boards, departments and Council as necessary and required.
. A beautification budget for the proposed site be included as a separate line item in future
concept plans. Such beautification items to include all landscaping, irrigation, professional
fees for services and any proposals for site amenities such as benches, tables, refuse
containers, bike racks, sculptures, etc.
. A proposal for all future maintenance responsibilities for rubbish, lot maintenance, building
maintenance, irrigation repairs and service, landscaping and mowing should also be
addressed with any new concept proposals.
. Facility proposal must support intensive beautification of the.' corridor south of Excelsior
Boulevard between 5th Avenue South and 8th Avenue South.
. Beautification plans between 5th Avenue South and State ffighway 169 must be increased
substantially on new concept plans for the Park and Ride.
'.
- --~- ----
cp ,-,^' ,
@'
69 t ")Jv\H -H"l .
------
,..
15
0'.1 a)
C fh
'- CO
-c.c
co 0..
o..c ~
....0)
o '-
l/)
e W I
0'.1"0
'iii ts
<U CD
0'0' ~
L.;.
a.
>'0
- e
c "_
o I....
:J
>- .s'O
-J co)
Z 0) C
o ~.g
::t m,8
.~ ~=
. '""' ~
W 0,
-..... l-. 0
.&. 0.. -
tn -0 ~
to- eCU
C. cue
weCO
o 2~
Z B-O
o 0 UJ-
(.) -C
w.Q
.""!:::~
U) B
~.Q
o U)
-CUJ
l/) 0)
o 0
-.. u
co
.~ 0)
-..
<I> 'ii)
fh ~
0-
n:J
'- a
:J >.
Q..lQ'
...
e
'~
- . \
OJ