Loading...
4. Final study for Park and Ride lots in SW metro CITYOF 0011101■• 1 0 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER Day • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNES TA 55317 I (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 "'" Y °'` I'''''r` "' Ldc--t � 1 4 . MEMORANDUM ITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager 17- 15-50 FROM: Sharmin_ Al-Jaff DATE: November 1, 1990 I SUBJ: Adoption of Park and Ride Study for Southwest Metro Transit Commission I On August 1, 1990, the Park and Ride Land Use Study prepared for the Southwest Metro Transit Commission by Hoisington and Associates was presented to the Planning Commission. At that meeting, the Planning Commission requested that staff prepare a review of the I study and come up with some recommendations, but overall the Commission was supportive of the study (Attachment #1) . I On August 21, 1990, Paul Krauss prepared a memo addressing the Park and Ride Land Use Study (Attachment #2) . A copy of the memo was also sent to the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. Staff's I response addresses in detail the transit demand management strategies, future park and ride lot in Chanhassen, reverse commute trips, potential funding sources for new parking lot facilities located in the tax increment districts which might allow Southwest I Metro to use TIF funds for acquisition and possibly development costs. The final draft of the study has been submitted to the city and Southwest Metro Transit Commission is requesting that the City I of Chanhassen adopt the study. Southwest Metro plans on reviewing sites and possibly purchasing land for park and ride lots in the next five years. 1 The Planning Commission reviewed the study on November 7, 1990, and recommended approval of the final draft. 1 Staff is recommending that the -City Council adopt the final draft of Park and Ride Study for Southwest Metro Transit with comments addressing the study as noted in the memo dated August 21, 1990, by Ithe Planning Director. ATTACHMENTS 1 1. Planning Commission minutes dated August 1, 1990. 2. Staff response memo dated August 21, 1990. 3. Planning Commission minutes dated November 7, 1990. II4. Final Draft of Park and Ride Study for Southwest Metro. II r r i 1 1 1 1 1 i 11 • Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 50 ' Krauss: We had an article on it in the paper and I think the material that Gary sent out with the survey described the program . Described what anticipated costs would be per unit per acre . ' Erhart: Maybe I 'm getting off on a personal issue . I 'll come talk to you about it . Anything else on this? ' OPEN DISCUSSION: SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION PRESENTATION OF INTERIM AND LONG RANGE FOR PARK AND RIDE LOTS FOR ITS EXPRESS ROUTE SERVICE TO DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS. Fred Hoisington presented an overview of the Southwest Metro Transit Commission 's plan for interim and long range plans for park and ride lots ' in Chanhassen for it 's express route service to downtown Minneapolis . He stated he was not necessarily looking for comments from the Planning Commission at this meeting other than to ask questions so the Planning Commission can understand what it is that the Southwest Metro Transit Commission is planning for the southwest corridor . The main point the report wanted to get across was that the City was the one agency that interfaces during the development process with all aspects of the City , ' i .e . industry , private individuals , commercial , etc . to make sure that transit is brought into the picture . Southwest Metro Transit Commission really has no power but to operate the system once it 's in place . The ' report first deals with park and ride lots . Secondly , it deals with travel demand management . What they 're saying is that not every one of the three communities is going to deal with that in the same fashion but each community should give it serious thought . The third thing is design for ' transit which states that Chanhassen has to begin to establish transit corridors . Within those corridors you have to begin to think about other ways that development can occur . Need to begin shifting some thought from ' not only the automobile users but to transit users and begin thinking about how the City is going to accommodate for their needs . Fred Hoisington pointed out to the Planning Commission possible locations for park and ride lots that they should begin thinking about where they want these sites located . Hoisington: I would appreciate if you have a chance , Paul I don't know ' how you want to deal with this or whether you 're going to make some recommendations or just what but somehow or another we would like some sort of response . If it 's support or things that you think ought to change or ' whatever . Krauss: We can prepare a review and a response for your consideration and ask you back on that . ' Erhart: Yeah, I think we 'd like to see it come from you with comments and filter this down a little bit how it relates to feedback that you 're looking for . Overall I think the sense here of everybody is very supportive of your effort there and feel that not enough has been done in the past . Ellson: We don 't want to turn into Los Angeles . I I. Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 51 1 Erhart: Well , Los Angeles is getting into mass transit so . ' Hoisington: Well we thank you for the opportunity to be here and we're looking forward to comments . Emmings moved, Elison seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. . I Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director 111 Prepared by Nann Opheim i 1 1 I I CITY OF ,„ A., ,,, 1 ,401. CHANBILSSEN ilk 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II 41WA- (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 IIMEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission IFROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: August 21, 1990 1 SUBJ: Staff Response to the Southwest Metro Transit Commission Park and Ride Land Use Study IIAt our meeting on August 1, 1990, the Park and Ride Land Use Study 1 prepared for the Southwest Metro Transit Commission by Hoisington and Associates was presented to the Planning Commission. The report represents a comprehensive attempt to program future bus services and most importantly, park and ride facilities for the I three communities that participate in Southwest Metro Transit. The report also has a component that deals with Light Rail Transit Planning, however, given the rather long time frame involved before I there would be any facilities built in this area, staff does not view this component as being particularly important. The study's major goal is to help the communities participating in the Southwest Metro Transit locate park and ride facilities. The I report also strongly promotes the use of Travel Demand Management strategies (TDM) . TDM programs are proposed to improve transit ridership while minimizing environmental impact and traffic I congestion. Staff has been asked to review the report to serve as a basis for providing comments back to Southwest Metro. This report constitutes staff effort to conduct that review. Additional I comments raised by the Planning Commission and City Council will be incorporated and also forwarded to the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. Staff's comments are provided in a matter consistent with the layout of the report. IItem #1 I Staff supports the Introduction and Purpose Statements provided for the report in general. Chanhassen has been an active member in the Southwest Metro Transit Commission and supports the continued 1 expansion and growth of the system. However, we are concerned that this report is used as the medium in which TDM strategies are strongly recommended for implementation. Staff conceptually supports the goal of TDM strategies and has been active in their 1 1 i. Planning Commission I Park and Ride Land Use Study August 21, 1990 utilization in other communities. We have also written MnDOT on two occasions commenting on the draft EIS for T.H. 212 advocating a greatly expanded role for TDM strategies which appeared to have been overlooked in the initial drafts. However, TDM strategies that are described in detail in the report raise a number of issues for communities that need to be explored in a comprehensive manner before they are adopted. TDM strategies range from taking steps to ensure that development is more "transit friendly" and working with Southwest Metro to site parking lot facilities to more activist roles of requiring industrial firms to implement ride sharing strategies and requiring development to either charge for parking or develop an adequate number of parking stalls for the project on the assumption that transit use and/or ride sharing would be increased. We believe the issue is a very large one that involves future development of suburban communities. It also involves an issue of equity. In it's simplest sense, if Chanhassen were to adopt requirements of TDM strategies to achieve what are acknowledged to be valid goals, but at the same time Chaska did not, this would act as a significant disincentive for developing in Chanhassen. Staff has often indicated in the past that TDM is a valid concept and should be potentially required for all communities but that this should be administered on a metro basis wherever possible. My own direct experience with TDM strategies occurred during my time working for the City of Minnetonka. That community adopted a highly innovative TDM program along the I 394 corridor. While I support this sort of approach, I feel that it must be stressed that Minnetonka is in a unique position in terms of having considerably more development pressure than the city could accommodate. This put the city in a position where it acknowledged the equity issues associated with TDM strategies but since development wanted to occur in Minnetonka anyway the City felt that it did not need to take this into account. In summary, staff supports TDM as a concept and will work to encourage reasonable levels of implementation of these programs in the City of Chanhassen. However, we believe that the large scale program outlined in the report, is possibly inappropriate as to time frame and that the Southwest Metro report is not the ideal forum for developing a comprehensive approach to implementing TDM strategies. Figure 1 is a map of activity centers including major intersections. We believe there is an omission on this map and the Hwy. 5/Powers Boulevards intersection classifies as a major one in the City of Chanhassen and should be illustrated for future ' consideration. We note that Powers Boulevard has a rather large residential community and that it will be the major western entrance into the Chanhassen CBD. ' On Page 9, the report describes the Chanhassen Park and Ride Lot located at the Chanhassen Bowl on Market Boulevard. While final I 11 Planning Commission Park and Ride Land Use Study August 21, 1990 ' details have not yet been completed, it may be useful for the report to note that the City and Southwest Metro are negotiating the relocation of the bus stop to a more permanent location located ' on land currently owned by the Chanhassen HRA on Bowling Alley Drive. This program has tentatively been reviewed by the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority which indicated that ' they were generally in agreement with the proposal but wanted to see finished plans. ' On Page 14 the report talks about reverse commute trips. It indicates that there is a. potential for extending reverse commute trips to employment centers as far as Chanhassen. The City of Chanhassen would advocate reassessing this program in the very near ' future with a goal of increasing reverse commute service to the community. We believe that the employment base is significantly large at this point and concentrated in limited areas to make this service more realistic than it has been in the past. Large concentrations of employees in single structures such as the Rosemount, McGlynn, United Mailing and other sites would make this even more practical. On Page 6 the report describes potential funding sources for new parking lot facilities in Chanhassen. The report indicates that ' tentative sites are located in the City's tax increment districts and that the City has said it will consider using TIF funds for acquisition and possibly development costs. The report should note that while the City is in favor of working to get improved Park and Ride sites, that equity must be preserved in the allocation of City funds to these improvements. That is, that the City is willing to consider such funding programs so long as Chaska and Eden Prairie are asked to consider supporting these improvements in their communities under similar terms. ' On Page 28 the report discusses future Park and Ride sites in Chanhassen. Staff agrees that Site 7 at Hwy. 101 and 212 interchange is a site of primary importance and has already taken ' action to promote MnDOT's on procuring it. Site 6 is located at Hwy. 5 and Dell Road intersection. Staff agrees with the consultant that this is an ideal site for a park and ride facility in terms of location relative to population and work trips for the ' City of Chanhassen. However, the report indicates that MnDOT may assist in acquisition and development and the City of Chanhassen should be encouraged to assist with TIF. It should be made clear that to the best of our knowledge, MnDOT is not prepared to invest in this site as a part of Hwy. 5 improvements. Highway 5 construction in this area is already designed and programmed and ' does not include facilities for park and ride. Relative to the City of Chanhassen participating with Tax Increment Financing, I refer back to our earlier comments regarding financing in general. Southwest Metro should assume that they will have to bear some I i Planning Commission I Park and Ride Land Use Study August 21, 1990 burden in the cost of developing sites such as this. I • Page 36 is a point in the report at which Travel Demand Management is described in detail. We do not wish to repeat comments provided above, but continue to express concern that this report is not the appropriate place to establish a detailed TDM program. I would also note that there appears to be a conflict with Southwest Metro's programming since the report's intent is to promote TDM measures in the communities. For example, it is noted that the community should advocate site planning that promotes the use of transit as an alternative to single car occupancy. The report even goes so far as to promote a fee schedule for new development and existing development based on the number of parking spaces they offer with or without TDM management plans. At the same time we should note that Chanhassen has no direct service to our industrial concentrations and apparently none is contemplated in the immediate future by the report. In a similar matter, reverse commute to Chanhassen employment centers does not appear to be a relatively strong priority of the report. Thus, there is a basic conflict with requiring that development be dependent on transit without the availability of transit. The conclusion section begins on Page 46 and provides a detailed list of 25 conclusions for the report. Staff agrees with the list of conclusions and would put particular emphasis on #9 which states "as development continues in Chanhassen, existing reverse commute service may be expected to be extended westerly to accommodate this growing need". As a last item, we would ask that Southwest Metro keep an open mind to routing service down West 78th Street in Chanhassen. This street does not land itself well to park and ride facilities but is becoming a major focus of commercial and residential activity in the community that may ultimately warrant direct service. 1 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting November 7 , 1990 - Page 31 11 Conrad: Well I 'm not sure . Batzli : Unless it 's a friendly amendment and the second will accept it . Emmings: Okay . I made it myself . I 'm not mad at myself . Conrad: Okay , I 'm going to call a question. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Sections 20-504, 20-695, 20-715, 20-735, 20-755, 20-774, and 20-815 regarding parking setbacks and buffer yards amending the staff report as ' follows: To include an intent statement which reads, the intent of this section is that the City is willing to trade a smaller setback for additional landscaping that is both effective and of high quality aesthetically. And changing the phrases in B(c) and C(e) by deleting the ' phrase "interface with low density residential neighborhoods" and replacing it with "interface with lower density uses. " and changing the sentence, "It is to be cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above. " to read, "It is to be cumulatively calculated with any other required setbacks. " Also changing the first sentence in the last paragraph of item B( c) to read as follows, "in instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering satisfactory to the City, or where quality site planning achieved, " . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. FINAL STUDY REPORT FOR PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES IN THE CITIES OF CHASKA, CHANHASSEN AND EDEN PRAIRIE , SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item and Fred Hoisington was present to answer questions . ' Conrad: Anybody have questions? Emmings : I 'm going to confess that I didn 't have time to read this and I 'm ' abstaining from any vote . Wildermuth: The only comment that I have is when I look at the prototype ' site plans , it seems as though there could be a little more efficient use of the bus loading area and that seems like that could be accomplished by trunkating a corner. Having a special bus lane cutting a corner off as opposed to coming into a parking lot and having a big sweeping area that it turns around in . It would take less parking space for the bus to stop and load . ' Krauss: This is the prototype plan? Wildermuth: The prototype plans are in the back . Krauss: Yeah. Well the prototype isn't , they 've got a new design that they 're basically using for our specific circumstance anyway because it has to be designed to fit that site . ' Wildermuth: It just seems like coming and trunkating a corner would be a much more efficient way to go . 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 7 , 1990 - Page 32 Batzli : I had a question for Fred which was kind of a general question an that is , how has the study taken into account the proposed light rail and where the bus facilities would be in connection with' those? Fred Hoisington: Brian , when we first began this study and one of the things we did was try to help the commission understand how all of these II things would tie together and we did a lot of diagraming and so forth at that time to do so and we had some , I don 't even know if it was in the draft . I think it was in the draft report and it is not in this final report but some serious criticism of the location of LRT in the southwest corridor . I have some real reservations about using the railroad right-of- way , at least until after it leaves the Eden Prairie Center area . Now to J1 get to Chaska it probably will have to use the right-of-way but that entir system is built on maximizing or minimizing cost by using railroad rights- of-way and frankly we don 't think it will work . A lot of the language that we had in there , the Commission eliminated from the report feeling that while we should throw up a red flag , we shouldn 't go so far as to suggest that they completely throw their plan away . So what we ended up with was just a set of criteria that said when light rail is ready to be located in the southwest corridor , please consider these 5 things and don't be limite only to railroad rights-of-way . Now the reason we think that light rail and that the station , the LRT station ought to be at Eden Prairie Center I and we understand there are some real economic problems with that , is because all of the systems interface at that point . All of the intechanging would occur there . All the multi-purpose trips would start I and end there . Shopping trips . Commuting trips and so forth and that 's why we 're as concerned as we are about where Hennepin County is proposing III to put it . So all I can tell you is we have great reservations and we 've tried to leave enough in there to encourage the looking at alternatives but there was some feeling that maybe we could live with that alignment . I don 't agree with that . Batzli : But when that happens , I get the impression from hearing comments I by the various commissioners basically in charge in Hennepin County that it 's going to come down that abandoned rail line . I mean we 're not going to have a choice of where it enters kind of our jurisdiction it seems . • Wildermuth: It 's just going to enter the very southern part of Chanhassen . Batzli : Yeah . , Krauss: Well I think you have to realize though that we 're talking about the third phase after a 20 year time horizon at this point that they 're looking at . I mean they have some alignments that they own now and clearly they 're looking at using those but they haven't done any real specific studies for ridership , utilization , station location, anything else they would have to do when it becomes more of a reality and they may decide to change their mind . Batzli : I guess from my perspective I don't think it 's really going to be I 20 years . I think LRT is going to be accelerated greatly probably in the next couple years but that 's just perhaps a personal opinion but I think that as gasoline gets very scarce potentially in the near future , there 's going to be incredible demand for advance mass transit . :1 Planning Commission Meeting November 7 , 1990 - Page 33 Fred Hoisington: Brian , I think maybe you 're correct . Maybe not 2 or 3 years but with , I think we 'll see it in Hopkins sooner than the plan calls for . I think beyond Hopkins there are real questions and I think you 're right . The County and I think John Derris fully expects that that 11 right-of-way is where it 's going to go and it probably will . I guess all we 're trying to tell you in this report is don 't close the door on other options and Hennepin County don 't close the door on other options because we think they ought to look at other things . In terms of ridership , we think there are much better locations for it . Ahrens: There are other railroad lines aren 't there? ' Fred Hoisington: The only one that would go to Chaska , through Chaska would be this particular line . There is one of course , the one that runs ' through here but then runs north of Chaska . Actually north of Jonathan which would probably , it might be as good but at this point Joan they 're not looking at that as an atlernative . They really had two alternatives . One was into Minnetonka and the Minnetonkaees don 't like light rail so it 's not going to be there apparently and the other one is this one and this is the preferred apparently . And this one is owned and the Soo Line is not . The Soo Line is going to continue to have rail traffic on it so there will be no ability really to put it through here . So it 's going to go on that line if it 's going to go on existing rail lines , that 's where it will go . Ahrens: Why do they want to run it to Chaska anyway? Fred Hoisington: Well I think Paul is exactly correct . If they do get to Hopkins in the fairly near term , I would question whether they 'll ever go to Chaska . I really wonder but I could see very easily them coming to Eden Prairie Center and perhaps never extending beyond that but if they do , if they still want to get over the railroad line and get to Chaska , then perhaps that 's a good solution but at least for a stretch it makes no sense to me that they would use the rail line for that purpose . Krauss: I think it 's significant to realize that none of the light rail ' systems that have been built in the last 20 years serve communities that have 12 ,000 people in them . They don 't terminate in communities like ours . Now when in 10 to 12 years from now when we 're looking at a population of ' 20 ,000 or 25 ,000 with considerable growth , if it happens in Waconia with TH 5 being a commuter route , depending on how things materialize that way , it may become feasible but you really need an intensity of , or density of population that we 're probably never going to have out here . Conrad: What 's the difference between what we reviewed on August 1st and what was distributed tonight in our packet? Fred's report . Fred Hoisington: Ladd , there have been some minor changes . It 's been so long since we made those,. The changes that were made had to do with the comments that were made by each of the city staff 's and to a great extent what we did was tone down the TDM portion of the report and made it clear that this is illustrative and not intended to be adopted lock , stock and barrel by the cities . So what we did was simply made it optional so the report is if you adopt it or accept it and send it onto the Council , you 're not saying that you will adopt a TDM element . Although we still would strongly recommend , as I indicated to you when I was here in August , that Planning Commission Meeting November 7 , 1990 - Page 34 1[ you at least have some policies in your comprehensive plan to deal with that . And I know you 've already adopted , I don 't know if you have any or not but even if it 's nothing more than a philosophy , you ought to have something . But that 's how we 've toned it down at this point . Conrad: Anything else? Okay , thanks Fred . i Batzli : Do we need a motion to send this on? Krauss: I guess . I 'm not sure of the structure but have a motion to accept , recommend that the Council accept the Southwest Metro report . Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission adopt the final draft of the I Park and Ride Study by the Southwest Metro Transit contained in our packet dated November 1st . Do you want us to include your comments addressing the" study? Krauss: Please . Batzli : Including the comments addressing the study as noted in the memo dated August 21 , 1990 by the Planning Director . Conrad: Is there a second? 1 Wildermuth: Second . I Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the final draft of the Park and Ride Study by in the Southwest Metro Transit with the comments noted in the memo dated August 21 , 1990 by the Planning Director . All voted in favor except Emmings and Conrad who abstained and the motion carried. Wildermuth: Why is everybody abstaining? 1 Conrad: I didn 't get a copy of the report so I don't know . I was comfortable when we talked about it before and I was comfortable with Paul 's comments but I didn't have a report to apply them to . Fred Hoisington: I just want you to know that we were comfortable with Paul 's comments too . Other than we feel very strongly about the importance of transit . You 're going to see a great deal more of it and it 's going to come faster than any of us can imagine . I Conrad: The economics are there huh? Fred Hoisington: Not yet . But they may well be there soon. Thank you . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings: We go that memo that we don't have to approve them anymore . 1 Conrad: Yeah , we don't have to approve them. I Emmings: You just have to say .