Loading...
12-04-14 Bottineau LRT PAC Agenda G�tyof golden vall e Y Bottineau LRT Planning Advisory Committee December 4, 2014 6:00 pm Golden Valley City Hall Council Conference Room I. Approval of Meeting Minutes from October 22, 2014 II. Update from Staff a. Recap and response from November 12 Open House b. Parking discussion for December 9 Council/Manager meeting III. PAC Communication and Outreach Strategies IV. Comments from Non-Members V. Adjournment city of golden valle Y Bottineau LRT Planning Advisory Committee October 22, 2014 6:00 pm Golden Valley City Hall Council Conference Room Committee Members Present: Chair Rich Baker, Vice Chair Sean Fahey, Tonia Golanska, Erv Heim, Alison Pence, Gillian Rosenquist, Dan Steinberg, Cathy Waldhauser, Debra Yahle Commissioners Present: Planning Commissioner Ron Blum City Staff Present: Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner Emily Goeflner, Public Works Specialist Eric Eckman I. Approval of Meeting Minutes from April 10, 2014 Chair Rich Baker called the meeting to order at 6:02 pm and the minutes of the April, 2014, meeting were approved unanimously. II. Update from Staff Planning Manager Jasan Zimmerman provided updates regarding the Bottineau project, including the November 12 open house, the release of the draft of the Theodore Wirth Master Plan, and the entry of the LRT line into the two year Project Development phase. In response to a request from the group, he agreed to provide regular summaries of the progress of the project in areas beyond station area planning. III. Committee "Check-in" Regarding Planning Process Baker gave the group an overview of the process for the evening and suggested they use the Mission and Responsibilities of the Committee as assigned by the City Council and assess each one. 1. Identify all impacts of the Bottineau LRT on roads, sidewalks, and trails, Cathy Waldhauser stated that she believed the station area planning had had a good focus and attention on sidewalks and trails. Gillian Rosenquist suggested that all future plans be integrated into the statian area plan and pointed to the future Three Rivers plan. She encouraged a holistic view. 2. Identify effects on the existing transit system in Go/den Valley. Dan Steinberg thought that the process had been weak so far regarding the integration with bus route planning. Baker pointed out that buses are not allowed to run on the Parkway and wondered if this should be revisited. Rosenquist suggested the larger transit planning should involve the companies in Golden Valley, as many of their employees would use the light rail. The concept of a business circulator was discussed. 3. Identify station parking issues, availability and opportunities. Baker indicated parking concerns still needed to be addressed. Rosenquist wondered if providing parking would salve the issue of congestion at the station or make in worse. Zimmerman told the group that Hennepin County would be attending the December Council/Manager work session to discuss parking with the Council. Eric Eckman pointed out that station area land use decisions could potentially help by providing parking in combination with other uses. 4. Meet with key property owners and other stakeholders near both proposed station locations to understand long-term plans for the area. Waldhauser stated that group needed to do a better job of ineeting with others. Rosenquist encouraged everyone to forward information about the open house to people or groups that they knew. Baker wondered haw to figure out who isn't currently being reached via City efforts. 5. Identify impacts to natura/resources and plans for mitigption of the impacts. Sean Fahey indicated he believed this was the weakest topic in the station area planning; others agreed. Rosenquist stated that the DEIS response covered a lot, but the concerns are not being addressed at the station areas. Heim suggested that the topic keep being brought up at the Community Working Group sessions. Baker wondered if the subject was getting lost in the discussian because Minneapolis didn't share the same concerns. 6. Establish long-term land use goals for areas adjacent to both of the proposed station locations. Steinberg asked if rezoning was going to be a result of the station area process. Baker indicated that the group needed to be forward-looking and help shape the process. Waldhauser stated that activity would likely be necessary to support the stations. Rosenquist agreed, but thought that connections to the rest of Golden Valley were also important. Baker stated that long term, the station area plans would be rolled into the Comprehensive Plan. Fahey wondered about the fate of the fire station. Rosenquist posed that with increased population around the light rail station, it might be more important to keep the fire station in its current location. 7. Work with Hennepin County to ensure that there is an adequate method of communication to Golden Valley property owners. Fahey wondered if a mailing would be the most effective, even though it would be expensive. Rosenquist stated that she thought the City communication had been good. Zimmerman indicated that an update would be included in the November/December City newsletter and that a reminder about the lanuary open house could be included in the January/February newsletter. 8. Meet with residents living near the Bottineau LRT corridor and identify issues and concerns. 9. Review and offer comments on station area planning ana/ysis, results and recommendations. 1p. Review and offer comments to land use plans for areas adjacent to the station locations. Baker wondered if it made sense to have some meetings separate from Minneapolis to focus on Golden Valley issues. Rosenquist stated that more involvement from Minneapolis was needed at the Golden Valley Road station with respect to Pennsylvania Avenue. Baker summarized the main points from the evening and Zimmerman agreed pass them along to Hennepin County and to the station area consultants. Baker suggested meeting again in February after the next open house. Eckman summarized the number of studies that were underway or recently completed that related to the station areas or the light rail line in general and indicated the timing was good for the coordination of planning for many issues. IV. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:25 pm. METRO Blue Line extension (Bottineau LRT) Phase 1: Station Area Planning Golden Valley Road Parking Management Strategies Assessment Purpose The purpose of the Parking Management Strategy Assessment is to provide a decision-making framework for staff and policy-makers regarding parking at the Golden Valley Road Station on the Bottineau LRT line. Context While parking is an important consideration for this station,access to the Golden Vatley Road Station will be prioritized for riders arriving by bus, on-foot, and by bicycle,with the intention of encouraging use of tfiese modes in favor of driving to the LRT station. Priority of access for bus, pedestrians,and bicyclists may be offered in the following ways: • Increasing frequency of service on nearby bus lines • Providing optimal locations for bus pick-up and drop-off points relative to the LRT station • Providing safe,comfortable and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections to the LRT station � Providing optimal locations for secure bicycle parking(both short term and long term) relative to the LRT station • Providing multiple pedestrian vertical circulation options such as elevators, escalators, and stairs to reach the LRT platform • Providing a "kiss and ride" drop-off area. Prioritizing access by bus, bicycle, or on foot enables valuable land near the station to be used for new development or preservation of existing uses.A parcel of land that provides space for 100 parked cars could instead provide space for hundreds of people to live or work.Also, parking lots and structures often act as deterrents to pedestrians, as they are visually uninteresting and can be intimidating at night. Lastly, providing parking is the most expensive way of bringing riders to a station:A single parking stall in a typical above ground structured parking ramp can cost$15,000—$20,000 and a single surface parking stall cost approximately$2,500 to$5,000.1 Both types of parking facilities require regular investments in maintenance. In fall 2014, Metro Transit estimated preliminary parking demand at the Golden Valley Road Station of approximately 100 cars.This memo explores various options for managing this level of parking demand near the Golden Valley Road Station. Parking Management Options The following eight parking management options were considered for this analysis: 1. Structured parking on MPRB land east ofthe station platform 2. Structured parking as part of new development 3. Surface parking lot on the fire station site 4. Agreement with St. Margaret Mary for use of their lot for park and ride 1 NCHRP 08-36,Task 109.Guidebook for Estimating the Cost of Non-Rail lnfrastructure Upgrades due to Passenger Rail Implementation. September 2012. 1 METRO Blue Line extension (Bottineau LRT) Phase 1: Station Area Planning 5. Shared parking structure at Courage Center 6. On-street parking 7. Improved transit service 8. Improved pedestrian and bicycle connections These options were raised by Bottineau LRT Phase 1 Station Area Planning TAC members and Community Working Group members,or are ideas documented during previous planning efforts such as the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board eottineau Transitway Design Forum that were further considered during Station Area Planning.The pros and cons of each strategy are listed below. Strategy 1: Structured parking on MPRB land east of station platform Pros Cons • Park and ride structure would • Cost of underground parking is the highest of any option (underground, be completely hidden in the structure,or surface) view from the east • Low demand for parking at this station likely would result in a low benefit cost ratioz • Structure would require ongoing maintenance • Access to the parking structure is likely to be complex • View from the park(west) could include the park and ride structure • Structure would be on park property;would require MPRB approval, Met Council approval • MPRB and Metropolitan Council policy does not permit transit uses, including parking, on regional park property;would require policy change by both agencies o Development of this option would present additional risk to the LRT project: Policy changes needed to implement the park and ride would add time and complexity to the local project approval process o The park and ride would add additional costs to the project • Could induce demand for driving to the station from people who would have walked, bicycled, or taken transit • Addition of park and ride at the station could affect New Starts ratings for the project in the economic development and land use categories which award high ratings for: o Concentration of development around regional transit o Plans and policies to enhance transit-friendly character of station-area development o Increased density and reduced parking in station areas o Development proposals in transit station areas Note: At their October meeting,the TAC agreed not to pursue this option further Z Metro Transit estimates parking demand at the Golden Valley Road station at 100 cars per day. Regional Policy does not support structured parking for low-demand stations. 2 METRO Blue Line extension (Bottineau LRT) Phase 1: Station Area Planning Strategy 2:Structured parking as part of new development Pros Cons • Shared arrangement could • Cost of underground parking is still the highest of any option result in sharing of costs for . Low demand for parking at this station likely would result in a low benefit cost Metro Transit and the ratio developer , • Structure would require ongoing maintenance • Shared arrangement could be . Structure would be part of private development, so timeline for park and ride the most efficient use of is uncertain; it may not be available on opening day of LRT service parking built for the . Park and ride could be difficult for users to locate development • Ingress and egress is likely to be complex • Potentially creates a competition for parking spaces between transit users and development residents/visitors • Could induce demand for driving to the station from people who would have walked, bicycled, or taken transit Strategy 3:Surface parking lot on fire station site Pros Cons • Land is in public ownership • Lost opportunity to return the property to a taxable use • A surface park and ride would • Cost of deve�oping and maintaining a surface lot be consistent with regional . Adjacent flood plain would not benefit from any new impervious surface guidelines • Park and riders would need to cross Golden Valley Road at-grade unless • Holding the land in public vertical circulation is provided on north side of GVR ownership could facilitate . Could induce demand for driving to the station from people who would have eventual redevelopment walked, bicycled, or taken transit • Addition of park and ride at the station could affect New Starts ratings for the project in the economic development and land use categories which award high ratings for: o Concentration of development around regional transit o Plans and policies to enhance transit-friendly character of station-area development , o Increased density and reduced parking in station areas o Development proposals in transit station areas 3 METRO Blue Line extension (Bottineau LRT) Phase 1: Station Area Planning Strategy 4:Agreement with St.Margaret Mary for use of their lot for park and ride Pros Cons • Minimal new infrastructure • Requires consent of church required • Cost of leasing space from church • Monitoring of parking lot for parking compliance (St. Mary parking vs park and ride) • Potentially creates a competition for parking spaces between church users and transit riders—especially when the church has day time events such as funerals • Could induce demand for driving to the station from people who would have walked, bicycled, or taken transit Note:This option has not been discussed with St. Margaret Mary Church Strategy S:Shared parking structure at Courage Center Pros Cons • Shared arrangement could result in • Courage Center is an approximate 0.3 mile walk from the station sharing of costs for Metro Transit • LRT and Courage Center users would demand parking at similar times of and Courage Center day Note:This option has not been discussed with Courage Center Strategy 6: On-street parking Pros Cons • No new infrastructure required • Residents may object to additional traffic on local streets • No new costs • Local parking management program may be needed • Supports regional goals for • Potentially creates a competition for parking spaces between transit users increased walking, biking, and and existing residents/visitors to the area taking transit to stations • All land near the station is available for other uses • Efficient use of available on-street parking • Approximately 561 on-street spaces are legally available for parking near the station3 which is ample parking supply for projected demand Note: See Attachment A for more information on available parking supply near the proposed station � 3 Please see Attachment A for details on the calculation of available on-street parking spaces near the station. 4 METRO Blue Line extension (Bottineau LRT) Phase 1: Station Area Planning Strategy 7:Improved transit service Pros Cons • Supports regional goals for increased walking, • Requires relocation of existing shelters or construction of biking, and taking transit to stations new shelters and signage • All land near the station is available for other uses • Costs of operating additional buses • Supports regional goals for increasing transit ridership • Would not contribute to traffic congestion near the station • Supports regional goals for air quality standards Strategy 8:Improved pedestrian and bicycle connections Pros Cons • Supports regional goals for increased walking, • Cost of implementing and maintaining infrastructure biking, and taking transit to stations improvements • All land near the station is available for other uses • Retrofitting existing roadway or pedestrian facilities to add or improve bicycle and pedestrian accommodations is much lower cost compared to expansion of roadway or parking facilities • Would not contribute to traffic congestion near the station • Supports regional goals for air quality standards Conclusion Recommendations regarding next steps are as follows: � Strategy 1 should be immediately dismissed because it lacks policy support, is the most expensive option, and presents implementation challenges. • Strategies 2, 3,4 and 5, present higher costs and are less consistent with regional policy than Strategies 6, 7,and 8 and should be retained only if there is no support for Strategies 6, 7,and 8 as stand-alone actions. Strategies 6, 7,and 8 are most consistent with regional goals of increasing access to the stations via transit, bicycle, and pedestrian connections. Explicit disclosure of the availability of on-street parking,Strategy 6, may encounter some resistance from nearby residents and increase the number of drivers to the station, but non-promoted use of nearby on- street parking is a viable option for accommodating the low level of demand for parking at the Golden Valley Road Station. 5 This page left blank intentionally. METRO Blue Line extension (Bottineau LRT) Phase 1: Station Area Planning ATTACHMENT A: Existing On-Street Parking Supply Analysis Data regarding availability of on-street parking was collected by Hennepin County staff in fall 2014. Data was collected on the street segments highlighted in Figure 1. Given existing pedestrian networks and one planned connection,these locations were considered convenient to the station for parking purposes. Data collected on each street included: • Approximate length of each street segment • Approximate width of each street • Existing parking restrictions: signed restrictions,driveways,curb cuts, and hydrants • Land uses along each street Assumptions • Calculation of available spaces assumed that existing parking restrictions remain in effect. • Narrow roadways assumed new parking restrictions limiting parking to one side of the street. • It was assumed that each on street parking space would require 25 feet of curb space.. � Golden Valley City Code Section 9.02 specifies that it is unlawful for any person to stop, stand, or park a vehicle except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic in compliance with the specific directions of a policy officer or traffic control device within ten (10)feet of the point of the curb nearest the fire hydrant. For purposes of this analysis, l0 feet on either side of a hydrant (20 feet total)was assumed as unavailable for parking • Number of spaces available was always rounded down to the nearest whole number. • Metro Transit estimates parking demand at the Golden Valley Road station at approximately 100 cars per day. Findings As shown in Figure 1,this data collection effort found that in total 561 on-street parking spots currently exist within a convenient walk of approximately% mile of the Golden Valley Road Station. Attachment A 1 METRO Blue Line extension (Bottineau LRT) Phase 1: Station Area Planning Figure 1: On Street Parking Supply t�d1L� .� 2�flf,�,��.re rd e�� � M1J 26t17,ave �` c� l� i,z �' G � ":i �r � �� ;-+ d f �t� co ����_ w5t.�vw., � � ,� ��. �?� � ValJey�lrewl�'ark y C'y_ f s a -� .'p� ''��y � ,$ .'i,�7 . . . �. '�F�,/ +,y � — � r•tif�;�,v2 N � lr7.�.n . . -{.:3 tki'" 7. :�n� y ]t 1 ti�� C��, � �'Ff�; . ' �-!. ' ` = F"f � � Segmerrt Avallabie � �,, Mery lt'il'!b fVefure�E�ec� � � � ID SpaCes a 1 -L:�. ro � � � 1 35 " t aretps 2 40 � r 5����� 4� F � z 3- 40 � �' � ' 4 17 _ ' Lovewar�:.�4cade�ray ��� a � ,q � Fox Viival and, ' aA� r��or� �� `� � 3� a " � � x' 6 28 � � = �� ; =o` ! 4�y `�: 7 38 � ����+ �� ;;, � _ � GoldenValley � �' � �'� � '���' � Road 5tation _� 9 109 v � �q = 10 28 � `- 11 35 m m � � ,�p 12 13 vti a � Gold�t �3 23 �� 14 12 � � -'`" � "`, 0 � 1� 39 � r;� '"` j,�tti,+�>�r•p 16 19 •� � o��°°r�T � Total � su� �61 Spaces Assumptions Parking on 1 side of`s1rPet ---- Newtraifconnection assumed � Parking on 2 sides of sfreet XxX: Totai on-street parking stalis depicted � NOOn-Stfe2tparking, Note:Allstreets'indieafedwithcolorwere.�c,�dedir�lnventorks Attachment A 2 METRO Blue Line extension (Bottineau LRT) Phase 1: Station Area Planning ATTACHMENT B: Policy References Regional Guidance on Park& Ride Siting and Sizing Transportation Policy Plan(Page 128): Future facilities should be surface lots rather than structured ramps where feasible,given the higher cost of structured parking. However, structured ramps are appropriate where land is expensive,or where a joint-use venture or transit-oriented development is possible. Regional Transitway Guideline 4.4(Chapter 4 page 30): Where parking is identified as a need per Guideline 33, park- and-ride lots may be surface lots or multi-level structures.Surface lots are generally preferred for cost reasons, but the type, size, and footprint of the parking facility should be evaluated to achieve the best balance between available space, cost, and funding.As discussed in Guideline 3.3,the Metropolitan Council's Park-and-Ride Plan provides design guidance for park-and-ride lots; parking areas should be sized based on the market analysis methodology provided in Chapter 5 of the plan. In general,the amount of parking provided at stations is inverse to the density of surrounding land uses; i.e., less parking is provided at stations with higher surrounding population and employment densities. Regional Transitway Guideline 3.3(Chapter 3 page 16):Park-and-ride demand for a station should be analyzed. According to Guideline 10.7.Transitway Travel Demand Forecasting,the regional travel demand forecast model is the preferred method for developing transitway travel demand forecasts; however,the methodology outlined in Section 5.3 of the Park-and-Ride Plan may be appropriate, especially for estimating park-and-ride demand at Highway BRT express or Commuter Rail stations. 2030 Park-and-Ride Plan (Chapter 5 page 83): Each site should have the following characteristics,though a deficiency on one criteria may not necessarily be a fatal flaw for continued project development: • Serving Lower-Density Areas with Less than Full Transit Service Coverage Park-and-ride facilities are typically located in lower density developing areas, as designated in the Regional Development Framework. However, facilities may be implemented in more urbanized areas if they support or bolster (and do not undermine) existing walk-up express transit services. Park-and-rides are discouraged in center cities, except in rare or atypical circumstances. • Located on a Major Travel Corridor to a Major Regional Activity Center Facilities should be located in areas with high levels of travel demand at major activity center(s). Currently, park-and-ride demand focuses on downtown Minneapolis,with additional demand to downtown St. Paul and the University of Minnesota. • Convenient Access to Regional Highway System Facilities should be located within % mile of the nearest interchange(or intersection)accessing the regional highway system (usually principal arterial). • Convenient Vehicle Access Facilities should be located to optimize vehicle travel (transit and personal) into and out of the facility. In addition, connections to external bicycle and pedestrian networks should be included as design elements to provide equivalent access. • Minimum Capacity/ Anticipated Demand Facilities should be sized to accommodate a minimum of three exclusive, peak-period, express bus trips. This translates to a need for at least 150 spaces, though specific sizes may depend on site factors and corridor service design.A small facility should not be located near a large facility, as increased service at the large facility will likely outcompete the smaller facility for nearby users. � Local Area Factors There are three groups of local area factors that need to be acknowledged, considered and satisfied for local consent of a potential park-and-ride site: community or land use compatibility, environmental constraints and economic implications. Attachment B 1 METRO Blue Line extension (Bottineau LRT) Phase 1: Station Area Planning Draft 2040 Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan (page 46): • Strategy 2.5:Work with transit partners early in the planning phase of corridor and station area planning to incorporate bicycle supportive facilities at key transit locations. • Strategy 2.6 Work with major transit providers and local communities to provide direct bicycle connections to transit stops and stations, and increase secure bicycle parking and storage to meet demand. Draft 2040 Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan:Attachment F Bicycle Parking Standards(page 8): • Bike lockers are NOT recommended for urban or suburban settings.They may be appropriate in rural or exurban settings where demand for long term bike parking is limited to less than six spots. Attachment B 2