The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-01-19 DTPC Packet DOWNTOWN PARKING COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, January 16, 2020 8:30 AM Conference Room 213, City Hall 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 19, 2019 MINUTES 4. OPEN FORUM 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.01. 209 S Main - Greenbridge Coffee Shop parking mitigation 5.02. 200 E Chestnut – Chestnut Building parking mitigation revision 5.03. The Lora valet license renewal 5.04. Brian’s Bocce Ball Tournament parking reservation 5.05. Sunrise Rotary Club/Sustainable Stillwater: EV charging station 5.06. Sustainable Stillwater: Summary of transportation survey 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6.01. Parking Ramp revenue system contract 6.02. Parking Study update 7. UPDATES 7.01. Lot 14 expansion plan 7.02. Parking on 3rd Street 7.03. Event calendar 8. ADJOURNMENT DOWNTOWN PARKING COMMISSION MEETING December 19, 2019 Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 8:34 a.m. Present: Chairman Anderson, Commissioners Hopfe, Lepage, McAllister Absent: Commissioners Glynn, Johnson, Lettner, and Council Liaison Junker Staff present: Parking Enforcement Officer Pasket, Zoning Administrator Tait, Community Development Director Turnblad APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of November 21, 2019 meeting The minutes of the November 21, 2019 meeting were approved. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. NEW BUSINESS Opera on the River parking request Zoning Administrator Tait stated that Operatunity Theatre is requesting permission to hold a concert August 1 in front of the Lowell Park Pavilion. In the event of inclement weather, they would do a matinee event on August 2 in lieu of August 1. As proposed, with no flood-related issues, there would be no impact to the parking system. In the event of flooding, “Plan B” proposes shifting the liquor tents and portapotties to the east into Lot 9 along the edge of Lowell Park, relocating the stage, VIP seating area and artist tent to Lot 5. Staff recommends approval for “Opera on the River” to utilize Lot 9, in the event of flooding, at a fee of $111 (in the event of a two day event, the fee would increase to $222). Obed Floan, Operatunity Theatre, said they are adding a performing arts fair this year. Motion by Commissioner McAllister, seconded by Commissioner Hopfe, to approve the use of Lots 9 and 5 by Operatunity Theatre August 1 for a fee of $111, and if bad weather extends it into a two day event, the fee would be $222. Motion passed, 4-0. Historic Lift Bridge Re-Opening Celebration parking request Mr. Tait explained the event. A celebration of the re-opening of the lift bridge is planned for May 15-16, 2020. It would utilize Lot 4, a portion of Lot 2 for a beer garden, and a portion of Lot 3 for vending. The surrounding 5 block area will be barricaded. Staff finds that the number and location of spaces are reasonable and recommends approval of 66 spaces to be used for the event, with the standard fee of $600 for a duration of two days. Councilmember Polehna, event coordinator, said the event will be similar to the lift bridge closing: ribbon cutting, dinner on the bridge, street dance, pancake breakfast and hands across the bridge around the entire 4.7 mile loop. Motion by Chairman Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Lepage, to approve the use of 66 parking spaces in Lots 2, 3 and 4 for May 15 and 16 for the Historic Lift Bridge Re-Opening Celebration for a fee of $600. Motion passed, 4-0. Parking mitigation for 217 North 2nd Street, Hotel Crosby Annex Downtown Parking Commission Meeting December 19, 2019 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Turnblad stated that during construction of Hotel Crosby, Midnight Real Estate LLC used the property at 217 North 2nd Street as their construction headquarters. After the hotel opened, the building was converted from office space to mixed use space used by hotel staff and guests for meetings and private events. The increased parking load during the high-season with the patio in operation is 67.8 minus the 8.3 spaces for the former use, or 59.5 spaces rounded to 60 spaces. During the off-season without the patio the increase is 54.1 minus 8.3, or 45.8 rounded to 46. However, since this building is owned and managed by the hotel as an annex, it may be reasonable to apply hotel parking standards. Specifically, that means that all uses except the rooms are required to provide only 50% of what that use would require if it were in a stand- alone building. In this case the 68 space peak-season load would be reduced to 34, an increase of 26 spaces. The off-season use increase would be 19. Staff finds that the number of spaces is under the 20% limit that has been applied in the past and therefore recommends that the DTPC determine that the annex is a part of the hotel facility and grant the 50% parking load reduction. The hotel’s parking facility has an excess of 2 parking spaces in the peak-season and 10 in the off-season that can be credited toward the annex’s parking load increase, thus requiring the payment of a parking mitigation fee for a 24 space peak-season and a 9 space off-season parking deficit. Anne Loff, Midnight Real Estate, said the occupant load for the building would be 40 on the upper floor and 10 on the lower floor, not 85 which was used by staff to determine parking mitigation. The hotel’s CUP limits the number of people using that building to 49. She added that there has never been a parking issue with the building. Mr. Turnblad said the lower number is reasonable to use because the building is owned and managed by the hotel and the hotel can control the building occupancy. Commissioner McAllister asked if the CUP allows for hosting an event in that space for people who are not hotel guests. Ms. Loff replied they have that flexibility, but it is not their business model. Chris Diebo, Midnight Real Estate, added that if the hotel is full, the building spaces would be used by hotel guests. They do not intend to rent the patio separately, it is considered an extension of the building, used by people who are already using the building. Commissioner McAllister remarked that the building space should be considered two spaces, not three, since it is clear the hotel would not rent the patio separately. Mr. Diebo added that when the building was purchased in early 2017, the building department recommended that it be converted from office to mixed use. Under office use, the max occupancy would have been 49. The hotel does not intend to host an 85-person event there, but the building official has determined that the posted capacity will be 85. Mr. Turnblad informed the Commission that the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) will go before the Planning Commission tonight. Since the hotel management has stated they will not rent the space to more than 50 people, the CUP will state that the max number of people the hotel may rent that space to is 50 people. He will calculate the 50% reduction and subtract the capacity in the parking ramp next to it and that is what the number will be. Mr. Diebo remarked that the hotel is working with the building department to meet fire code requirements based on an occupancy limit of 85. If the occupancy load is 49, they may not have to make the alterations. Mr. Turnblad replied there are two different sets of regulations: land use, and parking load considerations. The DTPC addresses parking load, not legal occupancy. But with this condition attached to the CUP, the hotel is committing to these numbers no matter what the posted occupancy load. Motion by Chairman Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Lepage, to approve the parking mitigation plan based on 50 person occupancy for the building in its entirety. Motion passed, 4-0. The Lora valet agreement renewal Downtown Parking Commission Meeting December 19, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Turnblad stated that in June 2016 the DTPC reviewed the parking mitigation plan for The Lora Hotel. The 40 room hotel and restaurant created an increased parking load of 15 cars over that which existed prior to the hotel conversion. The Lora Hotel proposed to fulfill the 15 car increase by valet parking cars in the lot behind the hotel, rather than paying a monthly mitigation fee. The Commission and the City Council approved this proposal and the Council granted a three-year license for the use of two parking spaces on Main Street for the valet service. A condition of the license set the priority for parking from the valet stations: 1) the valet lot behind the hotel, 2) the municipal ramp, and lastly 3) municipal Lot 20 (now renumbered to Lot 18). The license expired August 3, 2019. Over time, the hotel has stopped parking cars in the designated locations and staff is not sure where they are parking the valet cars now. Staff needs to know how to condition the renewed license and are waiting for a proposal from the hotel. He noted that there are no hotel representatives present so the Commission may want to table the renewal until the next meeting. Commissioner Hopfe remarked that a lot of their customers park in the Brick Alley lot overnight. Parking Enforcement Officer Pasket noted that they don’t seem to be using Lot 18. Commissioner Hopfe asked about the three on-street parking spaces next to the building on Nelson Street which seem to be filled with cars that stay there all day. Delivery trucks have to park out in the street. Mr. Pasket replied semi trucks cannot fit in the spaces and must park on the street. There is one loading space on Nelson and the other spaces are three-hour parking. 2020 Capital Expenditures Mr. Turnblad reviewed planned capital expenditures for 2020. The City is nearing the end of reconstructing and resurfacing downtown parking lots, with only Lot 10 remaining. Its surface will be milled and overlaid in 2020. Lot 14 will be expanded in 2020 as a result of the recent acquisition of the Shorty’s property. The cost of the property will be covered by Tax Increment Finance revenue, not by parking enterprise funds. The demolition of the Shorty’s building (if that is approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission and City Council) and parking lot construction would come from parking enterprise funds. The building will need to be delisted from the National Historic Register first. It is believed that the building does not have historic value but that it was listed so the downtown historic district could be contiguous. In addition to parking lots, the City also has the parking ramp to maintain. Security cameras and the inefficient lights will be replaced in 2020. The City contracted with HKGi to study the downtown parking system for ways to maximize efficiencies of the existing system rather than build a new parking ramp. The cash in hand (aka. reserve) balance in the parking enterprise fund is just over $991,000. Out of that balance will come the capital costs planned for 2020, which amount to $280,800. After reconstructing all of the surface lots, and even without the additional fund reserves that will accumulate in 2020, the projected balance after next construction season would be $711,000. This healthy fund balance can be attributed to the complete reconstruction of Lots 2, 4, 5 and 9 by the Corps of Engineers in 2013. The cost of the Corps’ work on parking lots was included in the flood protection project. Chairman Anderson recalled community backlash that came from past discussions of the possibility of increasing parking fees. He noted that it will be important to convey that the parking enterprise funds are needed to maintain and upgrade parking systems. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. UPDATES Ice Castles Commissioner McAllister asked Mr. Turnblad to confirm that the Ice Castle has been cancelled for this year. Mr. Turnblad confirmed that the Ice Castle chose a different community because they were uncomfortable with what the City felt they needed to do to protect the City infrastructure. Downtown Parking Commission Meeting December 19, 2019 Page 4 of 4 Event calendar Commissioner McAllister said she appreciates the calendar which helps when considering events. Meeting calendar Mr. Turnblad provided the boards and commissions meeting calendar. In September the DTPC meeting will be changed to September 10 due to the statewide Historic Preservation Conference being hosted in Stillwater, which will stretch the staff. Lot 4 Mr. Turnblad informed the Commission that except for the two construction trailers in Lot 4, the lot is no longer required for construction crews refurbishing the Lift Bridge. Staff plans to open the lot for public use this winter. Lot 4 is no longer accessible from Chestnut Street because a new curbline was constructed at Chestnut Street. The lot will be reconfigured this spring to include access from Myrtle Street. Until then the existing north-bound parking space lines will be removed and signage would be installed for parallel parking on the west side of the lot and 90 degree parking on the east side. Third Street parking Commissioner Hopfe asked if it is possible to allow parking again along the east side of Third Street between Olive and Chestnut, where there are currently “no parking” signs. Mr. Turnblad explained that Third Street is a County-State Aid Highway. Staff will submit a request to the County to restore parking. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 9:59 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink, Recording Secretary Daren Anderson, Chair ATTEST: Graham Tait, Zoning Administrator DOWNTOWN PARKING COMMISSION DATE: January 6, 2020 CASE NO.: 2019-72 APPLICANT: Michael Herman PROPERTY OWNER: Happy Bridge, LLC LOCATION: 209 South Main Street SUBJECT: Parking mitigating for Greenbridge Coffee Shop and Mike’s Electric Bikes REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Michael Herman is planning to lease 209 South Main Street as a coffee shop and electric bike rental shop. The Main Street portion of the space will be the coffee shop and the Water Street portion will be the bike rental area. The most recent use of the space was for the retail store known as Life is Good. The second floor of the building is used as vacation rental space and will continue to be used that way. Main Street view Water Street view Greenbridge Coffee and Mike’s Bikes Page 2 ANALYSIS General parking standards If there is an increased parking load generated by changing the use of any property, and that load increase is more than four parking spaces, then on-site parking spaces must be provided or a mitigation plan must be approved by the Parking Commission1. Given the space limitations on historic properties downtown, expanding and new businesses cannot typically provide sufficient on-site parking. For this and other reasons, the City has created a downtown parking district, which allows for what the Zoning Ordinance calls “alternative provisions”. Essentially the alternative provisions are either to lease nearby private spaces, or if sufficient convenient parking spaces are available, to rely on the public parking system. A third alternative is also possible, which is to grant a variance to the parking requirement. The third alternative has not been approved by the City since the early 2000s. If the Parking Commission approves use of the public parking system, then a parking mitigation fee is charged per space to offset the City costs for providing those spaces. Currently, the fee for parking mitigation is $10 per month per space. Site details The current parking load for the ground level of this property is 11 spaces2. The proposed coffee shop and electric bike rental uses will generate a parking load of 14 spaces3. The increased parking load is 3 spaces. Since an increase of 4 spaces is allowed before additional parking is required, no parking mitigation plan is necessary. REQUIRED ACTION Since no parking mitigation plan is required, no Parking Commission action is necessary. Attachment: Floor plans bt 1 City Code Sec 31-510, Subd 1 (d)(4) Parking requirements for nonconforming structures or uses. [“Nonconforming” in this sense means that the property does not meet the minimum number of parking spaces required for the existing uses.] In the case of structures in any district, which are reconstructed, enlarged, structurally altered, changed in occupancy to a more intensive use category or otherwise increased in capacity, off-street parking shall be provided only for that portion of structures or use constituting the increase in capacity; except that no additional parking need be provided for nonresidential uses, if the increased capacity results in an increase of four or fewer off-street parking spaces. 2 2,216 sf of retail at 1/200 sf = 11.08 spaces. The bathroom and mechanical room are not counted in the retail area. 3 790 sf of restaurant area at 1/120 = 6.58 spaces. 2 spaces for the food preparation area. 1,130 sf of bike rental area at 1/200 = 5.65 spaces. This is a total of 14.23 spaces. TO: Downtown Parking Commission FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director DATE: January 9, 2020 RE: Revised parking mitigation for the Chestnut Building BACKGROUND The ownership of the Chestnut Building, 200 E Chestnut Street, has recently changed. The new owners plan to demolish the building and construct residential units. So, as leases expire they are not being renewed. In addition, Reve is no longer in operation. Consequently the parking needs of the building have changed dramatically since the Downtown Parking Commission approved the last parking mitigation plan for the property. The parking mitigation plan of record requires the building owner to mitigate for a deficit of 9 parking spaces. Which means they are paying $90 a month into the parking enterprise fund. The parking lot and parking ramp on the property are currently configured to accommodate 59 vehicles. When the building was at full occupancy with the mix of uses seen by the Parking Commission in 2014, the parking load for the building was 81 spaces. That represented a parking deficit of 22 spaces. Most of the building’s uses were grandfathered. As a result, the building owner was responsible for mitigating only 9 of those spaces. All 9 are attributed to the expansion of Reve’s. And as mentioned, the restaurant is now closed. REQUEST The property owner requests that the Parking Commission remove the requirement to mitigate the 9 parking spaces required for the Reve expansion. RECOMMENDATION With Reve’s closure and an increasing number of vacancies within the building as leases expire, the 59 parking spaces on the property more than meet the parking demand for the building. Therefore, staff recommends approving the request to remove the requirement to mitigate 9 parking spaces. bt 1 Bill Turnblad From:Charley Owens <cowens@reuterwalton.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 18, 2019 10:59 AM To:Bill Turnblad Subject:Cancelling 200 Chestnut Parking Permits Bill, Following up our phone call, I’d like to provide some color about why we believe ownership no longer needs to renew any of the 9 parking permits that have been assessed to the property. As I mentioned on the phone, we closed on the property at the end of November at a building occupancy of 62%, which includes a number of month-to month tenants and no intention to lease the vacant space. At this occupancy level, the 59 total stalls on the property allow for 6.3 stalls per 1,000 sf of rented space. With Reve restaurant non-operational, we feel that there is plenty of parking for the remaining tenants which are a mix of weekday, night/weekend, and by appointment only operations. If you can provide additional detail on planning case #2014-16b from 2015, I would certainly take a look. Otherwise, please let me know if there is anything else you need from us in order to present to the parking commission. Best, Charley Owens Development Analyst 1710 West Lake Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55408 Cell: (612) 968-2907 Direct: (612)314-4315 DOWNTOWN PARKING COMMISSION DATE: January 10, 2020 SUBJECT: Valet parking license for The Lora Hotel LOCATION: South Main Street REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND In June of 2016 the Parking Commission reviewed the parking mitigation plan for The Lora Hotel. The 40 room hotel and restaurant created an increased parking load of 15 cars over that which existed prior to the hotel conversion. The prior parking load was 51 vehicles and the hotel conversion load was 66 vehicles. The Lora Hotel proposed to fulfill the 15 car increase by valet parking cars in the lot behind the hotel, rather than pay a monthly mitigation fee. The Parking Commission approved this proposal, as did the City Council. The Council approved a license for the use of two parking spaces on Main Street for the valet service. The license approval is regulated by Resolution 2016-153, attached, which had a three year term expiring on August 3, 2019. In order to continue mitigating their parking deficit with valet service, the license must be renewed. REQUEST The Downtown Parking Commission is being requested to formulate a recommendation to the City Council on the re-issuance of the valet license. COMMENTS One condition of the license is that the fee for reserving the valet spaces would be $2,013 each annually. The parking fees have not been raised since 2016, so staff would recommend that the fee remain the same for the next license period. Another condition of the valet license was that “customer vehicles from the valet stations shall be parked in the following facilities, in the priority order given here: 1) The private valet parking lot on the west side of the hotel property, then 2) the municipal parking ramp, and finally 3) municipal parking lot #20.” Staff believes that this priority system was used when The Lora opened, but has not been used recently. So, staff suggests that Valet license for The Lora Page 2 the Downtown Parking Commission listen to the suggestions that will be made by The Lora for a revised priority list and make a recommendation to the Council. The final condition of the license was that its term would be three years. Staff recommends that the term of the re-issued license continue to be three years. Attachments: Resolution 2016-153 2016 staff report bt RESOLUTION 2016- 153 RESOLUTION GRANTING LICENSE TO ELEVAGE HOTEL GROUP, LLC & STILLWATER CAVES, LLC FOR THE OPERATION OF VALET STATIONS ON SOUTH MAIN STREET WHEREAS, Corey Burstad of Elevage Hotel, LLC, submitted a request for license to use two on-street parking spaces as valet stations for the hotel planned to be located within the historic Joseph Wolf Block, located at 402 and 410 South Main Street; and WHEREAS,the requested valet stations are proposed to be located on Main Street in front of the hotel's main entrance and lobby, as shown in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS,the Stillwater Planning Commission approved a Special Use Permit for the hotel on July 13, 2016. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the Stillwater City Council hereby grants license to Elevage Hotel Group, LLC and Stillwater Caves, LLC to operate valet stations from the two on-street parking spaces shown in Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: 1. During the first year of operation a pro-rated annual reservation fee must be paid to the City prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel, and annually thereafter by January 1st of each year. The fee per parking space is set by Resolution of the City Council annually. According to the 2016 fee Resolution,the annual amount for the Main Street parking spaces is $4,026($2,013 per space). 2. This license is valid for three years,but fees will be reviewed annually. 3. Customer vehicles from the valet stations shall be parked in the following parking facilities, in the priority order given here: 1. The private valet parking lot on the west side of the hotel property,then II. The Municipal Parking Ramp, and finally III. Municipal Parking Lot#20. Adopted by the Stillwater City Council this 3rd day of August, 2016. 2:411; 7 Ted Kozlowski,Mayor ATTEST: 1 Diane F. Ward, City Clerk Exhibit A TO: Downtown Parking Commission FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director DATE: June 24, 2016 MEETING DATE: June 30, 2016 RE: Joseph Wolf Block – Proposed hotel and parking mitigation plan Background Corey Burstad represents the development team that proposes to convert the Joseph Wolf Block at 402 South Main Street to a 40 room boutique hotel and restaurant. Currently the property includes the Luna Rossa Restaurant, a liquor store, a retail space (most recently a gelato shop) and several upper stories of vacant space. The project will be responsible for mitigating the increased parking demand generated by redevelopment of the site. Request The two specific requests before the Parking Commission are: 1) Approval of a 17 parking space credit for the proposed on-site valet lot; and 2) Approval of four valet parking spots; two on Main Street and two on Nelson Street. Analysis Parking Requirements Given the space limitations on historic properties downtown, expanding businesses cannot typically provide sufficient on-site parking. For this and other reasons, the City has created a downtown parking district, which allows for what the Zoning Ordinance calls “alternative provisions”. Page 2 of 3 Joseph Wolf Block June 24, 2016 The “alternative provisions” approved by the Parking Commission typically are either to: 1) lease available spaces from an adjacent property owner; or 2) to use the public parking system and contribute a monthly fee toward that use. A third alternative also exists. The City Council, upon recommendation of the Parking Commission, could grant and outright variance from the parking standards, which would waive the need for any parking mitigation whatsoever. However, the variance option has not been approved by the City in the last decade, and infrequently within the previous two decades. The parking required for the existing and the proposed facility are presented in the table below. Spaces required for existing facility Spaces required for proposed facility Hotel rooms None = 0 Parking for 40 rooms = 40 Hotel Manager None = 0 Parking for manager = 1 Subtotal A 0 41 Restaurant (dining, kitchen & bar) Parking for 5,0721 sf = 432 Parking for 5,3553 sf = 462 Retail Parking for 1,6054 sf = 85 Parking for 5706 sf = 3 Subtotal B 51 49 Subtotal A + 50% of Subtotal B NA 41 + 25 = Total 51 66 The parking standards of the City Code assume that the number of rooms is the primary creator of parking demand for a hotel. So, the other uses within the hotel facility are required to provide only 50% of the parking spaces that those uses would have to provide if they were stand-alone facilities. From the table above, it can be seen that the existing facility has a minimum requirement of 51 parking spaces. The proposed facility will have a parking requirement of 66 spaces. The development will be responsible for mitigating the 15 space increase. As seen in the attached site plan, 17 parking spaces are shown in the valet lot on the property to the west of the building. The development team is asking that these 17 1 5,635 square feet total, minus 10% for mechanical, corridors, etc = 5,072 sf 2 1 space per 120 sf for first 5,000 sf. 1 space for each 100 feet in excess of 5,000 sf. 3 5,950 sf minus 10% allowance for mechanical, corridors, etc = 5,355 sf. 4 Liquor store and gelato shop. 5 1 space per 200 sf. 6 Gelato shop space. Page 3 of 3 Joseph Wolf Block June 24, 2016 spaces be approved to fulfill the mitigation requirement for the 15 additional spaces needed. Staff does not recommend approving the use of the valet lot to fulfill the mitigation requirement. It is true that the lot will be improved and useable by the valet staff, but not all guests will want their vehicle valet parked. Moreover, if a standard parking field were developed in the valet parking area, perhaps 8 - 10 spaces could be provided in the lot. Therefore, at most, staff would recommend a partial credit. If the City were to require all 15 spaces to be mitigated by payment into the downtown parking fund, then at the current rate of $10 per space, the property would have to pay $150 per month to offset use of the public parking system. Valet parking request The redevelopment team is asking for approval of two valet parking spaces on Main Street and two on Nelson Street. By policy7, on-street parking spaces cannot be reserved on Main Street. So, the request for the two reserved valet spaces there would require waiving this policy. Provenance, the management company that would operate the hotel, feels strongly that at least four valet spaces will be needed. And therefore believes that the waiver to allow Main Street valet service is critical to operations. During May through September, the cost of reserving an on-street space is $9/day. During the rest of the year it is $3 per day. So, the fee for the 5 high season months would be $1,377 for each space. The October through April months would be $636 each. Since by policy permanently reserving on-street spaces on Main Street is not allowed, perhaps a solution is to allow valet service here during peak hotel demand times only. Recommendation Staff recommends: 1) using the public parking system to mitigate the 15 space deficit, and paying the requisite monthly fee for those spaces; and 2) approval of valet service on Nelson Street ($4,026 annual fee for the two spaces) and during peak hotel demand times (fee based upon hours approved for use). bt 7 Resolution 2014-019 (IX)(Footnote 5) E NELSON STS M A IN S T NEW 2-STORYBLDG ADDITIONOVER EXISTINGCRAWLSPACEEXISTING 4-STORYBLDGEXISTING 4-STORYBLDGNEW 2ND & 3RDSTORY BLDG OVEREXISTING 1-STORYBLDGEXISTING 2-STORYBLDGNEW 1-STORYBLDG ADDITIONNEW COURTYARD ATEXISTING 1-STORY ROOFEXISTING 3RD-STORY ROOFN E W 3R D S T O R Y P A T I O NEW SLOPED CONCRETEEXIT TO GRADEVALET PARKING - 18 STALLSEXISTING STREET PARKINGNEW ELEVATOROVERRUNEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING ROCK WALLEXISTING SLABON GRADENEW PATH FROM BUILDINGEXISTING RETAININGWALL TO REMAINEXISTING CONCRETESLABS TO REMAINREMOVE PORTION OFEXISTING CONCRETE WALLS -SHOWN DASHEDDNNEW ROOF HATCH INEXISTING ROOFEXISTING SITE STAIREXISTINGRESTAURANTPATIO TO REMAIN62' - 5 1/2"6 9 ' - 1 "GALV ALUM CANOPY AT ENTRYBLADE SIGNelness sw enson graham architects500 w ashington avenue southm inneapolis m innesota 55415p. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 5 0 8f. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 3 8 2w w w . e s g a r c h . c o mSignatureTyped or Printed N am eLicense # DatePROJECT NUMBERDRAW N BY CHECKED BYO RIGINAL ISSUE:REVISIO NSKEY PLANNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONI hereby certify that this plan, specification, orreport was prepared by m e or under m y directsupervision and that I am a duly licensed architectunder the law s of the State of M innesota6/17/2016 3:06:57 PMA0.1A0.1A0.1A0.1ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN216308ESGESGSTILLWATER HOTELSTILLW ATERHO TEL402 SO UTH MAIN STSTILLW ATER, MN 55082HERITAGEPRESERVATIO NDESIGN REVIEW06/17/2016No. Description Date 1" = 10'-0"A0.11ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN DOWNTOWN PARKING COMMISSION 1. Applicant is requesting four spots on Friday, to be located closest to Brian’s Bar. DATE: January 16, 2020 APPLICANT: Todd Nelson (Brian’s Bar) SUBJECT: Brian’s Bar 2nd Annual Bocce Ball Tournament LOCATION: Area behind Brian’s Bar and Lot 3 REPORT BY: Graham Tait, Zoning Administrator REVIEWED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Brian’s Bar is requesting permission from the City to hold a bocce ball tournament that will take place behind the establishment and in lot 3. The event is taking place on February 22, between 10:00AM and 11:59PM. The set up for this event will occur the day of the event between 6:00AM and 8:00AM (though four parking spots are needed to be reserved on Friday for sand delivery1), and the clean-up is to take place the morning after the event between 6:00AM and 10:00AM. This event is expected to have a turnout of around 250 to 400 people. Public Works would prove them with barricades and they will also use snow fencing around three sides of the tournament (the fourth side is the restaurant and adjacent shops). There will be a police officer present on Saturday from 10:00AM to 10:00PM due to the consumption of alcohol on public property, however the selling of alcohol will take place only in the restaurant. ANALYSIS Lot 3 will need to be reserved for two days to accommodate the event and the next morning clean-up. Additionally, 4 spots will be needed to be reserved in Lot 3 on Friday for sand delivery. Lot 3 has 33 spaces and they can be reserved at $1.50 per spot per day. Below are the calculations for the amount it would cost to reserve the parking spaces for this proposed event: Brian’s Bocce Ball Tournament Page 2 Lot Requested Spaces Number of Days Amount Per Spot / Per Day Total Cost to Charge Lot #3 33 (entire lot) 2 (Sat/Sun) $1.50 $99.00 Lot #3 4 1 (Fri) $1.50 $6.00 TOTAL→ $105.00 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval for Brian’s Bar to utilize Lot 3, for the above stated time frames, for a cost of $105.00 Attachments: Applicant materials TO: Downtown Parking Commission FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director DATE: January 9, 2020 RE: Electric Vehicle Charging Station BACKGROUND Don Schuld, representing the Stillwater Sunrise Rotary Club, and Kevin Tholen, representing Sustainable Stillwater, are requesting the Downtown Parking Commission to consider partnering with them to install a public Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station downtown. COMMENTS Details of proposed partnership The Sunrise Rotary Club and Sustainable Stillwater have teamed up in an effort to have a charging station installed in Downtown Stillwater. They are proposing to raise funds to grant to the City for a dual terminal level 2 EV charging station. (This is essentially the same charging station that the Parking Commission considered in 2016. Details can be seen in the attached report.) In exchange, the City would allow the station to be located within the public parking system and would also own and operate the station. In addition, the City would allow Stillwater Rotary and Sustainable Stillwater to have sponsorship signage on the station. The Rotary Club estimates that the capital costs of the station (and installation) would be about $10,6301. If the Rotary Club/Sustainable Stillwater team raises $7,000 for the project, as the Rotary Club does in Northfield (see attached information), then the City’s capital costs would be $3,630. The annual operating costs for the EV station are estimated to be about $1,5002 plus the cost of electricity. Location of EV station A location for the charging station would have to be identified and approved by the City. The availability of an appropriate electrical source is crucial. And, if a location could be found where 1 $5,630 for charging station plus $5,000 for installation. City staff believes the installation cost will be closer to $7,500, assuming properly rated electricity is located nearby. More detailed cost estimates can be found in the staff report to the Parking Commission dated February 11, 2016. 2 $221/year/port for ChargePoint’s Commercial Service Plan. J $499/year for warranty. $500 for non-warranty repairs and maintenance. Charging Stations Page 2 one parking space was on public property, and the other on private, that would allow the loss of generally available parking spaces to be shared between the public and private parking systems. Past discussions on EV stations The Downtown Parking Commission considered requests for parking stations in February of 2016 and July of 2017. In 2016 the Commission decided that the projected number of charges at the time did not justify the associated costs. Nor did the relatively low demand at the time seem to justify giving up two public parking spaces. The spaces would often have been unused even during high demand parking times, much like handicapped parking spaces. So, the Commission preferred to see the private sector provide charging stations. In 2017 a resident discussed with the Crosby Hotel the possibility of having them install a charging station in the public access portion of their parking ramp. The Parking Commission sported the possibility by allowing the installation to occur without requiring a parking mitigation fee to be paid monthly for the two lost parking spaces. REQUEST City staff requests the Parking Commission to hear and consider the request. And, if the Parking Commission supports the proposal, then the Commission should discuss an appropriate location for the station and conditions for support of the proposal. One condition would be the minimum grant amount required before the City would buy and install the station. attachments: Northfield Rotary EV Grant Program 2016 staff report bt Northfield Rotary EV Charging Project – Grant & Partnership Opportunity What is the Northfield EV Charging Project? Northfield Rotary Club is spearheading a project to be the catalyst and financial sponsor promoting the installation of “level 2” dual plug electric vehicle (EV) public use charging stations in the Northfield area. Overall Project Benefits: 1) Reducing carbon through supporting the use of electric vehicles.   2) Facilitating Northfield's economic development to encourage “green” commuters from the Twin Cities, Rochester, and other nearby communities to come spend time and money here in Northfield.  3) Increasing awareness of climate change / carbon reduction within Northfield, other Rotary Clubs as well as advocate to Rotary International the importance of the issue. 4) Supporting City of Northfield’s Climate Action Plan initiative by partnering with the City in this venture. How will the partnership work? The Northfield Rotary Club will provide you a $7,000 grant to assist in the purchase/installation of one CT4000 Level 2 AC dual plug EV public use terminal. Northfield Rotary has researched multiple EV vendors and selected ChargePoint. ChargePoint has 80% market share, and is currently contracted with the City of Minneapolis, City of St. Paul, City of Rochester and the University of Minnesota to name a few. Carleton College currently has a Level 2 Charge from ChargePoint. For more information about ChargePoint see the supplemental ChargePoint documentation. What will Northfield Rotary provide? • A grant to assist with the purchase/installation of one EV terminal. • Additional visibility for your business/organization through promotion of the location of your EV terminal on Rotary Club website and Rotary social media pages. In addition, your location will be displayed to EV users via the ChargePoint app. • Introduction and assist with calls with Carbon Day Automotive (ChargePoint’s channel partner) and ChargePoint • Share our knowledge and learnings about EVs What will you provide? • Agree to install one “level 2” dual plug EV terminals and allow Northfield Rotary signage on your terminal • Be the contracting partner with ChargePoint/Carbon Day Automotive for Commercial Service Plan • Remaining costs for the installation and operation of the charging station above the grant amount • Allow for the public use of the EV charging station Timeline: Application Submission Date – 6/1/2019 THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING PARTNERING WITH NORTHFIELD ROTARY ON THIS PROJECT! Cost Estimates/ChargePoint Pricing EV Terminal Description CT4000 Level 2 AC – Dual Bollard Mount Purchase Price $5,410 (Gateway) + $95 Mounting Kit + $125 Shipping = $5,630 Installation Cost This can vary by contractor and location- Assume at least $5,000 per terminal. (this is only an estimate based on conversations with other ChargePoint EV customers) Wall mount terminals may have lower installation costs. Annual Ongoing Costs (assuming 5-year contract) Commercial Cloud Plan = $221/year per plug x 2 = $442 + electricity* *There are a variety of options to charge customers for usage/electricity Warranty (optional) $499 annually Your Total Estimated 1st Year Cost (without warranty) $4,072 + Electricity ($11,072 + Electricity* - $7,000 Rotary Grant) TO: Downtown Parking Commission FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director DATE: February 11, 2016 RE: Electric Vehicle Charging Stations BACKGROUND A Stillwater resident, Cameron Murray, contacted Councilmember Junker in October of last year to ask the City to investigate the possibility of installing and operating electric vehicle charging stations in Downtown Stillwater. COMMENTS Costing estimates provided by a potential vendor: Base costs $2,100/port/year (annualized cost of initial investment over 7 year estimated useful life) Dual port free standing station (level 2) $7,500 Installation (if properly rated electricity nearby) $7,500 “Franchise fee” ($280/port/year) $560/yr for station $3,920 Maintenance costs (electrician, etc) $10,500 Total for 7 years $29,420 Electricity costs - Guesstimate of cost: $1/hr for level two charge EV Charging fee to customer: $3 for a two hour charge ($2.00 for electricity; $1.00 for base costs1) Base cost revenue estimated to be generated $1,825/port/year Assumptions • 18 hour charging day • 2 hours per typical customer stay • 9 maximum total charges per day • 5 actual charges per day year round • 1,825 charges per year (365 x 5) • $1,825 of base costs recovered at rate of $1.00 per charge 1 Requires 2,100 charges per port per year over each of seven years to break even. If the charging station is located in a pay lot, there should also be a $3 or $5 fee for the space, depending upon which pay lot it would be located in. Charging Stations Page 2 Per the vendor’s estimates, if electric rates stay pretty steady, and if we have the proper electrical infrastructure close to the proposed station, and if all assumptions are relatively close to reality, then the base costs would only be about $275 more than projected base revenue2. However, in Stillwater’s market today, the vendor’s assumption that there will be 5 charges (an average of 10 hours of charging time) at both ports each and every day of the year, seems a bit optimistic. COURSE OF ACTION If the Parking Commission finds that economic development, public good will and environmental values gained by making charging stations available downtown is worth underwriting perhaps a large portion of the station’s costs, then direct staff to look into possible sites for the station. Staff would also look into the availability of properly rated electricity. If it is not available, installation costs can jump considerably. bt 2 Said another way, there would be 275 charges fewer than needed to break even. TO: Downtown Parking Commission FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director DATE: January 9, 2020 RE: Sustainable Stillwater’s transportation survey Sustainable Stillwater’s Active Transportation Committee conducted a survey this past summer. They would like to share results with the Downtown Parking Commission. Timing for the survey is good, since applicable results may be able to be incorporated into the City’s current parking efficiency study. attachment: Survey presentation slides bt Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary Designed, Performed, and Summarized by the SSMN Active Transportation Committee 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 1 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 2 Sustainable Stillwater MN OUR VISION:A sustainable, healthy life for all in Stillwater, MN. OUR MISSION:Support initiatives that promote social, economic, and environmental resiliency in Stillwater, MN. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION WORKGROUP: The active transportation workgroup aims to increase active transportation like cycling and walking and to reduce the use of carbon emitting vehicles. 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 3 About the “Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey” What the survey is: •A general, initial survey within Stillwater to capture themes about transportation preferences within the community •A guide to create dialog with city leaders and residents about community transportation preferences What the survey is NOT: •A highly statistical representation of Stillwater to represent a form of “vote” for change •A thorough, in depth, analysis to determine specific preferences within community demographic groups •Intended to replace or override any other community development or planning survey 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 4 How the survey was designed Four main question categories: •Traffic •Pedestrians and biking •Parking •Shuttle and/or bus service Interviewee basic demographics captured: •Stillwater Business employee/owner •Stillwater resident •Visitor to Stillwater 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 5 Survey was offered in two methods: •On-line survey •Personal, solicited interviews How the survey was designed Subcategories for questions: •Traffic •Heavy truck traffic •Speed limits •Speed enforcement •Traffic noise •Pedestrians •Crosswalks •Sidewalks Subcategories for questions: •Bicycling •Bicycle friendliness •Parking •Main street parking •Electric car accessibility •Shuttle and/or bus service •Shuttle service options 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 6 Who responded to the survey? On-line survey (total)445 responses •Stillwater resident 373, (83.8%) •Stillwater business 36, (8.1%) •Non-Stillwater/visitor 58, (13%) Personal, solicited survey 21 responses •Stillwater resident 6, (28.6%) •Stillwater business 7, (33.3%) •Non-Stillwater/visitor 8, (38.1%) 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 7 Analysis and Scoring Format of Summary: 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 8 On-line survey Actual Pie chart from on-line survey summary On-line: 36.1% Yes 53.9% No 6.7% N.O. % Summary of on-line survey, using only Yes, No, and No Opinion responses (as a % of all on-line responses only) Solicited: 14% Yes 67% No 19% N.O. % Summary of solicited survey, using only Yes, No, and No Opinion responses (as a % of all solicited responses only) OVERALL: 35.1% Yes 54.4% No % Summary of both surveys, using only Yes and No, responses (as a % of total responses from both surveys) Moderate No Suggested signal from TOTAL survey responses (combined surveys) < 10% difference =Inconclusive 10%-20% difference =Moderate >20% difference =Strong Category 1, Traffic 1.Do you think that heavy truck traffic is a positive or negative to downtown business? 2.Would you be in favor of a bypass route around Stillwater for truck traffic going to and from the new bridge? 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 9 Solicited: 0% Pos. 48% Neg. 52% No Op. OVERALL: 6.8% Positive 72.7% Negative Strong Negative On-line: 7.2% Pos. 73.9% Neg. 14.8% No Op. Solicited: 95% Yes 0% No 5% N.O. OVERALL: 74.8% Yes 11.8% No Strong Yes On-line: 73.9% Yes 12.4% No 8.8% N.O. On-line survey On-line survey Category 1, Traffic 3.Would you like to see fewer if any heavy trucks passing through downtown? 4.Do you think that traffic speed is an issue on Main Street Stillwater? 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 10 On-line survey Solicited: 71% Yes 5% No 24% N.O. OVERALL: 76.4% Yes 9.1% No Strong Yes On-line: 76.7% Yes 9.3% No 10.9% N.O. OVERALL: 35.1% Yes 54.4% No Solicited: 14% Yes 67% No 19% N.O. Moderate No On-line survey On-line: 36.1% Yes 53.9% No 6.7% N.O. Category 1, Traffic 5.Do your think that traffic speed is an issue in Stillwater residential areas? 6.Do your think that the speed limit in Stillwater downtown and in residential areas should be lowered from 30 mph to 25 mph? 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 11 NO CHART OVERALL: 39.8% Yes 40.9% No Solicited: 5% Yes 38% No 57% N.O. Inconclusive On-line: 41.3% Yes 40.9% No 15.3% N.O. OVERALL: 43.5% Yes 42.6% No Solicited: 57% Yes 19% No 24% N.O. Inconclusive On-line survey On-line: 42.9% Yes 43.8% No 7.9% N.O. Category 1, Traffic 7.Do you think speed limits are adequately enforced in Stillwater? 8.Do you think traffic noise is an issue in downtown Stillwater and Main 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 12 On-line survey Solicited: 24% Yes 24% No 52% N.O. OVERALL: 32.8% Yes 37.1% No Inconclusive On-line: 33.3% Yes 37.8% No 25.6% N.O. On-line survey OVERALL: 47.7% Yes 34.6% No Moderate Yes Solicited: 33% Yes 38% No 29% N.O. On-line: 48.4% Yes 34.5% No 11.9% N.O. Category 1, Traffic 9.Would you like to see Stillwater do more to control loud vehicle noises from trucks, cars, and motorcycles in downtown? 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 13 On-line survey OVERALL: 52.9% Yes 23.8% No Strong Yes Solicited: 43% Yes 19% No 38% N.O. On-line: 53.4% Yes 24.1% No 16.9% N.O. Category 2, Pedestrians 10.Should Stillwater have better pedestrian crosswalks downtown with safer, more modern features? 11.Do you think the current sidewalks are adequate for pedestrian volume and traffic downtown? 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 14 On-line survey Solicited: 71% Yes 14% No 14% N.O. OVERALL: 60.9% Yes 25.8% No Strong Yes On-line: 60.4% Yes 26.4% No 9.2% N.O. On-line survey Solicited: 52% Yes 33% No 14% N.O. OVERALL: 53.0% Yes 35.4% No Moderate Yes On-line: 53.0% Yes 35.5% No 6.7% N.O. Category 2, Pedestrians 12.Should Stillwater increase sidewalk width to support the pedestrian volume (especially on weekends) and improve the pedestrian experience? 13.Would you support wider sidewalks even if it meant removing some on-street parking? 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 15 On-line survey Solicited: 43% Yes 33% No 24% N.O. OVERALL: 37.3% Yes 43.1% No Inconclusive On-line: 37.0% Yes 43.5% No 13.5% N.O. Solicited: 43% Yes 33% No 24% N.O. OVERALL: 30.2% Yes 59.6% No Strong No On-line: 29.6% Yes 58.8% No 6.1% N.O. On-line survey Category 2, Pedestrians 14.Would you support increased sidewalk width even if it meant removal of turn lanes? 15.Do you think it is good that Stillwater is becoming a “destination city” for weekend bicyclists? 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 16 Solicited: 29% Yes 38% No 33% N.O. OVERALL: 16.3% Yes 72.0% No Strong No On-line: 15.8% Yes 73.6% No 6.5% N.O. On-line survey On-line survey Solicited: 90% Yes 0% No 10% N.O. OVERALL: 79.3% Yes 7.1% No Strong Yes On-line: 78.8% Yes 7.4% No 10.1% N.O. Category 2, Pedestrians 16.Do you think that downtown Stillwater is properly configured and safe for biking? 17.Do you think it is good that Stillwater is becoming a “destination city” for weekend bicyclists? 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 17 On-line survey Solicited: 52% Yes 43% No 5% N.O. OVERALL: 40.3% Yes 41.2% No Inconclusive On-line: 39.7% Yes 41.1% No 11.5% N.O. On-line survey Solicited: 10% Yes 76% No 14% N.O. OVERALL: 30.0% Yes 47.1% No Moderate No On-line: 31.0% Yes 43.4% No 18.8% N.O. Category 3, Parking 18.Would you be in favor of removing parking from one side of Main Street in order to prioritize walking and biking (expanded sidewalk, more trees, bike lanes, etc.) 19.Would you consider removing both lanes of parallel parking on Main Street to create a more “boulevard” look? 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 18 On-line survey Solicited: 43% Yes 43% No 14% N.O. OVERALL: 41.1% Yes 45.5% No Inconclusive On-line: 41.0% Yes 45.6% No 5.2% N.O. On-line survey Solicited: 29% Yes 52% No 19% N.O. OVERALL: 30.4% Yes 54.4% No Strong No On-line: 30.5% Yes 54.5% No 6.5% N.O. Category 3, Parking 20.Should some downtown parking spaces be equipped with charging stations and reserved for electric cars? 21.Would you be in favor of converting premium street parking to paid metered parking if the money would be used for downtown pedestrian and biking improvements. 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 19 On-line survey Solicited: 62% Yes 19% No 19% N.O. OVERALL: 41.1% Yes 37.4% No Inconclusive On-line: 40.1% Yes 38.3% No 16.9% N.O. On-line survey Solicited: 38% Yes 48% No 14% N.O. OVERALL: 29.4% Yes 59.8% No Strong No On-line: 29.0% Yes 60.4% No 6.5% N.O. Category 4, Shuttle Service 22.Should Stillwater create a seasonal weekend shuttle service to downtown so visitors can park their cars a distance away from downtown? 23.Would you like to see Stillwater create better mass transit connections within Stillwater and to other areas of the metro area? 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 20 On-line survey Solicited: 76% Yes 10% No 14% N.O. OVERALL: 61.4% Yes 19.8% No Strong Yes On-line: 63.5% Yes 20.3% No 9.7% N.O. On-line survey Solicited: 71% Yes 14% No 14% N.O. OVERALL: 53.4% Yes 25.9% No Strong Yes On-line: 52.6% Yes 26.4% No 18.1% N.O. Results -Summary Strong Signal: 1. Do you think that heavy truck traffic is a positive or negative to downtown business? NEGATIVE 2. Would you be in favor of a bypass route around Stillwater for truck traffic going to and from the new bridge? YES 3. Would you like to see fewer if any heavy trucks passing through downtown? YES 9. Would you like to see Stillwater do more to control loud vehicle noises from trucks, cars, and motorcycles in downtown? YES 10. Should Stillwater have better pedestrian crosswalks downtown with safer, more modern features? YES 13. Would you support wider sidewalks even if it meant removing some on-street parking? NO 14. Would you support increased sidewalk width even if it meant removal of turn lanes? NO 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 21 Results -Summary Strong Signal: 15. Do you think it is good that Stillwater is becoming a “destination city” for weekend bicyclists? YES 19. Would you consider removing both lanes of parallel parking on Main Street to create a more “boulevard” look? NO 21. Would you be in favor of converting premium street parking to paid metered parking if the money would be used for downtown pedestrian and biking improvements. NO 22. Should Stillwater create a seasonal weekend shuttle service to downtown so visitors can park their cars a distance away from downtown? YES 23. Would you like to see Stillwater create better mass transit connections within Stillwater and to other areas of the metro area? YES 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 22 Results -Summary Moderate Signal: 4. Do you think that traffic speed is an issue on Main Street Stillwater? NO 8. Do you think traffic noise is an issue in downtown Stillwater and Main Street? YES 11. Do you think the current sidewalks are adequate for pedestrian volume and traffic downtown? YES 17. Do you think that downtown Stillwater is properly configured and safe for biking? NO 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 23 Observations 1.There can be a bias to any survey and this is not the exception. There are no “repeat” responses, but the survey results are overwhelmingly from “Stillwater Residents” 2.The “Stillwater Resident” responses can be influenced by how much time they spend downtown, why they visit downtown, whether they park downtown, and whether they personally bicycle. Responding that something is an issue, is personalized as to whether it is an issue to “them”. 3.There is a definite grouping of respondents who support the “status quo”. Approximately 32 respondents (7.2%) had between 94% -100% universal responses across the survey as positive to the “current state” and negative to all potential changes. This is not a comment that their response is not valid, only that it is an observation. 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 24 Observations 4.The survey did not intend to dive into complex issues and discussions on “how to” solve the complex issues. Questions about parking (when asked at the “solicited” surveys) were influenced by alternate solutions. Any question about changes to sidewalks that could affect parking had comments such as “but where would the parking go”. When discussed with the respondents, the vision of change is more positive when assuming that there would be an alternate solution to the other, underlying issue. 5.Main Street traffic noise was generally seen as a negative, however some respondents commented that even though they did not like the noise, they were concerned about the loss of downtown business if the traffic noise was curtailed. 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 25 Observations 6.Bicycling in downtown can be misunderstood. Respondents overwhelmingly were positive to Stillwater being a bicycle “destination city”, but because the survey was random, there is no way of knowing how many of the respondents were actually bicyclists themselves, or understood the current state. During the personal, solicited surveys, most bicyclists (predominately visitors to Stillwater) did not feel that downtown was conducive to bicyclists. However, residents and business owners who were not bicycling, did not feel that there were any issues, and sometimes responded that “bicyclists should stay off the roads anyway”. This is a possible gap in this survey based on the personal perceptions of individuals based on whether they personally bicycle. 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 26 Observations 7.There were comments about the downtown sidewalks on Main Street that even when respondents felt they did not want to change traffic flow or parking to expand the sidewalk width, even with the current sidewalk width, the sidewalk pedestrian flow can be enhanced by removing objects and clutter from the sidewalks. 8.The survey shows that even though there was not a strong desire to change the current sidewalk width, Main Street parking, and turn lanes, there is a strong signal that the pedestrian crossing patterns on Main Street needed improvement. 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 27 For more information or questions regarding this survey, contact: SustainableStillwaterMN@gmail.com 12/12/2019Summer 2019 Active Transportation Survey Summary 28 TO: Downtown Parking Commission FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director DATE: January 9, 2020 RE: Parking Ramp revenue system BACKGROUND Since last summer the Downtown Parking Commission and staff have been working on replacing the gate equipment at the parking ramp with a mobile based revenue system. Proposals were received from both AirGarage and Passport Parking. In October the Parking Commission recommended that the City Council award the project to Passport Parking, which the Council did in November. Since then staff has been working with Passport Parking representatives to draft a contract. In the meantime Passport’s minimum charge for the Permit Management and Enforcement Management Modules increased to $18,000 each. Previously there was no minimum fee for the enforcement module and only a $6,000 minimum fee for the permit module. The result is that the annual cost of Passport’s services to the City would increase by $30,000. Therefore, the Parking Commission and City Council will need to reconsider awarding the project to Passport Parking. COMMENTS The City has several alternative courses of action available. 1. Continue with Passport Parking and pay the extra $30,000 annually. a. If the City is satisfied with the Passport Parking services and decides to expand its use to cover the entire Downtown Parking System, then it would be easier to justify the $18,000 minimum charge for the enforcement module. b. If the City chooses this option, it may want to eliminate the Permit Management Module and issue permits manually as is done now. 2. Continue with Passport Parking, but only use their hourly parking module. a. This would require parking enforcement officers to drive through the ramp and manually check license plates against Passport Parking’s software and then manually issue citations. b. Monthly permits would have to be manually issued and displayed on dashboards or hung on mirrors. Parking Ramp revenue system Page 2 c. If the City chooses to expand the Passport Parking revenue system to all of the Downtown parking facilities, then consider adding the Permit and/or Enforcement Modules at that time. 3. Award the project to AirGarage. a. The enforcement process for the AirGarage proposal is that LPR cameras are mounted at the entrance gates. If a driver does not pay their fee within 10 minutes of passing the gate, and they do not have a valid monthly parking permit, then a message is automatically sent to parking enforcement personnel. Any citations and follow-up would be done manually. There is no minimum fee to the City. b. Monthly permits can be handled through the AirGarage platform without a minimum fee to the City. c. The AirGarage proposal can handle the ramp. However, if the City decides to expand the contract to handle all of the downtown system, AirGarage is not particularly robust at the moment and would not be the right platform. So, the question may be whether the City proceeds with AirGarage for the ramp, and then changes to a different vendor if/when the City expands to the entire downtown parking system. 4. Request proposals from other companies. a. Since Washington County Dispatch will no longer manage the help calls after office hours, this option would require the City to keep the exit arms open between 4:30 pm and 8 am on weekdays and all day on weekends and simply let hourly customers drive out. In other words, evening and weekend hourly revenue would be lost. b. The entrance arms would stay in operation so coupons would be issued in case the arms are down when a driver exits. REQUEST Staff requests the Parking Commission to consider the alternative courses of action and pass a recommendation on to the City Council. attachment: Proposal comparison bt Comparison of proposals Passport Parking proposal revised 1/9/2020 Passport Parking (with LPR system on one PD vehicle) City Cost; initial City Cost; on-going Customer Cost Comments Hourly customer transaction fee (goes to Passport Parking)$0.30 $0.25 base + $0.05 for credit card mgmt: could be charged to customer Credit card transaction fee (goes to credit card company)2.90%City already pays this fee on transactions Pay-on-foot station in lobby (for customers w/out handhelds)$10,000 $720 Est of initial costs: machine, install, software install; On-going: annual fee for software license Permit Management Program $18,000 Minimum fee for managing permit customers Enforcement: ticket payment fee $3.00 Enforcement: fee for sending delinquent payment notice, if needed 30%$1.50 Passport receives 30% of ticket cost if delinquent. LPR (license plate recognition) hardware $39,200 $1,600 Hardware cost includes $4,200 for install; annual software license fee $1,600 Enforcement: mobile ticket printer $600 Enforcement Management Program $18,000 Minimum fee for managing enforcement tasks Totals I $49,800.00 $45,605 On-going: $38,320 fixed costs + $5,230 from transactions based on avg # of trans last 5 yrs + est $2,055 avg credit card fee Totals II $49,800.00 $49,325 On-going: $38,320 fixed costs + $7,900 from transactions based on # of 2018 trans + est $3,105 credit card fee Total I over 8 years (expected life of new equip which costs $120K)$414,640 Equipment cost + 8X city's annual costs Total II over 8 years (expected life of new equip which costs $120K)$444,400 Equipment cost + 8X city's annual costs AirGarage (ALPR system; one camera at each entrance) Hourly customer transaction fee 20%Includes credit card transaction fees Permit customer management fee (not including Lowell Inn)10%Includes credit card transaction fees Pay-on-foot station in lobby (for customers w/out handhelds)$10,000 $720 These costs are estimates based on info from Passport Parking Enforcement: ticket payment fee 25% Enforcement: fee for sending delinquent payment notice, if needed NA NA = not available ALPR (automatic license plate recognition) hardware $0 Included with AirGarage services; no additional fee to City Enforcement: mobile ticket printer NA NA = not available Totals I $10,000.00 $15,266.18 Totals I - 20% of avg hourly fee revenue last 5 years + 10% of avg permit fee revenue last 5 years Totals II $10,000.00 $22,363.80 Totals II - 20% of 2018 hourly fee revenues + 10% of 2018 permit fee revenue Total I over 8 years (expected life of new equip which costs $120K)$132,129.44 Equipment cost plus 8X city costs Total II over 8 years (expected life of new equip which costs $120K)$188,910.42 Equipment cost plus 8X city costs Notes: 1. City could reduce its costs by passing the transaction fee on to the customer. For Passport Parking this would raise the weekend parking fee to $5.30. For AirGarage the weekend parking fee would raise to to $6.00. 2. Revenues for the parking ramp do not include fees for parking fines. TO: Downtown Parking Commission FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director DATE: January 9, 2020 RE: Expansion of Municipal Lot 14 BACKGROUND The Capital Improvement Plan for 2020 includes the expansion of Municipal Lot 14, which requires the purchase of the Shorty’s property on the corner of Second and Chestnut Streets. The acquisition is not complete yet, but is nearing completion. COMMENTS Existing conditions Proposed lot expansion Currently Shorty’s property has 18 private parking spaces, as seen in the image above to the left. After completion of the expansion project, 39 public parking spaces will have taken the place of the dry cleaning building and its private parking. The purchase costs of the property will come out of Tax Increment Financing funds. The improvement costs for the parking lot, estimated at $40,325, will be paid from the parking enterprise fund. The cost of the building demolition will also come out of the parking enterprise Lot 14 expansion Page 2 fund, but an estimate of these costs will not be available until the City owns the property and can have access to the building interior. SCHEDULE De-listing The Shorty’s property is on the National List of Historic Places as a contributing building to the Downtown Stillwater Historic District. The building itself does not have the character or story to be individually listed as a Historic Place. Rather, it is a contributing structure, which in theory should exhibit architectural or historical qualities that represent Stillwater’s period of historical significance. The documentation submitted to the Department of the Interior requesting designation as a Historic District did not explain why the Shorty’s building was included in the district. It is a single story concrete block building that was constructed sometime between 1910 and 1924. Perhaps its strongest claim for being included in the Historic District was that it allowed the historic armory, which is individually listed, to be a contiguous part of the downtown district. In any event, in order to demolish the building, it will have to be formally “de-listed” as contributing by the Department of the Interior. That process could take until summer to be completed. De-listing is not essential before demolition, but in Stillwater it is unimaginable that the Heritage Preservation Commission would approve a demolition permit for a listed building in satisfactory condition built before 1945. Demolition and parking lot improvements will likely occur later this summer or fall following the de-listing process. bt 112/10/2019 12:50 PMBeth WolfSu Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa12345678910 11 12 13 14 15 1617 18 19 20 21 22 2324 25 26 27 28 29 3031May 2020Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa1234567 8 9 10 11 12 1314 15 16 17 18 19 2021 22 23 24 25 26 2728 29 30June 2020May 2020Apr 2627282930May 12345678910111213141516Mother's DayLift & Loop Celebration17181920212223Stillwater Half Marathon24252627282930Memorial Day31Jun 123456SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 212/10/2019 12:50 PMBeth WolfSu Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa1234567 8 9 10 11 12 1314 15 16 17 18 19 2021 22 23 24 25 26 2728 29 30June 2020Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa123456789101112 13 14 15 16 17 1819 20 21 22 23 24 2526 27 28 29 30 31July 2020June 2020May 31Jun 12345678910111213Car Show1415161718192021222324252627Fathers DayCar Show282930Jul 1234SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 312/10/2019 12:50 PMBeth WolfSu Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa123456789101112 13 14 15 16 17 1819 20 21 22 23 24 2526 27 28 29 30 31July 2020Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa12345678910111213141516 17 18 19 20 21 2223 24 25 26 27 28 2930 31August 2020July 2020Jun 282930Jul 1234July 4th Fireworks567891011July 4th FireworksSummer TuesdaysCar Show12131415161718Summer TuesdaysLumberjack Days19202122232425Lumberjack DaysSummer TuesdaysCar ShowLowell - HoldSt. Croix Crossing262728293031Aug 1Lowell - HoldSummer TuesdaysOpera on the RiverSUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 412/10/2019 12:50 PMBeth WolfSu Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa12345678910111213141516 17 18 19 20 21 2223 24 25 26 27 28 2930 31August 2020Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa12345678910111213 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22 23 24 25 2627 28 29 30September 2020August 2020Jul 262728293031Aug 1Opera on the River2345678Opera on the RiverNight to UniteSummer TuesdaysCar ShowRelay for Life9101112131415Summer TuesdaysRagnar RelayLowell - Hold16171819202122Lowell - HoldSummer TuesdaysCar ShowLowell - Hold23242526272829Lowell - HoldSummer Tuesdays3031Sep 12345SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 512/10/2019 12:50 PMBeth WolfSu Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa12345678910111213 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22 23 24 25 2627 28 29 30September 2020Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa1234567891011 12 13 14 15 16 1718 19 20 21 22 23 2425 26 27 28 29 30 31October 2020September 2020Aug 3031Sep 123456789101112Labor DaySt Mary's Festival13141516171819St Mary's Festival2021222324252627282930Oct 123SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 612/10/2019 12:50 PMBeth WolfSu Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa1234567891011 12 13 14 15 16 1718 19 20 21 22 23 2425 26 27 28 29 30 31October 2020Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa12345678 9 10 11 12 13 1415 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 2829 30November 2020October 2020Sep 27282930Oct 123Fall Art Fair45678910Fall Art FairHarvest Fest11121314151617Harvest Fest1819202122232425262728293031SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY