HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.f. MVTA Park and Ride Updatel
R EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
City Cou icil Work Session Date: April 13, 2011
ISSUE
This item is scheduled to provide the City Council with an update on the status of the design for the
park and ride. Additionally, consistent with the engineering proposal, Bonestroo has developed three
architectural designs for the site shelter. These are also provided to the Council for discussion and
direction.
DISCUSSION
There are a number of issues that have impacted the park and ride schedule. Two items have
dramatically affected the schedule to the point that it appears very likely that the project cannot be
constructed this year. The first is the potential presence of archeological artifacts and the second is an
environmental concern.
The archeological issue has a somewhat interesting, but brief, history. The main concern when starting
the project is the demolition of the existing white house. The house is shown on the Dakota County
records as very old which raised an issue about its demise. I offered to have the City's historian
(Maureen Geraghty- Bouchard) discuss her knowledge about the home. There was also discussion
about previous uses on the property and the fact that there had been a "dig" on the site near the privy
area and pottery shards recovered. The State Archeological group has reduced their interest in the
house but has now decided that they should conduct a dig on the site to assess whether the artifacts
previously found constitute the presence of a significant find on the site. Due to the weather, this
cannot be accomplished in time to allow completion of the project memo and access to the federal
funds for fiscal year 2011 (which ends June 30, 2011).
Additionally, there was an odor detected from one of the borings conducted on the site. Further
investigation was authorized by the MVTA Board which led to additional samples. The following
information was conveyed by Lois Spear, staff at the MVTA regarding the environmental work:
"However, there were two findings of the additional soil sampling and analysis done after
PhasE I. There are as follows:
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM: MVTA Park and Ride Update
Discussion
PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development
AGEND,A NO.
Director
f--
APPROVED BY:
ATTACIiMENTS: Building Elevations and Site Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide Staff Direction
ISSUE
This item is scheduled to provide the City Council with an update on the status of the design for the
park and ride. Additionally, consistent with the engineering proposal, Bonestroo has developed three
architectural designs for the site shelter. These are also provided to the Council for discussion and
direction.
DISCUSSION
There are a number of issues that have impacted the park and ride schedule. Two items have
dramatically affected the schedule to the point that it appears very likely that the project cannot be
constructed this year. The first is the potential presence of archeological artifacts and the second is an
environmental concern.
The archeological issue has a somewhat interesting, but brief, history. The main concern when starting
the project is the demolition of the existing white house. The house is shown on the Dakota County
records as very old which raised an issue about its demise. I offered to have the City's historian
(Maureen Geraghty- Bouchard) discuss her knowledge about the home. There was also discussion
about previous uses on the property and the fact that there had been a "dig" on the site near the privy
area and pottery shards recovered. The State Archeological group has reduced their interest in the
house but has now decided that they should conduct a dig on the site to assess whether the artifacts
previously found constitute the presence of a significant find on the site. Due to the weather, this
cannot be accomplished in time to allow completion of the project memo and access to the federal
funds for fiscal year 2011 (which ends June 30, 2011).
Additionally, there was an odor detected from one of the borings conducted on the site. Further
investigation was authorized by the MVTA Board which led to additional samples. The following
information was conveyed by Lois Spear, staff at the MVTA regarding the environmental work:
"However, there were two findings of the additional soil sampling and analysis done after
PhasE I. There are as follows:
• The chemical analysis of soil samples suggests contamination by PAHs (polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbon) exceeding the Tier 2 Industrial SRV for BaP equivalents is present within the fill
material and most likely associated with the bituminous material observed in the fill. These do
nod: appear to pose a direct contact risk for industrial reuses of the Site, or pose a potential risk to
groundwater quality in the area. The fill material contains chemical contaminants and will have to
be managed as contaminated media if removed from the Site. The MPCA may approve alternate
beneficial reuse scenarios for the fill material.
• The selenium concentration in the T -8' soil sample exceeded the Tier 1 SLV and therefore should
be reported to the MPCA. The proposed redevelopment of the Site as a MVTA Park and Ride
consisting of asphalt paved parking and a slab -on -grade shelter may be considered an
engineered barrier by the MPCA thereby minimizing the leaching potential at the Site.
We have not received the final report yet. As soon as we do, I will be reporting the findings
to the MPCA if required."
The environmental work necessary to address this situation also precludes the ability to finish the
project memo.
However, staff is interested in continuing to move the project forward to the extent possible. When
these items are addressed the project memo can be completed and submitted for MnDot to review
and approve. The plans can be submitted anytime and therefore any work completed this summer may
allow construction in 2012, still ahead of the initial federal schedule.
With that in mind, staff is forwarding to the Council three building elevations for review and
comment. All three are have the same footprint and location of enclosure versus covered canopy.
Concepts A & B have pitched roofs while Concept C looks more contemporary with a flat roof. The
main difference between Concepts A & B is the materials. Concept A uses architectural precast with
brick wainscoting. Concept B uses board and batten with brick wainscoting. The Council should
choose a preference.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting the Council choose their preferred building elevation for the site shelter. Other
information is provided for the Council's information.
2
i
U
d
CL
IO
7
t
u
�o
v�
c
s
�o
L
CL
10
c
i
Z
O
a
J
W
O
Z
O
> Q
W
J
Z
O
J
W
H
O
Z
y
m
N
a
Z
O
P
Q
J
V)
_N
0
C
L
V)
�.r
i0
t
CL
V)
m
Y
U
.0
C
N
(0
C
m
t6
O
m
V)
QJ
Q1
C
t
N
r0
t
a
V)
m
Y
U
z
0
a
w
J
w
S
F-
D
0
z
0
H
a
>
w
J
z
0
LU
7'
of
0
z
z
0
r.
C:
E
m
0
n
LA
0)
C
Ln
Ln
ru
LA
c
E
0
u
ra �
v E
w
w
0
O
L
Y
c�
Z
W
m
u
p
L
Q
L
: 3 c
u Q)
0)
�' v
z c
`o
mLn
z
O
Q
w
w
O
V)
z
O
Q
w
Z
0
ui
0
Z
Z
0
E
D
0
U
Ln
0
O
■ I I I I w IMS M—�-m ffol
>
LU
O
Ln
Dc
t a)
>
c
u 0
��
��
, -- - r - -
Luo
°
wl
LU
Ln
CL
�
�
--
o
/
|
|
|
i
|
\|
t -
-
0
0
/
/
'
LU
LLJ
LLJ
LU
`--- ------------------ - - - -
O
N
O
iD
O
Lo
i r --- I -----------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
Mm
Ell
■
w
H
J
W
2
W
O
J
U
z
w
I
O
N
W
go
z�
Q
U
w
I
I
I
�
� I
W
J
❑ =
Cl
}
a
O
z
— ❑---- _-- - - -
i
- -❑
2' -2" 10' -0"
2' 2"
4�
O Z
J
I�
j i
o 0
\ r
1
-
Ld
a
J_
m
I�
j i
o 0
I
M '1.S H19i7T
of
sc n u
w
Q z
w u°
z
M
s
i�
r
r� b
1
i
M'1S H1StT !
= 3
1
-
I
M '1.S H19i7T
of
sc n u
w
Q z
w u°
z
M
s
i�
r
r� b
1
i
M'1S H1StT !
= 3
W
Q
J
s m
z ;
�i
M '15 Hl9K
n -
ZI
-a-
W
} Q
W
J
z
1
}
Z
V 0
z z
0
is a .
m
Ci S
V �
a
0
u
z
O
Q
m
is a .