HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/12/10 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
DECEMBER 10, 2012
6:30 p.m. CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION – Westwood Room
1. 6:30 p.m. City Manager Evaluation
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 7:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 17, 2012 and January 14,
2013
2. 7:35 p.m. Community Recreation Facility Next Steps
3. 8:20 p.m. SWLRT DEIS Comments
4. 9:05 p.m. 2013 Annual Legislative Update Preview
9:20 p.m. Communications / Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Written Reports
5. Liquor Ordinance Amendment – Culinary Classes On-Sale License
9:25 p.m. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting Date: December 10, 2012
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION
TITLE:
City Manager Evaluation
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
J. Forrest, Consultant, will review the information from the annual performance review for Tom
Harmening, City Manager. Council will discuss the information from the evaluation process and
set general direction for work for 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
Consultant J. Forrest will update City Council and the City Manager in a Closed Executive
Session on the results of the City Manager’s performance evaluation. The evaluation results will
be sent to the Council under separate cover. The discussion will proceed as follows:
• A summary of the information from the evaluation will be presented by Mr. Forrest to the
Council. Council is asked to provide comments, observations, or suggestions.
• City Manager Tom Harmening will join the Council and participate in the conversation,
reviewing work from 2012 and setting direction for 2013.
• Once completed, final documents will be presented for formal approval at the next
regular Council meeting.
In accordance with Minnesota open meeting law, this meeting will be audio taped. The law
states:
“All closed meetings, except those as permitted by the attorney-client privilege, must be
electronically recorded at the expense of the public body. Unless otherwise provided by
law, the recordings must be preserved for at least three years after the date of the
meeting.”
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 10, 2012
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 17, 2012 and January 14, 2013
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Special Study Session
scheduled for December 17, 2012 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on January 14,
2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for the Special Study Session scheduled for December 17, 2012 and the regularly
scheduled Study Session on January 14, 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 17, 2012 & January 14, 2013
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 17, 2012 and January 14, 2013
Special Study Session, December 17, 2012 – 6:45 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. 2013 City Council Workshop – Administrative Services (30 minutes)
Discuss the proposed agenda for the City Council Workshop scheduled for February 1 - 2,
2013.
Study Session, January 14, 2013 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. 2013 Annual Legislative Update – Administrative Services (60 minutes)
Senator Ron Latz, Representative Ryan Winker, Representative Steve Simon, Commissioner
Gail Dorfman, and Met Council Representative Jim Brimeyer have been invited to discuss
the outlook for the 2013 legislative session, which starts on January 8, 2013.
3. Liquor Ordinance – 50% Requirement of Gross Food Receipts – Administrative Services (15 minutes)
Discuss whether to proceed with a review of the 50% requirement of gross food receipts for
on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses.
4. Sidewalk and Trail Plan Update – Public Works (60 minutes)
Provide Council an update on the public process, including a compilation of the comments
and input received over the past several weeks.
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports
5. Update on Joint Community Police Partnership (JCPP)
End of Meeting: 8:55 p.m.
Meeting Date: December 10, 2012
Agenda Item #:
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Community Recreation Facility - Next Steps
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If Council is interested in proceeding with the planning process for a Community Recreation
Facility, staff needs direction from the Council on program content and site locations to analyze
further. Once the Council provides this direction staff would then hire a consultant to assist in
further assessment of the program content, undertake a detailed site(s) analysis, and estimate
expected capital and operational costs.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the City Council comfortable with the program recommendation and the selection of the top
two or three potential locations that were recommended by the Task Force and the next steps
proposed in this report?
BACKGROUND:
At the November 13 Council meeting, the Community Recreation Facility Task Force presented
their recommendations on program content and facility recommendations. The Task Force met
ten times and completed the following prior to presenting their recommendations:
• Reviewed previous surveys;
• Toured area community centers;
• Discussed and recorded impressions from the facility tours keeping in mind what types of
things would potentially be a fit in St Louis Park;
• Determined priorities for St. Louis Park based on VISION comments and the surveys;
• Reviewed and discussed the facilities that already exist in St. Louis Park (both public and private);
• Imagined ideal gathering spaces;
• Created an initial program list, quantified and refined the program list;
• Created site selection criteria; and
• Ranked sites in the city based on this site section criteria.
Members of the Task Force had many discussions and healthy debates about issues before
coming to consensus regarding their recommendations.
SUGGESTED PROGRAM COMPONENTS:
The following is a summary of a group consensus which has been reached based on what the
task force believes the community was asking for in the surveys and what types of things are
missing in the community on a regular basis. These program elements will be further refined as
part of the next steps.
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Community Recreation Facility - Next Steps
The Task Force is suggesting the following program components be considered in a future
facility(s):
• Gymnasium;
• Drop-in child care;
• Community room;
• Commons/large gathering space;
• Coffee shop/food;
• Pool/water play area;
• Walking track;
• Fitness equipment;
• Flex activity rooms for workout classes and meetings;
• Indoor playground equipment; and
• Parking.
This facility is intended to be a multigenerational facility that is not likely to have spaces
assigned specifically to age groups. The space would be flexible to be used by a variety of ages.
A facility that includes the programs listed above will comprise approximately 59,150 square
feet of building foot print. The preliminary diagrams show a two story building to maximize
space. The parking requirements for a building that size would be 227 spaces which
encompasses 68,100 square feet. The building and parking is equal to approximately 1.2 times
the Rec Center building foot print. This type of building would need approximately a two acre
site. There could be a variety of configurations depending on the site with regards to ramped
parking and creating a multilevel building.
SITE SELECTION CRITERIA AND TOP SITES:
Planning staff compiled an initial list of 22 sites that were close to two acres in size throughout
the community and met other considerations. Sites were then paired down by the task force to 11
that fit some or all of the criteria.
At the June 25 Council Study Session the City Council provided the Task Force with their ideas
for site selection criteria. The Task Force then added some of their own and came up with the
following list of criteria by which sites in the community were evaluated and the top sites
chosen:
1. Convenient/easy to get to;
2. Central to population;
3. Adjacent to civic gathering spaces;
4. Safe to walk or bike to (paths, walks);
5. Aesthetics/landscape;
6. Existing public land;
7. Connects to other destinations;
8. Close to transit (bus and LRT);
9. Redevelopment/blighted site;
10. Adjacent or shared parking opportunities nearby; and
11. Partnerships possible.
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Community Recreation Facility - Next Steps
Using these criteria, the Task Force recommended that the City Council consider the following
sites in this order:
1. The Rec Center /Melrose EDI area (there are a couple of scenarios using both sites to
make it work);
2. West of Excelsior and Grand – Bally’s site (note –Staff recommends eliminating this site
because this property is under contract for redevelopment purposes by a private
developer);
3. Southwest quadrant/corner of Highway 100 and West 36th Street; or
4. Aquila Park.
The Council discussed the Texa Tonka site with the Task Force. While that was one of the initial
11 sites that were discussed, it ranked second to the bottom for the following reasons: it requires
purchasing private property without a willing seller at this time (this would add a significant
expense to the project), the area is surrounded by low density single family homes, pedestrian
and bike access to the site is poor, it has poor connections to other destinations, and there is no
synergy with existing/nearby public spaces or facilities.
NEXT STEPS:
Once the Council provides direction on program content and a site(s) to be considered for a
facility staff would recommend that a consultant be retained to assist in completing the following
next steps.
1. Staff would work with a consultant to analyze how a building(s) could fit on the top two
or three sites selected.
2. Solidify the program component chosen to be included and discuss space requirements
needed for each component. This would include looking at the marketability of the
program space now and in the future.
3. Analyze and discuss financial considerations for constructing and operating such a
facility(s).
Staff is assuming that any facility that is built would include public art and adhere to high
architectural design standards. Although this next step would not be the final design, we need to
acquire a cost estimate for the capital costs as well as the operational costs.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
A building containing the program contents listed above would be in the range of $20-23 million
without land acquisition costs. Operating costs have not yet been determined. There is money
budgeted in the Parks and Recreation Fund for further study of a facility.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This topic is directly related to the results of Vision St. Louis Park and the Strategic Direction
that “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community” and the related
Focus Area of “Exploring creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use”.
Attachment(s): Community Recreation Facility Task Force Final Report
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Community Recreation
Facility Task Force
Final Report • City Council Workshop
November 13, 2012
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Community Recreation Facility - Next Steps Page 4
11/13/12 2
Community Recreation
Facility Task Force
Summary of Process
Information and BackgroundInformation and Background
Survey and Key Results
As part of Vision St. Louis Park and the adopted four strategic directions, an appointed task
force is examining the creation of a multi-use civic center. Results from a community survey have
helped set priorities for long-term planning of community parks, recreation, and civic facilities.
How important is it to add a particular facility among a list of 16 facilities:
1. Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc.
2. Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses
3. Natural open space
4. Lighted athletic fi elds (existing fi elds)
5. Indoor playground (play area, play equipment, etc.)
Select exactly three facilities that are most important to add:
1. Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc.
2. Swimming pool - indoor
3. Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses
4. Indoor playground (play area, play equipment, etc.)
5. Natural open space1
In a City Council meeting, Dr. Ellen O’Sullivan, a consultant and former Park and Recreation
Director, “noted a recurring theme of a multi-generational use facility and unstructured gathering
places to keep folks active year-round.” O’Sullivan also emphasized that “the participants felt that
any facility should feel welcoming and comfortable, which is critical to anything that is considered
a gathering spot.”2
Task Force Charge
• Th ink about what is right for St. Louis Park instead of replicating what other cities have.
• Ask what outcomes people want in a recreation facility to make sure it will meet specifi c
community needs.
Task Force Members
Sam Abelson
John Basill
Rick Beane
Jim Beneke
Andy Ewald
Sophia Flumerfelt
Lisa Greene
City Staff
Cindy Walsh
Rick Birno
Meg McMonigal
1 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC. Executive Summary, Report of Findings, City of St. Louis Park Community Survey of Future
Civic and/or Recreational Facilities Needs and Interest.
2 Council Meeting Minutes, January 17, 2012.
John Herbert
Laurie Hynes
Claudia Johnston-Madison
Manuel Jordan
Gregg Lindberg
Joel Odens
Sandy Olevitch
Sean Walther
Marney Olson
Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc.
Consultant Team
Karoline Pierson
Melanie Schumacher
Erin Slattengren
Chuck Souvignier
Mary Walters
Tom Worthington
Shirley Zimmerman
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Community Recreation Facility - Next Steps Page 5
11/13/12 3
Community Recreation
Facility Task Force
Summary of Process
Summary of Meetings
Task Force Meeting #1 (with Ellen O’Sullivan)
January 23, 2012
• Identify the most common qualities related to ambience and
feeling: welcoming, inviting, engaging, energetic, place for
youth, inclusive, community pride and connected with nature.
• General purpose: community gathering place.
• Specifi c amenities: indoor water park/pool, focus on arts, space
for older adults, technology and tech-free zones, play space,
walking track, cafe, outdoor gathering.
Task Force Meeting #2 (with Kathy Schoenbauer)
February 8, 2012
• Review survey community recreation results.
Task Force Facilities Tour Meeting #3
February 28, 2012
• Look at sample community centers in the metro area.
• Establish a common baseline of knowledge and information
among task force members.
Task Force Meeting #4
March 5, 2012
• Discuss and record impressions from facilities tours.
• Determine priorities for a St. Louis Park facility.
Task Force Meeting #5
April 9, 2012
• Understand what is off ered by existing facilities in St. Louis
Park.
• Review priorities for a St. Louis Park facility.
• Review the process leading to priorities.
• Create an initial program wish list for a St. Louis Park facility.
• Imagine an ideal gathering space and bring a photo of it to the
next meeting.
Task Force Meeting #6
May 7, 2012
• Quantify and refi ne the program.
• Review related project examples.
Task Force Meeting #7
June 4, 2012
• Review refi ned program.
• Review report to SLP City Council.
Task Force Mid-Process Presentation to Council
June 25, 2012
• Present summary of process.
• Confi rm plans for continuing the process.
Task Force Meeting #8
July 9, 2012
• Review June 25 presentation to St. Louis Park City Council.
• Discuss turf dome as part of this process or as a separate future
process.
• Revise and rank criteria for site selection.
Task Force Meeting #9
September 10, 2012
• Review list of candidate sites from City staff .
• Rank candidate sites using site selection criteria generated at
Task Force Meeting #8.
Task Force Meeting #10
October 1, 2012
• Review fi nal six candidate sites as each relates to agreed-upon
building program and parking needs.
• Identify advantages and disadvantages of each candidate site.
• Determine which candidate sites are suitable for further study.
Task Force Final Presentation to Council
November 13, 2012
• Report on Community Recreation Facility Task Force process.
• Recommend sites for further study.
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Community Recreation Facility - Next Steps Page 6
11/13/12 4
CommunityRecreationFacilityTaskForce
WorkingProgram
Area SqFt Notes
Gym 12,000 120x100;lockersandstorageelsewhere;climbingwallin
gym?Futureuses?
Pool/waterplayarea 10,500
25yd6Ͳlane+pooldeck+2000SF,morecasual,familyͲ
orientedatmosphere
Poolmechanical 1,000 Pumps,chemicals,etc.Locateonoutsidewall(deliveryof
chemicals,etc.)
Lockerrooms 3,200 IncludeM,W,familylockers,showers,toiletsforpool,gym
DropͲinchildcare 1,000 Ideallywithdirectoutdoorexit
Communityroom2200 Programmablefordifferentages?Meetingroomsonsecond
floor?Cateringkitchen?
Commons/gathering 3600 Centralareawhereallroomsconnect,flexibleseatingfor100,
couldconnecttocommunityroom,fireplace?
Coffeeshop/snackbar 1000 Dedicatedwithinthecommons
Kids'play/flexarea 4500 Softfloor/largemotorroom
TrackͲaround/overgym ͲͲ 10'lanes(2walkers,2joggers)8Ͳ10laps/mile,1mile=5280
feet
Fitness/equipment 2200 Howmanyusers?Whatactivities?Morelikethesizeofahotel
workͲoutroom,referenceMCTC
Flexactivity/workout/class2200 ExerciseareaͲlocatedadjacenttokidsplayarea?Three
rooms/spaces
Backofhouse 2100 Generalstorage,restrooms,buildingservices/loading
Subtotal 45,500
NonͲassignableSF@.3 13,650 Buildingmechanical/electrical,walls,corridors/stairs/elevator
Total 59,150
Outdoorspace Tobedetermined
Parking 227spaces(percitystaff),approx..68,100SF
Community Recreation
Facility Task Force
Summary of Process
Working Program
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Community Recreation Facility - Next Steps Page 7
11/13/12 5
Community Recreation
Facility Task Force
Summary of Process
Graphic Working Program
Gym
12,000 SF
Swimming Pool
& Water Play Area
10,500 SF
Running/Walking Track
8 laps/mile
Commons/Gathering
Space
3,600 SF
Coff ee Shop & Support
1,000 SF
Drop-in Day Care
1,000 SF
Fitness/Equipment Room
2,200 SF
Restrooms
500 SF
Building Services
500 SF
Pool Mechanical
1,000 SF
General Storage
1,000 SF
Locker Rooms
3,200 SF
Kids’ Play Area
4,500 SF
Community Room & Offi ce
2,200 SF
Flex Activity/Workout/Class
2,200 SF
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Community Recreation Facility - Next Steps Page 8
11/13/12 6
Community Recreation
Facility Task Force
Summary of Process
Site Selection Criteria
Candidate Sites
1 Convenient/easytogetto
2 Centraltopopulation
3 Adjacenttocivicgatheringspaces
4 Safetowalkorbiketo(paths,walks)
5 Aesthetics/landscapes
6 Existing/excesspublicland
7 Connectstootherdestinations
8Closetotransit(bus,LRT)
9 Redev./blightedsite
10 Parking
11 Partnerships
CommunityRecreationFacilityTaskForce
SitesandRankingResults
RANKSITETOTAL1 RecCenter/WolfePark 168
2 WestofExcelsior&Grand 121
3 SWofHwy100&36thSt 99
4 AquilaPark 94
4 StadiumFieldArea 94
CarpenterPark 105
NEofHwy100&36thSt 83
SWofMinnetonkaBlvd&LakeSt 62
SEofKnollwoodMall 77
NEofMinnetonkaBlvd&TexasAve 60
MostHolyTrinityChurch 57
Carpenter Park 105
NE of Hwy 100 &36th St 83
SW of Minnetonka Blvd &Lake St 62
SE of Knollwood Mall 77
NE of Minnetonka Blvd &Texas Ave 60
Most Holy Trinity Church 57
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Community Recreation Facility - Next Steps Page 9
11/13/12 7
Community Recreation
Facility Task Force
Summary of Process
Population Demographics
Population by Census Block Population Density by Census Block
Legend
POPULATION
0 - 30
31 92
Legend
Population Density
Up to 4 people per acre
>4 to 10 people per acre
Legend
POPULATION
0 - 30
31 - 92
93 - 211
212 - 516
517 - 1112
GEOGRAPHIC CENTER BY POPULATION
GEOGRAPHIC CENTER BY POPULATION DENSITY
Legend
Population Density
Up to 4 people per acre
>4 to 10 people per acre
>10 to 18 people per acre
>18 to 30 people per acre
>30 to 70 people per acre
GEOGRAPHIC CENTER BY POPULATION
GEOGRAPHIC CENTER BY POPULATION DENSITY
¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿
¾¾¿
¾¾¿¾¾¿
¾¾¿
¾¾¿
¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿
¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿n¤
n¤
n¤
MINNETONKA BLVD
EXC
34TH ST W
WALKER ST
L AK E ST W ALABAMA AVE SHI GHW AY 7
OXFO R D ST FLORIDA AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SGEORGIA AVE SLI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
4 1ST ST
W
WOODD
AL
E
A
VLOUISIANA AVE S37TH S T W
35TH S T WGORHAM AVEPA RK GLEN
R
D
KIPLING AVE SBELT LINE BLVD39TH ST W JOPPA AVE S2 8T H ST W
NORT H ST
ZARTHAN AVE SSIDE AVEDIVISION ST MARYLAND AVE S31ST ST W
HAMILTON ST
ZINRAN AVE SE DG EBR OO K DR
GOODRICH AVE
ELL RD1ST ST NW36 1/2 ST W
36TH ST W2ND ST NWUTICA AVE SXENWOOD AVE SWEBSTER AVE SAQUILA LN S32ND ST W
M
O
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
DOWBROOK RDVALLAC
H
E
R
A
V
E
DAKOTA AVE SLYNN AVE S40 TH LN W
29TH ST W
40TH ST WBOONE AVE SWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
30 1/2 ST W
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W A
V
E
34 1/2 ST W RALEIGH AVE SSERVICE RDPA RK CO MMONS DR
COLORADO AVE SAQUILA AVE SC
A
V
E
L
L
AVE S35 1/2 ST W
M
O
NI
T
O
R
S
T BLACKSTONE AVE S32 1/2 ST W
EDGEWOOD AVE SWYOMING AVE SW O L F E P KW YT
A
FT AVE SRE
P
U
B
LIC AVEDECATUR LNMONTEREY AVE SCAVELL
LN
PARK CENTER BLVDPHILLIPS PKWYYUKON AVE S3 3R D ST W
MEADOWBROOK BL
V
DWOODLAND DRDECATUR AVE SMINNEHAHA CI R S
MINNEHAHA CIR N MONTEREY PKWYBROOKVIEW
DR
OAK LE
AF D
ROAK P A R K V ILL AGE DR
TEXA TO N KA AVEENSIGN AVE SAUTO CLUB WAY MERID
IANLN
LOUISIANA CIR
AQUILA CIR SSUNSET RIDGE RD36TH ST W PENNSYLVANIA AVE SVIRGINIA A VE S
YOSEMITE AVE S29TH ST W
SUMTER AVE S37 TH ST W
RALEIG
31ST
ST W32ND ST W
YUKON AVE SID
A
H
O A
V
E S
31ST ST W
OXFORD ST
39TH XENWOOD AVE S35TH ST W
DAKOTA AVE SOTTAWA AVE SSUMTER AVE SSALEM AVE S31ST ST W
29TH
ST W
MONTEREY AVE SVIRGINIA AVE S33RD ST W
RHODE IS
LAND AVE S31ST ST W
34TH ST W
BOONE AVE SPENNSYLVANIA AVE SUTAH AVE SUTICA AVE SUILA AV
E SOREGON AVE SXENWOOD AVE S36TH ST WQUEBEC AVE SFLAG AVE SSALEM AVE SINGLEWOOD AVESXYLON AVE SBLACKSTON35TH ST W
29TH ST WJERSEY AVE SLAKE ST WSUMTER AVE SUTAH AVE SXYLON AVE S31ST ST W KENTUCKYNATCHEZ AVE S28TH ST W
33RD ST W LYNN AVE SCAMBRIDGE STTEXAS AVE SVIRGINIA AVE S37TH ST W WEBSTER AVE S31ST ST W EDGEWOO28T H S
WEBSTER AVE S40TH ST W
RALEIGH
AVE SWYOMING AVE SVIRGINIA AVE SQUENTI
N AVE SRBRUNSWICK AVE S36TH ST WVERNON AVE SNATCHEZ AVE S33RD ST W
PENNSYLVANIA AVE SAQUILA AVE SOREGON AVE S32ND ST W
WO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
SZARTHAN AVE SHI GH WA Y 7
QUEBEC AVE SCOLORADO AVE SWALKER STYOSEMITE AVE STOLEDO AVE SXYLON AVE SCAVELL AVE SJOPPA AVE SWEBSTER AVE SNEVADA AVE SPRINCETON AVE S37TH SIDAHO AVE SUTAH AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE SLYNN AVE SQUENTIN AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE
SWOODDALE
AV
E
S
BROOKVIEW LN
CAMBRIDGE ST
ALABAMA AVE SFLAG AVE SRALEIGH AVE SRHODE ISLAND AVE S28TH ST W
³±100
³±7 ³±7
QR3
QR25
QR5
QR20
QR5
HIGHWAY 100 SSALEM AV33RD ST W
32ND ST W
QUEBEC AVE SPRI
NCETON AVE SWYOMING AVE S39TH ST WRHODE ISLAND AVE SPRINCETON AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE SHIGHWAY 100 SG
E
O
R
G
I
A
A
V
E YOSEMITE AVE SBRUN S W IC K A V E S
29TH ST W
MEADOWBROOK LNEXCELSIOR WAYPARK NIC OLLET BLV D PRINC
ETON LNOAK
LEA F C TENSIGN AVE STOLEDO AVE SND ST W BOONEAVECOLORADO AVE SVIRGINIA AVE SOTTAWA AVENATCHEZ AVEWEBSTER AVEXENWOOD AVE SDAKOTA AVE S1A Rec Center/Wolfe Park
1B Monterey Drive/Beltline
2 West of Excelsior & Grand
3 Carpenter Park
4 SW of Hwy 100 & 36th St
5 Aquila Park (tie with #6)
Sites by Rank
0.5
Miles
Legend
Top Ranked Sites
Lower Ranked Sites
¾¾¿Existing Bus Routes
Existing Sidewalks
Existing Trailsn¤Future LRT Station
Water
Roads
City Park
6 Stadium Field Area (tie with #5)
7 NE of Hwy 100 & 36th St
8 SE of Knollwood Mall
9 SW of Minnetonka Blvd & Lake St
10 NE of Minnetonka Blvd & Texas Ave
11 Most Holy Trinity Church
4
5
2
3
7
1A 1B
9
8
10
11
6
¯
October 1, 2012
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Community Recreation Facility - Next Steps Page 10
11/13/12 8
Community Recreation
Facility Task Force
Summary of Process
Candidate Site 1A: Rec Center/Wolfe Park
# of Parcels 1
Site Size 31.7 acres
Current Owners City
Current Use Park, Rec Center, parking
Advantages Disadvantages
• City owns property • Environmental issues with site next to Wolfe Park (a potential issue on
every site)
• Wolfe Park is major open space; Bass Lake is natural preserve • Major utility trunk line runs through Rec Center site
• Good central location - connected to Park Commons • Would need to invest in structured parking
• Some overfl ow capacity in Melrose Institute parking structure • Displaces existing surface parking
• Co-located with Rec Center, pool, and offi ce/operations
• Near bike trail
• Synergy with existing uses of rinks, pool, and meeting rooms
• Opportunity to co-locate pools, adjacency of indoor-outdoor
36th St W
Monterey Dr
36th St W
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
D
r
Wolfe Park
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Community Recreation Facility - Next Steps Page 11
11/13/12 9
Community Recreation
Facility Task Force
Summary of Process
Candidate Site 1B: Rec Center/Wolfe Park + Monterey Dr & Beltline Blvd
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
D
r
Beltlin
e
Bl
v
d
# of Parcels 1
Site Size 3.75 acres
Current Owners City
Current Use Parking, recreation
Advantages Disadvantages
• City owns property • Lose synergy with Rec Center
• Wolfe Park is major open space; Bass Lake is natural preserve • Dangerous pedestrian crossing
• Good central location • Visitor confusion: am I at the Rec Center, Community Center, or Melrose?
• Some overfl ow capacity in Melrose Institute parking structure
• Keeps Rec Center parking intact Mon
t
e
r
e
y
D
r
36th St W Beltline BlvdStudy Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Community Recreation Facility - Next Steps Page 12
11/13/12 10
Community Recreation
Facility Task Force
Summary of Process
Candidate Site 2: West of Excelsior & Grand
# of Parcels 2
Site Size 1.6 acres
Current Owners Private owner, SLP EDA
Current Use Vacant fi tness building,
vacant lot
Excel
si
o
r
A
v
e
Park Co
m
m
o
n
s
D
r
Q
u
e
n
t
i
n
A
v
e
Excelsi
o
r
A
v
e
Park C
o
m
m
o
n
s
D
r
Quentin
Ave
Advantages Disadvantages
• Within Park Commons center • Private site would need to be purchased
• Existing bus line - well-connected pedestrian environment • Very tight urban site - may have to build some parking underground
• Near additional parking supply at Excelsior & Grand • Would require a public/private partnership to provide necessary parking.
• Program could be part of a public-private development
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Community Recreation Facility - Next Steps Page 13
11/13/12 11
Community Recreation
Facility Task Force
Summary of Process
Candidate Site 3: SW of Hwy 100 & 36th St
Hwy 10036th St W
36th
St
W
Hwy 100
# of Parcels 1 or 2
Site Size 10.7 acres
Current Owners Private owners
Current Use Big box retail, parking, offi ce,
restaurant
Advantages Disadvantages
• Near bus line and future LRT stop at Wooddale • Private sites/businesses would need to be negotiated/purchased/
relocated
• Central location - near Excelsior and Grand • Could require investment in parking
• Potential to share parking with Burlington Coat/ME site • 36th St is very busy - pedestrian crossing at Wooddale needs work
• High quality pedestrian environment along 36th St • Unattractive location
• Emerging new residential development including new senior buildings • Very little green space
• Off ers TLC to area in need of it
• Closest candidate site to the regional trail system
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Community Recreation Facility - Next Steps Page 14
11/13/12 12
Community Recreation
Facility Task Force
Summary of Process
Candidate Site 4: Aquila Park
33rd S
t
W
Xyl
o
n
A
v
e
S
33rd St W
31st St W
Xylon Ave S# of Parcels 1
Site Size 30.1 acres
Current Owners City
Current Use Park & Rec
Advantages Disadvantages
• Good trail and pedestrian connections • Steep slopes on south side of park - may need access improvements
• Good density of residential, including senior-oriented multi-family • Building sited over 8 tennis courts
• City owns land • Would need to move tennis courts and fi nd site suitable to relocate them;
courts are in partnership with Benilde-St. Margaret’s
• In diff erent part of town from other candidate sites • Not much synergy with other uses
• Near park and trail system • Increased traffi c would have big impact on residential area
• Fireworks and other events would need to move elsewhere
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Community Recreation Facility - Next Steps Page 15
11/13/12 13
Community Recreation
Facility Task Force
Summary of Process
Candidate Site 5: Stadium Field Area
Advantages Disadvantages
• Located next to schools and turf fi eld • Several sites and businesses would need to be purchased and relocated
• Area subject to redevelopment • Removes a street (Library Lane) - a major school bus route
• Near library • Active rail line cannot be moved
• Most central of all candidate sites • Near possible freight rail expansion
• Requires buying a lot of property, including single family houses
• Lack of parking
• Potential impacts of Walker Street
# of Parcels Up to 21
Site Size 10 acres*
Current Owners Private owners, school
district, City
Current Use Businesses, recreation,
parking
* excludes streets and alleys
Librar
y
L
n
Walker StL
a
k
e
S
t
.
W
Library LnLake St W
Walker St
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Community Recreation Facility - Next Steps Page 16
11/13/12 14
Community Recreation
Facility Task Force
Summary of Process
Comparison of Rec Center & Proposed Program
36th St W
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
D
r
Wolfe Park
1) Rec Center 2) Parking Area 3) Proposed Program
• 100,000 SF • 68,100 SF • 59,150 SF
12
3
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Community Recreation Facility - Next Steps Page 17
Meeting Date: December 10, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS )
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this study session item is to continue the City Council’s review and discussion of
proposed comments on the SWLRT DEIS.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
What other written comments for the draft environmental impact statement does the Council
wish to have staff prepare?
POLICY CONSIDERATION BACKGROUND:
City policy on Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) and freight rail as expressed in resolutions
10-070 and 11-058 provide the context in which the City’s draft comments are being prepared.
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of a DEIS is to provide information and analysis needed to plan actions and make
decisions. It is expected to explore alternatives and identify one or more preferred alternatives.
In the case of the Southwest Transitway DEIS, five alternative combination LRT/freight rail
routes were evaluated along with an enhanced bus service and a no-build alternative. The DEIS
concluded that LRT alternative 3A, the alternative that located LRT in the Kenilworth corridor
and re-located TC&W freight train traffic to the MN&S/BNSF tracks, was the “Environmentally
Preferred Alternative.”
The key points of the City’s policy provide the outline (please see attached outline) for the
comments attached. They specifically include:
• The City of St. Louis Park strongly supports the implementation of the Southwest
Transitway LRT project.
• The City of St. Louis Park continues to oppose the rerouting of freight rail traffic from the
Kenilworth corridor to St. Louis Park unless the following conditions are clearly met:
a. It is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other viable
route exists;
b. There is appropriate mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated with rail
rerouting, funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park. Potential negative
impacts that should be addressed include but are not limited to noise, vibration,
odors, traffic congestion and safety, school use and safety, park use and safety; and,
circulation/access in the community by vehicle, pedestrian, transit and bicycle;
c. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the City of
St. Louis Park; and funded by some other source than the City of St. Louis Park;
d. Removal of the existing “wye” rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and any
other tracks not needed for through train traffic including the rail tracks east of any
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
new interconnections between the East-West CP-TCWR tracks and the North-South
CP-MNS tracks;
e. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way and
safety measures incorporated between the track and adjacent properties;
f. Creation of a whistle-quiet zone funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis
Park throughout the entire north-south MNS corridor.
In addition, there are comments related to the LRT project and mitigation measures, as well as
overall DEIS concerns and comments. Additional, specific comments are still being added to the
document.
NEXT STEPS:
The tentative schedule for finalizing comments on the SW DEIS is as follows:
December 17th Finalize comments for submittal by December 31, 2012
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has engaged several consultants to aid in review of the Southwest Transitway DEIS; the
costs will be paid for through the Development Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This item is linked to the City’s Vision Strategic Direction that St. Louis Park is a committed to
being a connected and engaged community, including SW LRT.
Attachments: Outline of Draft Comments and Attachments List
Draft Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comments
EIS Process
Comparison of 3A and 3A-1 Corridor Widths
Table 5 and 9 from Tech Memo #4
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director; and,
Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
DEIS Comments Outline
Introductory comments
- Support SWLRT
- Resolutions
- However, DEIS fails to satisfy SLP conditions
A. It is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other
viable route exists:
1. SEH work shows alternative
2. Dismissing co-location is premature
3. Evaluation needs to wait for Preliminary Engineering
4. 4f is not a feasibility issue
5. Potential impacts are not addressed
B. There is appropriate mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated
with rail rerouting:
1. Mandatory environmental requirements
2. Track improvements and upgrades; rail lubricators; concrete ties
3. Fencing and signage
4. Reroute coal trains
5. Eliminate CP tracks east of Wooddale/remove siding in Bass Lake Spur
6. Connect to MN&S south
7. Grade separated frontage road on Highway 7
8. 100’ wide minimum corridor along MN&S
9. Pedestrian underpass Dakota Park
10. Pedestrian overpass at Dakota Ave
11. Sound and vibration impacts along MN&S and at SLP High School
12. Pedestrian bridge over Highway 7
13. Underpass and Roxbury and Keystone parks
14. Grade separations of light rail, freight rail and regional trail
15. Access to restored Lilac Park
16. Trail along both sides of trains in corridor
17. Noise from LRT horns and whistles
C. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the
City of St. Louis Park
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 3
D. Removal of the existing “wye” rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and
tracks east of interconnections from Bass Lake to MN&S
E. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way and
safety measures incorporated
F. Creation of a whistle quiet zone
G. LRT related concerns
H. DEIS Concerns and Comments
1. New goal and State Rail Plan
2. Comparison of freight alternates is incomplete/impacts are not
properly addressed
a. Freight rail operational impacts
b. Costs
c. Construction impacts of reroute are significant
d. Regional trail switches sides at Wooddale
e. LRT moved south to be closer to Methodist Hospital and E & G
f. Impacts and costs of building an interconnect over the severely
contaminated Golden Auto site
g. Community cohesion impacts
§ Closing 29th
§ Access
§ Lake street commercial area
h. Show impacts to areas affected by new siding along BNSF
i. Continuous flow of freight rail
j. Improve mobility goal
k. Protect the environment goal
l. Quality of life goal
m. Economic development goal
n. Economically competitive freight rail system
3. Vacated EAW and other processes
Summary/Request for action
Attachments
Attachments:
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 4
1. City comments on EAW
2. SEH Technical Memos 1-4
3. Southern connection drawing
4. Skunk Hollow wye area
5. North frontage road under MN&S
6. Beltline Boulevard grade separation
7. Wooddale Avenue grade separation
8. Wider r-o-w north of Highway 5
9. Track profiles by Kimley Horn and AECOM
10. FTA letter of 9-2-11
11. CP letter
12. TKDA Study
13. Amfuhr Study
14. RL Banks Study
15. Railroad Easement
16. MnDOT EAW Withdrawal Resolution
17. Letter to Metropolitan Council dated 9-23-11
18. Letter from Metropolitan Council dated 10-21-11
19. City of St. Louis Park Resolutions: 10-070; 10-071; 10-005
20. Letter to HCRRA dated 10-14-08
21. SRF traffic comments
22. Comparison of Alternative 3A and 3A-1 Freight Rail Corridor Widths and
Proximity to Homes
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 5
To: Hennepin County
Housing, Community Works & Transit
ATTN: Southwest Transitway
701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 400
Minneapolis, MN 55415
From: City of St. Louis Park
Date: December 11, 2012
Subject: Comments on the Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS)
Introduction
The City of St. Louis Park appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Southwest Transitway
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SWDEIS). Our comments are made in the context of the
City’s policies regarding both SWLRT and freight rail. Submitted below are both comments derived
from an application of the City’s SWLRT and freight rail policies to the information presented in the
SWDEIS; and, general comments regarding information and analyses in the SWDEIS.
Our comments begin with an evaluation of the SWDEIS in the context of the SWLRT and freight
rail polices of the city. This is followed by comments on the SWLRT itself and general comments
about the DEIS.
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 6
Evaluation and Comments on the DEIS in the Context of the City of
St. Louis Park’s LRT and Freight Rail Policies
SWLRT and Freight Rail Policies. The City of St. Louis Park has been and continues to be a strong
supporter of the Southwest Transitway LRT project. We look forward to implementation of
SWLRT and the initiation of light rail train service for the benefit of our residents, our businesses
and the region at large. Expansion of the transit system in the Metro area is a wise and prudent
investment supported by the City of St. Louis Park. We have been eager and willing participants
throughout the SW Transitway planning process and look forward to our participation in the
SWLRT design process.
The City’s support for SWLRT was memorialized in Resolution 10-005 (attached) sent to the
Metropolitan Council in January 2010. The resolution stated the City’s support for the SWLRT
project and the Locally Preferred Alternative for the light rail trains, alternative 3A. It also
acknowledged that construction of the SWLRT line would require changes to freight rail in St. Louis
Park and Minneapolis, and it expressed concerns that the impacts of the freight rail changes be
identified fairly and addressed fully.
The support for SWLRT was stated again in Resolution 10-070 in July 2010. That resolution also
recognized the continued challenge presented by freight rail for the implementation of the SWLRT
project and stated the conditions under which the rerouting of train traffic from the Kenilworth
corridor to the MN&S tracks would be acceptable to the City of St. Louis Park. The resolution
established the conditions under which the City would accept relocation of the freight trains to the
MN&S tracks.
Below is the text from Resolution 10-070 which states the city’s policy regarding freight rail
rerouting. It says:
“NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the City of St.
Louis Park:
1. Supports the implementation of the Southwest Transitway LRT project; and,
2. Continues to support the May 23, 2001 Railroad Task Force Recommendations adopted by
the City Council October 21, 2001; and,
3. Opposes the introduction of any rerouted freight rail traffic north and south through the City
of St. Louis Park; and,
4. Opposes the rerouting of freight rail traffic from the Kenilworth corridor to St. Louis Park
unless the following conditions are clearly met:
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 7
a. It is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other viable route
exists;
b. There is appropriate mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated with rail
rerouting, funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park. Potential negative
impacts that should be addressed include but are not limited to noise, vibration, odors,
traffic congestion and safety, school use and safety, park use and safety; and,
circulation/access in the community by vehicle, pedestrian, transit and bicycle;
c. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the City of St.
Louis Park; and funded by some other source than the City of St. Louis Park;
d. Removal of the existing “wye” rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and any other
tracks not needed for through train traffic including the rail tracks east of any new
interconnections between the East-West CP-TCWR tracks and the North-South CP-MNS
tracks;
e. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way and safety
measures incorporated between the track and adjacent properties;
f. Creation of a whistle-quiet zone funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park
throughout the entire north-south MNS corridor.”
Paragraph 4a through 4f in Resolution 10-070 (above) spells out the conditions under which the City
of St. Louis Park would find re-routing Kenilworth train traffic to the MN&S tracks acceptable. Key
among the conditions are (1) that it be shown that no other viable route for freight rail exists; and, (2)
if freight trains were to be rerouted to the MN&S, adequate mitigation must be provided.
The SWLRT project as described in the DEIS and the analysis provided in the DEIS fail to satisfy
the conditions the City of St. Louis Park established as the basis for accepting rerouting of freight
trains to the MN&S line. St. Louis Park believes that co-location in the Kenilworth corridor could be
a viable route for freight rail; and, even if it proves not to be, the mitigation and other conditions
under which the MN&S route would be acceptable to the City of St. Louis Park have not been met.
The failure of the DEIS to address these issues is described below.
A. Is there a viable alternative to MN&S for freight rail?
The first condition for accepting re-routing traffic to the MN&S is Resolution 10-070 item 4a:
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 8
“a. It is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other viable
route exists;”
For St. Louis Park the acceptability of the MN&S tracks for re-routed Kenilworth trains starts with
the question, is there any other viable alternative route for the freight trains? The Southwest
Transitway DEIS does not make a compelling argument that co-location of freight rail and light rail
in the Kenilworth corridor (alternative 3A-1) is not viable.
Section 4(f) Issue. The DEIS concludes that co-location is not feasible primarily based on the
conclusion that co-location requires the acquisition of .81 acres of Cedar Lake Park. It also
concludes that this would not be a de minimis taking of parkland and that it would “constitute a
section 4(f) use”, which means use of the Cedar Lake Park land would not be allowed by the federal
Secretary of Transportation, thereby making alternative 3A-1 unfeasible.
Section 7.0 of the DEIS is labeled draft Section 4(f) evaluation. Its preliminary two-fold conclusion
that the use of Cedar Lake Park “would likely not be avoided” or considered to be de minimis is
unsupported by any factual analysis, does not comply with applicable federal rules and exhibits a
total disregard for any fair and objective analysis of co-location as a feasible alternative.
There are no facts set forth anywhere in the DEIS identifying the purported .81 acres of Cedar Lake
Park to be acquired, nor how the calculation was made. It appears that the area in question is not
actively used by the public, is former railroad property and is the current location of freight rail
tracks in the Kenilworth corridor. At page 7-21, the DEIS states that “conceptual engineering
completed to date” identifies the 0.81 acres. DEIS Appendix F (part 3) contains “conceptual
engineering drawings.” They are the drawings prepared for the City of St. Louis by SEH in 2010.
There is nothing in the appendix that addresses or identifies what land needs to be taken for the
relocation of the existing-freight rail tracks; however the SEH co-location concept plan drawings
show the freight rail essentially where the existing freight rail tracks are today.
At ES-7 and 2-41, the DEIS states that the Kenilworth tracks “would need to be reconstructed to
meet BNSF design standards for clearance requirements.” It is unclear whether a claimed clearance
requirement is linked to the claimed .81 acre impact on Cedar Lake Park. The co-location assumes a
25’ distance between the freight railroad and light rail tracks. This 25’ distance is being used by HC
for similar projects. Assuming this separation distance, there is no apparent need to relocate the
freight rail track to the west into Cedar Lake Park any further than it appears to be on the concept
drawings for alternative 3A-1. The freight rail track would remain in its present location.
The Section 4(f) rules require that a project be designed to avoid or minimize the impact on 4(f)
property. Specifically 23 C.F.R. § 744.3 requires the Metropolitan Council as part of the co-location
design process to analyze feasible and prudent alternatives to avoid the use of 4(f) property and if
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 9
avoidance is not possible, to perform “all possible planning” to minimize harm to the parkland.
There is absolutely no evidence in the DEIS that any attempt has been made, as part of whatever
conceptual engineering on co-location has been performed, to avoid impact to Cedar Lake Park, if in
fact an impact even exists. One seemingly obvious concept would be to shift the alignment east onto
HCRRA property.
There are also no facts or analysis as to why any impact to park land that might occur would not be
considered “de minimis” which is defined by applicable rule as an impact that “will not adversely
affect the features, attributes or activities” of the park land. There are no facts or analysis as to why
any minor shifting of the freight rail track along the border of Cedar Lake Park, assuming it cannot
be avoided, would not be de minimis. There are also no facts or analysis, even on a conceptual
level, as to why the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board would, potentially arbitrarily, refuse to
consider such an impact to be de minimis, especially if mitigating steps were taken to lessen any
impact.
The HCRRA and its consultants prepared the DEIS. The Metropolitan Council will lead the process
for the development of the FEIS. The DEIS concedes that no avoidance or mitigation analysis has
been done on any of the alternatives. At Section 7.2 the DEIS states:
A series of coordination meetings will be conducted with the parties that control these
Section 4(s007Aazf) protected properties, and/or the regulatory agencies responsible for
these properties, to discuss the potential for the use of these properties and the results of
avoidance and minimization efforts. The majority of these meetings would occur during
preliminary engineering and would be presented in the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation.
At Section 7.4.1.2, the DEIS states:
This summary is preliminary because design is not sufficiently advanced to conclude that
avoidance and minimization measures have been exhausted. Additional efforts will be made
during Preliminary Engineering to avoid or minimize the use of any of these Section 4(f)
properties. The results of this additional analysis will be presented in the Final Section 4(f)
Evaluation.
Despite this acknowledgment and the total lack of any facts in the DEIS relating to the claimed use
of Cedar Lake Park, HCRRA at Section 7.4.1.5 of the DEIS concludes that co-location “would”
necessitate additional expansion of ROW outside of the HCRRA-owned parcels into adjacent
parkland.” In the next sentence the DEIS states that “Section 4(f) uses could occur for the Cedar
Lake Park, Cedar Lake Parkway and Lake of the Isles portions of the Minneapolis chain of Lakes
Regional Park.” The Metropolitan Council as the lead agency for the final FEIS must perform an
independent, objective 4(f) review in accordance with the rules based upon facts and not conjecture.
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 10
Furthermore, even assuming that co-location would involve an unavoidable use of 4(f) property
which is not de minimis, there is no basis for assuming that re-routing freight trains to the MN&S
route is a “prudent and feasible” alternative. Without additional mitigation, agreement from the
railroads on the design of this route, and complete evaluation of all the impacts associated with this
route, that conclusion cannot be reached. The MN&S route does not meet typical railroad design
standards, it presents severe operational challenges, has unique conditions such as tracks separating
St. Louis Park High School from its athletic field and tracks passing diagonally through
intersections; these have not been adequately addressed in the DEIS and make the DEIS’s
conclusions unsupportable.
Dismissing Alternative 3A-1 is Premature. Drawing a conclusion in the DEIS that the co-location
alternative is not feasible is premature and contradicts the direction to the Met Council from the FTA
to study and address all the concerns prior to entering into the final design phase of the SWLRT
project. The Met Council has not begun preliminary design, so concluding that co-location is not
feasible in the DEIS pre-emptively dismisses the co-location alternative. St. Louis Park believes this
conclusion is inappropriate at this stage of the SWLRT design process.
Evaluation of Alternative Needs to Wait for PE. The analysis of the freight rail impacts of the
MN&S route is almost exclusively based on the EAW work completed on that corridor in 2010-11.
Although that is the source of the DEIS’s analysis of the MN&S route, the comments submitted by
St. Louis Park and the public regarding the EAW were not included in the DEIS documents or
addressed as a part of the analysis. These comments are pertinent to the evaluation of the prudence
and feasibility of the MN&S route for rerouted freight trains. The City of St. Louis Park dropped its
legal challenge of the MN&S EAW with the understanding that a full analysis of the co-location
option as well as the MN&S route would be done and that this work would include preliminary
designs for both routes. The DEIS does not offer any new design or further analysis of either route
from what was done during the MN&S study and the work by the City of St. Louis Park’s own
consultants. There needs to be more design analysis before a co-location alternative is declared not
viable.
B. Mitigation in DEIS is inadequate
The second condition for accepting re-routing traffic to the MN&S is Resolution 10-070 item 4b:
“b. There is appropriate mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated with rail
rerouting, funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park. Potential negative impacts
that should be addressed include but are not limited to noise, vibration, odors, traffic
congestion and safety, school use and safety, park use and safety; and, circulation/access in
the community by vehicle, pedestrian, transit and bicycle;”
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 11
The inherent characteristics of the MN&S route require robust mitigation to protect the neighboring
residents, businesses, students, community facilities; and, to ensure trains operate safely. A
comparison of characteristics of the freight rail route alternatives is provided later in these DEIS
comments, in section E.
City Resolution 10-070 recognized the need and importance of adequate mitigation along the
MN&S, BNSF and Bass Lake Spur; and made that a condition of acceptance of the MN&S route for
freight rail. The mitigation alluded to in the DEIS is not adequate and falls well short of what is
needed if a reroute to the MN&S is to be successful. Below, the City states the mitigation that
should be required to address negative impacts from freight trains in St. Louis Park.
1. Track improvements/upgrades (both Alternatives 3A and 3A-1)
The proposed improvements will upgrade the tracks to modern mainline standards that will
include continuous welded rail and upgraded crossing signals with gates. This is part of the
proposed project and is among the base improvements needed to make this route functional
for the operation of trains. It is not really a mitigation action but will reduce vibration and
noise.
2. Mandatory environmental requirements (both Alternatives 3A and 3A-1)
The DEIS indicates that all mandatory environmental requirements such as wetland permits,
waste disposal, erosion control, storm water runoff, construction noise, etc. will be met. This
is not mitigation and is a basic requirement of any improvements.
3. Whistle Quiet Zone (WQZ) and noise mitigation (both Alternatives 3A and 3A-1)
A Whistle Quiet Zone along the MN&S and Bass Lake Spur is a base line mitigation
requirement. However, it only addresses the noise from train horns and is not the only train
noise mitigation needed especially with regards to the MN&S route. The noise of
locomotives operating at maximum power to pull train cars up the steep grades; the noise
from train cars banging together and separating as they are pulled up and down the hilly
MN&S route; the squeals of train wheels on tight curves and the noise of idling trains on the
BNSF siding waiting to access the BNSF mainline all need to be carefully addressed. The
WQZ topic is discussed fully later in Section F of these comments.
4. Fencing & signage (both Alternatives 3A and 3A-1)
The DEIS suggests fencing and signage to minimize pedestrian trespassing, but is not
specific as to which areas would be included. Fencing is needed on both sides of all the
tracks for safety. The tracks pass through single-family neighborhoods, neighborhood
commercial areas and, past neighborhood parks and schools. The MN&S tracks expose these
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 12
very walkable areas, with many children and many child-oriented facilities to safety risks.
Fencing is needed to reduce these safety risks.
5. Improvements to reroute coal trains (both Alternatives 3A and 3A-1)
The coal trains that pass through St. Louis Park originate in Wyoming and Montana and
bring coal to a sugar plant in Renville west of the Twin Cities. Currently trains come from
Wyoming and Montana travel all the way into Minneapolis using the BNSF tracks before
back tracking through the Kenilworth corridor and St. Louis Park west to the sugar plant.
The empty coal trains return to Wyoming and Montana without passing through St. Louis
Park or Minneapolis. They go directly west from the sugar plant to Appleton MN and
interchange back to the BNSF line.
The loaded coals trains do not use the Appleton interchange because of track conditions on
the west end of the TC&W. A track rehabilitation project to replace cross ties on the western
part of the TC&W would allow for the reroute of the loaded coal trains and eliminate the
need for the coal trains to pass through Minneapolis and St. Louis Park. TC&W has
estimated that this project would cost about two million dollars. This is an important
improvement that not only reduces train traffic and attendant negative impacts for both St.
Louis Park and Minneapolis, it makes freight rail movements more economical and reduces
train traffic in the Target Field area.
6. Rail lubricators (Alternative 3A)
Rail lubricators installed in the track are a mitigation to reduce wheel noise and rail wear on
the tight curves of the MN&S route.
7. Concrete ties or other vibration reduction methods (Alternative 3A)
Concrete ties rather than wood ties would allow for less vibration induced in to the ground,
because of the larger mass of the ties. Concrete ties also work better in the tighter curves to
hold gauge. Vibration and noise are significant issues along the MN&S route especially. The
close proximity of sensitive land uses like, homes, the St. Louis Park High School and
commercial buildings that already experience problems from vibrations need to be addressed
and mitigated if increased train traffic is to be accepted on the MN&S.
Section 4.8.4 of the DEIS evaluation of ground vibration for the reroute uses the criteria
“infrequent use” for locomotives and “occasional use” for rail cars. They determined that
only one parcel is impacted from the expected vibration. The DEIS use of “infrequent” or
“occasional” use by freight trains is not correct. Section 8.1.3 of the Transit Noise and
Vibration Impact Assessment is the section that discusses vibration impact criteria for freight
trains. The guidelines require the use of “frequent” use as the guideline. This reduces the
maximum impact allowed from 80 VdB or 75 DvB to 72 DvB. Using the graph in the
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 13
MN&S Freight Rail Study (Exhibit 3, page 65), in Appendix H, the impacts should have
been measured for all residential and commercial structures on parcels within 150 feet of the
track.
8. Elimination of CP tracks east of Wooddale Avenue (Alternatives 3A)
The Bass Lake Spur tracks do not extend east of Wooddale Avenue for any of the
alternatives proposed in the DEIS that re-route trains to the MN&S tracks. TC&W railroad
has indicated that unless a direct connection between the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S
tracks southbound is provided, TC&W will need track with enough space to accommodate
50-75 rail cars east of the existing switching wye connecting the MN&S tracks to the Bass
Lake Spur. Space for 50 to 75 rail cars would require 3000 to 4500 feet of track east of the
wye. Which means freight rail tracks stretching east from the switching wye across
Wooddale Avenue, across Hwy 100 and almost to Beltline Blvd would be needed. A south
connection from Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks is needed to implement the SWLRT
3A alternative in order to eliminate the tracks east of Wooddale Avenue. The need for the
removal of the switching wye and providing the southbound connection from Bass Lake Spur
to the MN&S tracks is described more fully later in the DEIS comments, in section D. This
discussion focuses on the importance of eliminating freight tracks east of the Wooddale
Avenue.
If the freight track remains to the east of Wooddale Avenue, SW LRT Alternative 3A will
have the same station/freight rail conflict issues as those presented by Alternative 3A-1,co-
location. Freight trains will interfere with the operations of the LRT stations and be a
detriment to development in the area. One of the rationales for re-routing freight trains to the
MN&S is to eliminate any detrimental impacts on stations and station areas created by the
presence of freight trains. It would be absolutely unacceptable to St. Louis Park to be
saddled with the burden of freight trains re-routed to the MN&S without at least the benefit
of completely eliminating freight trains from the Wooddale and Beltline Station areas.
Trains maneuvering through the switching wye would block Wooddale Avenue and Beltline
Avenues more severely than trains continuing to use Kenilworth. At least the co-location
trains would be simply moving through the area. Maneuvering trains would be stopping and
starting. It would be noisier, time consuming and much more disruptive than moving trains.
Traffic delays caused by the trains crossing and re-crossing Wooddale Avenue and Beltline
Boulevard and train cars potentially stored on these tracks would disrupt traffic, interrupt
access to the SWLRT stations and create additional safety hazards.
9. Visual blight of an elevated structure to connect from Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S
Connecting the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks will require a very large elevated
structure. It will be very visible certainly from Louisiana Avenue and Hwy 7. No
comprehensive evaluation of what the structure will look like, what the visual impact will be,
what the impact will be on development potential near the structure or the existing
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 14
businesses. The structure will be roughly one mile long. The train road bed will be nearly 45
feet above the street by the time it crosses Louisiana Avenue, and it that is not the high point
of the structure, nor does it include the height of the train cars themselves. When a train is
present the overall height of the structure and train will be well over 50 feet, the equivalent of
a 5 story building. The trains will tower over all of the existing structures in the immediate
area and effect visibility and views. While the presence of a SWLRT station at Louisiana is
expected to enhance development opportunities, the presence of the massive rail structure
and freight trains literally traveling in the air, will have an impact that the DEIS has not even
acknowledged exists much less attempted to evaluate. This is a critical issue that must be
analyzed carefully and if the MN&S route is chosen, it must be mitigated in some significant
way. Without robust mitigation, the elevated freight trains and structure will deprive the
SWLRT project of one of its most important potential benefits; major new private
development and business investments. The Louisiana station serves one of the largest
employers and the only hospital along the corridor. Park Nicollet’s Methodist Hospital is a
major regional institution and a potential engine to drive new investment and job creation, if
the station area can provide an environment that is conducive to investment and growth.
Elevated freight trains are a significant challenge to creating that environment. Mitigation
needs to be included to address the potential adverse impacts.
10. Removal of switching wye (both Alternatives 3A and 3A-1)
The switching wye allows the trains to transfer between the Bass Lake line and the MN&S.
This has been a source of noise for the City for many years. Removal of the switching wye is
a high priority for the City no matter what freight rail route or SWLRT alternative is chosen.
The switching wye is discussed more fully later in section D of these comments.
11. Connection to MN&S south (both Alternatives 3A and 3A-1)
The proposed alignment in the DEIS does not address an efficient move of trains to the
south. A direct south connection track is one of the steps necessary for the removal of the
switching wye (discussed in greater detail in section D of these comments) and allows for an
efficient train movement from the west to the south. It eliminates the multiple switching
moves that are now necessary to make that move. This eliminates the potential noise, safety
and traffic impacts caused by switching trains from the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S track
south bound.
12. Grade separated Hwy 7 north frontage road (Alternatives 3A)
The additional trains on the MN&S will put pressure on traffic at the four grade crossings
near the High School and the Spanish Emersion School. Today school buses shuttle between
the two schools both in the morning and afternoon of schools days. The schools are within 3
blocks of one another but on opposite sides of the MN&S tracks. Today only 2 trains a day
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 15
use the MN&S tracks. They are very short trains, typically 10 cars or less. They do not pose
a problem for school bus operations even though all four local streets that provide access
between the school sites are crossed by the MN&S tracks at grade. The trains even when
traveling at very slow speeds cross the streets quickly. The trains proposed to be re-routed to
the MN&S are more numerous and longer. They have a much greater potential to block
intersections and create delays and safety problems. Because the four street crossings in the
vicinity of the schools are so close together, there is the potential for all four intersections to
be blocked at once. According to Table 2.3-2 in the DEIS on page 2-27, as many as 8 trains
would use the MN&S tracks on a given day if the MN&S route is chosen for freight rail. The
table also says that the longest trains would be 120 cars or approximately 7200 feet long
(1.36 miles). Traveling at 10 mph a 120 car train will take over 8 to 9 minutes to clear a
single intersection. To clear all four intersections and for the crossing gates to re-open will
take another 4 to 5 minutes, even a train as small as 26 cars would at one point be blocking
all for intersections. The increased train traffic, from 2 very short trains a day to 6 to 8 trains
a day, only two of which have any realistic chance of being less than 26 cars, means
disruption of school transportation will be a problem routinely. To provide a reliable route
for school buses between the two schools, a grade separated frontage road on the north side
of Hwy 7 should be built. The MN&S tracks would be bridged over the frontage road so that
even when freight trains are blocking the existing local streets between the two schools,
school buses could use the frontage road to cross beneath the trains and move between the
two schools.
13. Create 100 foot min. width corridor in single family housing area. (Alternatives 3A)
The area north of Minnetonka Boulevard on the MN&S has a railroad right of way width of
66’. This is an inadequate ROW for tracks that will be used more intensely then they are
today. The mitigation is to expand the right of way to allow larger safety zone around the
tracks. A more complete discussion of this issue is provided later in these comments, in
section E.
14. Pedestrian underpass to Dakota Park at 27th Street and 29th street. (Alternatives 3A)
Alternative 3A closes 29th Street. This leaves 28th Street as the only east-west access for the
Birchwood and Bronx Park neighborhoods other than Minnetonka Blvd which is a high
traffic volume street at the south end of the neighborhoods. Vehicles using Minnetonka Blvd
simply to get from one side of the MN&S tracks to the other will be an added traffic problem
for Minnetonka Blvd and will present traffic safety problems.
What’s more, it is possible that 28th St. may need to be closed too as a way to improve the
functionality of the MN&S tracks for freight trains. The existing MN&S tracks are hilly and
uneven. It is possible that to make the grades more even and less steep, the 28th street at
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 16
grade crossing will need to be eliminated, further separating the two adjoining
neighborhoods.
The increased train traffic and intended increased train speeds will increase the safety risks at
any at grade crossings and especially in this area. On the west side of the MN&S, at the
north end of the Bronx neighborhood is Dakota Neighborhood Park and dog park; and,
Hobart Elementary school. Access to the Cedar Lake Regional trail is also at this location.
These are attractions and logical destinations for bicyclists, pedestrians, dog walkers, and
kids. There needs to be a safe convenient way for people to access these community
attractions. An underpass construction in what is 27th Street ROW would allow a safe direct
access to Dakota Park, the regional trail access and Peter Hobart School that would at least
partially mitigate negative impacts for pedestrians in the neighborhoods. A grade separated
underpass at 29th Street could be used by vehicles and pedestrians and would mitigate the
problems created by pushing local traffic from Birchwood and Bronx neighborhoods onto the
congested Minnetonka Blvd.
15. Pedestrian overpass at Dakota Avenue (Alternatives 3A)
There are a high level of pedestrian movements in the Dakota Avenue area caused by the
location of the high school and its facilities. This overpass would allow for alternative route
for pedestrians. The exact location is to be determined.
16. Mitigation for sound and vibration at SLP High School (Alternatives 3A)
The High School has expressed issues with the current train operations and is concerned
about impact of an increase in train traffic. Trains passing the High School create vibrations
that affect school equipment like self-focusing equipment. This mitigation item would be to
help make improvements to the building to help mitigate the noise and vibration.
17. Pedestrian bridge over Hwy 7 at MN&S
There are few accesses across Highway 7 and none between Wooddale Avenue and
Louisiana Avenue. The MN&S rail bridge across Hwy 7 is a tempting way for people,
especially kids, to cross Hwy 7 between Wooddale and Louisiana. The attractiveness to
pedestrians of a bridge in this location should be acknowledged and a in addition to
construction of a new MN&S rail bridge a bridge for pedestrians should be built in this
location. It also could serve as a way to improve access to the Louisiana SWLRT station for
people north of Hwy 7.
18. Underpass connecting Roxbury & Keystone Parks (Alternatives 3A)
The Roxbury and Keystone Parks are on each side of the MN&S track. With the increased
traffic on the MN&S there will be increased risks for park users and concerns for the safety
of people attempting to cross the tracks to reach the adjacent park. These are small
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 17
neighborhood parks which mean park users will be close to the tracks and the risks they
represent. An underpass between the parks would allow for better, safer circulation between
the two parks. It would serve as partial mitigation of the hazards created from increased rail
traffic.
19. Beltline Boulevard Grade Separation. (Alternative 3A-1)
Today traffic on Beltline Boulevard is experiencing delays; with the addition of a station at
this location, additional traffic projected would add to the delays and congestion for vehicles,
pedestrians and bicycles. With co-location of freight rail, light rail and a trail at Beltline
Boulevard, vehicle traffic on Beltline would experience serious delays. Grade separation of
freight rail would be of primary importance, in order for the LRT station to operate properly
and serve riders who would be boarding at this station.
20. Grade separation at Wooddale Avenue. (Alternative 3A-1)
Today confluence of trail traffic, vehicles and freight rail makes Wooddale Avenue a busy,
complicated crossing; with the addition of a SWLRT station and the SWLRT line there will
be additional traffic. With co-location of freight rail, light rail and a trail at Wooddale
Avenue, the potential exists for access to the station to be interrupted by the presence of a
freight train. Grade separation for pedestrians over or under the freight rail tracks would
mitigate the potential blocking of pedestrian access to the station by freight trains. This
mitigation is needed in order for the LRT station to operate properly and serve riders who
would be boarding at this station. Grade separation of Wooddale from the freight rail tracks
would be another option to consider to mitigate this problem, however putting the freight
tracks over Wooddale would result in a grade to steep for trains; putting the freight tracks
below Wooddale is not possible because of other restraints like the need for the tracks to
remain at an elevation that makes it possible to cross over Hwy 100.
C. Siding must be removed (to eliminate switching, sorting, blocking )
The third condition for accepting re-routing traffic to the MN&S is Resolution 10-070 item 4c:
“c. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the City of
St. Louis Park; and funded by some other source than the City of St. Louis Park;”
In addition to the switching wye in Skunk Hollow, there is a rail siding used to store and switch
rail cars on the Bass Lake line. This track runs in the Bass Lake Spur right of way and is
parallel to the Bass Lake Spur primary track. The use of the siding creates noise and safety issues
for the City today; and, its continued use once the SWLRT line is in place, will also interfere
with the functioning of the stations in St. Louis Park; and, the attractiveness of the areas
immediately around the Stations for development. All three of the City’s stations, Louisiana,
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 18
Wooddale and Beltline are potentially affected by the siding. The freight rail tracks are shown as
removed to the west of Wooddale Avenue on the SWLRT concept drawings in the DEIS. It is
important that not only those tracks are removed but all the sidings on the Bass Lake Spur near
residential areas and station areas are removed. Storing and switching train cars in the Bass Lake
Spur have more severe negative impacts than even moving trains. Storing and switching entails
more noise, takes more time, has more potential for blocking roads and pathways; and the
potential for additional safety issues depending on what is stored or moved in rail cars in the
area.
The mitigation for the problems presented by the siding tracks, is to replace these storage tracks
in a more compatible land use area outside of the City.
D. Switching Wye must be removed
The fourth condition for accepting re-routing traffic to the MN&S is Resolution 10-070 item 4d:
“d. Removal of the existing “wye” rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and any
other tracks not needed for through train traffic including the rail tracks east of any new
interconnections between the East-West CP-TCWR tracks and the North-South CP-MNS
tracks;”
Elimination of the “skunk hollow” switching wye, Bass Lake siding and providing a connection
to MN&S South are not included in the DEIS but should be. Elimination of the siding and
switching wye south of the Bass Lake Spur in the Oxford Street industrial area needs to be
included in the SWLRT project. Without creation of a direct connection between the Bass Lake
Spur to the MN&S southbound and removal of the switching wye, a rail siding stretching from
the MN&S tracks to Minneapolis will be needed to accommodate 50 to 75 rail cars. This siding
means freight rail cars will interfere with both the Wooddale and Beltline LRT stations and the
noise from switching will affect the nearby Louisiana Station area as well. This will be the case
no matter which freight rail route (MN&S or Kenilworth) is chosen. The negative impacts will
be more significant on the station areas and surrounding area from the siding track than from the
through train track. The reason is use of the siding track will involve storage of cars for long
periods of time, idling of stationary locomotives and the noisy, time consuming process of
maneuvering train cars from the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S or vice versa. While a freight
train passing through a station area may interrupt transit activity for a few minutes at a time
while a train passes by, a switching procedure could take hours and stored cars may be in place
for days to weeks. The noise associated with switching is significantly greater and more
disruptive to the surrounding area than moving trains. It will be detrimental to the development
potential of station areas. Switching involves repeated train starts and stops; and the
accompanying crashing of cars coupling and uncoupling, and the noise of locomotives
accelerating. This will limit the development potential of the station areas nearby and decrease
the potential ridership on the SWLRT.
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 19
Eliminating the switching wye and the siding on the Bass Lake Spur in the vicinity of the
Louisiana Station also has the benefit of making any connection from the Bass Lake Spur to the
MN&S Northbound easier and less impactful. The proposed connection from the Bass Lake
Spur to the MN&S shown in the DEIS bridges up and over the Bass Lake Spur siding track and
the proposed SWLRT tracks. This results in the connection being higher and steeper than would
be necessary if the siding was not present. The clearance over freight rail tracks is greater than
what is required for LRT tracks. Eliminating the siding means the structure for the freight rail
connection to the MN&S tracks could be lowered reducing the steepness of the grade which in
turn would reduce the noise associated with locomotives straining to pull trains up this steep
grade.
Elimination of the Bass Lake Spur in the vicinity of the Louisiana station would benefit the
station as well. With the siding in place, access to the LRT station platform is potentially more
complicated. The presence of rail cars stored or being maneuvered on the siding limit visibility
of the station and make the LRT passenger’s experience less pleasant.
The SWDEIS shows only the potential connection of the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks
northbound. No direct connection southbound is included. Conceivably the northbound
connection from the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks could be used as a means to access the
MN&S southbound as well. This could be another way to replace the need for the switching wye
as a means to access the MN&S tracks southbound. This solution, while technically possible is
completely unworkable. For starters, using the northbound connection to the MN&S to go south,
would require trains to travel north until they reached a location with a siding where the
locomotive could be moved from the north end of the train to the south end of the train. There is
no suitable siding in St. Louis Park on the MN&S. The trains would need to travel from the Bass
Lake Spur north through St. Louis Park only to switch the position of the locomotive and then
retrace the route back through the City. The railroads would never find this extra travel time and
effort acceptable from an operational point of view; nor would the city from the perspective of
negative impacts on the community. Essentially the area north of the Bass Lake tracks would be
exposed to all the negative impacts and risks associated with trains traveling on the MN&S twice
for a train trip that was not intending to travel north in the first place.
For all the reasons highlighted above, a southbound connection between the Bass Lake Spur and
the MN&S tracks is needed as part of the SWLRT project and should be addressed in the DEIS.
E. Significant ROW must be provided
The fifth condition for accepting re-routing traffic to the MN&S is Resolution 10-070 item 4e:
“e. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way and safety
measures incorporated between the track and adjacent properties;”
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 20
The MN&S corridor is narrow (66 feet) with a single track much of it elevated, that winds
through a neighborhood commercial area, past St. Louis Park High School, small neighborhood
parks, and numerous modest single family homes mostly on 50 ft. lots. The average estimated
market value for homes along the MN&S right of way is $179,000 in 2012. This is in stark
contrast to the Kenilworth corridor which even today is generally wider than the MN&S
corridor, with widths up to 160 ft. and as noted in the DEIS itself, is characterized by “high
income” housing often on relatively large lots. The average home along the MN&S tracks is
roughly half the value of the lowest valued homes along the Kenilworth corridor in Minneapolis.
The MN&S passes by St. Louis Park High School; Keystone, Roxbury and Dakota city parks,
the local food shelf, publicly owned low-income housing, elementary schools, and the high
school athletic field. The MN&S corridor includes several scattered site public housing units for
low-income residents, the Kenilworth corridor includes high income housing and in some cases
high rise housing. The modest income residents of the MN&S corridor are being asked to
shoulder the responsibility to accommodate freight traffic without any significant mitigation
while the high income Kenilworth residents are not only relieved of the burden of negative
impacts associated with freight rail, they are given the benefit of having light rail service. The
bulk of the homes along the MN&S route will be more than ½ mile from the nearest LRT station.
The Kenilworth residents will see the negative impacts of freight rail replaced by the positive
benefits of convenient light rail service.
The MN&S corridor is not well suited to handle significant levels of freight rail traffic and if the
level of train traffic is going to increase the corridor needs to be widened to increase safety and
to provide more buffer to minimize the negative impacts of freight traffic. If the MN&S corridor
is to take the Kenilworth train traffic the MN&S corridor should be widened to a minimum 100
feet in width. This is a critical mitigation that is not included in the DEIS and should be. Further
comparison of the MN&S corridor and the Kenilworth corridors are provided in a separate
attached document.
F. WQZ Noise and Whistle Quiet Zone
The sixth condition for accepting re-routing traffic to the MN&S is Resolution 10-070 item 4f:
“f. Creation of a whistle-quiet zone funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis
Park throughout the entire north-south MNS corridor.”
A Whistle Quiet Zone is provided in the DEIS for the MN&S route as a mitigation measure
intended to eliminate the most severe noise impacts from freight traffic. This is appropriate and
important mitigation; however it does not resolve all the noise and potential vibration adverse
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 21
impacts associated with train traffic increases on the MN&S. Nor is receiving WQZ designation
for the MN&S tracks a forgone conclusion.
The FTA has a prescribed process and rules to evaluate noise and vibration issues (Transit Noise
and Vibration Impact Assessment). If noise or vibration exceeds certain standards for various
types of land use, projects are required to mitigate those impacts. The DEIS noise and impact
analysis (Sections 4.7 and 4.8) was done using the impact of transit vehicles.
The DEIS proposes that a Railroad Whistle Quiet Zone is the only mitigation measure that is
needed to bring the freight rail reroute alternative into noise level compliance. Quiet Zones are
local initiatives meant to minimize train noise from whistles but is administrated by the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA). If a community meets their risk index standards, Quiet Zones
will be approved. Quiet Zones must be applied for by the local road authority but in areas with
multiple jurisdictions, one road authority can be the lead agency. Bells located on the signals
will continue to operate. The minimum safety devices at a crossing is railroad signals with gates.
A risk assessment is done for each crossing and certain types of crossings may need additional
safety improvements such as center medians or our quadrant gates.
A field study is required and the diagnostic team from the FRA, MNDOT, the Railroads and the
Road Authority will evaluate each crossing any potential improvements. The evaluation of the
vehicles, roadways and train traffic is straight forward.
There are several areas that can make quiet zones difficult to implement including:
i. The risk analysis is a mathematical based program that has a difficult time accurately
reflecting large changes in either train or road activity. The formulas are influenced
previous crash histories that are not reflected if conditions change quickly.
ii. The rules are not clear on how pedestrians should be considered. The FRA relies
heavily on the engineering judgment of the diagnostic team. The team needs to
evaluate how extensive the pedestrian movements are, the type of pedestrian groups
(young children, older people, mobility challenged etc.) , potential for trespassing on
railroad property, attractive nuisances (short cuts, bridges, other side of the track,
etc.), sight distance of an approaching train, sight distance of a pedestrians and use
time. Treatment of Quiet Zones for pedestrians has ranged from doing nothing, to
installing a few signs, to very extensive fencing and control measures.
iii. The rules to not address private crossings and what safety improvements should be
done.
iv. The FRA has the authority to rescind a quiet zone if there is a rise in crashes or
incidents.
The train engineer also has wide latitude on when to use the horn in a quiet zone area. He
can sound the horn when:
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 22
(i) If there is track maintenance or other construction in the area;
(ii) If he sees a potential dangerous situation such as a vehicle stopped on the track or
pedestrian trespassers
(iii)If crossing signals are malfunctioning.
The crossings in St Louis Park are unique and the risk numbers for vehicles are relatively low
but treatments for protecting the safety of pedestrians will be a challenge. A formal
diagnostic team review should be done early in the PE process to evaluate if a WQZ can be
approved. The results of the diagnostic team’s review should be considered when evaluating
which alternative route for freight trains is the preferred and selected alternative. The City
should not have to run the risk that the decision is made to relocate Kenilworth traffic to the
MN&S tracks based in part on the understanding that a WQZ will be created, only to find out
later that creating a WQZ is not approved. The WQZ evaluation must be done before a
freight rail route decision is made.
It is important to note that a WQZ will only address the noise associated with train whistles,
bells and horns. It does not address the noise from locomotives pulling trains up steep
grades, squeals from trains moving through tight curves or noise from switching operations.
These topics are all raised elsewhere in these comments (sections B-3,6,7). Noise from these
sources is not adequately addressed in the DEIS and must be mitigated by some means if
freight trains are to be re-routed to the MN&S tracks.
General Comments on the DEIS and LRT Concerns
G. LRT Concerns
a. mitigation and impact needs: Mitigation specifically for the LRT itself is needed,
including:
i. Grade separation of the regional trail.
In either freight rail location alternative, grade separation of the regional trail needs to
be considered at the Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue crossings. This is a
heavily used trail (over 500,000 users annually) and will have a significant amount of
vehicle traffic around the station areas.
The Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail is shown to move from the north side of the rail
to the south side of the rail at Wooddale Avenue. Walkers and bikers would have to
turn south or north, and cross the tracks in order to stay on the regional trail. This
movement is very awkward and needs to be remedied to become a straight through
route. Grade separation may be able to solve the crossing issue. Grade separation of
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 23
the trail would improve the crossing and could solve the crossing issue where the trail
is shown to switch sides at Wooddale.
ii. Maintain access to Lilac Park from the regional trail.
The regional trail is shown on the south side of the light rail tracks east of Highway
100. The new Lilac Park is on the north side immediately east of Highway 100.
Access from the trail to the park for users would need to remain under all alternatives.
iii. Trail/sidewalks should be provided along both sides of the LRT line for access
to Lilac Park and other destinations along the trail.
The SWLRT will share its corridor with the Regional Trail through St. Louis Park. It
will be on one side of the LRT tracks and in at least some locations freight rail tracks
too. Supplemental trails or sidewalk should be provided on the side of the SWLRT
corridor that does not have the Regional trail as a way to enhance pedestrian and
bicyclist access to the stations and from the stations to surrounding land uses. In
essence supplemental sidewalk/trails along with the Regional Trail would be the
equivalent of having sidewalks on both sides of a street, providing safe accessibility
for pedestrians no matter on which side of the SWLRT corridor they happen to be.
iv. Noise from LRT crossing signals and train horns must be addressed.
SLP has many residents who live close to the LRT stations and will be hear LRT bells
and whistles. Mitigation should be implemented to minimize the sounds of the
relatively constant bells and whistles.
b. Potential Improvements to the SWLRT Project:
i. An alternative alignment for the SWLRT line and location for the Louisiana
Avenue Station using the switching wye should be evaluated.
Moving the SWLRT line south of its current planned location in the HCRRA rights of
way, possibly using a to be vacated switching wye right of way, would move the
SWLRT much closer to Methodist Hospital, and into the center of the Skunk Hollow
industrial area. The hospital has several thousand employees that are just outside the
half mile ideal walking distance of the proposed Louisiana station location. Moving
the SWLRT line and station slightly to the south this could serve them better, boost
SWLRT ridership, and reduce the need for on-site parking. It also could spur new
development investments in the Skunk Hollow area.
ii. An alternate alignment in the Beltline Station Area should be considered and
evaluated.
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 24
The proposed Beltline Station location is just outside the desirable walking distance
for several nearby major potential transit users. Moving the SWLRT line and station
slightly south in this area could make the station more convenient to Excelsior
Boulevard, the City’s Rec Center, Park Nicollet Clinic, high density housing and the
commercial uses along Park Center Blvd and other retail and recreational
destinations.
H. DEIS General concerns
Beyond the failure of the DEIS to meet the requirements of the City of St. Louis Park’s Resolution
10-070, the City of St. Louis Park has many other concerns with regards to the DEIS. The specific
concerns are described below.
1. New goal and the State Rail Plan Rationale inappropriate for SW LRT DEIS.
The SW LRT DEIS introduces in Chapter 1 Purpose and Need, a new goal - Goal 6 – Support
economically competitive freight rail system, which relates to freight rail and the State Rail Plan.
This is inappropriate because:
a. This goal was not adopted through any public process.
b. The rationale and description for constructing connections to the MN&S tracks and
re-locating freight rail to the MN&S has been broadened to be consistent with the
new Goal 6. It essentially states that one of the reasons for choosing alternative 3A is
that it helps implement the state rail plan, provides opportunities for TC&W trains
and possibly other railroads to reach places other than where TC&W trains are going
today; yet the DEIS does not anticipate any increase in train traffic on the MN&S or
evaluate the impact of trains going north of the BNSF tracks in St. Louis Park,
Golden Valley and beyond. The potential impact from possible additional train
traffic is reason for more robust mitigation along the MN&S route.
c. All of the alternatives in the DEIS would need additional evaluation with this new
goal; previously action was only take on the LRT routes, not freight rail routes.
d. This DEIS is supposed to be about the SWLRT project not the State Rail Plan;
introducing this element is inappropriate for this plan and the DEIS.
e. The new goal introduces many questions and complications about the impacts of the
State Rail Plan;
f. Several other communities are impacted by the introduction of the State Rail Plan and
suggestion that TC&W trains will use the CP Humboldt Yard; those cities that the
MNS travels through include: Golden Valley, Crystal, Edina, and Bloomington, and
they were not included in the DEIS process.
g. Passenger rail along the MNS is discussed in the State Rail Plan and therefore would
need to be addressed in relation to rerouting freight trains on the MN&S.
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 25
2. Comparison of Freight Routing Alternatives is Incomplete.
The DEIS does not evenly evaluate and compare the alternatives 3A and 3A-1. Both alternatives
are consistent with the designation of the Kenilworth route as the Locally Preferred Alternative
(LPA) route for the SW light rail trains. The designation of the LPA in the Metropolitan
Council’s regional Transportation Policy Plan was for the light rail train route. The designation
does not specify the location for freight train traffic and it was approved prior to the FTA’s
requirement to include freight rail routing in the SWLRT project and environmental analysis.
Both alternatives 3A-1 co-location and 3A re-route should be considered LPA alternatives. They
should be evenly evaluated
The DEIS does not evenly evaluate the alternatives. It does not specify the criteria or factors
used to reach its conclusions, or provide data in the DEIS supportive of its conclusions. There is
a lack of supporting detailed information for conclusions reached on such items as wetlands,
floodplains, park land, and community cohesion, acquisition of properties, capital costs, and
economic impacts among others. For example, the total amount of wetland impacted in
alternative 3A-1 is two acres or one third that for alternative 3A according to table ES.1 and yet
table ES.2 concludes that alternative 3A-1 “does not meet the goal” of protecting the
environment and alternative 3A is show as “some meets the goal”.
In addition, the potential impacts of increased freight rail traffic along the MN&S are minimized,
such as the evaluation of impacts on community cohesion or the evaluation of potential adverse
environmental impacts associated with each alternative. In the evaluation of the potential
adverse environmental impacts associated with the 3A-1 alternative in Chapter 11 of the DEIS, it
is stated on page 11-12 that acquiring “primarily high quality, high income multi-family housing
by the West Lake Street station,” is inconsistent with state, regional and local policies. What
policies these are that guide acquisitions for clearly public purposes (public transit in this case)
away from high income family housing is not provided. There is no explanation of why high
income matters, and if it does, in the case of acquisitions for public purposes.
3. Freight rail routing impacts are not adequately addressed or accurately evaluated in
the reroute alternative 3A.
a. Cost Comparison.
The total cost in 2012 dollars for alternative 3A-1 (Co-location of freight rail) is shown to
be $22,866,000 more than alternative 3A (re-routing freight rail to the MN&S) in
corrected Table 8.1-1. However insufficient detail and supporting information is
provided to evaluate these numbers.
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 26
b. Construction impact variances appear arbitrary and are not explained.
The evaluation table in Chapter 11 shows construction impacts as “medium” in the
relocation alternative (3A) versus being shown as “high” for the co-location alternative
(3A-1), even though relocation of freight would have more construction complexity and
cost than co-location.
c. Community Cohesion inaccurately portrayed.
“Community Cohesion”, the evaluation of how freight rail and LRT lines will split
neighborhoods is shown in table 11.1-1 page 11-5 as having “no impact” for the
relocation alternative (3A) versus “slight adverse impact” in the co-location alternative
(3A-1), even though both the MN&S and the Kenilworth corridors experience freight rail
traffic today and the Kenilworth traffic today is the train traffic that would be rerouted to
the MN&S tracks. The same train traffic in the Kenilworth corridor has been judged as
having a negative impact and as having no impact in the MN&S corridor. This is despite
the fact that rerouting to the MN&S corridor will involve the actions and impacts listed
below.
i. The changes needed to accommodate the increased and rerouted trains
includes closing of at least one local street, 29th Street thereby reducing the
accessibility across the MN&S tracks for vehicles, bicycle and pedestrians.
The neighborhoods affected by closing 29th street are other wise served by a
traditional grid of neighborhood streets. (this is further described in section
B.14 of these comments above)
ii. The closed street north of Minnetonka Blvd mean reduced accessibility for an
approximately 30 block neighborhood east of the MN&S tracks to Hobart
School, Dakota Park and access to the Cedar Lake Regional trail immediately
on the west side of the MN&S tracks.
iii. The MN&S tracks wind their way through the Walker Street/Library
Lane/Lake Street commercial area. In one case literally passing through an
intersection on a diagonal, resulting in the potential for trains to block both
streets at once creating inconvenience for pedestrians and drivers; and
adversely impacting local businesses. This same area is home to the High
School, the Spanish Immersion Elementary School, STEP (the local food shelf
and service organization) and the High School’s athletic fields and stadium.
While trains travel through and disrupt this area today, the volume is
extremely low; two trains of approximately 10 cars each per day. The trains
that would be relocated to the MN&S are 4 to 6 trains a day and 30 to 120 cars
in length. This is a significant increase in potential disruption to community
cohesion.
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 27
iv. By comparison, virtually none of these conditions are present in the
Kenilworth corridor or in the section of Bass Lake Spur east of the MN&S
tracks. No streets are proposed to be closed in these areas if freight traffic
remains in Kenilworth, no schools are located adjacent to the rail ROW, and
the tracks do not bisect any commercial areas.
d. Conclusion regarding continuous flow of freight rail is inaccurate.
The DEIS concludes in Chapter 11 table 11.1-1, page 11-7 that the relocation alternative
achieves “continuous flow of freight rail throughout the study area” and that the co-
location alternative does not. This is not true. Both routes for freight trains are
continuous to TC&W’s current destinations. Neither alternative 3A nor 3A-1 allows
“continuous flow” to the destinations that TC&W railroad hopes to reach in the future.
Neither alternative provides a direct connection southbound on the MN&S which is the
route TC&W wants for future access to the grain terminals to the south.
The DEIS presumes that TC&W would benefit from being able to access the MN&S and
use it to reach places to the north that it does not seek to go. Chapter 1, pages 1-11 and 1-
12 state that alternative 3A would improve access to the Humboldt yards for TC&W via
the MN&S and that access to Humboldt yards would be a better destination for TC&W
trains than its current destination, St. Paul. This is stated despite the fact the MN&S
tracks would be circuitous and time consuming route to reach TC&W’s desired location,
St. Paul. Use of the MN&S to reach either St. Paul or the Humboldt yards would have
negative impacts on St. Louis Park (at grade crossing of Cedar Lake Rd in St. Louis Park
for instance) and other communities along the route beyond St. Louis Park. The DEIS
presents no evidence that the TC&W has any interest in reaching the Humboldt yard or
using the MN&S as a means to reach St. Paul.
The DEIS also states in Chapter 1, page 1-12 that the new connection to the MN&S
proposed in alternative 3A would improve access for TC&W to Savage on the Minnesota
River. This is not true. The connection to the MN&S proposed in the DEIS is only a
connection to MN&S northbound. This is not an improvement for trains seeking to go
south on the MN&S; and if it were used for that purpose it would increase the negative
impacts of freight traffic on the MN&S as explained earlier in these comments in section
D. Only adding a direct connection to MN&S southbound from the Bass Lake Spur and
elimination of the Skunk Hollow wye would be an improvement in the continuous flow
of freight rail traffic, and that is not part of any of the build alternatives considered in the
DEIS.
e. Improve mobility goal evaluation inaccurate.
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 28
The DEIS shows in Chapter 11, Table 11.2-1, page 11-9 that Alternative 3A, relocating
freight trains, “supports” the goal of improved mobility while alternative 3A-1 is shown
as only “somewhat supports” this goal. Both alternatives support mobility. There is no
difference in ridership, user benefits, travel times or cost per passenger mile between the
alternatives 3A and 3A-1. Both should be judged as supporting mobility.
f. Protect the environment goal conclusion incorrect.
This goal is shown for alternative 3A in Chapter 11, Table 1.2-1, page 11-9 as “somewhat
supports goal” vs. being shown as “does not support goal” for alternative 3A-1 even
though the data shows more wetland and floodplain impacts, among others for the
relocation alternative. How this conclusion is reached is not documented. In some areas
Alternative 3A-1 clearly has less impact. Alternative 3A affects 2 acres more wetland and
floodplain than alternative 3A-1. The taking of .81 acres of Cedar Lake Park is shown in
Table 11.1-1 under the Protect the Environment goal, however where this land is and
support for why it must be taken is not provided.
g. Preserve and protect the quality of life goal inaccurately judged.
This goal is shown for Alternative 3A in Chapter 11, Table 1.2-1 to “support goal” vs.
being shown as “does not support goal” for Alternative 3A-1. It is stated that co-location
would “divide neighborhoods” in Kenilworth neighborhood. This seems to be a
completely arbitrary conclusion. Equal train traffic will have similar impacts on
adjoining neighborhoods no matter which neighborhood it passes through. See the
Community Cohesion discussion above.
h. Support economic development goal incomplete analysis.
This goal is shown to “support goal” in relocation alternative vs. being shown as
“somewhat support goal” in co-location alternative, without explanation. Five LRT
stations would be affected by the presence of freight trains if the co-location alternative
were implemented. Freight train traffic has the potential for negative impacts on the
development opportunities near the stations. However two of the five stations have
limited development opportunity already. The Penn station is difficult to access and
already has the presence of freight rail (BNSF) on a much grander scale complicating
development options. The 21st street station is in a fully developed single family
neighborhood with limited development opportunities and a ridership shed that is almost
completely to the east of the LRT tracks which would not be hindered by the presence of
freight trains on the west side of the LRT tracks. The other three stations are also stations
with one dominant side to the stations development opportunities. West Lake, Beltline
and Wooddale all have the greatest opportunities for new development on the south and
east side of the LRT station. The evaluation of this goal did not consider what impacts
increased train traffic on the MN&S on development opportunities in those areas.
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 29
i. Support economically competitive freight rail system.
This was not an adopted goal of the light rail project. Alternative 3A is shown as
“supports goal”, while Alternative 3A-1 is shown as “does not support goal”. Explain and
elaborate
j. Operational functionality for the RRs.
The DEIS uses the Hennepin County’s EAW on the freight railroad reroute and the City
of St. Louis Park’s previous work on the co- location. It did not advance the engineering
or analysis on either option in order to resolve issues or identify impacts to provide a fair
comparison. These are left for the Preliminary Engineering contractor. Both options will
be studied during the PE phase.
i. How deal with delays in getting on to BNSF track? Do railroads have to be
paid? There is no train operational analysis to show that the reroute is a
workable alternative. A train operation model would show if the longer trains
can navigate the curves and grades or will additional locomotives be required,
possible using distributive power. (TC&W’s locomotives are not setup to
operate as DPU).
ii. There are tight curves and steep grade not usually associated with mainline
operations. There are grades well in excess of 1 percent. There are no track
profiles included in the DEIS to understand the impacts.
iii. The Canadian Pacific Railroad (CP) and the Twin Cities & Western Railroad
(TC&W) both submitted comments during the EAW process that show major
issues with the reroute design. The DEIS does not address any of those
concerns. Are there any agreements with the railroad companies regarding the
reroute?
iv. The CP and TC&W have indicated that they would not accept ownership of
the new structures; it is unclear what entity would own and maintain the track
and structures, and no indication of what it would cost.
v. The EAW and DEIS anticipates that the MN&S track would be out of service
for up to 1 month during construction, which is unacceptable to the CP and its
customers.
vi. The EAW showed the bridge for moving freight rail over the LRT and
connecting to the MN&S as a vertical clearance of just 20’ 6” over the track;
Minnesota statutory required clearance is 22’. This means the bridge for
freight rail would have to be even higher than currently shown.
vii. The DEIS did not provide an additional noise and vibration field data that
would help calibrate the noise and vibration models. During the EAW
process, the models were based on limited data on current MN&S trains and
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 30
did not use long, heavy train data or to provide accurate information on
impacts. It also did not include inclines and curves in its analysis.
viii. Request that a derailment study be done to determine the risk of the trains
transferring to the MN&S.
ix. The LRT drawings in the DEIS show that freight tracks will terminate at
Wooddale Avenue. The TC&W have indicated that they will need track east
of the Skunk Hollow wye to switch about 60 cars trains from the south. The
DEIS must include elimination of the skunk hollow switching wye and
provision of a south connection to the MN&S for this to happen. It is not
shown.
x. The reroute for the TC&W trains works only for north or east bound trains.
The movement to the south towards Savage is still inefficient. The railroads
would be required to maintain the Skunk Hollow wye or use the new siding
along the BNSF to run around the train to access the MN&S south. The
second movement described would require the southbound trains to pass
through the MN&S track twice. If the Skunk Hollow wye is eliminated, there
is a customer west of Louisiana that would have its rail access severed and
would have to be purchased.
xi. If the reroute alternative is chosen, there should be several modifications to
the grades, curves and right of way to improve safety and operations.
1. The minimum right of way should be 100 feet wide.
2. The curves and grades need smooth out to minimize the roller coaster
affect.
3. The area near around Louisiana Avenue should be rethought.
Assuming that there are no freight tracks east of the existing MN&S
bridge the LRT and reroute grades could be adjusted to lower the
overall height. The depth of structure should also be review to lower
the height.
k. There should be a circulation study in the area north of Minnetonka Boulevard to
minimize the impacts of the proposed closing of 29th Street. Option should include
new bridges, pedestrian trails and noise buffers.
l. The improving access north of the BNSF is outside of the study area and no impacts
have been addresses for the additional trains. TC&W have indicated that they do not
have any interested in going to the Humboldt Yard to interchange their normal trains.
4. Vacated EAW. The re-routing of trains from Kenilworth to the MN&S tracks is not a new
idea. It is a concept that was the focus of an EAW that was prepared in submitted in 2011
and later that year vacated. While that process is not acknowledged in the DEIS it appears
that the design for the re-route proposed in the DEIS and the evaluation of that design is
identical to the work done for the vacated 2011 EAW, with no new analyses. In 2011 the
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 31
City carefully reviewed the EAW and found it to be inadequate. The City hired its own
independent consultant (SEH) to help review the EAW, identify potential alternative routes
for freight rail and analyze the potential of freight rail in both the MN&S and the Kenilworth
routes. One of those alternative Kenilworth routes formed the basis for the DEIS Co-location
alternative (Alternative 3A-1). Since the DEIS essentially incorporates the 2011 EAW and
SEH concept plan, the City is submitting as part of its comments on the DEIS, its comments
on the 2011 EAW and the four technical memos prepared by SEH regarding freight rail and
the freight rail alternative routes. All of the materials St. Louis Park previously submitted are
attached.
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 32
EIS PROCESS
• December 31, 2012 – deadline for written comments on DEIS
• Review of DEIS comments by Metropolitan Council as lead agency for development of
the final EIS
• Preparation of final EIS by Metropolitan Council
• Preliminary engineering continues during preparation of final EIS. (Final Design
activities, property acquisition and contracting cannot occur until the completion of the
EIS process)
• Final EIS shall respond to DEIS comments. Responses may include the following:
1. Modify alternatives including the proposed action.
2. Develop and evaluate alternatives not previously given serious
consideration by the agency.
3. Supplement, improve, or modify its analyses.
4. Make factual corrections.
5. Explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response.
• FTA approval and publication of final EIS
• Minimum 30 day final EIS comment period
• FTA completes and signs a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days after
publication of the final EIS. The ROD will present the basis for the decision, summarize
any required mitigation measures and document any 4(f) approval relating to park land
impacts.
• Six month time period to initiate any court action challenging EIS
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 33
11/30/12
Comparison of
Alternative 3A and 3A-1 Freight Rail Corridor
Widths and Proximity to Homes
(source: from the 4/18/11 Tech Memo #4 revised 5/31/11, prepared by SEH, SWDEIS,)
Residential Properties
There are a significant number of residents living along both routes. However residents along the
MN&S tend to be closer to the tracks than the residents along the Kenilworth route and the
MN&S route is mostly single family homes.
Within 50 ft of the center line of the MN&S tracks there are 85 single family lots and 2 single
family homes, all of them in St. Louis Park.
Along the Kenilworth route there are no single family homes that close today. There are 33
multi-family parcels and 13 townhomes within 50 ft of the centerline of railroad tracks in
Kenilworth in Minneapolis if the freight rail tracks are re-aligned to accommodate both freight
rail and LRT.
The SWDEIS alternative 3A-1, Co-location shows freight rail in Kenilworth requires acquisition
of additional right of way on the west side of the current Kenilworth tracks, north of West Lake
Street, at the Cedar Lake Townhomes. While the proposed co-location track alignment does not
literally pass through any of the townhomes, the center line of the track appears to be 15 feet or
less from the nearest townhomes. The SWDEIS assumes that all 57 Cedar Lake Townhomes
would be acquired and removed. The width of the Cedar Lake Townhome property is
approximately 200 feet. Acquisition of this property creates a substantial buffer between freight
rail tracks and the single family homes in this section of the route.
No multi-family structures are within 50 feet of the center line of the proposed MN&S route,
however three garages in the Sungate Townhome complex at the “iron triangle would be.
Institutional Uses
There are no institutional uses identified along the Kenilworth route within 1/8th mile of the
freight rail tracks and five along the MN&S. Most notably St. Louis Park High School is located
adjacent to the MN&S tracks between Dakota Avenue and Library Lane.
Business Uses
Business uses range from industrial plants, warehouses, big box stores and local retail and
restaurants along both corridors. The MN&S corridor businesses are located on the southern end
with a concentration around the Lake/Walker area. The MN&S businesses on Oxford Road will
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 34
be affected by the proposed bridge to connect from the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks,
northbound. Partial easements would be required from all but one parcel in this area.. It appears
that one business/property (9600 Oxford Road) will be taken in full since the building would be
under the proposed bridge. Several of the businesses along Lake Street have expressed concerns
about existing noise and vibration issues and are concerned that the proposed project will make
conditions worse.
The Kenilworth Corridor businesses are located further away from the track and are more
industrial in nature. The corridor north of Lake Street is residential and parkland.
Right of Way
The MN&S right of way is very irregular and reflects the fact that it was acquired after land had
been split into lots. The right of way varies from 34 ft to 145 ft with much of it 66 ft or 100 ft
wide.
The Kenilworth with the existing freight rail tracks is 44 ft to 200 ft wide. However adjacent to
the HCRRA right of way is right of way owned by other public entities including the City of
Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Park Board.
Tech Memo #4 Tables
Attached are two tables from the SEH Tech Memo #4 that compare the MN&S route to the
Kenilworth route for freight trains. It summarizes the characteristics of each corridor and
compares the freight rail alternatives. It should be noted that the Kenilworth alternative referred
to in these tables is the alternative prepared by SEH in 2011 that doesnot include the regional
trail in the corridor. It assumes that the regional trail is relocated to some other route at least at
the tight spot on the Kenilworth corridor just north of West Lake Street. The SWDEIS Co-
location alternative includes the regional trail, freight rail and LRT and in the tight spots of the
corridor would require additional right of way.
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 35
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 36
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 37
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: December 10, 2012
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2013 Annual Legislative Update Preview
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action requested. Staff has prepared a list of possible
legislative topics to discuss with our state legislators, Met Council representative and County
Commissioner at the January 14 study session. Staff desires feedback and direction on issues we
should raise with our elected and appointed representatives at the study session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the Council agree with the legislative topic areas identified in the attachment
regarding priorities for 2013?
• Is there anything else the City Council would like staff and our legislative delegation or
representatives to pursue?
• Does the Council wish to continue retaining legislative consulting assistance for 2013 to
help promote the city’s legislative agenda?
SUMMARY: Staff has prepared the attached preliminary list of legislative issues for the
discussion with our legislators and representatives. Once the Council has provided more specific
direction on our legislative agenda, staff will prepare a more detailed staff report summarizing
each legislative issue for use at the January 14 study session
It has been our practice to retain lobbying services to help us with legislative and regulatory
issues. Administrative Services has utilized the legislative services of Doug Franzen and Vic
Moore, Franzen & Associates, and Dennis McGrann and Emily Tranter of Lockridge, Grindal,
and Nauen. Staff requests direction as to continuing on with these services for 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funding for our lobbyists is included in the
EDA budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Possible 2013 Legislative Issues
Prepared by: Ray French, Administrative Services Intern
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: 2013 Annual Legislative Update Preview
Possible 2013 Legislative Topics
1. I-394/TH 100 Collector-Distributor Road – This relates to securing $1.8 million of a
required $2.4 million project to make improvements to the eastbound and westbound
lanes of the TH 100 Commuter-Distributor Road at 1-394.
2. Southwest LRT – This relates to supporting funding for the SWLRT project and a
possible bonding bill request relating to funding mitigation needs.
3. Transportation or Sidewalk Utility – This relates to the legislature allowing an alternate
mechanism to fund street, street lighting or sidewalk construction and maintenance
similar to a water, sewer or storm water utility where a fee could be included on a
customer’s utility bill.
4. Eliminate Need to Publish Legal Notices – This relates to eliminating the need for cities
to publish official proceedings, official notices etc. in local newspapers and instead use
the City’s official web site for these notifications. This would save money and be more
effective.
5. Levy Limits – This relates to not supporting the imposition of levy limits on cities
6. Fiscal Disparities – This relates to the need for the reform of this law, particularly for
cities that are very actively pursuing redevelopment and using local incentives to make
these projects possible.
7. Marijuana Legalization – Given what has happened recently in Colorado and Washington
there could very well be another look at the legalization of marijuana in Minnesota. Staff
desires direction from Council as to whether it wishes to express its concerns about this
to our legislators.
8. License Plate Readers – These devices are used by law enforcement to automate the
process of obtaining information based on license plate readings. However, the data
collected is considered public and increasing burdens are being placed on staff to fulfill
data requests. It appears Minneapolis and the State Patrol will be supporting a law that
would make this data private.
9. 2010 Jobs Act Provisions Extension – This relates to some provisions of the Act that
sunset on July 31 that we would like to see extended. They include modifications to
Economic Development TIF Districts and the Temporary Authority to Stimulate
Construction.
10. TIF District Statutory Modifications – This relates to supporting minor modifications of
the Redevelopment TIF statute, and the establishment of Compact Development TIF
Districts and Transit Oriented Development TIF Districts.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: December 10, 2012
Written Report: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Liquor Ordinance Amendment – Culinary Classes On-Sale License
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this report is to inform
the City Council of the requested addition of a limited on-sale liquor license for culinary classes
to be added to the city code, and to summarize the next step of amending the City Code to
incorporate the proposed amendment.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to amend the city code to allow a
limited on-sale liquor license for culinary classes?
SUMMARY: Minnesota Statutes were amended in 2006 to allow for a limited on-sale liquor
license specifically for culinary classes, but a corresponding ordinance has not yet been
considered by the City. The City Clerk’s Office was recently approached by Byerly’s of St.
Louis Park requesting that Council enact this limited license so that they may serve a limited
amount of wine or intoxicating malt liquor to their class participants.
The Culinary Class Limited On-Sale Intoxicating License, per Minnesota Statutes, may be issued
to a business establishment not otherwise eligible for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license, and
that, as part of its business, conducts culinary or cooking classes for which payment is made by
each participant or advance reservation required. All provisions of the liquor ordinances would
apply to this section, except that the licensee would not be required to obtain liquor liability
insurance.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Other cities have the following fee:
City License Fee
Duluth $205
Mankato $25
Minnetonka $100
Waconia $200
Based on this survey and the costs of providing administration and enforcement, staff
recommends an annual liquor license fee of $100.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to promoting an integrating arts,
culture and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where
appropriate.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Draft Ordinance
Minnesota State Statute 340A.4041
Prepared by: Ray French, Administrative Services Intern
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Liquor Ordinance Amendment – Culinary Classes On-Sale License
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Minnesota Statutes were amended in 2006 to allow for a limited on-sale
liquor license specifically for culinary classes. Due to the lack of demand in St. Louis Park,
amending the City’s ordinances for this license had not yet been considered.
The City Clerk’s Office was recently approached by the Byerly’s of St. Louis Park about the
possibility of adding this license to our liquor ordinances. Byerly’s has been previously granted
an on-sale intoxicating liquor license for their restaurant, and had served wine at their culinary
classes under that license. Due to the recent closing of their restaurant, they are no longer able to
serve wine at their classes. They have approached the City requesting that Council enact this
limited license so that the practice may resume.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The Culinary Class Limited On-Sale Intoxicating License,
per Minnesota Statutes, may be issued to a business establishment not otherwise eligible for an
on-sale intoxicating liquor license, and that, as part of its business, conducts culinary or cooking
classes for which payment is made by each participant or advance reservation required.
The license authorizes the licensee to furnish to each participant in each class, at no additional
cost to the participant, up to a maximum of six ounces of wine or 12 ounces of intoxicating malt
liquor, during and as part of the class, for consumption on the licensed premises only.
All provisions of the City’s liquor ordinances that apply to on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses
would apply to licenses issued under this section, except that Sec. 3-61 related to liability
insurance shall not apply, as prescribed in the enabling Statute. Other cities that have enacted this
license and granted licenses to qualified establishments have not reported any issues with
administration or enforcement.
NEXT STEPS: If there are no objections, staff will proceed with the following schedule:
January 7, 2013 – A public hearing and first reading of the liquor license ordinance amendment.
January 21, 2013 – Second reading of liquor license ordinance amendment.
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: Liquor Ordinance Amendment – Culinary Classes On-Sale License
ORDINANCE NO. ____-12
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES CONCERNING
A CULINARY CLASS ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Chapter 3, Article II, Division 2, Section 3-57 of the City Code is hereby
amended by adding the underscored language:
Sec. 3-57. Classifications
The following types of licenses shall be issued under this division:
(15) Culinary class limited on-sale intoxicating license. Culinary class limited on-sale
intoxicating licenses may be issued to a business establishment not otherwise
eligible for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license and that, as part of its business,
conducts culinary or cooking classes for which payment is made by each
participant or advance reservation required. The license authorizes the licensee to
furnish to each participant in each class, at no additional cost to the participant, up
to a maximum of six ounces of wine or 12 ounces of intoxicating malt liquor,
during and as part of the class, for consumption on the licensed premises only. All
provisions of this Chapter that apply to on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses, other
than provisions inconsistent with this section, apply to licenses issued under this
section, except that Sec. 3-61 related to liability insurance shall not apply.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be deemed adopted and take effect fifteen days after its
publication.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council January 21, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Public Hearing/First Reading January 7, 2013
Second Reading January 21, 2013
Date of Publication January 31, 2013
Date Ordinance takes effect February 15, 2013
Study Session Meeting of December 10, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Title: Liquor Ordinance Amendment – Culinary Classes On-Sale License