Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/05/14 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study SessionMINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA .May -14,, � 1984 CALL TO ORDER The Mayor called the study session to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Councilmen Thomas Duffy, Ronald Backes, Jerrold Martin, Larry Mitchell, and Mayor Hanks. Also present were the City Manager, Director of Public Works, Director of City Development, Assistant to the City Manager, Administrative Assistant to the City Manager and the Administrative Assistant to the Director of Public Works. I-394 Highway I-394/Highway 12 Intersection - The Mayor stated that there have been a number of neighborhood meetings and recognized the concerns of the residents. Mayor Hanks requested that the Director of Public Works present the status of I-394 project. The Director of Public Works explained the location of the frontage road proposed by the State running the east side of Highway 100 north of Cedar Lake Road to Highway 12. He stated that neighborhood meetings were held on December 20, 1983, February 8, 1984, March 29, 1984 and April 9, 1984 with the following issues dominating the discussions at the meetings: 1. Noise Walls - The Director of Public Works explained that MnDOT does not intend to build noise walls because the location does not meet the warrants. He further explained that staff feels noise walls are very important to the neighborhood and should be built. 2. Frontage Road - The Director of Public Works explained three possible alternatives for the frontage road. One alternative would be the frontage road as proposed by the State to be located on the east side of Highway 100 from Cedar Lake Road to Highway 12 to the Penn Avenue interchange. A second alternative would be to Pull the frontage road further west to al lowmore distance between the frontage road and the residents. A third alternative is to eliminate the frontage road. This would require some construction in the area of 16th and Douglas and would result in splitting the neighborhoods of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. This alternative eliminates emergency access to the area. 3. Property Acquisition - The frontage road as proposed by the State would require the acquisition of 14 homes, otherwise 13 homes would be acquired. The Director of Public Works stated that MnDOT performed traffic counts with the following results. The frontage road as proposed b the State would carry 3,600 vehicles per day which would be s milar to the traffic load on Texas and Virginia Avenues. He also commented that he felt the estimates were low. In summary, the Director of Public Works stated that this is an extremely involved project and 12 to 16 hours of meeting time, plus additional time beyond that has been spent working with the neighborhood. The Director of Publ is Works stated that the frontage road provides the neighborhood with access and has overall neighborhood appeal. The problem is that it leaves some homes precariously close to the highway. Councilman Martin asked if residential streets would be connected to the frontage road. The Director of Public Works stated that the residential streets would be connected some way to the frontage road. However, 95 percent of all motorist would use the frontage road. The Mayor asked if MnDOT has accepted locating the frontage road further west, closer to Highway 100. The Director of Public Works said MnDOT has accepted that as an alternative, and commented that it would al low more landscaping of the areas directly affected by the frontage road. The Mayor stated that his major concern was how many homes MnDOT would buy. The Director of Public Works stated that 13 to 14 homes would be purchased depending on the frontage road alternative that would be selected. The Mayor stated that he is concerned with the 6 or 7 homes that would be remaining following the completion of the project and would face the frontage road. Under MnDOT's standards these homes do not meet the criteria for property acquisition. The Mayor then asked whether Council would like to have staff look at a plan to have the properties valued prior to the project and following the completion of the project. Should the value of the home be reduced, the City could then buy the homes. The Mayor commented that he did not know whether or not this would be possible but felt that it should be brought up because of the major concern of this issue. He further stated that the number of homes to be purchased each year would have to be limited for budget reasons. A resident stated that the neighborhood was opposed to a frontage road stating that access is already cut off to Golden Valley. He further stated that emergency service is important but access would remain from St. Louis Park either from Highway 100 or Cedar Lake Road. The resident stated that he would be in favor of a frontage road, if that is what the Council determined. However, he felt that the impacts to the neighborhood are so severe that remedy to the property owners should be granted and the neighborhood was looking at the City and the State for remedy. The Mayor stated that the comments he was hearing are a complete change from when he met with the neighborhood groups. The Mayor stated that the neighborhood had previously held concern for construction to Highway 100 and now the neighborhood does not have that concern if the frontage road is cut off. A resident responded by stating that the only issue they viewed as an issue they had influence over is the frontage road alternative. However, the neighborhood is concerned with the overall project. Councilman Martin asked if the City buys the homes or gives some sort of relief, would the neighborhood be in favor of a frontage road. The residents said that they are discussing that as an alternative but are concerned with the overall impact of a frontage road to the neighborhood. Councilman Martin stated that, in his opinion, some damages would occur to those remaining properties located on the frontage road. He stated that State law only compensates those who are moved. There is no remedy in State law to compensate those property owners who were originally located off the frontage road and then due to a construction project are placed i n a situation where they are on the frontage road. Councilman Martin was interested in identifying any court cases that would relate to court cases that would relate to this type of situation. Councilman Martin stated that he was not comfortable with the Council entering into property acquisition. He said that the situation would set an expensive precedence in years to come. Councilman Backes asked the Director of Public Works whether the Council would be asked to choose between a frontage road or no frontage road. The Director of Public Works answered yes. Councilman Backes asked whether the frontage road would then become a part of the highway project. The Director of Public Works responded that yes it would become part of the highway project. Councilman Backes asked if it would be part of the budget? The Director of Public Works stated that it would. The Mayor stated that he identified the ro 1 e of the City Counc i 1 to determine whether or not to place a frontage road, whether or not to place noise walls, etc. He stated that the difference between the I-394 project and the Louisiana Avenue project is that the I-394 project is a State project and the Louisiana Avenue project was a City project. The Mayor stated that, in his opinion, the City cannot become involved in condemnation. Councilman Duffy requested that the Director of Public Works indicate on the map which pieces of property east of Quentin Avenue would remain. The Director of Public Works stated that s i x or seven properties abutting Quentin Avenue furthest south of Cedar Lake Road would remain. The properties by number are 1649, 1645, 1631, 1633, 1629, 1616, with 1625 the questionable property depending upon which frontage road alternative was selected. Councilman Mitchell asked what the distance of the lot is of the home located nearest to the frontage road. The Director of Public Works estimated 20-25 feet from the curb to the home. Councilman Mitchell then asked the representative from MnDOT what the setback requirement is. The representative of MnDOT stated that it is necessary to take the right-of-way. Councilman Mitchell then asked what the criteria of this state is for property acquisition. The representative of MnDOT stated that if right-of-way is taken, then the property owner can claim damage. He further stated that it is a judgment call whether property should be acquired. A resident stated that according to the information provided by MnDOT, there is not State statute outlining the guidelines for property acquisition. Once the City of St. Louis Park has submitted the proposal, the State can then identify and confirm those properties which will be acquired. The Mayor commented that the State has not handled the property acquisition in an effective manner. A resident stated that the State should rectify the situation. The neighborhood is asking the City Council for help to work with the State. The resident commented that the more the State does, the better, however, the neighborhood is looking at the entire block since the entire block will be affected. The representative from MnDOT stated that before property can be taken, it must be deemed necessary for highway purposes. Councilman Martin asked what would be gained by locating the frontage road further west allowing more space inbetween the property owners and alleviating the impacts to the southerly four properties. The Director of Public Works stated that at least 30 feet would be gained. The Mayor asked how wide the present street, Quentin Avenue, is. The Director of Public Works stated that Quentin Avenue is approximately 30 feet wide. A resident stated that is is very important to have noise walls, since noise and air pollution would be a major problem as a result of the project. The Mayor stated that the residents do not know the final design of the project. This level of uncertainty, in of itself, creates a problem. The Mayor further stated that it is not an opinion of the Council to deal with compensation. Councilman Mitchell stated that given time, residents may want to stay in their present location. Councilman Mitchell suggested that property appraisal be performed prior to construction and address the situation at a later date. Councilman Mitchell stated that this particular situation was significantly different than compensating for widening Louisiana Avenue. The resident's affected by the I-394 project are in a situation where theywill be directly located on the frontage road. The Mayor stated that the original intent of Louisiana Avenue was to relocate the road and that is why property was acquired in that project. The Mayor asked that the Council study the alternatives, a frontage road or no frontage road. Staff was directed to look at potential alternatives and identify the ramification to the area. Staff was also directed to identify which houses would be acquired as a result of the project. The Mayor stated that the I-394 is not a City project. The Mayor thanked the residents for their input and for attending the meeting. Decision Packages/Budaet Calendar The City Manager briefly described the purpose of the pre -budget decision packages which have been submitted by staff and explained how they fit into the budget calendar. A brief informational discussion concerning budget meeting dates and deadlines followed. Council Chairs The Assistant to the City Manager reported to Council that she had been in contact with several vendors to obtain quotes for new chairs for the Council Chambers. She made a recommendation for Council to consider purchas- ing 85 wood -frame chairs with cloth upholstery for the audience area during the current year and seven high -back chairs for Council members in 1985. Council took Ms. Klumpp's report under advisement and agreed to consider the matter in more detail at a later date. Other Business 1. The City Manager updated Council on the status of the Reilly Tar/PCA negotiations. 2. Council was reminded of the AMM meeting scheduled for Wednesday, May 30 at 5:30 p.m. at the Brooklyn Park Community Activity Center. President-elect Ronald Backes will be one of the speakers. 3. Mayor Hanks asked for individual comments from members of the Council regarding reimbursement for expenses incurred while at City -related functions. 4. Mayor Hanks reported that he had researched the possibility of having a City-wide annual dinner similar to that which is done by the School District and had come to the conclusion that there was insufficient interest among employees to follow up on the proposal at this time. The study session was adjourned at 9:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cris Gears Recording Secretary