HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/02/14 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session Er St. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES
MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 14, 2011
The meeting convened at 6:40 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Phil Finkelstein.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Director
of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal),
Commumcations Coordinator(Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary(Ms. Hughes).
Guests: David McKenzie, P.E. (SEH, Inc.).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning—February 28, 2011
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for February 28th and suggested
that the Council hold a special study session on February 22nd to discuss Council minutes. He
stated that the City Attorney will be present to provide Council with background information
regarding what needs to be included in the minutes.
Councilmember Sanger requested that the Council also receive an update on February 22nd with
respect to snow removal and parking restrictions.
It was the consensus of the City Council to meet at 6:45 p.m. on Tuesday, February 22nd, for a
special study session.
2. Replacement of Virginia Avenue Railroad Bridge
Mr. Rardin presented the staff report and advised that the Virginia Avenue railroad bridge is not
scheduled for replacement. He stated that the Burlington Northern Railroad performed some
routine concrete surface repairs on the bridge last summer and the City will continue to monitor
the bridge to make sure the repairs are sufficient.
Councilmember Ross expressed concern about public safety due to the falling concrete and
requested further information regarding inspections done by the railroad and/or the City.
Mr. Rardin stated that the bridge is structurally sound and the railroad is required to inspect their
bridges and is responsible for the structural integrity of its bridges. He indicated that the falling
debris is not a structural issue and the City will continue to encourage the railroad to monitor the
bridge and keep it in good repair.
Councilmember Mavity indicated that further discussion regarding north-south connections
should take place as the Council talks about redevelopment and opportunities to add additional
routes, e.g., the Nestle/Novartis site.
Mr. Rardin stated that after the Highway 100 discussion last week, further information will be
presented to Council including a study done by SEH that addresses this issue.
Study Session Minutes -2- February 14, 2011
3. Freight Rail Options
Mr. Locke presented the staff report. •
Mr. McKenzie presented a review of the following three freight rail alternatives:
1. Co-locating freight rail, light rail, and the regional trail in Kenilworth.
2. Co-locating freight and light rail in Kenilworth and moving the regional trial.
3. Utilizing rail rate subsidies for TCW to operate on routes west of the metro.
He noted that the County's consultants continue to work on the EAW with respect to rerouting
the TCW onto MNS and are preparing information on revised alignments, preliminary noise and
vibration, and mitigation.
Mr. McKenzie provided an overview of the western connection which looked at rerouting all of
the TCW traffic to the west. He explained that TCW's primary run is into St. Paul and there are
very few connections heading west. There are poor track conditions on the western side and
TCW is reluctant to run heavy coal trains across those lines. He stated that one possibility would
be to improve the track and bypass the coal trains and not bring them into the Twin Cities;
however, TCW runs four different types of trains and rerouting this traffic would add
approximately 120 miles to its route, as well as increasing travel time for a single car by two or
three days because of the way that BNSF operates the line. He indicated that along with the
increased distance, the railroad would incur increased travel time, car hire costs, labor costs,
locomotive costs, and track rental fees. He stated that SEH has concluded that without further
detailed analysis of costs, the rerouting of coal trains may be possible with additional track and
there may be funding opportunities available with Mn/DOT or the FRA to help fund additional
track work; rerouting of other TCW traffic is not practical at this time and there do not appear to
be any funding sources available for a freight subsidy with TCW. He added that a total rerouting
of all TCW traffic did not appear viable at this time and TCW has indicated that this would cause
them to lose their competitive advantage.
Councilmember Mavity asked if the BNSF line has the capacity to handle TCW traffic and what
steps would be necessary to pursue this option.
Mr. McKenzie stated that they are currently running 12-15 trains per day and typical capacity is
20-25 trains, depending on the location of the sidings, so it appears that there is currently
sufficient capacity. He noted that it will be necessary to get BNSF to the table to talk about this
and to identify ongoing funding sources. He explained that it would be necessary to first define
the scope of a rehab project of this nature and TCW has indicated that a project of this type
would require approximately 15,000 ties, or roughly $2 million, and there are programs that may
or may not fit with Mn/DOT or the FRA to provide assistance. He added that if would be helpful
to have Mn/DOT take the lead on this.
Mr. McKenzie then presented information regarding the Kenilworth corridor, noting that SEH
concentrated its efforts on the area from Lake Street to I-394 because this area has the most
restricted right-of-way. He stated that the analysis looked at retaining the freight rail track on the
existing alignment as well as expanding two options that were studied by RL Banks (Scenario
1 A and Scenario 2A). He explained that by leaving freight rail on the existing alignment, light
rail ends up in the condo parcel on the east side and there is very little excess right-of-way
adjacent to the east side of the existing corridor. He indicated that this appears to be an
unfeasible alignment due to the complexity and cost involved.
Study Session Minutes -3- February 14, 2011
Mr. McKenzie reviewed Scenario 1A which explored the alignment of freight rail, light rail, and
the regional trail in the Kenilworth corridor. He stated that this scenario proposes to acquire half
of the Cedar Shores townhome development; the apartment building at Sunset Boulevard would
also be impacted. He advised that the County currently has 62' of right-of-way. North of Cedar
Lake Parkway, the right of way narrows to 44' but there is a public right-of-way owned by the
City of Minneapolis adjacent to this area that is 50' wide; the County has made the assumption
that this right-of-way is available for light rail. He indicated that Scenario 1 A shifted all three
alignments from what was shown by SWLRT, and the 21S` Street light rail station was shifted to
the east.
Councilmember Sanger asked if it can be inferred that there would be no significant impediment
to the County in acquiring the City of Minneapolis right-of-way for construction of light rail.
She also asked if light rail would fit if the City of Minneapolis right-of-way were not acquired.
Mr. McKenzie stated that the right-of-way acquisition has not yet been resolved. He also stated
that if the right-of-way were not acquired, it would be a tight fit for light rail. He indicated that
on Cedar Lake Boulevard, the light rail was showing a grade separation with freight rail next to
it, and SEH is showing all three at grade for ease of construction.
Mr. McKenzie reviewed Scenario 2A which explored alignment of freight rail and light rail at
grade with the regional trail relocated outside of the Kenilworth corridor. He advised that the
deletion of the trail allows enough space for freight rail and light rail to fit in the comdor if land
is acquired from the Cedar Shores townhome development to expand the right-of-way for the
freight rail tracks; no structures would need to be acquired under this scenario. He discussed the
setbacks of the freight rail track to the buildings and advised that under this scenario, nine of the
thirteen townhomes would be closer to the tracks than they are today. He indicated that more
work is required to determine if the freight track alignment results in traffic being uncomfortably
close to the townhome structures. He added that in order to meet a 50' residential structure
separation from freight rail 33 Cedar Shore Townhomes would need to be removed. If all 57
Cedar Shores townhomes were removed the cost is estimated to be $35 million, including
relocation and demolition costs. He noted that further work is needed to determine how the
Midtown Greenway trail would connect under this scenario.
Mr. McKenzie then discussed unresolved issues with the Kenilworth comdor, including
environmental impacts to parkland and how the Federal agencies will look at what is being
impacted as well as the best places for freight rail and light rail to cross. He noted that it appears
that freight rail and light rail fit better to the south between Belt Line and Lake Street east of
Highway 100. He indicated that the Mn/DOT redesign of Highway 100 will need to be reviewed
in terms of how freight rail and light rail elevation impacts those designs. He stated that another
issue is right-of-way and how to handle possible acquisitions. He discussed the design issues
with light rail, including retaining walls, design of the light rail stations, pedestrian circulation, as
well as redevelopment around the light rail stations.
Mr. Mckenzie pointed out that an additional issue deals with the Kenilworth corridor compared
to the MNS route; the PMT is scheduled to meet on February 24th and SEH will continue to work
on refining its cost estimates on the Kenilworth alternatives so that when the MNS study is
complete, SEH will have a good comparison of the costs involved and will be able to provide the
City with an evaluation of the overall impacts to the City.
Study Session Minutes -4- February,14, 2011
Councilmember Sanger stated that one of the alignments referenced structures being
"uncomfortably close" to the tracks and the report also referenced trying to have a distance of
50' from structures to the tracks. She asked if it that same 50' minimum distance between
structures and tracks should be used throughout the City in order to provide an apples to apples
comparison of all the alternatives. She also asked if an acceptable distance would include a
person's back yard that was 25' deep.
Mr. Locke stated that 50' represents a good standard from the centerline of the track to a
habitable structure; staff is also suggesting that a minimum of 25' of right-of-way from the
centerline is desirable. He noted that a number of factors need to be considered in any given
situation for an acceptable buffer and it is important to recognize the difference between the
space from the centerline of the tracks and a garage versus the centerline of the tracks and an
actual home. He advised that the City did an analysis some time ago regarding right-of-way and
proximity of trains, and there are only a couple of homes that are 25-50' from the centerline of
existing tracks on the MNS route.
Councilmember Sanger indicated that if 50' is used as a guideline for the MNS study, she would
like to see some analysis of what that would mean in terms of how many townhomes and/or
houses would need to be acquired in order to provide a clear apples to apples comparison. She
also requested information regarding the general approach used in evaluating impacts to single
family homes versus other structures. She expressed concern that back yards represent living
space for people.
Mr. Locke stated that this is a legitimate issue in terms of outdoor living space and how it may be
affected; for this analysis, SEH used a stricter standard that focused on the Kenilworth
alternatives and did not attempt to compare it with the MNS alternative yet. He added that SEH
only looked at whether a structure would be affected within the 50' distance and whether the
property was impacted to the point of needing to acquire it.
Councilmember Mavity asked if Scenario 1A or 2A consider removal of the "Y" or any other
traffic issues south of Highway 7.
Mr. McKenzie stated that if freight rail stays in the Kenilworth corridor, the alignments and the
"Y" in St. Louis Park could remain the same and it would be up to the railroad to deem how well
it works for them. He added that the Kimley Horn study will provide more answers to this
question.
Councilmember Mavity requested clarification regarding the decision-making process and the
City's role in that process. She also asked what types of discussions the City is having with the
railroads and reiterated her suggestion to extend an invitation to the railroad to discuss the matter
with Council.
Councilmember Ross agreed but felt that the City's emphasis should be on mitigation.
Mr. Locke stated that as Commissioner Dorfman indicated earlier, it will be important for all of
the stakeholders involved to reach consensus, including the City. He stated that staff is working
to get information to Council so that it can make an informed decision as to what the City feels is
the best thing to do and ultimately build consensus with the County and the City of Minneapolis.
He added that the railroad ultimately has to approve the plan because they are directly impacted
by this.
Study Session Minutes -5- February 14, 2011
Councilmember Sanger stated that Councilmember Finkelstein requested information regarding
Federal funding for light rail given the current political climate and change in the legislature.
Councilmember Mavity indicated that even if the legislature does not invest in light rail this year,
it will be important to stay in the queue for Federal funding and to continue work on this project.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to continue next steps on this project,
including the initiation of a process for community input.
4. Human Rights Commission (HRC) 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she felt the annual reports and work plans as presented were
sufficient and did not feel it was necessary for Council to meet with the Human Rights
Commission(HRC), Police Advisory Commission(PAC), or Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA).
Councilmember Ross expressed concern regarding the HRC's goals and projects because she did
not see anything fresh or new. She added that a Human Rights Commission candidate
interviewed by Council earlier this evening had some interesting ideas around bullying and
mental health and thought this may be of interest to the Human Rights Commission.
Councilmember Mavity stated that the HRC's annual report indicated that they had lost some
members through attrition and suggested that the HRC's 2011 work plan include looking at best
practices and/or other high functioning human rights councils so they can learn from those best
practices to build energy and membership on the HRC. She also suggested that the Diversity
Lens include clear steps on how this is realized in the community. She felt that it would be
valuable to meet with the HRC and to have the HRC highlight for Council what it feels are the
key issues facing the community.
It was the consensus of the City Council to meet with the Human Rights Commission to discuss
the annual report and work plan.
5. Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
It was the consensus of the City Council to meet with the Police Advisory Commission to
discuss the annual report and work plan.
6. Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2010 Annual Report
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
It was the consensus of the City Council that no meeting is required with the Board of Zoning
Appeals to discuss the annual report.-
Study Session Minutes -6- February 14, 2011
7. Communications/Meeting Check-in (Verbal)
Mr. Zwilling updated Council regarding the asbestos issue reported today at the high school and
junior high school. He stated that the City does not have any direct involvement in the matter but
has offered its inspections department to assist with questions. He indicated that both the high
school and junior high will be closed on Tuesday to allow the additional testing to be completed.
Mr. Harmening discussed the citizen notification system update provided in Council's agenda
and stated that this system could be used in partnership with the School District.
The meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
8. Citizen Notification Systems Update
9. "Dream Elevator" Public Art Sculpture—W.36`h Street and Wooddale Avenue
10. 2011 Liquor License Renewal—Toby Keith's ove This Bar& Grill
Nancy Stroth, ity erk Jeff J:c 2, , ayor