Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/05/23 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session JIf St. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES , MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA MAY 23, 2011 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary(Ms. Hughes). Guest: Dave McKenzie (SEH, Inc.) 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning—June 6 and June 13, 2011 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for June 6th and the study session agenda for June 13`h. He stated that the June 13`t' agenda includes a discussion regarding Eliot School and noted that the School District has a potential buyer for the site. He added that the potential developer has inquired about tax increment assistance. Councilmember Mavity requested that the June 13th discussion regarding storm/surface water management include a discussion regarding how this system ties into the overall recreational environment aspect. Mr Harmening stated that the focus of this discussion is related more to water quality and what the City is and is not doing, as well as options related to the storm/surface water management system. Councilmember Sanger requested that Council be provided with information regarding what the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is or is not doing to address these issues. 2. Draft City of St. Louis Park Freight Rail Policy Resolution Mr. Locke presented the staff report and reviewed the background materials included in the staff report. He discussed the updated list of mitigation items for both MNS and Kenilworth and the cost comparison table, noting that the difference in cost is significant when comparing the base plans and robust mitigation for both MNS and Kenilworth. He indicated that the SWLRT cost adjustments need to be determined and included as part of the ultimate solution. He also presented draft concept plans for the Wooddale, Beltline, and Louisiana station areas and the impact of freight rail. He then reviewed a drawing prepared by Mr. McKenzie that provides an option for removing the existing wye track. Council discussed with staff the grade separation crossings and current/projected traffic congestion in these areas. Mr. Locke then presented the draft freight rail policy resolution for Council consideration. Study Session Minutes -2- May 23, 2011 Councilmember Mavity requested further information regarding Council's previous discussions with respect to coal trains and the possibility of removing coal trains from St. Louis Park. Mr. Locke advised that TC&W representatives were supportive of the idea of making the improvements necessary to reroute coal trains. He stated that there is reason to believe that this is doable and should be pursued. Councilmember Mavity stated that both the Kenilworth and MNS options require changes to the status quo and both have costs to the City. She indicated that she is not entirely opposed to the reroute for reasons she provided in earlier discussions. She stated that the most important piece is to make sure the City continues to emphasize the robust mitigation that needs to happen and to make sure the language contained in the resolution is as strong as possible. Councilmember Santa respectfully disagreed and stated that there is not only a viable alternative, but there is a reasonable route and there is a cheaper route. She expressed concern that the City appears to be recreating a miniature Kenilworth in the middle of St. Louis Park and a barrier will be created across the City, dividing the east side and the west side. She also expressed concern about the lack of mitigation in South Oak Hill. She stated that the City needs to be very certain that it is maintaining those connections in the community and that the neighborhoods are not destroyed. Councilmember Ross agreed with Councilmember Santa and stated that she felt this project has become a huge waste of money and it is incumbent upon the Council to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. She stated that she did not feel there was any way to justify this, as a citizen of Hennepin County, as a resident of St. Louis Park, and as a City Councilmember. She indicated that safety is an issue for freight rail and light rail, and it makes sense to keep these contained in one area. She added that she is comfortable with the proposed resolution in general. Councilmember Finkelstein reiterated his support for light rail and acknowledged that no matter where freight rail goes, it will cause pain to the City and its residents. He stated that while the intentions of the County may have been good, there is an overall lack of belief in the process by the people of St. Louis Park, including the County's lack of reviewing robust mitigation, analyzing other options, moving the trail, and mistakes made on measurements. He indicated that when the County agreed in 2009 to redo the study, he was prepared to support it if the County could convince him that no other viable alternative exists; however, the County has not met the conditions contained in the Council's resolution and has not shown that the Kenilworth corridor is not a viable alternative. He expressed his appreciation to staff for all the work done on this project and stated he would support the proposed resolution. Councilmember Sanger expressed her support for the proposed resolution. She stated that it was clear to her that a viable alternative exists in the Kenilworth corridor and the Kenilworth is shorter, cheaper, does not have big inclines for the trains, and does not have blind and tight curves. She suggested adding a sentence to paragraph 1 of the ninth "whereas" clause that states "In comparison to the proposed route, the route through the Kenilworth Corridor is shorter, has no blind curves, lacks significant elevation changes, and is significantly less expensive to construct." She also suggested adding"diminished property valuations"to the potential negative impacts listed in paragraph 2 of the ninth "whereas" clause. She also suggested that paragraph 5 under"now, therefore"be revised to state "Supports all measures to eliminate the switching wye provided that a southern interconnect is constructed and that southbound rail traffic is not routed northbound onto MNS prior to reversing to go southbound, and vice versa." She also suggested Study Session Minutes -3- May 23, 2011 that an additional "whereas" clause be added that states "WHEREAS, the proposed reroute increases the potential for additional future rail traffic through St. Louis Park per Mn/DOT's 2030 Rail Plan with associated negative impacts in St. Louis Park." She stated that it has become clear to her in reviewing the EAW that Mn/DOT is tying the proposed reroute not to light rail but to the potential implementation of the 2030 Rail Plan which includes a significant potential increase in rail traffic on MNS of both freight rail and high speed passenger service. Councilmember Omodt agreed with Councilmember Sanger and stated that if this is about light rail, perhaps part of the resolution should state that the City does not support light rail until this is done right. He expressed frustration with the political gamesmanship and felt that the assumptions used by the County were flawed and the County took none of the City's heed on the matter. He reiterated his previous suggestion to get all the regional parties together to discuss this issue and to stop pointing fingers. Mayor Jacobs stated that he could not go along with opposing light rail and felt that the City would be able to figure out how to do freight rail and to do it right. He stated that he was okay with the proposed resolution and acknowledged the concerns regarding traffic and grade separated crossings. He suggested Council consider adding a strong reference to mitigation in the resolution itself because he did not want to see that get lost in the shuffle and to give the County some sense of how expensive this is going to be. Councilmember Sanger noted that paragraph 2 of the resolution makes reference to mitigation requirements and suggested adding another sentence that states St. Louis Park estimates the minimum cost of these necessary improvements to be in the range of"x"million dollars. Councilmember Mavity pointed out that the City's comments to the EAW have not yet been submitted and suggested the City make reference to the EAW document as containing its mitigation requirements and that this represents the threshold of what is required by the City for mitigation. It was the consensus of the City Council to state in its updated resolution that mitigation, in the context of the EAW, is insufficient. Councilmember Mavity stated that there will be foreseeable problems associated with co- locating freight rail and light rail and asked that cost estimates related to this be included in the City's calculations, e.g., grade separated crossings at Wooddale and Beltline. Councilmember Finkelstein agreed that the EAW should take into account the foreseeable mitigation needed now because no matter where freight rail goes, there will be harmful effects to St. Louis Park. Mr. Harmening agreed to review this issue to make sure the City's position relative to foreseeable mitigation is placed into the record. Councilmember Sanger requested that Council be provided with further information regarding the mitigation process and dollars associated with SWLRT mitigation. She also requested additional information regarding the 2030 Rail Plan and requested further Council discussion regarding the Rail Plan. Study Session Minutes -4- May 23, 2011 It was the consensus of the majority of the City Council to support the proposed resolution with the additions as noted by Councilmember Sanger. Council discussed the EAW process and submission of Councilmember comments to Mr. Locke. Councilmember Omodt asked if there is any likelihood that a combined meeting with key stakeholders can be arranged. Councilmember Finkelstein suggested sending a notice inviting key stakeholders to a meeting in St. Louis Park. He added this should be done after the City submits its comments on the EAW. Mr. Harmening stated that the Council's adoption of the updated freight rail policy resolution could serve as a platform for convening a meeting with the various stakeholders. 3. Communications/Meeting Check-in (Verbal) None. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 4. Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update 5. April 2011 Monthly Financial Report 6. Responsibility for Right of Way Maintenance 7. Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Bar er an' Acc•: • osure Update �Nanc Stroy Clerk Jef a• s, ayor