HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/05/09 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session f�ISt. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES
MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK,MINNESOTA
MAY 9, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:29 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—May 16 and May 23, 2011
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for May l6`h and the study
session agenda for May 23`d
2. Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and reviewed the schedule of meetings for the
remainder of May as it relates to the freight rail discussion. He stated that the community
comments contained in the staff report will be posted on the City's website tomorrow.
Mr. Locke presented the key findings and themes based on the recent listening sessions and Mr.
McKenzie's analysis. He noted that the SEH Technical Memorandum#4 is still in draft form and
will continue to be updated. He indicated that if trains are moved from Kenilworth to MNS, the
MNS corndor is intensified while relieving the Kenilworth corridor; if freight rail stays in
Kenilworth, there will be two major rail functions, all of which results in difficult choices to be
made with no perfect solution. He noted that safety is one of the biggest issues that have been
raised throughout the process, with the high school being a significant concern on the MNS and
the at-grade crossings at Beltline and Wooddale in Kenilworth. He discussed the wye and
switching of TCW trains in the area south of Highway 7, noting that neither route as proposed
for TCW addresses that issue. He stated that vibration impacts will require additional review,
particularly due to the conflicting expertise and analysis on this issue. He stated that the light rail
stations, development around those stations, and access to light rail will continue to be a major
issue for all cities in the SWLRT. He discussed traffic implications of trains and the idea of
creating a grade separated north frontage road on Highway 7. He also discussed a potential
Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue interchange project that includes a grade separation to
improve capacity in this area and would close the Lake Street/Highway 7 access thereby
eliminating the potential for traffic backing up onto Highway 7 due to trains blocking Lake
Street. He stated that one of the most challenging issues related to using MNS is the high school
and the vibration issue which still needs more work. He stated that other key themes include
property values, livability, and mitigation. He advised that while there are many entities involved
in this decision, there is no clear, simple process in place as to who is making the decisions. He
noted that with respect to the Kenilworth route, there are some major players not yet at the table,
most notably the City of Minneapolis, the Minneapolis Park Board, the neighborhood
organizations in Kenilworth, and representatives involved in the regional trail. He added that if
freight rail is permanently in Kenilworth, it raises questions about the 4(f) impact analysis for
SWLRT DEIS.
Study Session Minutes -2- May 9, 2011
Mayor Jacobs stated that he felt the listening sessions were a great reflection of the community's
values; and residents provided well thought out and astute comments.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested further information related to the comments that light rail
and freight rail next to each other would hurt development.
Mr. McKenzie stated that this is primarily a safety issue because if a freight train derails, it is
close to light rail and light rail trains are not considered crashworthy. He noted that is why the
railroads are so insistent that they get adequate space between the freight rail tracks and the light
rail tracks, adding that BNSF prefers 50' or more or a crash wall. He indicated that a lot of the
same issues that have been raised regarding freight rail on MN&S tracks near residential areas
would also be concerns for residential redevelopment around the light rail stations if freight rail
is there. The goal is to try to get appropriate spacing between residential and freight traffic.
Councilmember Mavity stated that she has been very impressed by the amazing neighborhood
organizing around this issue and how the residents conducted themselves at the listening
sessions. She indicated that no matter where freight rail ends up, St. Louis Park will be a strong,
thriving city. She noted that throughout this process there has been a significant
misunderstanding that St. Louis Park is going to get additional freight traffic. Freight traffic has
been going through the St. Louis Park neighborhoods for a number of years, the impacts are
huge, and part of this process is about making sure to reduce the amount of time trains spend in
St. Louis Park and also getting rid of the switching and blocking.
Councilmember Ross requested further information regarding the crashworthy standards for light
rail and how it was determined that a crash with a house is less concern than a crash with a light
rail train.
Mr. McKenzie advised that the City has raised a number of questions regarding the 25' spacing,
which is the minimum distance between freight rail and light rail. He also stated that the goal
should be at least a 50' buffer between the train and a structure, but there is no national standard.
Councilmember Santa stated that the earlier Council resolutions talked about Beltline and
Wooddale. She asked about the impacts on Blake Road, which is a major thoroughfare. She
added that two or more stations are going to have a conflict between light rail, freight rail, and
automobile traffic.
Mr. Locke stated he was not sure what Hopkins is doing related to Blake Road since Hopkins has
not been faced with the issue of potential rerouting of freight trains. He indicated that separation
is one key factor in creating safety and the City has asked the SRF consulting firm to think about
what it would take to create grade separation at the Beltline and Wooddale stations; and what
would be needed to get people to where they need to go if a train is blocking these streets. He
agreed that if Kenilworth is chosen, not only St. Louis Park LRT stations would be affected,
there will be a total of five SWLRT stations that would be affected by freight trains.
Councilmember Sanger stated that it is not the addition of freight rail that contributes to access
issues; rather, it is the addition of light rail because the freight rail is already there. She indicated
there needs to be mitigation for the light rail addition to that corridor and the mitigation must be
paid for from the light rail project. She advised Council that she sent a three page memo to staff
last week outlining her concerns and that memo has been updated and copies provided to
Council. She stated that one issue includes appropriate right-of-way if the trains go through
MNS. She noted that Mr. McKenzie earlier talked about how freight rail might be
Study Session Minutes -3- May 9, 2011
accommodated in Kenilworth and the nearest townhomes were 25' away which is uncomfortably
close. She felt that that same standard should be applied to MNS in that a 25' right-of-way
between the tracks and someone's home is not adequate. She requested clarification in the draft
report on how wide the right-of-way would be if the townhomes in Kenilworth were removed,
and what it would take to get that same corridor width in MNS. She asked for data indicating
how wide the corridor would be if all the homes were removed on both sides in order to provide
an apples-to-apples comparison. She indicated that there is nothing in the report about the impact
of the siding by the BNSF tracks, including issues of elevation, noise, and derailment.
Councilmember Omodt stated that he felt the listening sessions were great and represented a
great moment for the community. He indicated he was still troubled about the overall process
and wished that the City had a clear sense of where the process was going and who was in
charge. He stated he was struck to hear from the PMT members about how screwed up the PMT
process is and how they are providing their input but that it would be foolish to assume that they
are going to be listened to. He expressed concern that the City has not been heard with respect to
mitigation and it has become clear to him that the City is going to be left on the hook as it relates
to mitigation costs.
Mayor Jacobs stated that from the County and State's perspective, it appears this project is about
money, which is an unfortunate focus when traffic and safety should be paramount. He indicated
that there may be some disagreement in the community about where freight rail goes, but he
heard on a unified basis that the City needs to push this process hard, the City should not be
paying for this project, the City should not be paying for mitigation, this whole issue is being
driven by light rail, the City is fairly unified that this problem came about because of light rail,
and the City would not be talking about this except for light rail. He requested further
information regarding the easements owned by the City and suggested that a formal opinion be
obtained from the City Attorney regarding this issue.
It was the consensus of the City Council to request a legal opinion, protected by attorney-client
privilege, regarding the easement issue.
Councilmember Finkelstein expressed concern about mitigation versus betterment and stated it
appears that mitigation only consists of the minimum, e.g., providing whistle quiet zones, buying
two homes, or welding the rails which will allow longer trains. He asked how many homes could
be purchased if a 50' easement were created on the east side of the MN&S tracks. He also
requested an update on the publication date of the EAW.
Mr. McKenzie stated that in order to create the right-of-way, 42 homes were identified in the
preliminary report and there are likely two or three more homes that should be taken.
Ms. McMonigal stated that one mitigation measure that could be employed involves an optional
buyout/selling program where people could choose to sell their property. She added this would
not involve a taking of the property.
Mr. Locke stated that staff was informed today that the MNS EAW was submitted to the
Environmental Quality Board with the idea that it would be released for public comment on May
16th and the thirty day comment period would end on June 15`h. He added that a possible date for
the MNS study EAW open house public meeting is June 8`h.
Study Session Minutes -4- May 9, 2011
Councilmember Mavity advised that she sent a memo to staff with her questions and agreed to
provide a copy of that memo to Council via email. She stated that it would be helpful to have a
menu of all requested mitigation items with associated costs and potential funding sources. She
stated that she would like to see the removal of coal trains entirely in the City and asked what it
would take to make that happen. She stated that she would also like to see the removal of the
wye and asked whether one part of the wye could be removed in such a way that there is still
access to the current rail customer in the area, but it does not get used for dangerous switching
and blocking activities. She also asked what would happen if property owners do not want to
sell their home under a voluntary buyout/selling program.
Mr. Locke stated that the City could use its eminent domain power for public safety purposes.
Mr. McKenzie stated that the issue with the coal trains is that some of the track needs
rehabilitation around Appleton and TCW has mentioned 15,000 ties over 10-15 miles at a cost of
approximately$2 million would need to be replaced. He indicated that a logical step would be to
apply for a Mn/DOT or FRA grant and do this project as a state project. He discussed the south
wye and options for possible removal and associated costs.
Councilmember Ross requested further information regarding eminent domain from the
County's perspective as it relates to the City's easement.
Councilmember Santa requested further information regarding the City's authority as it relates to
right-of-way and who makes the decision.
Councilmember Sanger indicated that one of the previous Council resolutions stated that in order
for the City to consider accepting freight rail, it had to be convinced that light rail and freight rail
could not co-exist in the Kenilworth corridor and that this criteria has not been satisfied. She
indicated that the second condition in the Council resolution stated that if freight rail was not to
be remain in the Kenilworth corridor, the City would only accept the re-route if a laundry list of
mitigation criteria were addressed. She stated that the City now knows that none of the
requirements contained in the resolution have been satisfied. She suggested that the City draft an
additional resolution restating its firm position, as well as an additional resolution that contains
issues that need to be addressed, specifically including the wye issue, economic compensation
related to property value reductions, and mitigation at Beltline and Wooddale due to the
additional traffic caused by light rail. She noted that it strikes her as an obvious omission that
mitigation is not addressed as part of the light rail budget and it will be important for the City to
learn what the County's proposal is in this regard. She added that she felt the light rail budget
ought to be tapped for mitigation for the Oak Hill neighborhood against train-related noise and in
other neighborhoods where the light rail tracks are located.
Mayor Jacobs agreed with Councilmember Sanger's suggestions and requested that staff provide
information on what it would take to get trains out of St. Louis Park completely.
Mr. Locke stated that the question of removing trains entirely has come up in the past and the
question can only be answered by the railroads and the railroads are not interested in trying to
answer that question. He added that it would take a significant amount of money just to figure
out what the removal costs would be.
Study Session Minutes -5- May 9, 2011
Councilmember Finkelstein requested further information on funding sources, e.g., the
Environmental Response Fund, Federal Real Authority, Hennepin County, Met Council, and
others, for different mitigation projects. He also asked what is meant by welded tracks on the
MNS line and whether that will allow longer trains and/or the commuter Dan Patch line.
Mr. McKenzie explained that a proposal has been made to replace the rail with a 136 pound rail,
will not increase the weight per car but would allow for faster trains. Vibration and noise will
increase with speed and length of trains. Welded rail reduces the noise and vibration, but the
increased speed will off set the decrease.
Mr. Locke stated that the improvements being proposed would not in and of themselves make
commuter rail possible and the current design is still 25 mph.
Councilmember Santa stated that residents have expressed concern that those items identified as
mitigation have been classified as betterments by the County. She requested that the list of
mitigation include all items identified by residents, by the City, and through the PMT process,
including those items identified as betterments.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she felt the first priority for the Council has to be that the City
wants the trains in the Kenilworth corridor, and that mitigation only comes into play if there is no
way the trains can stay in Kenilworth. She indicated that this will put the ball back in the
County's and Mn/DOT's court to address the City's concerns. She expressed concern that at the
end of the day, the City will be told by the County that if the City wants to fix all the livability
issues, the City has to pay for it. She also urged the City to put some pressure on the County to
address the question of the bike trail. She requested clarification regarding the EAW comment
period and asked who reads and responds to the comments.
Mr. Locke stated that Mn/DOT, as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), will respond to
all comments made on the EAW.
Mr. Harmening explained that the primary purpose of an EAW is to document environmental
impacts and the RGU will then determine whether an environmental impact statement (EIS)
needs to be done.
3. Communications/Meeting Check-in (Verbal)
Councilmember Mavity noted that the 2010 solid waste annual report showed a participation rate
at 90% but total tonnage is down and the City did not meet the goals of the grant from the
County on recycling. She requested that staff look into the issue and provide suggestions on
increasing recycling in the City.
The meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
4. 2010 Solid Waste Annual Report
5. Minnehaha Creek Re-Meander Project %
6. Community Days of Service 2011
mA
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff aco 4, ayor