Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/11/13 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session // St. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 13, 2012 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Recreation Superintendent (Mr. Birno), Community Liaison (Ms. Olson), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). Guest: Community Recreation Facility Task Force Members Mr. Sandy Olevitch, Mr. Jim Beneke, Mr. Gregg Lindberg, Mr. Tom Worthington, Ms. Karoline Pierson, Ms. Shirley Zimmerman, and Mr. Mike Lamb from Cuningham Group Architecture. 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning— November 19 & November 26, 2012 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for November 19, 2012, and the proposed study session agenda for November 26, 2012. He advised that the Highway 7 and Louisiana Update will not be ready for discussion on November 19th and suggested moving the discussion regarding the Eliot School Comp Plan Amendment before the City Council meeting. Councilmember Sanger stated she was recently contacted by a veterinarian who has asked if the City would be willing to consider the necessary ordinances that would permit him to have a mobile clinic in which he would offer low cost vaccination services for pets and requested that Council have a discussion regarding this. Mr. Harmening agreed to add this item to a future study session agenda. 2. Community Recreation Facility Task Force Update Ms. Walsh presented the staff report and introduced Community Recreation Facility Task Force Members Sandy Olevitch, Jim Beneke, Gregg Lindberg, Tom Worthington, Karoline Pierson, Shirley Zimmerman, and Mike Lamb from Cumngham Group Architecture as well as Mr Birno and Ms. Olson. Mr. Beneke recited the mission of the Community Recreation Facility Task Force, which served as the foundation for the task force's work. Mr. Worthington advised the Community Recreation Facility Task Force met ten times and reviewed the community survey, toured a variety of community recreation facilities, and discussed program needs and uses they felt were important for a community recreation facility. He stated that following the meeting with Council in June, the task force reviewed site selection criteria and used a ranking process to select possible sites. Study Session Minutes -2- November 13, 2012 Mr. Sandy Olevitch stated the Community Recreation Facility Task Force suggests that program components include a gymnasium, drop-in child care, community room, commons/large gathering space, pool, water play area, walking track, fitness equipment, workout classes, indoor playground equipment and parking. Ms. Zimmerman stated that site selection criteria included convenience, easy access, near civic gathenng spaces, and safe location with good walking and bike paths. She indicated a high pnority was placed on aesthetics and green space and the task force wants the City to use existing public land for any facility. She stated the task force wants a site that connects many different destinations and is close to public transportation. She added the cnteria also considered redevelopment opportunities and blighted areas and the possibility of developing partnerships to create the facility. Ms. Pierson advised the task force reviewed twelve possible locations and went through a ranking process to narrow the list down to five possible locations, which includes the Rec Center/Wolfe Park, the former Bally's site, the area southwest of 36th and Highway 100 (American Legion site), Aquila Park, and the stadium field area by the school. Mr. Lindberg discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the two options for the Rec Center/Wolfe Park and stated that Candidate Site lA would be on the Rec Center site with some structured parking and the task force felt it would complement the current use of the site with good access to trails and relatively central location. He stated that disadvantages include a need for structured parking and the added cost. He advised that disadvantages of Candidate Site 1B include the loss of synergy with the Rec Center given its location and the dangerous crossing at Monterey. He stated that Candidate Site 2 includes great connections to public transportation and this is a popular area of the City; disadvantages include availability of parking and the small size of this site. He stated that Candidate Site 3 is located near public transportation as well as the senior housing in this area; disadvantages include a requirement to purchase additional land and pedestnan safety issues at 36`h Street. He advised that advantages with the Aquila Park site mimic the Rec Center site; disadvantages include relocating the tennis courts, concerns regarding additional traffic in this residential area, and the impact on the annual fireworks event. He stated the stadium field area site has considerable drawbacks and the task force felt this site should be held from further consideration due to the significant issues that make feasibility of this site questionable. Ms. Walsh requested that Council acknowledge the other Community Recreation Facility Task Force members, who regularly attended the meetings but are not present this evening, including Laurie Hynes, Joel Odens, Chuck Souvignier, John Herbert, Lisa Greene, Mary Walters, and Sophia Flumerfelt. Councilmember Spam requested clarification regarding the task force's thought process regarding a competition pool. Ms. Walsh stated that the idea of a competitive pool was thoroughly discussed and the idea was dismissed for several reasons. Competition pools are kept a cooler temperature and are not conducive to community use. If there is a need for a competitive pool in the City, the task force believes that it should be undertaken by the school distnct and located at their facility. She stated the pool proposed in this facility needs further definition. The task force talked about a lap swimming pool for fitness and would like Council to consider a water feature as part of a pool, Study Session Minutes -3- November 13, 2012 but not a competition pool. She added there may be a need for the School District to revamp some of their facilities. Councilmember Ross felt the task'force did a good job on this and presented a thorough report. She requested further information regarding the amount of land needed for a facility. She indicated that residents in Ward 4 feel like everything is on the other side of town and not in her ward. She also acknowledged that Ward 4 does not have a lot of space for this type of facility. Ms. Pierson stated that the sites selected are closer to the City's population center and the task force wanted to make sure a facility was close to trails and easily accessible for everyone, adding that if a facility were located in the northwest corner of the City it would be harder to draw people into that location. She stated that the task force does not see this facility as a Ward issue but rather a community issue. She indicated the need to build in a location where the community would best use it, and synergy with other facilities is more important than the exact location. Ms. Walsh stated the task force talked a lot about drawing people from all areas of the City and felt the sites that they selected would be easily accessible for everyone. She advised that the facility would be a two-acre site and might include a two-story building that builds on the gathering place component as well as the Rec Center components. Councilmember Santa stated she was pleased with the thoroughness of the task force's work. She asked about the anticipated lifespan of the Rec Center site and how a new facility will energize or revitalize the current Rec Center. Ms. Pierson stated the task force wants the facility to be a family friendly destination with a community room feel and felt the Rec Center site offers activities that are close by. Councilmember Hallfin commended the task force for its work on this project and expressed appreciation for their time. Councilmember Sanger thanked the task force for all their hard work and thoughtful analysis. She expressed some concern regarding the proposed location stating she felt the list of criteria was too constrained. She stated she was not sure why site selection was limited to public land and felt consideration should be given to developing some blighted pnvate parcels. She stated she was not a fan of putting a facility by the Rec Center and did not agree with taking part of Wolfe Park. She stated she liked the Aquila Park site and also liked the idea of a facility in the Texa Tonka area. She agreed the facility needs to be accessible but did not think the City should count on people being able to take light rail to get to the facility, particularly when nobody will take public transit to drop in for half an hour. She stated she would rather see a facility located along the #17 bus line because that covers the most neighborhoods and hoped Council could have further discussion about that. She agreed the facility should be multi-generational and was hopeful that Lenox could be merged with the facility. She added she really liked the Chaska model and felt the task force report provided a great starting point for the City. Ms. Walsh stated that the Lenox model has some successful components but does not represent what the future will be for baby boomers, adding that if you set aside space for a specific age group, that space does not get used a lot of the time. She stressed that the task force studied sites throughout the community, including the Texa Tonka site, which was determined to be too small to accommodate the size of facility being considered." Study Session Minutes -4- November 13, 2012 Councilmember Mavity expressed appreciation for all the work the task force members put into this project. She requested further information regarding programming and stated she would like to see this modeled to make sure the facility has the space to draw in the kinds of use and crowds the City wants. Ms. Walsh advised that the next phase would include modeling and further detail about how each space could get used. Councilmember Mavity agreed that the Texa Tonka area could use a refresher but urged Council to remember that these areas sustain local businesses and local jobs and felt the City needs to be a little cautious about how it approaches redeveloping a blighted area for this type of use. Mr. Lindberg stated that the task force considered the Texa Tonka site but the program needs did not fit on this site. That site was discussed and eliminated for a variety of reasons. Mr. Harmening stated the work of the Community Recreation Facility Task Force has been completed and suggested that Council have a study session discussion in December to discuss program components, site analysis, financial considerations, and operational impacts. He also suggested that the City request community input after its study session discussion in December. Mayor Jacobs thanked the Community Recreation Facility Task Force members for all their great work. 3. Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and thanked Mr. Locke and Ms. McMonigal and their team for reviewing and summarizing the DEIS in preparation for submitting comments to the County by December 11th. He stated that Council will have an opportunity at the November 26th study session to further review the City's comments with final approval by Council on December 3'l or December 10`h. Mr. Locke stated that the issue of freight rail operations on the MN&S tracks and the challenges that the current MN&S design creates for freight trains needs to be expanded upon as well as what that means for the City in terms of noise issues and viability of the route. Councilmember Spano stated the DEIS indicates that the focus is metro transit planning not what is in St. Louis Park's best interests and he did not see a discussion of mitigation anywhere in the DEIS. He indicated if Met Council decides to co-locate or reroute, there are going to be safety issues and none of those safety issues are addressed in the DEIS. He stated the DEIS does not address the wye, grade separation, or safety at the school. Councilmember Ross agreed with Councilmember Spano's comments and stated there is a glaring omission in the DEIS regarding costs and the cost to reroute. She stated the DEIS contains no real costs associated with mitigation, impact to businesses, and the taking of homes and added she was not sure how the County could create a study and not talk about money. She indicated the DEIS talks about co-location at various points primarily west of 169 but did not understand how is it you can co-locate there and not in St. Louis Park. She added she did not understand how these discussions about rail lines could be taking place when the railroads are not at the table and felt the biggest stakeholder should be at the table. Study Session.Minutes -5- November 13, 2012 Councilmember Santa agreed with Councilmembers Spano and Ross and stated the area she focused on is community cohesion and the quality of life goal. She indicated the DEIS talks about the significant impact of co-location but there is nothing about what it does to St. Louis Park, adding that her theory is if you say there is no impact that means there is no money for mitigation and she was concerned about that. She stated that the rerouting quarters the community because it cuts off the community from the schools as well as residential areas, businesses, and parks. She stated the community impacts are significant and the DEIS does not indicate whether they have looked at these impacts. That means there is no money for mitigation because it runs both north-south and east-west at different points and cuts off the community. Councilmember Hallfin agreed with the comments regarding mitigation. He stated there appears to be a $122 million difference between the cost comparisons which means co-location of trains would cost $122 million less if they do the reroute but there are no numbers to back it up and he wants to see numbers. He stated one of the big pieces in the Kenilworth comdor is a 60-unit building they do not want to tear down which might add more cost not currently in their budget. He questioned whether the County has looked at mitigation to parks and stated he would like more answers regarding park land. Councilmember Sanger agreed with all of the previous comments and stated the only mitigation offering was the whistle quiet zone but the railroads have said they have to blow their horns there because there are blind S curves. She stated the DEIS has to address noise issues and vibration in addition to all the other mitigation. She stated the DEIS indicates co-location is not possible because five studies said it was not possible but there was apparently no analysis of the City's position regarding co-location and the County appears to have dismissed what the City has said. She stated none of the studies looked at the question of moving the bike trail and felt this needs to be addressed, particularly if the bike trail is moved and park land is taken. She agreed that the City's comments need to focus on freight rail operations and the question of how do trains go south noting that the DEIS does not propose to take out the wye and proposes to run trains north around a loop on a new siding on the BN tracks then turn around and go back south through the neighborhoods but the railroads have said they will not do that. She referenced the comment in the DEIS that asserts the benefits of light rail outweigh the negative impacts of the reroute and there is no criteria for how they reached that conclusion, including no analysis of traffic in St. Louis Park, how it divides neighborhoods, and trains blocking intersections. She stated there is also nothing in the DEIS that talks about operating agreements with the railroads or how all this works operationally and she would like those arrangements made public or, if agreements have not been reached, she would like to know why. She stated the City also needs to know if the County is going to pay the railroads a lot of money to get them to agree. She stated that a lot of the DEIS document was lifted from the EAW without additional analysis. She stated the EAW was vacated and asked what the legal status of the EAW is because it has been vacated. She asked if the County can rely on the EAW and if so, whether the County has to take into account all the prior comments to the EAW. She also asked what happens if trains are rerouted and a derailment occurs and whether St. Louis Park would be held responsible for a derailment. Councilmember Mavity agreed with the previous comments and stated she would like more information about the 6th goal regarding construction impacts. She stated the safety issues at Wooddale are a significant concern as well as the traffic projections for the crossings. She stated one of the City's priorities has been to remove the wye and stated co-location does not address the goal of removing the wye. She stated mitigation during and after construction needs to be • Study Session Minutes -6- November 13, 2012 addressed and urged the City to make sure it considers the impact on businesses both dunng and after construction. Mayor Jacobs agreed with all the previous comments and stated the biggest issue for him is mitigation which the DEIS does not address. He shared Councilmember Ross's concern that the railroads are not at the table. He stated he would like more detail on the cost comparison and would like to see more analysis on the traffic implications adding that the DEIS does not address the issue of trains blocking intersections. Councilmember Spano stated there are going to be significant issues whether freight rail is co- located or rerouted and urged the City to make sure it has a robust list of impacts to the community and mitigation for those impacts. Councilmember Ross stated she was particularly concerned about the impact to schools not only from vibration and noise but the impact from blocked intersections. Councilmember Santa reiterated her concern that if the DEIS does not indicate there is going to be a problem then there is no impact and if there is no impact, there is no mitigation. She stated she needed to see more about mitigation for homes, businesses, and schools both during and after construction to make sure there is realistic mitigation over a long period of time. Councilmember Sanger stated the DEIS does not mention creation of a buffer as mitigation for the reroute. She stated the DEIS does not contain a plan for the taking of homes including criteria for taking homes. Councilmember Mavity stated that light rail itself requires sound mitigation with so much housing around the light rail stations, particularly Wooddale, and she would like to make sure the mitigation needed around the light rail stations is captured in the DEIS. She stated that the buffer issue involves a lot of policy issues for Council and suggested that Council create a placeholder to have a discussion later on this issue. Councilmember Sanger stated that mitigation at the light rail stations will come from the light rail budget whether or not the trains are rerouted and the City needs to be very clear that things that have to be done at the light rail stations are not just mitigation for the reroute and are needed for the stations no matter what. Mr. Harmening stated the County is holding a public heanng on Wednesday, November 14th, at 5:00 p.m. at City Hall and Commissioners Dorfman, McLaughlin, and Callison will be attending. He stated there will be no formal presentation and speakers will be given three minutes each. He asked if the City should make an opening statement. It was the consensus of the City Council to direct Mr. Harmening to present opening remarks at the November 14`h public hearing and to reference the City's official position regarding light rail and freight rail. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) None. The meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m. Study Session Minutes -7- November 13, 2012 Wntten Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 4. Administrative Penalties Hearing Officer Appoint • • cWal ikuduktu. ( Jeff J. ,,b, yor r - hii d.u.r a , A-a-1-,ty c,+ Geri(