Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/07/29 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Joint IflSt. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES MINNESOTA JOINT CITY COUNCIL/SCHOOL BOARD MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK,MINNESOTA JULY 29, 2013 Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: Julia Ross. School Board Members present: Chair Pro Tern Jim Yarosh, Ken Morrison, Larry Shapiro, Julie Sweitzer, Joe Tatalovich, and Superintendent Robert Metz. School Board Members absent: Chair Bruce Richardson and Vice Chair Nancy Gores. City Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary(Ms. Hughes). Guests: Jim Alexander and Chris Weyer(Southwest LRT Project Office). 1. Southwest LRT Update Mr. Locke presented the staff report and introduced Mr. Jim Alexander and Mr. Chris Weyer from the Southwest LRT Project Office (SPO). He noted that the staff report includes comments regarding the initial station area concept plans that City staff will be providing to the SPO. He advised that a Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) has been issued with a twenty day window provided for comments and the City will be submitting comments before the August 12, 2013, deadline. Mr. Alexander presented a summary of the July 17 and 18 open houses and stated the SPO received over 900 comments on the DEIS and held over 100 Issue Resolution Team meetings. He stated that part of the SPO's process included input from the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) and Community Advisory Committee (CAC) with public input received during thirteen open houses and over 155 community stakeholder meetings. He advised the SPO is following a set of guiding pnnciples for major scoping decisions that was endorsed by the Met Council and the Met Council will be using this document as it makes decisions on the project. He stated the design options being discussed tonight include the Brunswick Central freight rail relocation, Kenilworth deep bore LRT tunnel, and Kenilworth shallow LRT tunnel. He discussed the feedback received during the June 13, 2013, open houses and stated residents expressed a desire to select the best investment versus the least costly option; in addition, there was input regarding colocation stating the tunnel options were seen as a "win-win" for both communities and it minimizes impacts to parkland and trails. He stated there were a lot of concerns raised about the impact of freight rail in the school area as well as concerns about the increased elevation of freight rail, adding freight structures are viewed as dividing the community. School Board Member Tatalovich requested further information regarding the guiding principles. Joint City Council/ School Board Meeting -2- July 29, 2013 Mr. Alexander advised that the Met Council approved the principles on March 27, 2013, and the Met Council will use these principles as it makes decisions on the entire project including freight rail, adding the principles are not weighted and are intended to provide a more qualitative evaluation as the Met Council weighs each of the issues. He then presented a map of the Brunswick Central freight relocation scenario and stated they have had discussions with the railroads regarding an acceptable design and reiterated the railroads and STB need to agree to any relocation. He explained that the Brunswick Central alignment suggests grades of approximately 19' above existing grade and this option bypasses the football field to the east. He stated that primary cost drivers for the Brunswick Central option include the addition of underpasses in the northern neighborhoods and an underpass to access the football field, lowering of TH 7, and reconfiguration of the existing street network south of 33`d. Mr. Alexander then presented a map of the Kenilworth deep bore LRT tunnel and advised the tunnel would start west of Lake Street and range from 30-50' below ground with cut and cover sections at both ends for a total of 7,500' for the cut and cover and bored sections. He explained the West Lake station would be below grade and the tunnel would go under West Lake Street and would require replacement/reconstruction of the bridge. He stated the tunnel would proceed under Cedar Lake Parkway and this option eliminates the 215` Street station with the tunnel ending 1,000' north of 21St Street. He stated that primary cost drivers for the Kenilworth deep bore LRT tunnel include the subway tunnel at West Lake, ventilation systems, and ground water management systems. Mr. Alexander then presented a map of the Kenilworth shallow LRT tunnel and explained that in this case the tunnel starts north of the West Lake Street bridge and would cross the water channel between Lake of the Isles and Cedar Lake. He stated under this option the 21st Street station is not part of the design and the West Lake station is at grade and would require no reworking of the West Lake Street bridge. He stated that primary cost drivers for the Kenilworth shallow LRT tunnel include restricted construction access and ground stabilization at the Burnham Road bridge piers, adding the SPO believes this bridge can be preserved because the piers extend 13' below ground and they can go between the piers to make this option work. He discussed the freight rail common scope elements and costs associated with both freight rail and light rail, stating that these common scope elements are estimated at $85-$90 million. He noted these costs are fully built up costs and include contingency costs and inflation adjustments. He advised the Brunswick Central option is estimated at $190-$200 million, the Kenilworth deep bore LRT tunnel option is estimated at $320-$330 million, and the Kenilworth shallow LRT tunnel is estimated at $150-$160 million, adding that each of these options would be an additional $85- $90 million for the freight rail common scope elements referred to earlier. He indicated the SPO will present the recommended scope and cost to the Corridor Management Committee and the Met Council on August 14, 2013, followed by a request for approval on the scope and cost to the Transportation Committee on August 26, 2013, and to the Met Council on August 28, 2013. Councilmember Santa asked who would be responsible for maintenance of the new freight rail tracks proposed under the design options. Mr. Alexander replied the SPO will need to have further conversations with CP as the current owner of MN&S regarding maintenance of the tracks. Councilmember Santa asked if this will include the portion of the tracks where it currently goes south. Joint City Council/ School Board Meeting -3- July 29, 2013 Mr. Alexander replied in the affirmative, adding the switching wye would be rendered obsolete and removed and the storage track would be removed as well. School Board Member Morrison requested further information about how close the freight rail tracks would be to PSI and the football field under the relocation option. Mr. Alexander explained that the freight rail tracks under the Brunswick Central relocation option are proposed to be approximately 70' east of the edge of the existing stadium and the centerline of the freight rail at its closest point to PSI would be approximately 162'. Councilmember Spano requested further information regarding construction impacts, e.g., noise and impacts of machinery. Mr. Weyer advised that in the case of relocation, work could be done during the time when CP does not operate, e.g., long weekends, adding that all work would have to be well coordinated to keep the railroad in service during construction. He stated there would be similar challenges with colocation in order to keep an active freight rail operational during construction while building the tunnel. He pointed out the Northstar line was built next to an active railroad. Board Member Shapiro requested further information about what happens to the playground. Mr. Alexander stated the Brunswick Central alignment would go through the playground and the SPO believes the play area could be moved to other areas next to the berm. Councilmember Mavity stated that noise and vibration issues have been raised as a key concern and requested the SPO provide comparisons of noise and vibration under each of the scenarios, especially given the proposed elevation of some of the tracks. Mr. Alexander advised the SPO has been doing ambient testing to understand those issues and once the Met Council makes a decision, further analysis would be performed. Councilmember Mavity felt that understanding the noise and vibration issues would be a cntical piece of information to understand before the Met Council makes its decision. Councilmember Hallfin suggested that the School Board consider using the parking lot area next to Park Spanish Immersion School for green space for a playground area to replace the playground space displaced by the freight rail. School Board Member Sweitzer indicated the School Board has talked about the playground area referred to by Councilmember Hallfin. She stated this freight rail reroute would eliminate the grass area that is the playground so it eliminates the playground as well as putting the train right- of-way close to the edge of the blacktop. She pointed out that the other half of PSI includes the early childhood program and there are a lot of families in this area and the parking lot is full. She added it is not just a matter of moving the playground area but also putting trains in an area where children are playing. Councilmember Sanger stated she has heard some assertions that the design options would lead to a dewatering of Lake of the Isles and/or Cedar Lake and asked if the SPO has done any hydrology studies to look at the potential impact of tunnels on these lakes. Joint City Council/ School Board Meeting -4- July 29, 2013 Mr. Alexander replied that the ground water is 20' at the south end and the tunnel would be designed and built as watertight as possible. He stated the tunnels are not 100% watertight so there would be areas with a permanent ground water management system to take water out of the tunnel and putting it into the storm or sanitary sewer. He added the amount of water is minimal and he did not see this as a technical issue. School Board Member Tatalovich indicated the guiding principles state the principles were established to provide a clear and transparent process and encouraged the SPO and the Met Council to follow these principles and make the process as quantitative as possible by ranking and weighing the principles based on feedback from residents. Councilmember Santa stated that both relocation scenarios go through the City's existing storm water retention pond and the proposed berm will change how storm water is handled in the City and requested further information about the types of accommodations, if any, that the Met Council will be making to handle storm water created or displaced in the City. Mr. Alexander advised the Brunswick Central alignment goes through the storm water pond south of 33rd and north of Lake Street and the SPO engineers believe a manageable system can be put in place to accommodate the City's storm water needs. He added the SWLRT project is responsible for making the City whole if the project impacts the City's storm water system. Councilmember Spano requested information about project costs and recent articles indicating the project budget had gone up. He also asked if funds have been identified for the project. Mr. Alexander explained the $1.25 billion figure did not include freight rail because at the time they submitted their request to enter PE, freight rail was not part of the project and had to be added into the total project cost figures. He stated that funding for the project includes 50% from the FTA, 30% from CTIP, 10% from Hennepin County, and 10% from the State and advised that the budget range is over the original $1.25 billion and they will have to manage those figures throughout the process going forward. School Board Member Sweitzer requested information regarding mitigation and mitigation costs. Mr. Alexander acknowledged the City's suggested mitigation items, including homes, and stated the design does not include all mitigation. He advised that once a final decision is made the SPO will prepare the SDEIS and FDEIS to identify mitigation where needed, adding they have included a contingency of approximately 30% and that contingency will draw down as they start identifying those items that need to be included as part of the overall project. Councilmember Mavity stated the City has done traffic modeling at Belt Line and Wooddale to look at traffic impacts with freight rail in a colocation model, particularly Belt Line where a 600- stall parking structure is proposed. She stated another key issue for the City is having grade separation at Belt Line and she felt the colocation costs should include grade separation, particularly given the updated freight traffic volumes recently provided to Council. Mr. Alexander stated that these costs are not currently included in the budget. School Board Chair Pro Tem Yarosh asked what would happen if the athletic field has to be taken as part of the project. Joint City Council/ School Board Meeting -5- July 29, 2013 Mr. Alexander stated the SPO/Met Council does not have jurisdiction to condemn property without first demonstrating a project need. He stated if the football field were impacted under the Brunswick West option, there would be a cost owed to the School Distnct to make the School District whole for the taking of the field. Councilmember Santa requested information about mitigation costs and the timeline for determining mitigation. She indicated the SPO will be seeking municipal consent in the fourth quarter of 2013 and questioned how the SPO can expect the City to make a rationale decision without all of this information beforehand. She also asked about the timeline for completing the noise and vibration study, hydrology study, and storm water management plan. Mr. Alexander stated that mitigation will be identified as part of the SDEIS and FDEIS and they will start costing out mitigation through the environmental process. He indicated the Central Corridor did not have all mitigation identified during final design and advised they would continue to work with all five cities and the County throughout the process on mitigation. He stated the storm water system will be part of the ongoing design of the project; evaluations regarding noise and vibration will be done as they move through the process and the SPO will not have all of these issues identified for municipal consent, adding that municipal consent is intended to be high level and set the stage for layout of track and station locations. He agreed to provide an example of the Central Corridor municipal consent. Councilmember Mavity requested that the Met Council provide a visual rendenng of the reroute. She felt it was the Met Council's responsibility to provide the City with costs and modeling for noise, traffic, and vibration and the City needs that information pnor to making a decision on municipal consent. Councilmember Sanger stated it was her understanding the FTA has not indicated that a vote on municipal consent is required in 2013 and felt the SPO should provide all requested information to the City prior to municipal consent even if it means delaying the municipal consent vote. Mr. Alexander stated the FTA does not dictate municipal consent and acknowledged the concerns that the process is moving too fast but the SPO is trying to get decisions made in a rapid fashion to keep on schedule and keep costs down. Councilmember Spano requested an overhead view of the alignment as it approaches the football stadium and playground area including dimensions from the centerline and berm. Mr. Alexander agreed to provide this information. Councilmember Sanger requested a video simulation showing the entire reroute. Mr. Weyer stated this simulation was done for light rail and indicated the SPO would take Councilmember Sanger's request under consideration. Discussion regarding Station Areas Mr. Locke presented design drawings of the Belt Line, Wooddale, and Louisiana Avenue stations and explained the Louisiana Avenue station platform is shown close to Oxford and the City has suggested moving the station platform farther south on the switching wye and closer to the hospital. He stated the City has suggested moving the Wooddale station platform farther to Joint City Council/ School Board Meeting -6- July 29, 2013 the east to Xenwood and extending Xenwood to the south frontage road. He stated the City has suggested a grade separation at Belt Line under the light rail/freight rail/trail corridor to address circulation issues in this area. He pointed out the drawings show a 500+ vehicle park and ride and the City has suggested this park and ride should be an interim use for future redevelopment or integrated into a development similar to Excelsior& Grand that serves a broader purpose. Councilmember Sanger expressed concern about parking on Belt Line and stated it will be important to determine the scope of parking needed at this location. She added the City will also need a plan for redeveloping a site that will be used for parking and stated she would rather have a smaller park and ride than at grade surface lots. She also questioned how pedestrians would be provided safe passage to the Louisiana Avenue station. Councilmember Santa expressed concern about how mass transit buses fit into the planning process. She stated there is a lot of surface parking encouraging people to drive to the transit stations but did not see any plans for getting people without a car to the station areas. Councilmember Mavity expressed concern about the Louisiana Avenue station and felt that having a parking lot with a bridge over to the light rail station was not welcoming or safe. She added there are no development opportunities around this site resulting in lost economic investment for jobs. She felt the Belt Line station park and ride represented a short-term strategy and expressed concern about increased congestion in this area. Mr. Locke indicated that further information regarding station areas will be presented to Council at a future study session. 2. Update on School District Referendum Superintendent Metz presented information on the School District's referendum and advised that the School District initiated a community survey of residents about a possible referendum and the School Board will meet on August 5 to review the survey results and possible tax impact. He stated the School Board will meet on August 12 to approve ballot questions and on August 13 an informational campaign on the referendum will begin. He explained that possible considerations for the referendum include a technology levy because the current technology levy expires after the 2014-15 school year. He stated another referendum consideration is to ask for bond money to keep up with repairs and improvements on the School District buildings. He advised that School District enrollment has increased and the recent legislation regarding all-day kindergarten will result in space issues and the School District is considering adding classrooms at Aquila, Peter Hobart, and Susan Lindgren as a cost efficient way to manage enrollment versus opening another building. He stated a fourth consideration is to request additional operating money to keep the School District's programming up to date and keeping class sizes down. Councilmember Sanger requested that the School District provide Council with a summary of the School District's analysis and a list of items being asked for in the referendum as well as the impact to the average homeowner in the community. Councilmember Hallfin requested information about the last referendum as well as information about the number of students in the School District when there were four elementary schools open and the School District's threshold for determining when to open another school. Joint City Council/ School Board Meeting -7- July 29, 2013 School Board Member Shapiro stated the technology levy was passed fifteen years ago and there was a building referendum four years ago. He advised that opening a school costs $500,000- 600,000 of operating money over and above the School District's budget which would take away what the District can spend somewhere else whereas adding on to an existing school would require the School District to incur capital costs but no operating costs. He added if the School District were to open Cedar Manor it would require ten teachers and approximately 300 additional students. School Board Chair ProTem Yarosh stated the technology levy is a renewal levy of approximately $1.75 million and the capital bonding referendum is approximately $10 million. He added the School District also has an opportunity to do a refunding of some of its bonds that will result in savings. Superintendent Metz agreed to provide further information to Council following the August 12 School Board meeting. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m. - 1 /• Nancy Stroth, ity Clerk Jeff Jac'ifs s,h1 ay,r