HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/07/22 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session I/f St. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES
MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JULY 22,2013
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity (arrived at 6:34 p.m.),
Julia Ross (arrived at 6:35 p.m.), Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Jake Spano.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Operations and Recreation (Ms.
Walsh), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther),
Communications Coordinator(Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary(Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Victor Pechaty(HGA), David Graham and Justin Merkovich (ESG Architects).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning—July 29 and August 12, 2013
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for July 29, 2013, and the
proposed study session agenda for August 12, 2013. He advised that the August 12th study
session agenda will also include discussion of the West End PUD primarily related to parking.
2. Community Center Final Report—Cost Estimate and Site Analysis
Ms. Walsh presented the staff report and introduced Mr. Victor Pechaty, Vice President of
Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. (HGA).
Mr. Pechaty presented the site analysis prepared for the W. 36th Street site referred to as the
"Urban Edge West"design and explained that the Urban Edge West site is just over one acre and
they were not able to provide parking and a 104,000 square foot building on the same parcel so
this option assumes collaborative parking with the Burlington site; in addition, the building
would have to extend four stories because of the small footprint of this site resulting in a
construction cost premium to stack large spaces like gymnasiums and pools on top. He stated
the Urban Edge West design includes two levels of underground parking to accomplish parking
on the site with the remainder of parking in a new four-story parking ramp south of the building,
adding that parking would be replaced on a 1:1 ratio and the Urban Edge West Design provides a
total of 1,140 parking stalls. He stated there might be opportunities to look at some parking
efficiencies either by assuming not every program is occupied simultaneously as well as transit
options that could lower the amount of parking required He presented the cost estimate for the
Urban Edge West design, noting the cost estimate is based on today's dollars and factors in
inflation costs for the construction industry. He explained that a 20% multiplier was also
included for soft costs, e.g., surveys, soil borings, design fees, furniture, and equipment and the
total project cost for the Urban Edge West design is approximately$50 million.
Councilmember Santa asked if the building costs assume a level of green technology.
Mr. Pechaty stated the Urban Edge West design is a good candidate for LEED and some
sustainable design elements have been included in the design, adding that specialized systems,
e.g., geothermal heating and cooling, have not been included in the design.
Study Session Minutes -2- July 22, 2013
Mr. Walther stated that the baseline assumptions used in the community center design are
equivalent to what was done at the new fire stations.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there is an implicit presumption that the City could work out a
shared parking arrangement on this site.
Mr. Pechaty replied in the affirmative and stated their study determined that even with some
transit related parking savings, this one-acre site is not large enough for a building and parking
ramp.
Councilmember Mavity pointed out that traffic issues will continue to be a challenge in this area
particularly related to light rail and was concerned about generating more traffic in this area.
Mr. Pechaty presented two site analyses prepared for the Rec Center site and stated the
"Gateway" design includes some programs constructed on the Melrose site with a skyway link
crossing over Monterey Drive. He stated the Gateway design has 104,000 square feet and
replaces parking on a 1:1 ratio with the addition of 650 parking stalls, noting this number could
be reduced by transit calculations or a reduction of building programs. He advised this option
provides meeting and gathering facilities, including a banquet hall, on the Melrose site. He stated
that a significant characteristic of this option is the addition of a parking ramp to the south of the
existing building that will accommodate 190 stalls.
Mayor Jacobs expressed concern about the proposed location of the skateboard park and
potential security issues.
Councilmember Mavity asked if the Melrose parking structure could be used to meet the total
number of parking spaces required and whether use of this public parking could result in
eliminating the fourth floor of the proposed parking ramp.
Mr. Pechaty stated this would be an option worth considering adding the site design did not
consider shared parking use with neighboring properties. He then presented the cost estimate for
the Gateway design stating the cost of the skyway element is approximately $2.5 million, the
cost of the building is approximately $32 million, and the cost of the parking ramp is
approximately $12.8 million for a total project cost of approximately $47.5 million. He then
presented the site analysis for the "Parkview" option and explained this option has the building
addition to the south of the existing Rec Center with a two-level parking deck constructed over
the current parking lot. He noted that this option has built more parking on the Melrose site with
no building functions on the Melrose site and no skyway element.
Councilmember Hallfin asked if the parking deck would cover the same footprint that currently
exists on this site.
Mr. Pechaty replied in the affirmative and stated that staff at the Rec Center believes that current
parking availability is sufficient and this design includes no plan for overflow parking. He then
presented the cost estimate for the Parkview design stating the cost of the building is estimated at
$32.7 million and the parking ramp is estimated at $12.5 million for a total cost of$45.2 million.
Councilmember Mavity stated the City could realize some savings if parking on the Melrose site
could be utilized and by taking an entire floor off the parking ramp. She also asked about the
possibility of putting an activity area on top of the parking ramp.
Study Session Minutes -3- July 22, 2013
Mr. Pechaty stated this was an option worth studying, adding if this site were selected there may
be some hybrid options that could be considered, e.g., having a gym and pool at grade with
fitness rooms and/or running tracks integrated over a parking deck.
Councilmember Sanger requested that an updated analysis be provided to Council with
information regarding additional property taxes required to pay for the community center based
on the site designs presented this evening.
Councilmember Mavity requested that this analysis take into account the increased residential
development occurring in the City resulting in a higher tax base.
Councilmember Sanger felt that the W. 36th Street site should not be analyzed any further given
the constraints with the site and the assumptions about shared parking.
Mayor Jacobs agreed the W. 36th Street site would not work especially given the existing traffic
issues in this area.
Councilmember Ross agreed with the comments regarding the W. 36th Street site, adding that
these dollar amounts cause her concern, particularly since the City has other significant projects
that will impact taxpayers. She stated she liked the Gateway site design with the community
room located across the street, particularly for banquets or weddings, because any noise from a
banquet or wedding will not spill over into the larger site and vice versa.
Councilmember Santa agreed the W. 36th Street site would not work adding this site can never be
expanded. She stated she liked the Parkview design because it builds on the synergy happening
at the Rec Center and at Wolfe Park, adding the Parkview design begs for a remodel of the Rec
Center and some integration between what is going in a new community center and the current
Rec Center. She stated she conceptually liked the idea of a skyway and a safe crossing at
Monterey Drive, but did not like having the programming split and would prefer to see all
programs in one place. She felt the Parkview design has the potential for providing a building
that could provide relevant services to the community for fifty years and has the ability to expand
and reconfigure in the future if needed.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he was very surprised by the cost estimates and agreed that it
would be helpful to have updated tax base information. He added if Council decides that a
community center is not feasible after further study is done,he would be okay with that.
Councilmember Mavity felt the Gateway design had potential and urged the City to be creative
with the design to accommodate uses that incorporate urban growth and smart growth strategies,
adding she did not like seeing huge parking structures in the design. She acknowledged the
significant cost estimates and questioned whether it would make sense to consider a phased
approach for construction of a community center.
Mr. Pechaty stated that a phased approach is common for this type of project where a master plan
is prepared and the project built incrementally as dollars become available.
Ms. Walsh asked if Council was interested in having staff proceed to another level of planning to
cost out each program.
Study Session Minutes -4-
July 22, 2013
It was the consensus of the City Council that staff should not proceed at this time to another level
of architectural design. It was the consensus of the Council to conduct further financial analysis,
including property tax impacts to residents.
Councilmember Sanger requested that staff provide information related to overall operational
costs and how fees generated at the community center would offset those costs and how those
costs compare with other community centers.
Ms. Walsh agreed to provide this information to Council.
Mr. Harmening stated the preliminary cost analysis prepared earlier by staff assumed a $25
million project and was prepared in the context of the sidewalks and trails project and the storm
water improvement project, adding that staff will provide an update on all these projects so that
Council has an understanding of how these significant capital projects affect taxpayers.
3. DLC Apartments Concept Plan
Mr. Walther presented the staff report and explained that Dolce Living proposes to redevelop the
former Chili's site with 163 market rate apartment units with a proposed density of
approximately 100 units per acre. He then introduced Mr. David Graham from ESG Architects.
Mr. Graham presented the concept plans and stated the design vision and purpose for the
proposed development is to extend the vitality of the Shops at West End with 163 dwelling units
on the Chili's site. He explained that the creation of a new street on private land connecting
Wayzata Boulevard to 16th Street will function as a landscaped public street with parking for
residents and will create pedestrian connections to the Shops at West End. He presented a
drawing of the overall site plan and preliminary massing studies for the building in Phase 1. He
also presented comparative information from the Excelsior and Grand project to demonstrate
how the proposed residential development fits into this location using urban design best practices
in higher density communities.
Councilmember Mavity felt that this kind of density in this location was appropriate. She
expressed reservations about the private street and urged staff to make sure the City has clear
easement access in perpetuity if that approach is used. She also felt this proposal once again
represents a lost opportunity to try to provide more affordable housing in the community.
Councilmember Sanger stated she did not think this site was appropriate for housing and felt it
would make more sense if the site were used for retail, commercial, office, or some combination
thereof, adding that even if consensus is reached to go forward with the residential development,
she felt the proposed density was too high. She stated she would not support a project with so
many small studio and one-bedroom apartments. She urged Council to consider a moratorium
on apartment development and conduct a study regarding whether the City needs any more
apartments and if so, what sizes of apartments are needed as well as where the apartments are
needed. She added she did not think that building so many apartments was good for the long
term health of the community and the goal of providing more housing to help support the City's
school system.
Councilmember Ross agreed this development was missing the mark in terms of affordable
housing and felt this would be a great area to have affordable housing. She agreed that the
Study Session Minutes -5- July 22, 2013
proposed density was too high and also expressed concern about existing traffic issues in this
area, stating she would not support the proposed development as currently presented.
Councilmember Santa expressed concern about the proposed density and expressed a growing
concern about the number of rental units being built in the City.
Councilmember Hallfin requested further information regarding the City's ordinance related to
shading. He also requested information regarding monthly rental rates.
Mr. Walther advised the proposed buildings would not shade existing buildings in violation of
the City's ordinance and stated the Flats at West End was granted a variance to shade the south
side of the hotel building because it was built before the hotel was built.
Mr. Graham stated that a one bedroom apartment would have a monthly rental of approximately
$1,500-$1,600.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he is a strong advocate for single family homes but in this area
that would not work. He asked if the Olive Garden site is proposed to include rental housing.
Mr. Graham stated the Olive Garden site could include a number of things and will likely include
housing of some kind.
Councilmember Mavity urged Council to refine its policy to give clear direction to developers
related to housing. She added that the target market in this area is different than the Excelsior &
Grand market and did not think that larger apartments in this development would fit this location.
Mr. Graham stated they did a lot of research on home ownership and the trend is that people
want to rent for a while and this represents a great site for apartments. He added these units will
be condominium quality apartments that could be converted in the future if the market changes.
Mayor Jacobs and Councilmembers Mavity and Hallfin stated they generally supported the
concept plan as presented and acknowledged the concerns regarding traffic and density.
Councilmembers Ross, Santa, and Sanger stated they would not support the concept plan as
presented because of the density.
It was the general consensus of the City Council that the proposed density was problematic and
that a refined plan should be prepared and presented to Council
Mr. Walther advised that staff is in the process of updating the AUAR for the West End and this
information will be presented to Council in August.
Mr. Graham stated they plan to submit a formal PUD amendment application in the near future.
Councilmember Hallfin requested information about the footprint for the proposed development
compared to the Flats at West End.
Mr. Graham explained that this site is 20% larger at 1.6 acres and in order to make this project
viable they need to stick to 160 units, adding that reducing the density by 30%would not work.
Study Session Minutes -6- July 22, 2013
Councilmember Santa requested that Mr. Graham present information to Council on how the
traffic is going to work in this area.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Councilmember Mavity stated the Business Park Rezoning has come up repeatedly and as noted
in the written staff report, this classification has been looked at in relation to station area
planning and the City has heard that the classification is too restnctive in terms of mixed use
development largely because it does not allow housing. She acknowledged this classification has
a PUD applicable to it but was not sure that this was enough and expressed concern about the
City not wanting to direct the market in these areas. She also raised the possibility of exploring
form based zoning.
Mr. Locke indicated the City received a grant for form based zoning in the Beltline area and
further information will be presented to Council in the near future.
Councilmember Sanger felt that a discussion regarding form based zoning was merited and
would provide an opportunity to incorporate architectural design standards or guidelines in the
ordinances. She referenced the written report regarding the City's proposed acquisition of 4601
Highway 7 and requested that staff provide information about possible uses for this property and
how it fits with the bank and other properties in the area.
Mr. Locke explained the broad plan for this area has been done in terms of the Beltline station
area planning and some of that is being reconsidered now as part of the community works
planning. He stated it was the City's desire to control this property now that it is for sale and to
possibly get control of the bank property or to work with the bank on redevelopment of the site
with the goal of creating a more pedestrian oriented site with higher density uses including office
and residential/mixed use.
It was the consensus of the City Council to support the proposed terms for acquiring the property
located at 4601 Highway 7.
Mayor Jacobs discussed the proposed press release regarding SWLRT and reported that Mr.
Brimeyer strongly urged the City to wait a couple of days before issuing the press release, adding
he will speak with Mr. Brimeyer again tomorrow.
The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
4. Southwest LRT Update
5. June 2013 Monthly Financial Report
6. Second Quarter Investment Report (April—June 2013)
7. Knollwood Development Proposal Update
8. Proposed Property Acquisition: 4601 Hi, •wa 7
9. Business Park Rezoning Update
Nancy Strot�y Clerk Jeff J.co.s, 'ayor