Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/11/09 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session Jfist. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 9, 2015 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m Councilmembers present. Mayor Pro Tem Gregg Lindberg, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent. Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present. Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), City Assessor (Mr. Bultema), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Finance Manager (Mr Swanson), Director of Operations & Recreation (Ms Walsh), Senior Planner (Mr Walther), Public Works Superintendent (Mr. Hanson); Operations Manager (Mr. Stevens); Financial Supervisor (Mr. Heintz); Communications Specialist (Ms. Pribbenow), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Wirth). Guest: None 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning—November 23, 2015 Ms. Deno presented the proposed Study Session agenda for November 23rd 2. 2016 Budget Update Ms. Deno introduced the topic and stated the Council requested to discuss the percentage for the 2016 levy. Council certified 6.5% as the preliminary levy, and staff provided detailed information on both a 5.5% and 6% levy. This item was placed on the agenda by Council and is open for discussion. Councilmember Sanger stated she is comfortable with a 6% levy with the increment identified for purposes that used to be subsidized by private activity revenue bonds Mr Swanson explained how the Housing Rehabilitation Fund was used and staff's recommendation that the additional dollars be saved in that fund to address long-term sustainability issues. He noted the funds can be reallocated, if needed, or used to finance a use the Council deems more appropriate. Councilmember Mavity supported a 6% levy and asked staff to make sure it is noted that the additional .5% difference is equal to $1 37 per homeowner per month. Those additional dollars will allow the City to take on a full range of additional items. Councilmember Spano stated he supports staff's recommendation and asked to also look at the options for recycling/compost, increased marketing, or partnership opportunities. Councilmember Brausen supported a 6% levy with the additional money placed in the Housing Rehabilitation Fund and would support increased funding to take on additional housing projects. Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg supported a 6% levy as it met the Council's stated goals and objectives Study Session Minutes -2- November 9, 2015 It was the consensus of the Council to have staff present information for a 6% levy for 2016. 3. Monterey Drive/Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study—Continued Ms. Heiser presented the staff report and went over the additional analysis completed for Alternative 6 (traffic signal with full access). Staff does not recommend this alternative because it would result in significant Monterey Drive queuing and block the Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive intersection, conditions that do not exist today. She used a slide to display the subject site and described traffic circulation and conditions, noting the Trader Joe's driveway would be blocked, even with a signal, due to wait times and lack of stacking distance. Ms Heiser answered questions of Councilmembers Mavity and Sanger relating to stacking distance, frequency of cars blocking the Trader Joe's driveway, and that combining the traffic light and turn lane from Park Commons Drive to southbound Monterey Drive would reduce the blocking of the Trader Joe's driveway, but would backup traffic on Monterey into the Excelsior intersection Ms Heiser reviewed a list of intersections that experienced comparable delays for left turning movements and associated level of service (how well the intersection is operating) for each. She presented estimated costs for Alternative 1, no build, costing nothing; Alternative 2, side street stop with full access and eastbound right turn lane, at $50,000 to $75,000 if the City has the needed right-of-way; Alternative 3, side street stop with three-quarter access, at $25,000 to $50,000; and, Alternative 6, traffic signal with full access, at $250,000 to $300,000. Councilmember Hallfin brought up the need to address the sight distance issues that the ash trees created. The Council agreed with Councilmember Hallfin on the need to address the sight lines. The Council discussed the proposed 165-unit development and expressed concerns with assuring adequate points of access so it does not create the same single-access problems as the Trader Joe's site. With regard to whether a developer can be required to contribute towards infrastructure cost if that project adds to traffic woes, Mr. Walther stated that is an option if the City can show in a traffic study that the project will contribute to the problem. In this case, the only leg of the intersection negatively impacted (reduced level of service) is Park Commons Drive Ms. Heiser stated staff looked at the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and addressed the particulars to this corridor including level of traffic. Due to high traffic levels, it is not recommended to install a marked pedestrian crossing of Monterey Drive at Park Commons Drive unless it includes enhancements She reviewed the traffic warrants to install a pedestrian activated crossing and a traffic signal, noting the level of pedestrians is not met in current conditions and that it is 200 feet from a controlled intersection. Because of those factors staff recommended directing pedestrians to cross at that location Councilmember Mavity asked about the estimated level of pedestrians after development Ms. Heiser explained why it is difficult to estimate pedestrian counts. Councilmember Sanger noted if people are afraid to walk in this busy area, pedestrian counts will be low. She suggested asking how to enhance and make it more pedestrian-friendly to increase pedestrian traffic, noting she thinks it will require a signalized intersection. Councilmember Brausen stated if there is a signalized crossing 200 feet away, there is adequate Study Session Minutes -3- November 9, 2015 opportunity to walk that area in a safe manner. Councilmember Sanger stated even though there is a pedestrian crossing within 200 feet, she still sees people dart across the street. Councilmember Mavity stated if a crosswalk is not installed for Monterey Drive, she would suggest considering creative streetscape design to visually and physically block pedestrians from thinking they can cross there. In addition, the developer would have to design the building to focus towards Excelsior Boulevard. Ms Heiser stated the next question relates to the proposed development not creating a sightline issue and indicated there is adequate sight distance for cars exiting the development to see pedestrians and bicyclists on Monterey Drive. She stated once the new development application is received, staff will review to ensure that goal is met. Since staff recommends an on-street five-foot bike lane, additional right-of-way was requested as part of the platting. Ms Heiser reviewed a list of other City streets with comparable volumes to 36%2 Street, a two- lane divided urban road with the capacity of 8,000 to 10,000 vehicles. Ms. Heiser stated if the Council would like to move ahead with improvements at the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection, staff would recommend implementing Alternative 2 at some point in the future. She stated it will reduce the delay for vehicles on the Park Commons Drive leg of the intersection; reduce queues that block Trader Joe's driveway; and does not create delay or queuing at the other intersections studied Councilmember Mavity stated her first choice is a stop light, the pedestrian friendly choice that creates a pedestrian friendly environment and prioritizes their safety. If Alternative 2 is supported, it would reserve the ability for a more hands-on option in the future. She stated before moving forward, she would want to see lane design, landscaping options, and cost estimates to create visual and physical barriers to direct pedestrians to appropriate safe crossings. Councilmember Brausen supported staff's recommendation for Alternative 2, noting they are the professionals in making appropriate traffic decisions and it addresses the immediate concern. He stated if the Council wants to consider traffic signals based on low level of service, there are more intersections in Ward 4. With regard to crosswalks, he felt it was difficult to control pedestrian movements and even with a physical barrier, people will still dash across the street Ms. Heiser explained every intersection is a crosswalk and vehicles need to yield right of way to pedestrians. However, study guidance shows that marked crosswalks have higher incidence of accidents than unmarked crosswalks because pedestrians feel that is where they are encouraged to cross and may not be not as careful, especially with a four-lane crossing that has no enhancements Councilmember Mavity stated because pedestrians are legally able to cross, she supports adding a visual or physical barrier. Councilmember Spano stated he liked the idea of visual barriers, whether decorative fencing or planters He supported Alternative 2 as it addresses the current concern without binding the Council's `hands' in the future, is cost effective, and answers the original question the Council asked staff to address. Councilmember Sanger stated Alternative 2 is a good step in the right direction so she will support it, but thinks it is not sufficient and will not preclude installing a traffic light She stated, to be clear, a right lane on Park Commons Drive to turn southbound does nothing to address Study Session Minutes -4- November 9, 2015 traffic from the future development on the east side of the road so it `kicks the can down the road.' Councilmember Hallfin stated he also thinks Alternative 2 is a reasonable approach if the sight line is addressed He encouraged the Council and staff to push the developer to find other avenues in and out of that site. Councilmember Hallfin stated he does not support restricting the left turn at this point. With regard to pedestrians, he agreed with Councilmember Brausen that the marked crosswalk is clearly defined and only 200 feet away. Councilmember Mavity stated when the Council asked for this, it was also to address the proposed development so it does not impact traffic flow on other streets. She supported asking the developer for other points of access, noting if directed to 36'/2 Street, it has to be restudied and another conversation held. Councilmember Hallfin agreed the developer needs access onto Excelsior Boulevard or Kipling Avenue. Mayor Pro Tern Lindberg agreed with the importance of addressing how traffic is managed as the development proposal may impact the northern traffic. He supported Alternative 2 at this point as it solves the current problem and he relies on staff's professional recommendation. Councilmember Spano stated for traffic heading south and east, up the hill towards this intersection, whatever is done for pedestrians has to be more than a marked crosswalk because drivers cannot view the pavement markings from that direction. Ms. Deno stated staff will move forward with further analysis on Alternative 2, sight lines, pedestrian movements, future consideration with signalization, and the proposed development. 4. Assessment Policies Ms. Heiser presented the staff report and the Special Assessment Policy. She reviewed the State Statutes for special assessments, noting the amount charged is required to have a direct benefit (increase in market value) to the property assessed for the improvement. She explained what is considered in the special benefit test and process required to approve an assessed project either initiated by petition or by the City Council, and the public hearing processes, as outlined in Minnesota Statute Chapter 429. The Council discussed the process for property owners to initiate a public improvement project (streets, sidewalks) and required percentage of signatures Ms Heiser explained State law requires a petition signed by 35% of the property owners to start the process and not require approval by a super majority of the Council The City's policy is to require a petition signed by 51% of the property owners, and she recommended removing the requirement so it was consistent with statutory language Ms. Heiser completed presentation of the process followed to order a feasibility report, hold a public hearing, and approve an improvement project, noting additional steps prescribed when the project is assessed. Once approved, benefitting property owners can pay the assessment in full within 30 days; with property taxes over a set period of time with interest; or, it could be deferred for seniors and disabled citizens with a financial hardship. Mr. Heintz stated the deferral would require an application and meeting income thresholds. Ms Heiser presented the list of improvements that have historically used the special assessment process and described how each had been funded in addition to special assessments. Study Session Minutes -5- November 9, 2015 Ms. Heiser stated franchise fees of $2.5 million are received annually and generally used on residential streets. Since 66% of the franchise fees are generated from residential users, staff recommends assessing 25% of the cost per unit for unimproved roads with the franchise fee paying the rest of the cost. With commercial/industrial, past practice has been to assess 100% of the project cost. Since 33% of the franchise fees are generated from commercial/industrial users, staff recommends the City participate in 50% of the cost Ms. Heiser reviewed the locations of the City's one mile of unimproved streets As a comparison between the proposed formula and existing formula for residential assessments, Ms Heiser used Cavell Avenue. She stated the assessments ranged from $2,500 to $7,300, depending on the size of property. With the proposed formula of assessing 25% of the cost, it would range from $1,800 to $7,250. Councilmember Spano asked if the proposed formula would be sustainable. Mr Heintz stated it was not sustainable, adding staff needs to continue to look at that issue. Ms. Heiser explained that $1.4 million in costs have been identified to improve the one mile of unimproved streets, meaning approximately $350,000 would be funded using special assessments, so funding from franchise fees would be approximately $1 million Councilmember Sanger asked how much each property would be assessed for the unimproved road construction Ms. Heiser estimated about $3,200 for each property. With projects that have public land on one side of the street, Ms. Heiser explained the City can assume responsibility for its front footage or that cost can be included in the per unit assessment. Councilmember Mavity asked how peer cities handle assessments. Ms. Heiser stated cities use different percentages depending on available funding sources. The City of Edina assesses 60% for residential road improvements and Bloomington assesses 25%. Ms. Heiser described the location of the City's 145 miles of improved streets and explained since there has not been a project on a predominantly commercial/industrial roadway since the turn of the Century, that infrastructure is beginning to deteriorate. She explained that staff has analyzed the pavement condition rating and budget using the City's Asset Management Program. The goal of the Pavement Management Program is to keep the rating at 65- 70 The average is 59 at this time. Staff is looking at funding options to rehabilitate the commercial/ industrial streets. Councilmember Mavity stated her understanding that the City would use assessments for sidewalks if they are not in the Comprehensive Plan or Master Sidewalk Plan,. She noted that residents would have the opportunity to promote construction of sidewalks during the process to update the Comprehensive Plan Councilmember Spano stated when considering `community good' and the City paying for things that benefit the entire community, he wondered if that conversation considered sidewalks and/or streetlights that a neighborhood may want and are warranted. Ms. Heiser stated staff can provide information on funding, noting it would be difficult to sustain. Councilmember Mavity commented on the need to consider equity as some may have paid for infrastructure when the home was purchased. Councilmember Sanger stated she does not know that all improved roads were paid by the adjacent property owner Ms Heiser stated she can look into that question. Councilmember Hallfin confirmed his parents were assessed in the 1970 timeframe for the street, curb, and gutter. Study Session Minutes -6- November 9, 2015 Councilmember Hallfin stated when discussing raising the franchise fee, one resident had asked him about the maximum number. He noted that another funding avenue may need to be considered. Councilmember Sanger stated she doesn't get complaints about the franchise fee but has heard support to build the cost into the property tax bill because in that way, it is a write off Ms. Deno stated future discussion will pertain to unimproved alleys, those that need improvements, public parking lots, and options for planning and funding. Ms. Heiser stated staff will also research the dollars needed, franchise fees, other funding options, and prioritization of projects. 5. SWLRT Update—Joint Development Mr. Locke presented the staff report and update on the Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) Joint Development project being pursued at the Beltline LRT Station to integrate transit-oriented development by building a parking ramp on a site that would otherwise be a surface parking lot. Mr. Locke described the original vision to include both the Vision Bank site and the EDA-owned parcel. But, as the project evolved, the park and ride was reduced so it is being discussed whether the Joint Development should be on one or both properties. A key component is the $7 million CMAQ grant the City received for the parking ramp to make up a portion of the local match in the spring of 2016 That grant was based on 541 stalls for the park and ride plus 200 stalls for other development. Another source of funds is tax increment from the private development on the Joint Development site. He explained if the City does not participate with Joint Development, it only receives the surface parking lot. If participating with Joint Development, there would be structured parking with land freed for development. Ms. McMonigal stated consultants were hired to prepare concept plans to get an idea of what it would look like and what the development would cost Mr. Locke stated what gets developed will depend on the developer so concepts are being looked at to determine how much will fit on the site Ehlers will then do an analysis to determine how much increment will be generated. Councilmember Mavity asked whether the concept design is bigger than what is being suggested. Mr. Locke stated they are looking at massing and basic layout including both sites but the Joint Development would be just the parcel the SWLRT project would purchase. Councilmember Mavity noted 268 parking spaces is the minimum the Southwest Project Office will require and while 541 spaces plus 200 spaces are being discussed, that is not what the project requires. Ms. McMonigal stated that will be looked at as well as the potential for cost savings by putting parking for both in the same ramp. Councilmember Sanger felt the City would be better off building parking for a longer-term perspective and significantly more than 286. She supports building for both parcels. Councilmember Mavity agreed with the desire for a cohesive project but does not support overbuilding for parking as she predicts cars will be used differently in the future. She stated parking structures should be flat so it can be repurposed for housing or office use if not needed for parking in the future. With regard to the local match, Mr. Locke stated staff has indicated the City does not intend to sell bonds for funding the Joint Development project. The City's approach would be to create a TIF District with a pay-as-you-go for the developer. Mr. Locke stated staffs understanding is Study Session Minutes -7- November 9, 2015 that the Council would not want to spend any more dollars as a match for FTA funds than would be generated from the CMAQ grant and tax increment. Councilmember Sanger supported moving forward with both sites and asked who is responsible for buying out Vision Bank. Mr. Locke answered it would be the responsibility of the Metropolitan Council to purchase Vision Bank He explained the goal is for Joint Development to be built on the Vision Bank site before the construction would need to begin to create the surface park and ride lot on the site. In that way, the dollars in the SWLRT budget for the park and ride lot would be credited against the cost of constructing the Joint Development ramp and other development cost. Councilmember Mavity stated originally it was planned that Joint Development would be guided by the form based code (FBC), which would allow a more open-ended approach to the development concept for the site It would allow a development concept based on what the market brings Mr Locke explained some assumptions had to be made to determine the tax increment that could be generated. Staff prefers business and office uses but the most likely scenario is a modest amount of commercial with substantial housing Another concept is "liner" buildings, housing/office/commercial on the perimeter of the parking ramp to add `life' to the dead space of a ramp. It was noted that the City wants strong, walkable pedestrian space on the street frontages, like along a boulevard, with buildings fronting on those streets Councilmember Brausen stated he supports the Joint Development and hopes it has a strong affordable housing component, 20%-25%, as it is near the station and also encouraged commercial space including fresh food options for those who use the train Councilmember Mavity agreed with moving forward, noting it is an opportunity to get more project dollars as it will probably not stay at a surface parking lot However, she does not support maximizing parking beyond what the project requires. It was the consensus of the City Council to move forward Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) Councilmember Mavity noted the Metro Cities meeting is coming up Councilmember Hallfin and Councilmember Brausen requested time at an upcoming Study Session to report on the National League of Cities Congress they attended in Nashville. Mr. Hunt stated an agreement has been reached with a single-family home developer to purchase the Cedar Lake Road Apartment property and construct two homes. As a result, staff will be presenting an extension agreement to construct those homes and consent to assign that obligation to Lakewest Development, Inc Mr Hunt stated the intent was always to sell to a developer of single-family homes and should the new entity not construct the homes, it would go back to the original developer who would then need to find another entity The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 6. Update on Redevelopment Contract with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC Study Session Minutes -8- November 9, 2015 7. Marriott West Hotel 8. Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Transport Update 9. Board and Com ission A ual Meeting with Council Program t4Y)LAkk Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Gre L d erg, Mayor Pro Tem