Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/04/18 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study SessionSt. Louis Park OFFICIAL MI CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION M I N N E 5 0 T A ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA APRIL 18.2016 The meeting convened at 6:33 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano. Gregg Lindberg, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Communications Specialist (Ms. Pribbenow), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Batra). Guest: Mr. Griffin and Ms. Harris (Environment and Sustainability Commission Members), iMatter Representatives, Roots and Shoots Representatives, and Ron Mehl (Senior Developer, Millennium Development). 1. Partners in Energy Climate Action Plan (Energy Work Group of E&S Commission) Mr. Harmening presented the update on the Partners in Energy Climate Action Plan. Ms. Harris introduced the Partners in Energy Climate Action Plan. Tonight, the focus is on one of the three key goals shared at the annual meeting. She directed the council to the handout that explains the three key goals. These key goals include the Climate Action Plan, Integrating Sustainability into the Comp Plan, and Green Steps Cities. Mr. Harmening stated the iMatter team from the school is also in attendance. Mr. Griffin, Partners in Energy team, discussed all of the participants who make up this organization. The Roots and Shoots team also introduced themselves to the council. Mr. Griffin explained that the four focus areas are partnership with youth; promoting adoption of renewable energy; energy efficiency in business; and the Climate Action Plan. Mr. Griffin stated that climate change is the greatest problem that has ever been faced environmentally. In order to get below 2 degrees Celsius, which is the tipping point, global average emissions must be reduced to under 2.0 tons of CO2 emissions. Councilmember Hallfin asked how that figure was calculated. Mr. Griffin displayed the Berkeley Cool Climate Calculator, which shows specific areas in detail. He displayed the regional indicators, which provide the hard data such as vehicle miles gaveled; natural gas readings from meters; and electricity usage. The reason why electricity is focused on first is that it is 39% of the make up for climate change risk factors. The commercial/industrial sector has the most responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions. One of Partners in Energy's goals is to adopt renewable energy, and this could be accomplished through the Energy Action Plan, which is forthcoming. Special Study Session Minutes -2- April 18, 2016 Mr. Griffin explained that 70% of electricity is used by the commercial sector, and 30% is used by residential. Commercial includes apartment complexes when not individually metered. If electricity is individually metered, it is categorized as residential. Mr. Griffin stated that the business leaders along with a crew of experts came together to draft the Climate Action Plan. Several cities, including San Diego, Seattle, New York, Atlanta, and San Francisco, have a Climate Action Plan, which is a long-term plan to work towards Net Zero in carbon emissions. The city could reach Net Zero emissions in 2040 and Net Zero for electricity in 2025. Mr. Griffin explained that the plan is a broad based commitment that would drive the city towards these defined goals. Community members, energy providers, council, and non -profits would all need to join together to accomplish the goals. Mayor Spano asked if Xcel has given any recommendations or tools to help engage the business community. Mr. Griffin stated that Partners in Energy has received participation of some of the lead businesses in the city. In turn, these businesses would receive good publicity. In addition, the cause is currently driven by Xcel so this also helps business involvement. Councilmember Brausen asked about Xcel's investment because it doesn't make sense that they would want to drive energy prices down since they profit from energy use. Mr. Griffin stated that Xcel signed on for 18 months but beyond that their participation is not guaranteed. Mr. Griffin explained that the city is no longer increasing greenhouse gas emissions, which can be attributed, in part, to conservation efforts. The city needs to be at a 9% annual reduction and is currently at a 2.5% reduction. Net zero is defined as all electricity being generated from renewable sources. According to the plan, the city should achieve this goal by 2025. The reason that emissions is set to 2040 is because items such as cars may still be on the road and every resident may not be able to update current energy systems in their homes. Councilmember Mavity arrived at the Special Study Session at 6:53 p.m. Mr. Griffin stated that he is asking Council to recognize the city's responsibility to immediately and fully address contributions to climate change. He went over in detail the items that he is asking the Council to consider and what motions need to be approved to accomplish the organization's goals to achieve Net Zero status. One of these goals includes malting a commitment to switch to 100% renewable electricity purchases beginning in 2016 for every city -managed electricity account. Councilmember Sanger asked Mr. Haimening if staff resources are available to dedicate to this plan. Mr. Harmening stated that the city could strive to meet that goal in the future, and more resources and information is needed on planning this type of project. Councilmember Lindberg stated that it is important to quantify these goals. He explained that, when thinking back to issues relating to the environment, one of the things that he has requested is measurable and quantifiable steps to accomplish the goals. He explained that he thinks this is a very important commitment to step forward and help care for the environment for future generations. He stated that he wants to move forward. Councilmember Sanger stated her agreement with Councilmember Lindberg and stated that she would like move forward. She asked Mr. Harmening to define the dollar amount and dedicate staff resources. Mr. Harmening stated that he doesn't know what is needed, and analysis is needed for planning so he can dedicate staff resources. He would like the Environment and Sustainability Special Study Session Minutes -3- April 18, 2016 Commission to work together to quantify the resources needed. Mr. Griffin stated the Environment and Sustainability Commission could work the figures up and give Mr. Harmening an estimate on the approximate amount of time needed. Councilmember Miller asked for a roadmap to get to these goals such as an example from another city or something that's further developed that has more detail and outlines the steps. Mr. Griffin responded that San Diego would be a good city to look at. In addition, the Department of Commerce will have a new template ready in June. Councilmember Brausen stated that he fully supports this cause, and that he doesn't think there is a choice in the matter. Councilmember Mavity stated that she is also in favor of moving forward. She stated that the Environment and Sustainability Commission has exceeded her vision. She asked if these goals can all be addressed at once or if there are priorities that need to be addressed first. Mr. Griffin responded that the commitment can be accomplished immediately; however, the plan itself is more long-term. Mr. Miller asked if there is a service that will help residents understand and become educated about climate change. Mr. Griffin responded that he agrees there is a lot of information and a lot of mixed messages. He stated if everyone can work together on the same plan, this could become the resource. Ms. Harris stated that there is a Facebook page that can be used as a portal to convey information to residents. Mr. Harmening stated that he is interested in the three focus points that the Environment and Sustainability Commission has developed and wants to make sure that the focus points are •` included in the Comp Plan. Mayor Spano suggested that Mr. Harmening also consider review of existing contracts and work to obtain information on resources needed to move toward sustainable energy. Councilmember Lindberg asked if the Environment and Sustainability Commission has done any work on goals around solid waste or water consumption. Mr. Griffin stated that the city is already a leader on the solid waste portion, and solid waste is a small sliver compared to natural gas, electricity and vehicles. He explained that he does agree that water consumption should be addressed; however, there are no goals or recommendations as of yet. The meeting recessed at 7:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:16 p.m. 2. Excelsior & Monterey Redevelopment (Bridgewater/Dominium) Mr. Walther introduced the topic of the Excelsior & Monterey Redevelopment. In July of 2014, the Council heard a presentation from Bridgewater. At that meeting the concept plan was addressed, which included the proposal for a 6 -story building, allowing higher density through a PUD, and selling the EDA lot to facilitate redevelopment. Also, a TIF request was expected, but a formal amount is not defined at this time. He discussed the history of the process of this prospective development. Mr. Walther explained that additional traffic studies were completed by staff in response to Council concerns. There was a study more specifically around the area of Park Commons Drive and Monterey Avenue, which is one area that showed traffic would be impacted near Trader Joes. There would be a slight decrease in the level of service of one leg of the intersection, and mitigation Special Study Session Minutes 4- April 18, 2016 should be considered. The direction of the Council was to pursue a right turn lane addition on Park Commons Drive to improve the level of service. Mr. Walther explained that there are currently three properties on this site. He reviewed the site plan to display the footprint of the proposed building. Most of the building is 6 stories tall, but it does step down in height on Monterey Drive. He discussed in detail the parking proposed and the service entrance, which would be for activities such as trash pickup and moving. The proposed development will create two new lots, and it will also accommodate the existing Bridgewater Bank site. The density is calculated as 167 units at 69.9 units per acre. The range for nearby developments is 58 to 103 units per acre. The height of the proposed development is 71.5 feet to the top of sixth floor and 76.5 feet to the highest point of the trellis. Ron Mehl, Senior Developer with Millennium Development, explained that Millennium Development is a 44 -year-old company with approximately 25,000 units, primarily affordable housing, across the United States. Everything the company builds they own for the long-term, and they manage their own properties. He explained the specifics behind Bridgewater Bank, which included that the bank is closed evenings. He also explained that the building design does not include any restaurant space. The proposed development is 167 units total, with 20% of these units affordable housing. Mr. Mehl explained that there are different entrances and exits for a variety of different users and explained these entrances and exits in detail. A lot of thought was put into where these entrance and exits are constructed to meet the needs of both retail and residents. Mr. Mehl explained that the common space is a two-story lobby. On the second floor, an exercise/yoga studio, party room and an office are planned. The courtyard meets the city's outdoor recreation requirement and the changes suggested in the shadow study have been implemented. He explained that pedestrian control to encourage pedestrians to cross at the signals and crosswalks is being worked into the plans. Councilmember Mavity stated that she has several questions. Specific to this design, which includes access and traffic control, she asked how safety for pedestrians and bikers on the new bike lane can be managed. In addition, she asked about aesthetics. The extra floor will not make a difference on traffic but may make a difference in appeal and the green space. There are a lot of mature trees on Excelsior Boulevard, and she is concerned how this development will affect the trees. She does not have any concern on the per unit/per acre because, in her opinion, it's in line with the vision for the area. Councilmember Mavity explained that her main concern with this proposed development is the access and flow of this area. The will of the Council was not to put a stoplight or mitigation and add a turn lane. She stated that this makes her question the design. The exit/entrance is primed for conflicts on Park Commons Drive. She explained that the main entrance is right there at Park Commons Drive, so everywhere someone would want to go would be going backwards, and pedestrians are just going to walk across. She noted that it is important to guide people to cross at the light. Mr. Mehl stated that, regarding Park Commons Drive and pedestrian flow, he is working on options to present to the Council. He further explained that the main entrance/lobby is there for a reason as the development is mixed use and the highest use of retail space is along Excelsior Boulevard. The entrance on Excelsior Boulevard is right in/right out, but the preference for access on Monterey Avenue is all access. Special Study Session Minutes -5- April 18, 2016 Councilmember Sanger stated that she has a lot of problems with the proposal as it now stands. She stated that the main problem is access issues on Monterey Avenue. She explained that right now there will be 12 turning movements within close proximity, which is too dangerous. She explained that she cannot support a design that has two access points onto Monterey Avenue, because that just won't work. In addition, she stated that she is not a fan of the design of the proposed building and hopes that the design can be reconfigured. Councilmember Sanger stated that her second main concern is there is no green space at ground level. She explained that her third main concern is that the footprint of the building is too large, and the development doesn't allow for any green space or trees. For the reasons outlined above, she stated that she does not support the project as it has been presented. Councilmember Lindberg stated that this project does make sense. He noted that mixed use is the right direction. He stated that he is concerned about traffic, but traffic is the reality of this area. He explained that one of his primary concerns is access, mainly the rear access that uses the easement next to Park Rehab. He asked for clarification on how that access will be used. Mr. Mehl responded that a F.O.B. system will be used for the residents, which will be controlled at the building so it can be turned on/off. Councilmember Lindberg stated that he has issues with aesthetics. He pointed out that the proposed building looks very similar to what was just done at 4900. He explained that there is a lot of concern by residents in reference to the height of the proposed building. Councilmember Brausen stated that he is in support of the project. He noted that recycling organics should be required, and the lighting in the parking areas should be reduced to minimize the effect on neighbors. He is concerned about traffic; however, there are going to be traffic issues at times. Councilmember Miller stated that he appreciates the affordable housing component; the company as a developer; that the community is growing to keep the tax base reasonable; and staff time and resources spent on the project. He stated that he is concerned about the height and mass and the unattractive look of the proposed building. He explained that the balance of the community is at stake between growth and the attractiveness of the community, and this building shifts that vision. He stated that he understands the developer's position; however, the job of the Council is to protect the feel of the community. Councilmember Hallfin asked for clarification regarding the amount of space between driveways. Ms. Heiser stated that access spacing is for different types of roadways, and it is a MnDOT code. In urban areas, however, it is generally not practical to space the accesses 330 feet apart. The report that was generated states that the driveways were spaced correctly. Mr. Walther stated that he would like to clarify the comment that Councilmember Sanger made regarding the stoplight not being feasible. He explained that the stoplight is feasible but not recommended at this time. In reference to Councilmember Lindberg's statement about aesthetics, Councilmember Hallfin stated that the city has an ordinance for building materials. The building code needs to be changed if the Council is dissatisfied with the building materials used. Councilmember Lindberg stated that was partially his intention. Councilmember Hallfin stated that his last comment is the density question, which in his opinion, turns into a traffic study. He stated that he does not have a lot of confidence in traffic studies. He expressed his opinion that the design for the entrance/exit at Park Commons Drives needs to be changed. As the plan is now, he stated that he does not think that he will support it. Special Study Session Minutes -6- April 18, 2016 Mayor Spano stated that he is pleased with the affordable housing component. He stated that he is not concerned about the height of the proposed building. He asked whether the nursing home on the north end has an opinion on the proposed development. Mr. Mehl stated that the plans were given to them for review, and no response has been received. Mayor Spano reminded the Council that aesthetics are not the Council's priority. He explained that the reason he cannot support this proposed development is that the density is more than what is allowed for the area, which impacts traffic and access. Councilmember Sanger stated that she is thrilled that the Council is addressing aesthetics. Secondly, following up on Councilmember Hallfin's comment regarding the number of feet between access points, she stated that she does not believe that the intersections used are comparable. Councilmember Mavity stated that she does not think the Council should be involved in design and the variability of the material adds interest, which is a good thing. She asked for clarification in reference to the art planned in the development. Mr. Mehl stated that the corner of Excelsior Boulevard is under consideration, but the impact on traffic and visibility is still being evaluated. Councilmember Mavity stated that the Council has already addressed the traffic issue so that should not hold the developer back. She noted that the access to the building and how it impacts traffic is definitely an issue. Mr. Mehl stated that he is going to address the Council's concerns. He explained that some of these concerns will be very difficult to address; however, access, flow and greenspace can be addressed. 3. Wooddale/Hwy 7 Traffic Study Update Mr. Sullivan introduced the topic. He discussed the goals for the traffic study. These goals include increasing safety; improving traffic operations; addressing comprehensive plan growth; quality access to the transportation network while maintaining private access; and cost considerations. Mr. Sullivan explained staff is proposing new signals at the ramps in 2017. Secondly, the frontage road would be limited to a right in/right out. This has become challenging because there are uses for the East Frontage Road, so there is a concern about a U -tum movement, which presents a safety issue. Mr. Sullivan stated that last fall the Xenwood Avenue Extension was considered. This proposal would include new signals at the ramps, right in/right out, and full access under the railroad. This option is very expensive. The high level of cost for this alternative alerted staff to consider another option. He explained that the next option is to widen the bridge and add a southbound left turn lane. Mr. Sullivan discussed the offset buttonhook ramp design, which would relocate the frontage road to the west side of Wooddale Avenue. This would free up land adjacent to the EDA parcel and would remove an intersection from the corridor. Staff tried to find ways to move intersections around and help traffic flow in the area. Lastly, as a more aggressive approach, the single point urban intersection plan was discussed. This option is the most expensive, and would also be the most disruptive because it is a complete overhaul of the area. Staff is recommending that the bridge be widened, right in/right out of East Frontage Road as well as a left turn lane (Exhibit C in the staff report). Nh•. Sullivan expressed that this would be the area's best and most viable option. Special Study Session Minutes -7- April 18, 2016 Mi•. Harmening confirmed that the improvements and changes to the PLACE development scheme that are recommended would include a reduced amount of development on the EDA and McGarvey parcels. This will meet the requirements of the 2040 analysis, which added expected growth in to the Comp Plan. Councilmember Mavity stated that she hopes that the city employs creativity in the future in reference to easements to fully integrate the light rail into this area. Mr. Locke stated that they could only go so far with their planning. Through this study, it was found that action on the north side needs to be limited because the area cannot handle the increase in traffic. Councilmember Mavity stated that money was given to the consultant for the Xenwood underpass design. She explained that the city should not pay for a design that will not be used. She stated that she prefers the buttonhook design because this design creates two intersections. She explained that one of the problems with this area is that there are too many intersections all corning together. The buttonhook ramp design really brings that down into a more manageable design, especially for pedestrians. In reference to Councilmember Mavity's question about the Xenwood design cost, Mi•. Locke explained that the cost has been spent for a piece of the project that has been completed. In reference to the buttonhook ramp option, Mr. Sullivan stated that staff is not recommending this option moving forward because of the high cost and the minimal impact on traffic. Councilmember Sanger stated that this plan potentially splits the PLACE project north and south of the tracks. She doesn't understand how this would make a difference regarding the amount of vehicle traffic over the bridge because it would be the same amount of traffic either way. She asked if all plans would include a tunnel under Wooddale Avenue for bikes and pedestrians. Mr. Sullivan explained that the base project budget does include a tunnel for bikes and pedestrians, and this plan is not impacted by any of these options. Mr. Sullivan explained that the use of Xenwood Avenue and Yosemite Avenue will be critical components of this project. In response to Councilmember Miller's request for clarification, Mr. Sullivan explained that staff is suggesting to move the whole sidewalk and wall, adding over six feet, which would make a more rideable and drivable surface. Councilmember Miller asked how the southbound left turn lane option reduces traffic. He suggested that the intersection at 36`x' Street and Wooddale Avenue be examined for a traffic study. He also asked if all assumptions show that PLACE or another EDA project would have the same impact on the area. Mr. Sullivan responded that since the city has rights to both parcels, acceptable traffic will be decided prior to development to determine a benchmark that provides a proposal that gets 125 trips at the peak. Mayor Spano stated that he doesn't know that there is a good solution for this area. He asked if MnDOT is okay with the city changing their bridge. Mr. Sullivan responded that this was presented at a workshop with MnDOT and was met favorably as it can be accomplished from a construction aspect with minimal cost. Mr. Harmening stated that the plan for signals, turn lane and bridge widening is a modest cost when discussing changes for this area. Mayor Spano stated that the city must also keep in mind the ongoing Highway 100 construction, which has made traffic flow differently in the city. Councilmember Sanger stated she was pleased to hear that the traffic lights on the bridge are planned to be installed in 2017. She suggested staff wait to see how these lights impact the area before widening the bridge. Mr. Locke responded that the city needs to keep working with PLACE and continue to move forward with the plans for the area. Special Study Session Minutes -8- April 18, 2016 Councilmember Brausen stated that he is in favor of pursuing the southbound left turn lane proposal and moving towards development. Councilmember Lindberg stated his agreement as well as his satisfaction that the city is not planning to spend a lot on an underpass. Councilmember Hallfm stated his agreement with Mayor Spano that once the Highway 100 construction is complete, traffic will change. In addition, he expressed that widening the bridge is a reasonable approach. Mayor Spano stated that this intersection needs improvement even if the area is not developed. 4. Boards & Commissions Appointments (Verbal) Mayor Spano stated that a discussion was held at the last meeting, but a decision was not made on all of the candidates seeking appointment. He explained that the next round of interviews should be set for May 2. Mr. Harmening clarified that there are six total vacancies on the Environment and Sustainability Commission, with three filled and three still needing to be selected. Communications/Meeting Check -In (Verbal) None. The meeting adjourned at 10:33 p.m. Melis a Kenne y, City Clerk