Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/05/23 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study SessionfffSt. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA MAY 23, 2016 The meeting convened at 6:18 p.m Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. IIarmening), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Director of Operations and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Manager Westwood Hills Nature Center (Mr. Oestreich), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Recreation Superintendent (Jason West), Principal Planner (Ms. McMonigal), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). Guests: Ken Grieshaber, SRF Landscape; Denita Lemmon, Miller Dunwiddie. 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning — June 6 & 13, 2016 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed Study Session agendas for June, 2016. Councilmembers also requested additional items for future agendas over the summer including the following topics: former Holiday property; Highway 7 update; update/discussion on Section 8 housing ordinance; and Minnetonka Boulevard traffic. 2. Open Meeting Law Update Mr. Mattick provided an overview and refresher for the council on the legal requirements related to complying with the Open Meeting Law. The discussion focused on email communication between members. Mr. Mattick noted that email communications between councilmembers is public information if it involves city business, and it does not matter if the email was sent from a personal computer or a city device. Also, emails which relate to city business and are sent from personal email accounts are considered public information. Text messages are considered public information when texting is between councilmembers, as well as all forms of social media, including Facebook and Twitter. Mr. Mattick added the intent of the law is to not allow councilmembers to make decisions or conduct meetings outside of official city council meetings. Councilmember Brausen asked if there is a city policy related to liability for councilmembers with respect to Open Meeting Laws. Mr. Mattick stated insurance covers any liability, but he is not aware of any city policy related to this. Councilmember Mavity noted she recognizes that all of the councilmembers are fully committed to the spirit and intent of this open meeting law, as representatives of their constituents and otherwise. 3. Westwood Hills Nature Center Master Plan Update Study Session Minutes -2- May 23, 2016 Mr. Oestriech conducted a tour of the Westwood Hills Nature Center. He presented the main classroom area, overflow area and public space. He noted that 40,000 individuals visited the facility last year and there are 11 program staff who work at the facility. Mr. Oestriech stated that several public meetings and online surveys were conducted last fall, along with a follow-up public meeting in January, where feedback was received for the master plan. Ms. Lernmon presented the master plan. She explained the public input process and showed some initial concepts. She explained the history of the nature center, the various programs conducted at the center, and how it has evolved over time. Ms. Lemmon noted some of the areas that are in need of repair at the facility, including water infiltration and HVAC system deficiencies. She noted it was also a concern that there is no fire sprinkler system at the nature center. Another concern is the distance ftom the parking area to the facility, along with trail access issues. There is no storm shelter, and the multi -use facility is very much overused. Because of the current parking shortage the master plan includes adding 75 more parking spaces to bring it to a total of 130. These additional spaces would be added, keeping the neighbors to the south in mind. Councilmember Brausen asked how often the parking lot is frill. Mr. Oestriech stated 3 out of 5 days per week it is full, and visitors also park along the entry way, while school buses take up many spaces. Ms. Lemmon said the design team looked at the existing building and how it can be expanded to become an outdoor classroom and also include a staging area for when school children arrive. She added there are opportunities to repurpose this space. Staff needs were also considered in the design plan, along with a gathering space where parents can rest with children; multi-purpose classrooms; removable partition walls; a centrally located storm corridor; animal care areas; and storage areas for staff. The projected total cost of the project is $11,202,000. This includes new building construction; parking lot expansion; expanded outdoor classroom and water garden area; expanded natural plan and programming area; and improvements to the canoe kayak launch. Additionally, Ms. Lemmon noted that the public wishes the nature center would provide programs at the facility during all seasons. Councilmember Brausen asked about expanding the canoe and kayak area and also the area that is currently closed off. He noted security was a concern, but if it were opened up, it could be a more friendly area for visitors. Mr. Oestriech stated there are no restrooms around the lake, and there had been problems in the past with vandalism and loitering. However, he added the Westwood Hills gates are now open in Westdale and not in the Golden Valley potion of the park, and every tenant in the area now has a security pass, which has helped these issues. Councilmember Brausen asked about the fee structure for visiting school groups. Mr. Oestriech noted there are resident and non-resident fees for all school districts. Councilmember Miller stated he is very supportive of the facility and has always thought of it as an educational facility. He added he has not thought about what more it could be, but cautioned if the mission gets too large, there might push back from citizens. He added that the center is such a gem, it should be expanded for use by both children and adults. Study Session Minutes -3- May 23, 2016 Mr. Oestriech pointed out the nature center does not have an official mission outside of the city's mission, including recreation, wildlife, nature and education. Ms. Walsh pointed out the nature center is currently used mainly for educational purposes, along with walking and birding. Recently however, more parents who drop off their kids at the center have said they would like more space and a more engaging area for families. She noted the center could accommodate so much more; however, the message from the public during the vision session was clearly about the natural aspect of the center, and the feedback was not to change that. Councilmember Lindberg asked how much impact there would be to natural resources if the building were moved. Ms. Lemmon stated the land where the nature center sits is very young. There is not much old growth. She added they would want to have the least amount of impact to the site and would create a natural progression from the parking lot to the nature center. A few cottonwood trees would be lost in the process, but that would be the extent of it. She added the city forester has also weighed in on the impact to the center. Ms. Lemmon added they would want to create a multi -use space and not over design the new center. It is a delicate balance of daily staff needs and the needs of those who will use the facility. Councilmember Sanger asked what kind of enhanced programming the center would have and how much more staffing would be required. Mr. Oestriech stated the facility would go from a 2,700 square foot building, to a 12,000 square foot building, which would need additional staff for maintenance as well as programming. Councilmember Sanger noted that St. Louis Park's population is getting older, and the demographic is changing. She asked what the programming would look like for adults. Mr. Oestriech stated currently the center conducts monthly adult date nights at the site and also lectures on natural topics for adults. Councilmember Sanger stated she comes to the center to walk, canoe, and cross country ski but rarely comes into the building. She added they will need to consider this when they think about who will use the facility in the next 15 years. Mr. Oestriech noted that adults can be intimidated when coming to the center and seeing all the school children in attendance. However, he also noted that bird watching is now becoming a huge adult pastime at the center, with over 50 adults in the birding program. Ms. Walsh acknowledged the center will need more programming as the project moves forward. Councilmember Sanger asked about adding an addition on to the current facility. Ms. Lemmon stated the cost to retro -fit the facility would be more than to build a new facility. There would need to be a lot of excavation in order to retro -fit the building. Councilmember Sanger asked about the new parking lot, stating she is concerned about the plan to move it farther south. She also is concerned about the trees located there that currently serve as a buffer to the neighborhood. Mr. Grieshaber stated the tree buffer would remain for residents both to the south and the west. He noted that landscape buffers could also be added. Councilmember Hallfin pointed out the nature center building opened in 1981, but the programming at the center has existed since the 1960's, when a day program began there. He added the council recently approved an $8 million rink at the Ree Center, and now the nature Study Session Minutes -4- May 23, 2016 center project will be $11+ million. He stated he wants the council to be conscious of this and the need to remember the demographic in St. Louis Park. These projects need to serve a diverse population. He noted there is a difference between the populations served at the nature center during the school year versus during the summer programs. The council asked when the project would be completed. Staff noted the planning would begin in 2017, design in 2018, and construction in 2019. Councilmember I-Iallfin asked Mr. Harmening how the city would pay for this project. Mr. Harmening stated the city spends $1 million phis per year on upgrades, but for a large capital project such as this, GO Bonds would be utilized -- similar to funding the Ree Center project. Councilmember Sanger requested an analysis of bonding that includes this project and future projects, including cost estimates and financial obligations. Mr. Harmening stated he will have Mr. Simon prepare and present the financial information in order to give the council the full picture. He added the new facility will need to have every environmental consideration and include reusable materials. Ms. Lemmon said this is definitely included in the project and is part of the cost estimate. Councilmember Sanger asked about using more glass in the new facility. Ms. Lemmon stated they would include this also. Mayor Spano stated there were approximately 300 people involved in the concept visioning process. He asked about the plan for taking this out further to the community and getting everyone's input. He asked that the Environmental and Sustainability Commission be involved in the process and be asked to informally weigh in on this conversation and spread the word on this project. He added he agreed with Councilmember Hallfin's comments about targeting programs for diverse groups. He noted he also agreed with Councilmember Sanger's thoughts on using glass and slide away walls in the center. Mayor Spano noted this is currently a 2,700 square foot building, and the council is considering creating a new facility which would be five times bigger. He added it would be a shame to see a huge building in the middle of nature, adding he would want it camouflaged in some way. Councilmember Brausen stated he attended many of the community meetings on the project and felt the public does not want to change the overall character of the center but wants to keep it low key and comfortable in a natural setting. He added he worries about it becoming a wedding destination, a coffee shop, or a disruption of the quiet. He added the community process must be much more robust before anything is finalized. Also, he noted the price is a concern. He would be interested to see if the St. Louis Park School District would be interested in being involved or if major donors would be interested in becoming involved in helping to finance the project. Councilmember Sanger added that a task force, similar to what was utilized with the Ree Center public process, might be worth considering, also, especially in an effort to attract adults to the facility. Councilmember Brausen added a public survey would possibly be helpful also Councilmember Lindberg stated the public process has been beneficial to date, but the new facility will impact residents' lives. At the same time, there is a need for community public space Study Session Minutes -5- May 23, 2016 and nature -based education programs, while making cross cultural connections. He noted there is an opportunity to do creative things with this project and expose youth, their families, and adults to nature. He asked if 12,000 square feet is enough public space and stressed more conversation around this would be wise. Additionally, he noted that by the time the project is completed, the cost may be closer to $15 million and stated it is important to get broad community input. He added policy decision should not be influenced by a fear that there will be too much traffic in the area. It should be more about building the right size facility and building something that will last for generations. Mr. Harmening stated he understands the concerns of the council related to this being a public process; the sizing of the building; the diversity of those using the programming and facilities; and the idea of not losing the natural aspect of the facility. It was the consensus of the City Council to have staff present a plan to move forward at a future meeting, while continuing to study this master plan. Mr. Harmening suggested the council do tours of other facilities in the metro area, and staff would set this up. 4. SWLRT Updates Mr. Locke presented an update on the SWLRT and the commitments required from the city for joint development at the Beltline Station. In June and July, the SPO will be bringing the final SWLRT scope and budget revisions through the Corridor Management Committee, Executive Change & Control Board, and the Met Council for approval and authorization to apply to the - - FTA for "entry into engineering." The refined project scope & budget will address the Beltline Station Park & Ride and TOD site. Discussions with SPO regarding what commitments are needed from St. Louis Park for the Beltline elements are ongoing. It is expected a resolution of commitment will be needed from the city in June. Mr. Locke stated there are 268 parking spots slated for the facility at Beltline. Those spaces will be provided either in a surface parking lot or in a parking structure, freeing land for a commercial area on the north end of what would otherwise be a surface parking lot. A transportation easement currently covers the land that would be used for commercial development. The City will need to acquire rights to the private land on the corner covered by that easement. That land would then become city land, available to be sold for commercial development. The parcel, owned by Vision Bank, would need to be purchased by the SWLRT project in order to build either a surface parking lot or to provide the site for a parking ramp. Councilmember Hallfin asked for clarification on funding of the surface parking lot. Mr. Locke stated the surface parking lot would be funded by the SWLRT project. The base plan includes a park & ride at the Beltline Station. Alternatively, the SWLRT project would contribute to the City an amount equivalent to what would have been spent on a surface lot to help the City fund a parking ramp at the Beltline station. Mr. Locke noted there are three sources for funding a parking ramp, estimated to cost $11-13 million. Funding sources include $6.5 million from a CMAQ Grant; $2.7 million in FTA New Starts money from the SWLRT; and the rest from the City. At a minimum SLP's share will need to be the 20% local match required for the CMAQ grant. Ile added that the source of funds for the city's share of the parking ramp costs is expected to be the $9 million in tax increment projected to be generated from the anticipated new development shown in the concept plan for the Beltline Station area. The concept plan is included in the staff report. Additionally, there would be law sale revenue from SLP selling the Study Session Minutes -6- May 23, 2016 land for new development to the private developers, which could be used to fund a portion of the cost. Mr. Locke added an agreement would be developed between the Met Council and EDA or the city that would show how this would be conducted. This agreement would not be finalized and approved until after the record of decision on the environmental review is published. It would also be subject to change pending the record of decision from the FTA. Councilmember Sanger asked at what point the city moves ahead on this project. She added there should also be more discussion about the proposed land use, which falls into Councilmember Sanger's ward. She said she is concerned about adding more apartments and would actually prefer more commercial and office space. Councilmember Miller asked if this area would be a good spot for PLACE. Mr. Locke stated it had been considered earlier; however the many complexities involved with both the Beltline station park & ride, working with the FTA, and the complexities of the PLACE project itself suggested it would be better not to attempt the PLACE project at Beltline. The current plan for how to achieve joint development at Beltline is simpler than originally envisioned, but it would be difficult to switch sites for PLACE at this point, and it would make the PLACE project dependent on the timing of SWLRT. Mr. Locke added that PLACE is well along in the process on another site, and PLACE is not an office space developer. Councilmember Miller asked if the area must be used as office space. Mr. Locke stated the city can decide how to develop this property, adding that mixed use residential could be another use in this area. The city plans consider the intersection of Highway 25 and Beltline as an employment and job creation area. Councilmember Sanger added she would nominate this intersection for a grant through the regional solicitation. Councilmember Brausen stated he is also in favor of doing this and in getting control of this land and control of the process and the property use. Councilmember Lindberg asked if staff knows how much has been spent thus far on this project and what other costs will be coming forward. Mr. Harmening noted there have been consultant fees that the city has paid out at this point. Mayor Spano noted that Governor Dayton will call a special session if needed; however, it will not be called if there is not agreement in the legislature on the issue of transit funding, especially SWLRT. Mayor Spann added that the city will continue to work on this project until anything further develops. Councilmember Sanger added she doesn't want St. Louis Park to spend too much money on this project until it is confirmed to happen. Mr. Locke added the funds discussed tonight will not be committed until sometime after the Record of Decision (ROD) is issued, which is anticipated to occur in August, 2016, and the project office is in a position to apply to FTA for project engineering approval. Study Session Minutes -7- May 23, 2016 Mr. Harmening asked staff from an FTA perspective, when they need to know that the $135 million in additional local money to fund the project is committed. Mr. Locke stated once there is a Record of the Decision (ROD), then the SWLRT project applies for the engineering. It is at that point the project budget and scope will be set, It is staff's understanding that is when the project would have to show it has all the funding. The earliest this may occur would be August, 2016. A full funding grant agreement application for FTA commitment to fund the SWLRT project is anticipated to be submitted by January (2017) and approved by the summer of 2017. Then there would be a full commitment to go ahead with the project. Mr. Locke added that there is a link to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the City's website, including responses to the over 1000 comments to the original draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and comments to the supplemental draft environmental impact statement (SDEIS). Communications/Meeting Check -In (Verbal) There were none. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 5. April 2016 Monthly Financial Report 6. Public Art Initiative — 4900 Excelsior Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk