Loading...
2021-03-16REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 3:30 pm by Chair Gillian Rosenquist. Roll Call Task Force Members Present (indicated by asterisk): Name: Company: Name: Company: Gillian Rosenquist* (GR) Task Force Chair, Golden Valley City County Member Karen Boehne* (KB) Task Force, Resident Andy Johnson* (AJ) Task Force, Planning Commissioner Kathryn Simpson* (KS) Task Force, Resident Becky Sanders* (BSa) Task Force, Resident Lucy Smith-Williams* LSW) Task Force, Business Brian Smith* (BSm) Task Force, Resident Marc Meirovitz* (MM) Task Force, Business Cameron Selmer* (CS) Task Force, Resident Sara Barrow (SB) Task Force, Resident Gary Cohen* (GC) Task Force, Resident Tierre Webster* (TW) Task Force, Business Additional Attendees (Steering Committee and Project Team) Name: Company: Name: Company: Marc Nevinski* Physical Development Director, Golden Valley Bruce Schwartzman Partner in Charge, BKV Group Cheryl Weiler* Communications Director, Golden Valley Susan Morgan* Project Manager, BKV Group Jason Sturgis* Police Chief, Golden Valley Ben Janes* Designer, BKV Group John Crelly* Fire Chief, Golden Valley Bryan Harjes* Engagement Lead, HKGi Sue Virnig* Finance Director, Golden Valley Jeff Miller Urban Planner. HKGi Ted Massicotte Assistant Fire Chief, Golden Valley Andrew Cooper* Public Works Architect, Oertel Architects Tim Kieffer* Public Works Director, Golden Valley Dustin Phillips* Pre-Con & Estimation Kraus/Anderson Sue Schwalbe* Physical Development Assistant, Golden Valley Michael Healy* Police Planner, BKV Group Kelly Naylor* City Hall Planner, BKV Group Craig Carter* Fire Planner, BKV Group Margaret Lafferty* City Hall Planner, BKV Group March 16, 2021 – 3:30 pm Virtual WebEx Meeting 7800 Golden Valley Road City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes Mar 16, 2021 – 3:30 pm 2 Modified Public Meeting Protocols Followed Throughout the minutes, Task Force members will be referred to by their initials as listed above. Action items referenced within discussion notes are indicated in bold. Approval of Minutes: Minutes to be submitted for record and approval. GR proposed an amendment to 2/16 minutes to clarify on page 2 of minutes that the 38M proposal for Brookview was eliminated because of budgetary rather than parking restrictions. Additionally, a clarification added to page 4 that city assets include both physical buildings and vehicles and equipment. o Minutes were approved. Discussion: 1. Community Forum Follow-up a. GC on attendance: compared with my experience chairing the election board, the number of participants was actually pretty good, and having two sessions seemed to help. i. GR: The number of residents may sound small, but compared to other recent projects like the Hennepin County Light Rail, where there were 20 to 30 people, 55 people is a good number for events like these. b. KB on what happened to the Fire Station at Scheid Park: It felt like the team / Marc was being evasive both during our meetings and during the community forum, it would have been good to answer the question directly. i. GR: As a council member, she acknowledge it was her responsibility to respond, as the question and topic is better reserved for the council, which was the body responsible for the original discussion. It is not a part of this study to name a specific location for the second fire station. c. KS on Facebook posts about the study: it seems like some people are questioning why we need new buildings, so continuing to reinforce the reasons for the study and its findings is still important. 2. Project Priorities a. KS: Does BKV work with the Design company or when this project is done is our role over? i. SM: When it comes to implementing this plan, BKV and Oertel Architects both have expertise in these areas, but there is a clear distinction between our role in the master planning now and any future selected design team, though we would be City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes Mar 16, 2021 – 3:30 pm 3 interested in supporting and following through on implementation plans. b. AJ: From experience with the planning commission – an opportunity to be more specific and what we mean by redevelopment residential, commercial, retail, etc. vs. mixed use and mix of uses) would be helpful. Similarly, being specific about the expanded DMV, i.e. we simply mean adding licensing [as passport services cannot be added, per previous dialogue with federal authorities]. 3. Conceptual Planning Scenarios a. GR on the environmental review process of remediation: if the property remains city property, does the process become any less onerous than if it was being sold? i. SM: There is no significant difference. b. KB: Have any ground borings been done yet? i. SM: Those can happen for two reasons, one can be to test for contaminants, or for the soil composition, and that lets you know what you may be dealing with from a building composition perspective. The team is discussing with the city doing some sample borings to better understand the remediation needs of the city for cost estimation. c. KS: Besides Gas and Oil, do we use any other hazardous chemicals in these buildings? i. GC: Are there any underground fuel tanks? ii. AC: The city did a study with Wold in 2007, and gas and oil are the main hazardous materials stored by the city, including in some underground fuel tanks, which were recently re-done. iii. KB: Do they use any degreasers, like perc? iv. AC: Yes, Public Works does use degreasing materials, and have containment similar to the storage of bulk fluids like motor oil and hydraulic oils, which are mandated by building code for containment of storage and dispersement. Option A: d. AJ: feels very government centric, which is maybe not what the site wants to be and may be the opposite of what the city wants. Does it send a message about being too police focused? i. SM: One of the main things that has driven our schemes so far has been the desire (from the departments) to keep public safety together, as well as the constraints associated with potential acquisition of McDonald’s; this keeps Public Safety locked in the center of the block due to the required access lanes and SF needs to make the buildings work. Option B: City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes Mar 16, 2021 – 3:30 pm 4 e. KS: Is there any consideration with making Rhode Island not a thru street and using some of that land? i. GR: Calvary Co-op uses Rhode Island Ave for deliveries and it’s an entrance for the Calvary Church lots. ii. SM: This was investigated early on and did not offer significant planning benefits for the poten f. GC on the Woonerf: The concept is used in the West End Project. g. KS: What is our city code for building height for mixed use space? i. MN: City just adopted a new standard, it’s either 5-6 stories, with some requirements for stepbacks for maintaining daylight access. ii. GR: This is also where the downtown study and municipal study start to intersect, referencing the guidance of the ULI study a few years ago, especially with a stronger emphasis on development along the Winnetka/Golden Valley intersection. Mixed use or hotels would work – there are only two others on 394. h. BSa: I really appreciate the interior green/gathering space, something to think about is which side of public safety is facing that green area and where the trucks and sirens might come from during an event, but it does feel like it might bring people into the center of the space. i. CC: Turning on sirens immediately for fire apparatus is not a government standard; lights must go on first. Departments decide this in their own policies/ i. KB on Option B: Have you thought about flip flopping city hall and development on this model? Like moving police/fire down? i. SM: There are some challenges to expanding and renovating city hall, especially to add on housing developments, but it could be something to look at along the west side. j. MM: It would be useful to know which quadrants were the most valuable from a private development standpoint. i. GR: The corner parcel near Winnetka and Golden Valley is potentially the most valuable, as well as the creek area, as defined by the ULI study from a few years ago. ii. MN: That corner (Winnetka and Golden Valley Road) is the most desirable, especially for a mixed use development. There may be a limit to the amount of retail space for the area, but if there’s a high desire for more commercial uses that corner would be prime opportunity. Multifamily could be located in a number of places with different amenities nearby. k. KS: Are those retention ponds or water features? City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes Mar 16, 2021 – 3:30 pm 5 i. SM: It would probably be doing double duty, serving as stormwater management but also appearing as a water feature to the public. ii. KS: Is there some on Option A? iii. SM: There would be some space allocated for this on the NE corner. l. KB: I can see a conflict with Farmer’s Market area being in Development area. i. SM: Identified proposed parking and event spaces in the schemes. At present, most of the schemes show the 1,000 person event space beside the water tower as a visual feature and landmark. m. AJ: Could you please provide the rationale(s) for the public areas conjoined to Police/Fire? i. MH: The public areas would be a shared lobby space, that would also include a community training room that could be used for 50 people, used by either the department or the public. This also includes the non-secure areas of both departments, where staff can meet with the public in small meeting rooms. ii. CC: The Fire Department also has the EOC (Emergency Operations Center), which needs a space for people to gather without having to wander around the fire department. The spaces would need to be reserved, so not fully public all the time, but it’s a way to make sure we plan for those joint functions as part of our studies into operational studies. iii. AJ: When looking at this, I was wondering how we keep the living residential areas together, and wondering what it looked like if you flipped the NE Development and Put it where the PD is and connected PD to Fire with a skyway over the EW drive. This could keep the residential developments together. 1. MH: One aspect tying the police and fire together is using the basement of the Fire facility for the support spaces of the police, so that would still need to function in that scenario. 2. SM: Additionally, there’s a significant amount of surface area dedicated to secure parking for the police department, which makes it hard to fit onto NE site. 3. CC: Fire vehicles can maneuver under a skyway, however, considering this would be at the second floor it might be too low for navigating, as the skyway level would really need to be above the total height of the apparatus and the spanning structure, which typically City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes Mar 16, 2021 – 3:30 pm 6 tops off above what would be traditionally the height of a second story. Part of the intent of these schemes is to provide a common front door between the two department, so it really wants to be in the middle. 4. KN: There’s also the benefit of the Creek and access to the Luce Line trail that might make the NE corner more attractive to developers than right next to the fire station and next to the water tower. iv. KS: How would these be done in phases – these seem like radical departures from what we have? 1. SM: With public works leaving, once that NE area is cleared it can be sold and redeveloped if that’s what the city wants to do. While waiting for the time to be right, the center can sit as a green space before the new public safety building is built, and the new footprints are kept apart from the current building so that it can continue to function as the new set of buildings are being built. n. Option D: i. KB: There is a parking lot by the water tower – what does it serve? 1. SM: Per the Downtown Study there is a mix of surface parking and the intent for integrated parking garages in redevelopment. ii. GC: Does the county pay for the new library? 1. NM: There would have to be more conversations with the county, but there are some 2. GC: It feels like HCL has broken trust with the Golden Valley Community, based on COVID closures and reopenings, so the community may be wary of them. iii. KS: Do we have any cost estimates on any of the models? 1. SM: The team’s approach is first to explore and identify strategies, to refine and consider which schemes are worth exploring in more detail, but following some of those conversations and decisions detailed cost estimates will be developed. An understanding of broad costs has been a part of the process thus far, however. iv. KS: This option seems to have the most opportunity for outside development, and thus new tax revenue, is that correct? It is the biggest change, but there may be some offsets there. City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes Mar 16, 2021 – 3:30 pm 7 1. MN: That has been part of the consideration for this step – there will be some significant capital costs with any scheme, and those will be offset by selling property and generating new tax revenue. To the degree that we’ve worked through theses, that’s a consideration, but we want to get to a point where there’s a ‘right’ plan for the city, both financially and for the feeling of the downtown. Option D probably generates the most money, but it’s unclear how much more. o. Miscellaneous Comments: i. GR on Option B and C: Where the Affordable development is located, is there a possibility that city hall could be located there instead (to share library parking, re-developed for market/plaza space, etc.). Has this been explored? 1. KN: This has not been explored, but can be looked at. 2. SM: The library has said that they don’t use the full parking lot, and it would be available for redevelopement/ adjustments. 3. GR: The appeal of Option D is that all the Civic services are combined in one area – even if the City Hall is not connected physically to the library, it helps create a focal point for the civic activity. 4. MN: This also adds flexibility for if the City Hall needs to move at a different time than the library. It could also be possible to buy a bit of property to move the lines as necessary ii. AJ: Please consider Police/Fire in the SE corner and reduce the width of Rhode Island where those two facilities end Midway of parcel). Serves to reclaim some land in east/northeast corner, quiet that section with narrower road, better link the residential buildings, and provide better access to Golden Valley Road for Police/Fire. iii. KS on City Hall Renovations: With some of the bigger renovations, how many years can we still get out of the building? 1. KN: We had explored earlier a light renovation that could be done and hold the building over for 5 years. The addition would be closer to 10 years. 2. KS: Can we live with these buildings for 2-3 years if we need to? 3. MN: Some of the issues are the A/V capabilities of the Council chambers, which is a very necessary City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes Mar 16, 2021 – 3:30 pm 8 investment, along with some other focused updates. There have been some cosmetic updates, but they don’t address some of the functional needs of the building. If the outcome is to relocate City Hall to somewhere else, there wouldn’t be a lot of work done to the existing City Hall, just enough to hold the function together until a future move. iv. KS: Would there be parcels of land that could be purchased in the industrial part of Golden Valley? 1. AC: As long as nothing is being built on it now, there are many sites that could be purchased, it just depends on the price, parcel size/quantity, and time. 2. KB: How large is the area by 169 (Cold Storage facility) the city currently owns? 3. AC: It has a couple of usable acres, with the full size being a bit larger, but a lot of the site is wetlands. There have not been any specific sites evaluated with the criteria. v. AJ: Earlier someone mentioned tax benefit of market based housing – if TIF is an investment tool to fund market-based housing, the tax benefit to the City from that development will be greatly reduced for the duration of the TIF, which is typically 10-20 years. vi. GR on the 2nd fire station: Is it necessary to have 30 parking stalls if the city moves to a duty crew model? 1. CC: Because of training needs, there needs to be parking available for all of the firefighters working out of a facility, which drives the parking requirements for the second station, rather than the day-to-day needs of the duty crew. 2. MN: Polling and community events might also contribute to this demand as well. vii. KS: Would the City consider leasing land for the facility buildings? 1. MN: It would have to be explored. There may actually be some advantage to doing the opposite, to leasing the land of the current fire station land for redevelopment that might earn the city a stead income. viii. KB: Does the city own the land where Highway Patrol are located? 1. GR: It’s my understanding that the State Patrol and the MN DOT have been very receptive to co-location. City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes Mar 16, 2021 – 3:30 pm 9 4. Preliminary Discussion on Site Selection Criteria (for Public Works and Fire Station #2). a. Public Works - AC: Proposed criteria are taken from best practices for Public Works planning and operations, from industry standards, and from operating requirements for building and site size. i. KS: In Golden Valley Industrial-zoned areas, are there currently parcels available for purchase? 1. AC: Potentially, yes. This project’s goals is to define objective criteria that allow the City to evaluate potential sites against their overall applicability and value, to justify land purchase to citizens and neighbors. ii. KS: Was Brookview’s additional space considered? 1. AC: It was not evaluated as it does not meet most of the criteria established. iii. (XX): Can there be co-location with an existing State Public Works facility? 1. AC: Having worked with the State on nearby facilities, these are currently at capacity, and in general the State prefers not to share facilities. b. Fire Station #2 [New Construction to be implemented in the near term to enable the operational transition to a 24/7 service, duty crew model] – CC: Parameters for site search are similar to Public Works: based around required operating clearances and equipment sizing, and to facilitate best practices for facility and vehicle planning. i. (XX) Can land from current Fire Stations #2 and #3 be leased? 1. MN: This can be explored in the future, yes; it is not a part of this study, but the outcomes for those properties can impact city income. Next Meeting: 1. Task Force: Tuesday, April 20th 3:30 – 5:30pm. ATTEST: Marc Nevinski, Staff Liasion Respectfully submitted, Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director