Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAT Agenda and Meeting Notes MEETING MINUTES Public Works Site Small Area Guide Process Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 7:00 - 9:00 pm Edina City Hall Council Chambers Staff Present: Cary Teague CAT Members Present: Kevin Staunton Greg Domke Chris Rofidal Lisa Diehl Josh Sprague Mary Erickson (for Nancy Grazzini-Olson) Mike Platterer Ellen Jones Andy Brown Kim Montgomery Joann Olsen Sue Davison Design Team Members Present: Peter Sussman Michael Schroeder Stefan Helgeson Minutes: Meeting minutes from April 23, 2010 and June 29, 2010 were approved with revisions. Teague gave an update on the Met Council process regarding the LCA grant. Chair Stautnon presented the Grandview District Report. A lengthy discussion took place in regard to edits to the document and next steps. Issues that were raised during the discussion included: O Future of the School Bus Garage. O Economic values of the Public Works Site and Bus Garage. • MnDot Transportation issues. O Sale of public land. O The Design Team labeling the Public Works Site as Mixed Use. • What is the role of the CAT in the 2nd Phase of the process? O Should a new team of stakeholders be involved in the 2nd phase of the process? The CAT and Design Team members present recommended edits to the draft Report. Chair Stauton stated that he would revise the document and work with staff to get the new draft out to each member for review. If all agree on the changes, the report would be brought to the Planning Commission for review and the presentation to the City Council for approval. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 pm. AGENDA Community Advisory Team Meeting June 29, 2010 7:00—9:00 PM Edina City Council Chambers I. Review and Approve Remaining Minutes II. Debrief on Process Ill. Discussion of Next Steps Adjourn 1 MEETING MINUTES Public Works Site Small Area Guide Process Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 7:00 - 9:45 pm Edina City Hall Council Chambers Staff Present: Cary Teague CAT Members Present: Kevin Staunton Kim Montgomery Josh Sprague Andy Brown Mike Platterer Chris Rofidal Gene Persha Lisa Diehl Ellen Jones Greg Domke Steve Buss Design Team Members Present: Mike Fischer Peter MacDonagh Peter Sussman Mike Fischer Michael Schroeder Jim Miller Discussion: Mr. Fischer said he would lead the discussion this evening and focus on "what worked and what didn't". Ms. Montgomery said in her opinion because of the fast paced time frame the group had "tunnel vision". Member Montgomery said there wasn't enough time to really think about it, adding more time may be needed to process the principles to ensure this was really what we wanted to say. Continuing, Member Montgomery said she felt there was a disconnect between what the CAT envisioned and what the Design Team interpreted. Member Montgomery said the Design Team got many things right, however they added some things (that were not intended by the CAT) and missed others. Concluding, Ms. Montgomery said there should be a lag time between the CAT initial definition of principles and the delivery of those principles to the Design Team to ensure that the principles are clear and what the CAT intends. Ms. Diehl suggested one more meeting. Mr. Rofidal said the Thursday, Friday and Saturday sessions were very intense. Rofidal asked could this process be more virtual, so those traveling could participate. Mr. Flatterer suggested that a conference call might work, adding he thought numbers in the groups were very good. Mr. Brown thought maybe more could participate. Mr. Fischer said a good idea may be to have the process take a couple months — this was compressed into a 21 day period. Mr. Miller didn't think there was a disconnect. He suggested once the design was done, there could be more meetings, and then bring to different groups. Mr. Fischer suggested that there is an additional meeting to discuss the concept before the public open house. Ms. Montgomery said she thought that the drawings and the principles were too vague. Mr. Sprague said he thought the process was good and by being somewhat vague helped gain consensus. If you want more detailed plans you might not get consensus. Mr. Flatterer suggested that more detail could be provided and made more formal toward the end. You would gain consensus as you move forward. Ms. Jones asked at what point could it be determined if traffic ideas are even possible. Mr. Miller thought a facilitator was needed for the design team. Mr. Domke liked the principles. Ms. Montgomery said she thought that the principles should be simplified and clarified and the principles didn't fully reflect what was intended. Mr. Sprague disagreed, he thought they did. Mr. Rofidal said he thought the principles were good; but how do we develop them further. He pointed out the Council wasn't present to participate. Maybe Jack Broz could have given his presentation earlier. A lengthy discussion ensued. Mr. Miller stated that MnDot is due to help Edina — 100 is prime; Edina has been ignored. Ms. Diehl stated staff help and web site was key. Mr. Staunton said in the beginning all agreed that letting anyone speak was good. Open door informal meeting worked. Mr. Platterer stated that visioning is the hardest part. Defining detail can come easier. The team agreed that future CAT "teams" should be Edina residents. Discussion took place regarding conflict of interest. Some members expressed concern about members of the Design Team being allowed to bid on any parts of the re-design of the area. Member Fischer disagreed. No conclusion was reached by the CAT on the issue of a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Persha thought the Design Team members could be from outside of Edina. Jack Broz was the only participant not from Edina. He was a consultant brought in from the outside. Next Steps - Member Staunton asked "What is the task" Staff is working on the report; what does the group want to do? A discussion ensued on what to do with the bus garage. Should City be proactive in finding a site? It was acknowledged the need to be partners with the School District. Further discussion took place as to the next steps going forward with a report. Do we attached this to the Comprehensive Plan and flush out as a small area plan? Ms. Montgomery suggested that a task force be created to deal with how to deal with the bus garage and to flush out details on transportation. Other ideas on the next steps included drafting a report; whether to attach as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan; or recommend further study to the Council. Discussion took plan in regard for the need to get the Council to adopt a resolution to allow application for a grant to study the area further. Mr. Rofidal moved to have City staff apply for a LCA grant. Mr. Brown seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. It was suggested that the Resolution be placed on the next Council Agenda. Members Montgomery and Schroeder will go to the Council Meeting to represent the group. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 pm.