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.