Loading...
CR 2012-111 Approve Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Sanitary Sewer Lift Station location in Oakes ParkG\TY OF 4* September 26, 2012 H° P K I N S Council Report 2012-111 Approve Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Sanitary Sewer Lift Station location in Oakes Park Proposed Action. Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move that Council approve the northwest corner location of Oakes Park as the site for the new MCES sanitary sewer lift station. Overview. The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services is in the process of upgrading the portion of the regional wastewater system that extends from Hopkins through Minneapolis. This includes replacing MCES lift station 27 located at the intersection of Lake Street and Blake Road. This 40+ year old lift station requires replacement due to its age & condition, capacity and antiquated odor control and electrical systems. MCES and city staff conducted a rigorous process of evaluating nine different sites for the new lift station. Following this evaluation, on March 20, 2012, City Council approved an inter -governmental agreement to locate the new lift station within Oakes Park. Public meetings regarding the lift station relocation to Oakes Park were held on March 5, May 30, Aug 8 and Aug 11. The Park Board discussed the possible locations within the park at its August and September meetings. The Park Board unanimously recommends the lift station be located in the northwest corner area of the park as shown on the attached aerial photograph. Primary Issues to Consider • Public meeting feedback • Construction impact to the Park • Project Schedule • Additional Public Input Supporting Information. • Aerial photograph showing proposed location • Meetings summary • Draft S pt 17 Park Board Minutes Steven J. Stadler Public Works Director Primary Issues to Consider • Public meeting feedback The attached meetings summary prepared by Howard R. Green Company, the MCES engineering consultant, is a good report on the scope of each meeting and the public input received. • Construction impacts Under the current project schedule, construction of the lift station would start in the fall of 2013 and be completed in late 2014. Lake Street utility work and street reconstruction would occur in 2014. The lift station temporary easement area will be fenced -off. Lift station construction will require removal and/or relocation of the hockey rink — this will impact soccer in the fall and skating during the winter of 2013/2014. There will likely be a reduced size general skating rink available during the 2013/2014 winter season. During the 2014 construction season there will be extensive utility pipe work under Lake Street followed by street reconstruction + lift station above ground work will be underway. On -street parking for park users will be limited to Tyler Avenue, Oak Park Lane and possibly 2nd Street NE. Staff will work with the Recreation staff to determine how to best continue the 2014 summer playground program. Bus routes will have to be diverted from Lake Street to Tyler Ave. • Project Schedule Site Approval: Fall 2012 Begin Design: Fall 2012 Bid project: Spring 2013 Construction Start: Fall 2013 Sewer/Street Construction: Sprint 2014 Construction Complete: Fall 2014 • Additional public input A public meeting to present options and discuss site and building design will be held in late October/early November. At this meeting MCES will present proposed building designs and site landscaping, answer questions, and receive feedback or input on building/site design. Hopkins L27 Lift Station Relocation - Park Site Legend Property Boundary W e Metropolitan Council Temporary Easement HRGreen OAKES PARK NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS SUMMARY 8-16-12 Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) is in the process of upgrading the portion of the regional wastewater system (sanitary sewer) that extends from Hopkins through Minneapolis. This includes the replacement of Lift (Pump) Station L27, which is located at the intersection of Lake Street and Blake Road. L27 was built in the early 1970s and needs to be replaced due to its age and condition, its limited capacity, and its lack of technologically current odor control and electrical systems. MCES and the City of Hopkins conducted a long and rigorous process of evaluating nine different sites for the new lift station. Following this evaluation, MCES and the City of Hopkins signed an interagency agreement agreeing to locate the facility in Oakes Park. The design and construction schedule for the project, in general terms, includes the following milestones: • Final Site Approval: Fall 2012 • Begin Design: Fall 2012 • Complete Design; Bidding: Summer 2013 • Begin Lift Station Construction: Fall 2013 • Sewer/Street Construction: Spring 2014 • Construction Completion: Fall 2014 The interagency agreement identifies a site in the northwest corner of Oakes Park as the preferred location. However, given neighborhood concerns have been expressed about this location, it was further agreed that additional neighborhood meetings would be held to determine the best location for the lift station within the park and, ultimately, to gain input from citizens on the architectural design of the lift station facility. Three neighborhood meetings have been held regarding the proposed location of the MCES lift station in Oakes Park: Initial Meeting: May 30, 2012 at 1002 Second Street NE, Hopkins (43 Hoops Building) Second and Third Meetings: Initial Meeting Summary August 8, 2012 at Oakes Park, Hopkins August 11, 2012 at Oakes Park, Hopkins The initial meeting was held to communicate the process and needs for a new lift station within Oakes Park. This meeting was attended by approximately 50 people. The project timeline, construction/park impacts, how it will be funded and possible architectural features were also discussed during the meeting. The Metropolitan Council team answered project questions from the audience. Attendees were asked to describe how they use the park today and what issues and concerns they have about the proposed lift station. HRGre.n.con, Phone 651.644.4389 Fax 651.644.9446 Toll Free 800.728.7805 Court International Building, 2550 University Avenue West Suite 400N, St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 The goal from the initial meeting was to identify the major issues associated with the lift station project. Based on input gathered from a meeting survey the following is a working list of key project issues: • Loss of green space • Reduced park functions • Odor • Noise • Construction impacts • Traffic/access impacts • Size • Proximity to homes • Impacts on property values (See "Flipchart notes", "Survey", and "Comments" attachments for additional information from the initial meeting) Second and Third Meetings Summa Two meetings were held on-site (Oakes Park) to engage and gather input from Hopkins residents and park users. Approximately 40 people attended these meetings. A display board describing the required and alternative park functions was displayed along with three boards describing three alternative lift station locations, listing the pros and cons for each location. Participants were asked to add an orange dot to the park functions they preferred and to add an orange dot to the lift station location they preferred as well as writing in additional pros/cons about each location alternative. Attendees were encouraged to provide their input on the park layout and lift station location by completing an exercise using scaled cut-out park function "puzzle pieces" on an aerial site plan. (See "Required Functions/Alternative Functions", "Alternatel Plan", Alternate 2 Plan" and "Alternate 3 Plan" and "Meeting 2 Comments" from the second and third meetings,) Key Observations Based on the input received at the meetings described above, we offer the following key observations about Oakes Park and the lift station location within the park: Oakes Park and the green space are clearly recognized as a neighborhood amenity. The most common current uses of the park are: o Cricket o Soccer o Tennis o Playground o Walking • It is important to minimize tree removal, particularly of mature, slow growing trees. • It would be preferable to avoid impacting the existing tennis court and playground. HFGrsen.com • It is important to provide for cricket and soccer, preferably with separate space and improved grounds for each function. These are recognized as popular uses by both park users and residents. • Retaining the hockey rink is not critical although there are some who would like to keep this. Most people indicated that there is very little use of the hockey rink — there is more use of the hockey rink in the summer for soccer than in the winter for skating. • It is important to separate cricket from the playground — balls frequently are hit into the playground from the current location. • It is important to keep the walking paths, picnic shelter, and open green space although the location of these facilities could change. • The warming house does not appear to be an important need but city staff has indicated a desire to retain open skating and the warming house. • Additional spectator space is desirable, especially for cricket matches. • The "DOT" exercise indicated a slight preference for the northwest corner location for lift station over the central location, but the map -based park planning exercise indicated a strong preference for the north central location. Most Promisina Lift Station Locations Based on what we observed and heard during the public meetings, we have developed two alternative concepts for locating the lift station within Oakes Park. Concept 'A' has the lift station located in the north -central area of the park and Concept 'B' shows a possible layout with the lift station located in the northwest corner of the park. The pros and cons of each alternative are summarized below. (See "Concept'A' and Concept'B') Alternative A: North-Central Location Pros • Has greatest separation between cricket and playground • Provides new picnic shelters (would be part of lift station project cost) • Provides potential space for a future hockey rink, if desired, or a larger cricket field • Minimizes overlap between cricket and soccer fields • Location is not next to existing single family residential homes • No impact on existing tennis courts, playground or warming house Cons • Requires replacement of existing picnic shelter • Removes existing trees (but immature and/or fast growing varieties including some ash) • Requires regrading and relocating the existing cricket field • Changes the character of the park RGr�cn.ccm 3 • Greater potential impact to park functions during construction Alternative B: Northwest Location Pros • Less disruption to existing park facilities • Farthest distance from playground • Simplest alternative • No impact on existing tennis courts, playground or warming house • Removes the fewest trees • Has less impact on the character of the park • Located in a low portion of the park, which has positive drainage and maintenance implications Cons • Cricket is close to the playground • Lift station is closest to existing single family homes • Does not provide room for hockey rink if both cricket and soccer fields are provided LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Summary of Initial Meeting a. Flipchart Notes b. Survey Summary c. Comment cards 2, Summary of Meetings 2 and 3 a. Required/Alternative Park Functions b_ Alternate 1 Plan c. Alternate 2 Plan d. Alternate 3 Plan e. Map -based park planning exercise (13 sheets) f. Summary of comments (verbal and written) 3. Concepts A and B FLIPCHART NOTES OAKES PARK NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING May 30, 2012 • Use/Design of the Park o Where will the hockey rink go? o Hockey rink is used a lot for soccer — will there be a soccer field? o What will the impact be on the bike/walk trail? o The park is heavily used for cricket and soccer. o Can there be a shared use building (specifically modern bathrooms were mentioned)? o Bike racks are needed. o Lighting is needed along Lake Street (it is very dark there). • Impacts of the Lift Station o Will the lift station smell (lots of comments about bad smells around the existing lift station) o What is the proposed property line? o How much noise will it generated? o Will there be noise at night? o Will plantings and/or other strategies be put in place to protect Minnehaha Creek? o How will trash be managed? Who will pick up trash? • Construction Impacts o How much excavation will be needed? o How will traffic be rerouted during construction? o Will bus routes and bus stops be impacted during construction? o What will happen to parking on Lake Street (heavily used for the park, particularly in late afternoon/early evening)? o Where will parking be permitted — during and after construction? • Location o How does the size of Oakes Park compare to other parks? Why not put this in another (larger) park where it would impact a smaller portion of the park? o What would be done if the park were not here? o Can it be built on the existing site? What are the engineering and cost issues associated with the existing site? o Can it be integrated into the park site? o What will be the alignment of the new sewer line? • General o Will there be any tax impacts (several questions about whether taxes will be increased)? o How much did Metro Council pay the city for the park right-of-way? How was the value of the land determined? o How was public input obtained previously (many comments about not knowing about the issue, not being involved previously)? o Who got notices previously? ® Summary of Issues from the Survey o Loss of green space o Reduced park functions o Odor o Noise o Construction impacts o Traffic/access impacts o Size o Proximity to homes o Impacts on property value ,"® Metropolitan Council QUESTIONNAIRE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PROPOSED LIFT STATION IN OAKES PARK May 30, 2012 How do you use Oakes Park today? _7_ Playground _6_ Tennis courts _3_ Hockey rink _1_ Softball _1_ Cricket _5_ Sledding hill Other (please describe) Other responses included: walking/jogging (7); watching park activities (4); watching cricket (3); open space/quite refuge (3); skating (1); biking (1); basketball (1); dog walking (1); reading (1). 2. What do you value most about Oakes Park? The leading responses were: proximity/easy access (7); large open space/green space (5); available to local residents, especially kids (4); actively used by the community (4); place for sports/picnics/walks (3); quite place (2); ice rink (2). 3. What are the three most important concerns you have about the proposed lift station in Oakes Park? 1) 9 responses concerned reduced park space, park use and park quality (why ruin a good park?); potential loss of ice rinks; chance to renew park facilities. 2) 7 responses concerned potential odors. 3) 6 responses concerned potential noise Other leading responses concerned construction impact/noise (5); street impact, i.e. cars, bikes, buses, road detours, access (4); too large and too close to residential areas (2); impact on real estate values (2) i comr r'NT CARD Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Neighborhood Meeting -- Proposed Lift Station in O9kes Parka- May 30, 2012 Name Address Mr Wallace R Campbell 304 Tyler Ave N Hopkins, MN 55343 If you Would like more information about the Proposed Lift Station in Oakes Park, please contact: Tim O'Donnell Metropolitan Council Environmental Services 390 Robert St. N. St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 651-602-1269 (phone) tim.odonnell@metc.state.mn.us Thank you for your time and interest! MetropeGtarr Council Erwironrnental Services Neighborhood Moating -- ;Piropo-wd gift Station in wakes 30, 20'12 If yoir +r„)uld like worE information about � the Propo sad I-Ift Station in Oakes pal.k P�omse cont Tim O't"onned I Metropolitan Council environmental 390 Robei l St. N. Marne flne� f %r�,) r✓ Address t!m.odannolll, ?me��.si.ate.rn�i:us e, a- mO� s u rp__ `iho pec v-2 and t i' s.• urs "in ,►nts— - H3 N� _ I I Cd a i j At,USjS(C�-e-d �'e,�,�j' SIG- �5r d s• sf� �' ,argil<.you ror r,,ow-tin-le- and intere COiVIMENT CARi� Metropolitan Council Environmental Services NeighborhoodMeeting -- Proposed Lift Station in Oakes Park -- May 30, 2012 Name — Address -- --- �_ If you would like more information about the Proposed Lift Station in Oakes Park, please contact: Tim O'Donnell Metropolitan Council Environmental Services 390 Robert St. N. St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 651-602-1269 (phone) tim.odonnell@metc.state.mn.us Comments V e- -LQ `']L)� _._L=) Thank you for your time and interest! Playground Picnic Shelter Varies Varies Tenni5 Courts 60'x 120'doubles Warnahig House Varies Soccer Skating 55.75 yds x 100-120 3,te V -ries 10 yd perimccer deer Cricket 66'x 10'pim9i- e,-:Dvn0 75 ),;1 perimeter dear zone around pitch Hockey( C7) .R , 185'-200'x -99' St)ftba)l 46' home plate to pitchers mound - 60' base line 275'foul line WF=, - "77 Trails Spectator Seating D Ole "7- ,.-) 0'D Community Gardens i4 --k VAS 'a 'A wParking OW ti --,* WAf-M Free Skate Area F-7--, 7 Sledding -tA? CAMMOtr Marlen add rvIetx0P0lit&n coumcil Environmental Services 0. -�.'' D + Less disruptive to park (comer location) . + Less disruptive to existing trees + Distance from playground a . Aid wo*w e -Proximity to residential property -Displacement of existing Jhockey rink • add Metropolitan Council Environmental Se/vices _ 0 S + Less disniptive to park, (coiner location) + Less disruptive to existing trees el B 0 -Proximity to residential apartments -Proximity to playground -Displacement of existing tennis courts s AAA Metropolitan Council Al Environmental Servicav + Distauce from residential property + No impacts on existing hockey rink and tennis counts More ti�-�rceS v�ewla,.%EO�. 0 s -Possible impact to warming house and picnic shelter -Possible impact to playground -Possible tree impacts 0 AA Metropolitan Council ©® Envirunmental Services Public Meeting Notes - Wednesday, August 8, 2012 • One of the reasons I moved to this area was because of the activity in the park and the hockey rink. Moved here two weeks ago • The area between the warming house and the shelter is ideal • It's unfair that people can reserve the park for cricket • We enjoy hearing the cricket games and hearing people in the park • People visiting the park are young adults looking to play soccer and cricket. 20 years ago the area was mostly families with kids that played softball and hockey o Would like to include an exercise course Saturday, August 11, 2012 • Live in the apartment building and really appreciate the park being used for sledding, cricket and soccer. Hockey rink is not used as much anymore. o Lots of people use in summer not many in winter — cricket, tennis and soccer most common uses • Needs to look nice — park is great asset for neighborhood o Very expensive to provide skating and hockey for 2-3 people who use • Specify times for large formal activities such as cricket so times available for smaller informal pick-up games (soccer) without conflict o Walking paths used by several people • Play tennis and like to watch cricket and other activities • Don't need more trails— make sure people can still play cricket and soccer and have room to watch • No one plays softball • Playground is important • Don't spend a lot of money making lift station look too fancy • Don't like parking idea • Multiple shelters/more opportunity to gather • Hockey isn't that popular — soccer is more important • Keep trees (several comments) • Formal cricket field —would be only one in Twin Cities • Grass not maintained in park—WHY? • Park needs to accommodate soccer and cricket • Put the lift station where the tennis courts — east end is more commercial/large building CITY OF HOPKINS PARK BOARD MEETING MINUTES September 17, 2012 A regular meeting of the Hopkins Park Board was held on September 17, 2012. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Hatlestad called the meeting to order at 6:38 pm. II. ROLL CALL Present were Park Board members: Bob Hatlestad, Norman Teigeh, Abbey�ck, Tom Jenny and Caroline Rinker. Also present was staff liaison Steve Stadler- ==T I1I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 20, A motion was made by Norman Teigen, seconded by Abb iya uc toapprovethe August 20 minutes The motion passed with a 4-0 vote. Caroline Rinker arrived a�`e fiis vote. IV. BUSINESS = --. A. Oakes Park Lift Station sitin After brief discussion, NomjVgp igen made a moion'to locate thF-Eft station in the northwest corner arca of the park (near Tyler 7weLaStreet intersection), seconded by Bob Hatlestad. It was noted that this was the site that reonved the mast_votes during th two open houses held in the park. There was then considerable discussion regarding -two possible loca"s, the central location along Lake Street (at the picnic shelter area) and thaprei tjj rationed ngfEhwest corner site. The discussion centered on comparing the r-elatrve-aesthetiounipact of tl etwo x station locations and the ability to support multiple field activities ether with o_rwithout the hockey rink. It was generally agreed that the central locations to had the lar&e gative-aesthetic impact to the park. Abbey Bryduck requested that the original rno ion be amended-Eo=also stateha ultimate park layout would be determined at a future date wherein feayout and hock��nk decisions would be made to maximize park user benefit and further consider input obtained at the August open houses. Norman Teigen agreed to the amendment. Following discusron, Chair BobIatlestad called for a vote on the motion, which passed with a 5-0 vote. = _ JJ. 11y,jwL ujzua GJ-1y1QGLL+VILL 1'11-.1U 1111j21VVGL11G11L r1VIVAA WIU Va11VY VCLLR FLUX ZLIGZL 1111j21VVG111G110 Stadler reported that the=project is complete with the exception of planting trees in the park this fall. The grand opening event will be planned for next spring. The Valley Park play area improvements are completed. C. Resident request to consider constructing a dog park in the citX Stadler reported that he had been contacted by a resident requesting that the Board again consider constructing a dog park within the city. The resident pointed out that there are difficulties using -2 - neighboring city's dog parks including licensing and increased user fees. Stadler reviewed the 2006 actions which led to a City Council decision not to construct a dog park. Stadler stated that considerable open space would become available upon completion of the MPCA landfill consolidation project that will begin within a few weeks and be completed in summer, 2013. It was requested that city staff collect information from nearby dog parks and provide this information to Hopkins residents. After some additional discussion, Bob Hatleson made a motion that the Park Board considers on a future date the possibility of constructing a dog park at the landfill site. The motion passed with a 5-0 vote. • Park Capital Improvement Funding Stadler reviewed the goal to have the system -wide review Stadler stated that he'd attempt to get a joint meeting schen worksession. • Cottageville Park/Blake Road corridor plans - Staff shout within a couple weeks. These would be brought to the Oc review/discussion. in September. The Park Board will be estate consultant is negotiating the purchase of the second, • Southwest Transitway Project — no update this month"EM: • Nine Mile Creek Streambank and Habitat enhancement pr project — trail and pedestrian bridge construction work has September. • Central Park Tennis Courts — courts need Improvement Plan. • Valley Park Play Equipment Upgrade — W suggestion that the existing -,Metal climber i Norman Tiegen had -to leave After some discusse P< Bryduck: :M. Caroline ,ompletp&for the October meeting. luted for theNovember City Council Deceive draft conce_pt improvement plans obFr--Park Board Meeting for involved in the review -T ss.. A real south6mmost duplex. ine Mile Creek regional trail should be completed by mid - work is included to tkie 2013 Capital led to begin -in early September. There was a y be rncwd to Maetzold Field. -:-assignment report. following park assignments: Oak Beach, Shady Oak Nature Area, Minnehaha Creek to report Park, Oakes Park, Maetzold Field, Hiawatha Oaks — nothing to Interlachen Park, Burnes Park, Harley Hopkins Park — buckthorn is growing along the east edge of the park, the shrubs in front of the Burnes Park sign should be trimmed Norman Teigen: Buffer Park, Park Valley Playground, Valley Park — Norman reports that he is very impressed with the results of the creek and trail construction in Valley Park Tom Jenny: Downtown Park, Elmo Park, Central Park — nothing to report -3- E. Caroline Rinker gave a brief report of findings from her review of her assigned parks, i.e. Harley Hopkins, Interlachen and Burnes Parks. V. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETINGS: The next regular Park Board Meeting is October 22, 2012 at 6:30 pm. VI. ADJOURNMENT Tom Jenny made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Caroline Rinke.-"'L-- a otionpassed with a 4 - 0 vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. �— Atte