HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003/01/27 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session CITY OF OFFICIAL MINUTES
T. LOUIS CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
PARK January 27, 2003
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally
Velick, Jim Bnmeyer, Paul Omodt and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present City Manager(Mr. Meyer), Community Development Director(Mr. Harmening),
Planning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah), Planning Coordinator(Ms. Erickson), Assistant Zoning
Administrator(Mr. Momson) and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Elmwood Area Study - Review Draft of Final Document
Staff and Barry Warner of SRF, met with council to present the draft of the final document to the
Council. Barry Warner was present to answer questions and take comments.
Ms. Erickson explained that council would be asked to formally accept the recommendations in
the plan at the meeting of February 18th. The public would also be invited to comment at that
meeting.
Councilmember Nelson asked if there was adequate enforcement options by changing only the
comprehensive Plan, but not the Zoning for the area.
Mr. Harmening responded that the intent was to balance between allowing existing uses to
continue as conforming and provide guidance for future redevelopment as it occurred. He was
concerned that changing zoning prior to redevelopment would impose too many restnctions on
the operations of existing uses in the area.
Mr. Nelson also questioned the adequacy of parking in the area of the transit station.
Mr. Warner responded that the intent would be to engineer this station to use shared parking with
housing located in the area, and provide for a "kiss and nde" drop-off area, and utilize other
transit circulator options.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the plan as presented would still be applicable should the rail
line not develop as anticipated.
Mr Warner stated that in all likelihood, transit would occur at some point in the future. He also
believed that the intensity of development in the are would increase even without the transit
piece Just due to the proximity to Highway 100.
Ms. Sanger also asked if there should be further discussion regarding a potential freight rail
diversion in the area Councilmember Nelson believed that any freight rail diversion would
impact areas outside the scope of this study.
Mr. Meyer pointed out that if freight rail was discontinued in this area, it would be most likely
that traffic would increase to the north and not go south through the Elmwood area. The Market
would not support such a route.
Study Session Minutes -2- January 27, 2003
Councilmember Brimeyer felt that if Council supports this guidance then we must also make the
comprehensive plan changed. He asked what kind of public investment we might need to
provide a catalyst to get the development going. He questioned whether the redevelopment
should be broken into more manageable chunks.
Mr. Meyer stated that he believed the study had produced a good plan, but the intent was that it
would provide guidance as the area redeveloped naturally over a long period of time. It had
never been the intent to "make it happen".
2. Traffic and Environmental Studies—Park Nicollet Clinic Campus Expansion
The city Council reviewed a proposed environmental, traffic and parking analysis for the
proposed park Nicollet Clinic campus expansion project. Mr. Harmening presented highlights of
the report and requested council feedback on the staff recommendation for financial participation
in the cost of the study for work tasks not entirely attributed to impacts of the park Nicollet
proposal.
Council was generally receptive to the proposal.
Councilmember Bnmeyer felt that the Traffic Demand Management provisions were very
important
Councilmember Nelson asked if park Nicollet also support the plan and the financial
participation recommendation. Mr. Meyer responded that they did.
This item will be presented for council approval at the February 3 meeting.
3. Square Feet of MN—BOZA Appeal for Parking Variance
Mr. Morrison explained how the parking requirements for industnal zones had developed over
the years. Ms. Jeremiah stated that though the community development department was
planning a study on industrial zoning requirements, the study would not be completed for some
time and therefore not be useful for this particular issue.
She also informed the council that lot allocations made at the time the lot was developed could
be changed by the city at any time.
After discussion about the variance request, council determined that their intent would be to
make changes that would allow existing businesses to remain in the area. They would like to
look at options for reallocation of the parking, perhaps through voluntary "swapping" of spaces
between the businesses.
Staff agreed to look at more options and return tot he council with more information in the
future.
4. Proposed Contract for 2003-2008 Solid Waste Collection
Staff presented a draft scope of work and draft contract for council consideration.
Study Session Minutes -3- January 27, 2003
Discussion immediately focused on whether the city should seek RFP's for the contract or
negotiated with the existing vendor.
Councilmember Sanger felt that RFP's were absolutely necessary to ensure that the city would
be getting the best possible contract.
Mayor Jacobs questioned whether the RFP process was required in this case. Mr. Meyer
responded that solid waste contracts are not subject to some of the requirements found in statute
regarding other contract types Mayor Jacobs consulted with the City Manager who consulted
with the City Attorney, and Mayor Jacobs was told that it was determined that City fees are not
required. The City could negotiated with the current vendor on a new contract
Councilmember Nelson felt that it was very important to provide continuity for the residents in
making the changes proposed. He believed that all of the recommended programmatic changes
in the contract could be accomplished by the current vendor with a minimal amount of disruption
to the public.
Councilmember Sanger again objected, stating that in her experience the service provided by our
current vendor was unacceptable. She believed it would be irresponsible to renegotiate with the
current vendor without looking at what kind of service other vendors would be able to provide
Councilmember Bnmeyer also felt that the city was on the right track in preparing the scope of
services He felt it entirely possible to determine what the program we want is, negotiate for
those services at a price that's fair and that it could all be done using the current vendor.
Councilmember Santa believed there should be performance indicators built into the contract.
She also stated that she had not received large numbers of complaints recently, but did not see
any harm in proceeding with RFP's. Mr. Rardin responded that there was a significant
performance component built in to the scope of services with number of errors allowable and
penalties
Councilmembers Velick and Omodt agreed with Sanger and Santa that seeking RFP's could
provide important comparisons.
Councilmember Nelson asked Councilmember Sanger if there was any circumstance under
which she would support a contract with our current vendor. Councilmember Sanger stated that
there was not
Mayor Jacobs asked if the recycling credit that the city used years ago could be reincorporated
into the contract.
Mr. Rardin said that the credit was removed some time ago because it had proved relatively
ineffectual and was difficult to administer. He believed that increased rates of recycling in the
city should be an educational effort provided by the city—not the contractor.
Mr. Meyer expressed his concern that service levels would be impossible to determine through
an RFP process. He believed service expectations should be part of the contract, but that the
issue of service was too subjective to make a decision upon. Because of that subjectivity,
council would be forced to make their decision based upon price and that would not necessanly
reflect the public's interest in good service.
Study Session Minutes -4- January 27, 2003
Based upon discussion, council directed staff to pursue RFP's.
5. Council Policy Issue—Fence Permits—Sanger
Councilmember Sanger asked the council if they would like to pursue ordinance changes that
would prohibit property owners from making changes to their property which would restrict
another property owner's access to their property. Specific situations where this occurs were a
case where one neighbor, in order to reach his garage had to drive across the property of an
adjacent property owner. When the adjacent property owner made improvements to his
property, the first property owner could no longer use the route through the adjacent property to
reach his garage
Mr. Harmening responded to another issue raised by Councilmember Sanger where a fence was
erected legally, in conformance with city ordinances on a property line which just happened to be
down the center of a shared driveway. The erection of the fence made the driveway unusable to
the property owner who had not constructed the fence.
Mr. Harmening stated that in most of these situations, these is a background of
uncooperativeness between neighbors. Fence permits are issued based upon conformance
requirements. If a fence is built legally and in conformance with applicable laws, the city cannot
deny the permit Additionally, performing a pre-construction inspection before issuing a fence
permit would be an administrative burden to the city.
Mr Meyer stated that he would discuss the situation with the attorney to determine whether the
city can compel a property owner to allow passage though his property to another property
owner, if that is the only access the adjacent property owner has. Councilmember Sanger's
request to the City Manager was that which was reviewed with the City Attorney regarding
whether City permit requirements can be adjusted to include, not to deprive, adjacent property
owners of access to their properties.
6. Adjournment
The meeting concluded at 10:31 p.m
1
. 0// '(
ty Clerk Mayot ) j
° 1