Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/07/25 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session jr-t;TY OF LOUIS OFFICIAL MINUTES RK CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 25, 2005 The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m. St. Louis Park Councilmembers Present: John Basill, Sally Velick, Paul Omodt, Sue Sanger, Jim Brimeyer and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Golden Valley Councilmembers Present: Mike Freiberg, Scott Grayson, Paula Pentel, Bob Shaffer and Mayor Linda Loomis. St. Louis Park Staff Present: City Manager(Mr. Harmening); City Planner(Mr. Fulton); Planning and Zoning Supervisor(Ms. McMonigal); Community Development Director(Mr. Locke); (Mr. Momsson); and City Clerk(Ms. Reichert). Golden Valley Staff Present: City Manager(Mr. Burt); City Attorney(Mr. Barnard); Assistant City Manager(Ms. Andre); Public Works Director(Ms. Clancy); Community Development Director(Mr. Gnmes). 1. Joint Meeting of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley City Councils Joint Golden Valley and St. Louis Park 1-394 Traffic Management Ordinance The purpose of the discussion was to review the current status of the ordinance and whether any changes may be appropriate. Mr. Barnard provided an historical background on the overlay district. Marie Cote of SRF provided an overview of a recent traffic analysis. Councilmember Grayson asked if the service levels included in the original ordinance are still valid. Mr. Harmening responded that the SLP Comprehensive Plan states that a level D is acceptable, but that level of service is not preferred. Councilmember Sanger stated that the original intent was for the ordinance to be evaluated annually. That was not happening. Councilmember Finkelstein asked how the ordinance would apply in the event Duke Realty submitted a development proposal. Mr. Harmening responded that when any proposal comes in the Task Force is called to study the traffic impacts of the development. The Task Force had met 3-4 times dunng the past 10 years. The original intent of the ordinance was not to ensure equal development on either side, but was intended to allow for collaboration in addressing impacts of the development from both cities' perspective. Councilmember Brimeyer also pointed out that the ordinance applies only to office development. Under the current ordinance, if a proposal for retail or residential uses were proposed the ordinance provisions would not apply. Councilmember Pentel asked if the ordinance should be revised to include other kinds of development, such as hotel or housing. Mr. Harmening responded that it would be difficult to include other uses as the ordinance was intended to apply to peak traffic times. Hotel, retail and housing would not necessarily affect peak travel times. Study Session Minutes -2- July 25, 2005 Councilmember Pentel believed that adding other uses to the ordinance would help to get developers to the table in terms of offering enhanced transit options for residents and customers. Councilmember Finkelstein agreed, saying that the current ordinance presupposes that all travel will be by automobile. There are other transit options that developers could be providing enhancements for. Perhaps bus shelters, ped crossings and the like should be considered, as well. Mayor Loomis stated that revisions to the ordinance could provide opportunities to help make transit more convenient. Mr. Locke stated that St. Louis Park ordinances already exist related to transit planning,but they are not necessarily tied to the Travel Demand Management Ordinance. Councilmember Grayson asked if it was possible to add incentives for better transit planning. Mayor Jacobs asked for suggestions for next steps in reviewing the ordinance. Councilmember Pentel suggested looking at the effects of other uses on the p.m. peak and to also look at the a.m. peak. Councilmember Sanger suggested reconvening the Task Force to study the ordinance and make a report to the combined councils at a later date. She also was in favor of considering the a.m. peak. Councilmember Grayson asked that recommended enhancements to transit in the area be included in that study. Mr. Harmening summarized stating that staff would move toward reconvening the task force. Minneapolis West Joint Powers Agreement The two city councils discussed efforts to prepare a joint powers agreement between Golden Valley and St. Louis Park to deal with issues of land use approvals,permitting, service delivery, property taxes, etc. A draft agreement had been created in the recent past, but efforts to finalize that agreement had stalled due to staff changes. Mr. Harmening and Mr. Barnard suggested renewal of efforts to form the WA. Mr. Harmemng presented a history of the negotiations as well as an overview of provisions contained in the draft agreement. Councilmember Pentel asked how public safety issues would be addressed. Mr. Harmemng responded that the cities of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park already shared dispatch services and operated under a mutual aid agreement for emergency service deliver. Response on either side of the freeway would not change from the current model. Councilmember Sanger was concerned about a possible 16th Street Extension. Mayor Loomis believed that the developer should be responsible for costs associated with roadway changes and that neither city should be required to contribute to a roadway required by a developer. Study Session Minutes -3- July 25, 2005 Councilmember Grayson believed that the JPA should be in place prior to a development proposal coming forward. He agreed with the currently proposed provisions in concept and would like to see the agreement finalized. Mr. Locke asked whether the two councils believed staff should move forward with negotiations. Both Mayor Jacobs and Mayor Loomis agreed that staff from the two cities should go forward with negotiations and bring the agreement forward for adoption in the near future. Update on Golden Valley 1-394 Corridor Planning Study Mr. Grimes presented an overview of a Golden Valley initiative to study the I-394 corridor in terms of future needs. The process includes input from residents, and businesses and should result in a plan to help guide the Golden Valley City Council as they make future decisions affecting the corridor. Councilmember Sanger suggested that St. Louis Park undertake a similar study. She also asked if the study results will include guidelines for architectural standards. Mr. Grimes responded that it may, but that the process is just beginning. Deer Management Mr. Harmening began the discussion by offering help to the City of Golden Valley as they move forward with discussions regarding management of their deer herd. Councilmember Sanger believed that the deer issue cannot be addressed by any one municipality, and that she believed jurisdictions needed to cooperate together to create a management plan that addresses travel patterns of deer across municipal boundaries. Mayor Loomis stated there was no good place to hunt deer in Golden Valley. Mr. Vaughan responded that it had proven more effective in SLP to trap and dispatch deer. Councilmember Sanger stated that the issue of determining how management efforts would play out is minor compared to the emotional response of residents. Mayor Loomis stated that the issue is already divisive in neighborhoods and that city hall has been receiving lots of calls. Councilmember Schaffer added that car/deer crashes were up in number as well. Councilmember Grayson stated that the GV City Council had not yet had an opportunity to discuss the issue and that it was scheduled for discussion on August 9th Mr. Vaughan pointed out that deer population is directly correlated to overgrowth of buckthorn due to over browsing by deer of native plant populations. Study Session Minutes -4- July 25, 2005 Adjournment Members of both city councils expressed their appreciation for the productive meeting and agreed that it would be worthwhile to meet again in the future. Mayor Jacobs adjourned the joint meeting at 8:00 p.m. 2. Cable TV Renewal and Franchise Transfer Updates Mr. Pires introduced Brian Grogan, Special Counsel to the City. Also present were Reg Dunlap and John McHugh. Mr. Grogan explained his role in the procedure. He also stated that as of October 15th, the city must act to approve the transfer or, if the city does not act, it would imply approval and end the process. A meeting is to be held on August 15th, the results of which would determine whether the city should come to agreement or begin the formal process council had discussed some time ago. Mr. Grogan went on to explain how various decisions the council might make would play out. The entire council was in agreement that Local Origination is an important component of the agreement. Councilmember Omodt believed that if the city were to take on local programming, that the cable company would need to provide some kind of funding for that effort. 3. Wireless Study Update Tom Asp of Virchos Krause was at the meeting to present results of an initial feasibility survey to the council. Mr. Pires stated that the study indicated that the implementation of a wireless system would be feasible. Over the next 30 to 45 days, staff would be completing the scientific portion of the survey and compiling results. More information on the wireless plan would be brought forward to council at a future meeting. 4. Review Status of the Louisiana Court Development Staff and council discussed the status of Project for Pride in Living's Louisiana Court Development Stabilization Plan and current financial status. PPL is requesting $400,000 in funding to assist with capital improvements and replenishing of reserve funds. Mr. Locke introduced Mark Ruff of Ehlers and Associates and Steve Bubul of Kennedy and Graven who were present to answer questions council may have during the discussion. Councilmember Sanger was disappointed that PPL was asking for money from the city and was not inclined to grant an additional $400,000 to the organization. She was also not in agreement that the city should limit the liability of US Bank as proposed. Mr. Locke explained that the $400,000 could leverage up to $1.8 million in funding from other agencies that would go toward improving the property. Even if the city were to decide to foreclose in the future, improvements to the properties would only be in our best interest. Study Session Minutes -5- July 25, 2005 Council discussed several options including foreclosure and conversion of the units to condos. Mr. Harmening asked council to consider what the city had tried to accomplish by entering into the agreement with PPL in the first place. That was to consolidate ownership, to improve the property management at Louisiana Courts, and to provide for physical improvements. The city has also intended to ensure long-term affordability. He reminded the council that the city that, other than the loan, the city has invested only $140,000 in the property to date. He asked them to consider the political aspects of any decision they might make and how it could affect our relationships with other government agencies that were involved. A $400,000 investment would leverage much more funding and make improvements possible that would increase the value of the city's investment. Councilmember Finkelstein believed there should be an"exit strategy"should things not work out as planned. Councilmember Omodt believed that Louisiana Court was a concentration of poverty. He did not support additional improvements at that location and was more inclined to provide affordable housing units around the city than fix these particular units. Following discussion council asked that staff determine our options, how far would other agencies go if PPL was no longer a partner, and how might US Bank and other agencies would react if the city did not agree to provide the $400,000. 5. Adjournment-The meeting was adjourned at 10•_ I p.m. y Clerk Mayor