Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/09/12 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session 7CITY OF SRST. LOUIS OFFICIAL MINUTES K CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION September 12, 2005 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: John Basill,Jim Brimeyer, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager(Mr. Harmening), Civic TV Coordinator(Mr. Dunlap), Community TV Coordinator(Mr. McHugh), Community Development Director(Mr. Locke), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Director of Technology and Support Services (Mr. Pires), Environmental Coordinator(Mr. Vaughan), Planning/Zoning Supervisor(Ms. McMonigal), Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson) and Recording Secretary(Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 1. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Task Force Report Ms. Walsh introduced Michael Wyatt, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Planner who presented the Visioning Process and recommendations. Councilmember Omodt asked if they controlled creek flow? Mr. Wyatt responded base flow is controlled, but not with a rain event, which was a challenge. Councilmember Omodt asked if they would open the dam to regulate flow when the creek is low? Mr. Wyatt replied the DNR defines the operation. Councilmember Basill asked can the creek goes dry because there is a minimum elevation over the dam? Mr. Wyatt replied yes, it is mandated by the DNR. The dam also has a physical barrier. Councilmember Sanger noted a concern for future recreational opportunities. She questioned plans for flood control if they didn't do sediment removal,was there assurance the Army Corp of Engineers wouldn't build dams and was there input from groups such as the Sierra Club? Mr. Wyatt replied they solicited applicants from a broad audience including the Sierra Club and Audubon Society. Recreation was one of the most important issues identified, defined as using resources around the area for bird watching and hiking. There was no clear recommendation to improve canoeing, fishing, swimming, etc. Councilmember Santa stated there was an interest in canoeing,but there is a flow issue and canoeing can only be done a small period of time. They could encourage other activities such as bird watching and hiking. The creek has three very different areas. Helen Pitt, Task Force Member, stated that the list talked about providing recreation and serving as a gathering place. They didn't talk about specifics, but the City could look at that. Councilmember Finkelstein indicated they were looking at more access, such as was done with Meadowbrook. Councilmember Sanger felt they needed a larger vision for the whole creek especially for recreational usage. Study Session Minutes -2- September 12, 2005 Mr. Wyatt indicated that the group didn't have full agreement about providing full access or having more natural settings. It is part of the vision statement to provide recreational opportunities and places for people to gather. He indicated they were asking the Council to approve the resolution, adopt the recommendations and use it as a tool in their comprehensive planning. There would be no financial commitment. They would like the city's to be partners and work to implement the vision. Councilmember Finkelstein requested they provide the changes other Councils had made to the resolution. Mr. Harmening indicated staff could look at the model resolution and make changes based on this discussion and bring the resolution to City Council. Councilmember Brimeyer stated the group did good work and they needed to really consider any revisions to the resolution. 2. City Property—Minnehaha Creek Ms. Walsh discussed the background of the city owned property and asked for Council regarding properties with encroachments. Councilmember Basill expressed concern about property owners and people having access to "back yards"of residents living on the creek. There are other areas to access the creek. Councilmember Sanger believed the policy needed to back up the vision and how they used the land along the creek. This may be a way to increase access to the creek. Ms. Walsh suggested they use the land to create a buffer zone. The Council expressed a concern regarding property owners with buildings or other permanent structures on city property and issues of liability. Mr. Harmening stated many property owners were probably unaware the City owned that land. Councilmember Basill stated many residents would agree to help if they viewed this as a collaborative process for shoreline management. Councilmember Santa believed a larger group should be engaged and made aware how important this was. Councilmember Sanger suggested creation of a board or commission to work on environmental issues in the community to protect the natural environment. Ms. Walsh indicated one enforcement letter had been sent to a property owner with a fence encroaching on city property. There are many other similar situations. The Council agreed a task force should be set up to work on educating property owners along the creek, but more discussion was needed on the expectations. Staff should continue working with the property owner who had already received a letter regarding the encroachment. Study Session Minutes -3- September 12, 2005 3. Hoigaards Village Project and Review of Elmwood Area Study Ms. McGonigal updated the commission on the project. Ms Erickson provided an overview of the Elmwood Study. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if Hoigaards were not there, would this be more suitable as an office use? Ms. Enckson responded that had not been considered. Councilmember Basill expressed concern that the neighborhood believed this site would be an office use and this would be a change from the study. He had a concern about traffic levels. The neighborhood was concerned about the amount of condos being built in the area. Councilmember Sanger indicated that Hoigaards brought people to the community and was a positive. Councilmember Finkelstein believed they couldn't make a decision based on memories of Hoigaards. Councilmember Basill stated another concern was about rezoning the property before they had a plan. Ms. Enckson stated the site is zoned C2, the most intense zoning for retail. Businesses such as Walmart or Target could build with that zoning, which would generate even more traffic. Frank Dunbar presented his plan. He noted they believed office development should be done on the Burlington site and housing on this site because of issues with access. Hoigaards needed to make a decision by November. This plan would include neighborhood services such as coffee shops and the phasing would be done from South to North. The project would consist of 71 loft condos, 70 flat condos, 24 units of row houses and an apartment unit. Staging would be done over time for the market to digest this. They had applied for a Livable Community grant to do the pond. Councilmember Finkelstein expressed a concern about too many condos and the use of TIF. Councilmember Sanger asked price points and unit sizes? Mr. Dunbar replied: $200- $350,000 (800-1500 sq. ft), $250-380,000 (900-1600 sq ft); and, $400,000 (1900 sq ft). Mayor Jacobs and the Council expressed concern about the lack of open space. Mr. Dunbar indicated if Hoigaards was not a part of the project, they could enhance green space. If they were a part of the project they would require more parking. Councilmember Basill indicated the neighborhood had an issue with the properties that were not part of the project. Mr. Dunbar responded they had attempted working with the property owners, to no avail. Mr. Harmening indicated that the issue was the land use and if they should rezone the site. Ms. Erickson stated that they could bring forward the change in the Comp Plan and wait to bring forward the rezoning with the PUD. Study Session Minutes -4- September 12, 2005 Councilmember Basill stated that the neighborhood had trusted them and there were too many loose ends. Residents were OK with this if they limited the densities and the project to four stories. The project did not fit a superior standard for TIF funds. Councilmember Omodt was in favor of the project. This was a good location for a project with more density and was along a corridor with the future potential of LRT. 4. Park Summit Condominiums—PUD Amendment Ms. McGonigal reported the project background. The total number of condos, if all projects being discussed now were built would increase from 12%to 15.7%. There are 257 under construction, 456 have been approved and not yet built, for an overall total of 877 units. At the Council meeting, it was asked if this would still be a campus. They would have a common drive and shared parking. The proposed project would include 30 additional parking spaces,with surface parking for guests. Tom Malkyer, Larson, Allen, Wisher, stated this would attract a range of buyers, but the higher price units generally attract older buyers. Removal of the age restriction would help broaden their market. Councilmember Finkelstein expressed concern about the market softening and selling time being longer. Mr. Malkyer replied it had a little, units under$300,000 were still selling well. Councilmember Santa stated the issue was if it were appropriate to remove the age restriction. Mayor Jacobs was concerned because the project was approved conditioned on being a senior property and questioned if they should still have a 14-story building. Councilmember Sanger asked what changed? Mike Gould, SilverCrest Properties, stated that more condos were available on the market. When they looked at the market study they found there was a limited market for age-restricted buildings, which would be a huge risk his partners couldn't take. Councilmember Sanger indicated she believed they wanted it both ways, not labeling it age restricted, but still market to an older group. This would generate more traffic. She had a concern that they didn't have bigger units for families. They could possibly drop the age restriction if they had bigger units and less floors. Mr. Gould stated there would be less traffic for this use than if it were an office. Councilmember Santa expressed a concern about social and cultural issues with two existing senior buildings and adding a different age mix. She had been impressed with the senior campus. Mr. Gould believed they would still attract an older market. Councilmember Omodt believed the over 50 market would determine this and he didn't see many younger people going there. He had no problem dropping the age restriction and didn't believe that would change the demographic. Study Session Minutes -5- September 12, 2005 Councilmember Basill suggested doing a percentage of age-restricted. Mr. Gould stated that the mechanics was an issue. The length of time for absorption and sales became a risk. Mr. Malkyer indicated a disclosure in marketing that it was an age-restricted building became a concern for some buyers because of resale issues. Mr. Locke noted this was an appropriate place for a high-rise being next to employment and services, recreation facilities and transit. Councilmember Finkelstein stated they approved a 14-story building integral for a senior campus. Mr. Locke stated they could turn down they project and they could come back with a new proposal that was not part of the PUD. The plan calls for high-density housing and traffic was not a problem. Councilmember Sanger liked the idea of a high-rise,but was concerned about traffic and parking if it were not seniors. She asked if there was flexibility in design or making it shorter with fewer,but bigger units? Mr. Gould replied they could look at that. Mayor Jacobs noted if there were more bedrooms, there might be more cars and with families the possibility of age differences, which may not be a good mix. Councilmember Brimeyer asked what percentage of condos were sold to families? Mr. Malkyer replied not many. Councilmember Brimeyer stated the market should dictate this. If they didn't have an age restriction, maybe the should not build units larger than 1,000 sq. ft. Councilmember Sanger maybe they could lower the age to 50. Mr. Malkyer responded that HUD defines the age. There is also a stigma attached with an age restriction. Councilmember Finkelstein asked the unit break down? Mr. Gould replied $250-$700,000 (900 sq. ft—2,000 sq. ft.). Larger units were 2 BR with den, often desired by older buyers. Councilmember Omodt stated this was what they were looking for when they did Excelsior and Grand. It was more on the tax roles and wouldn't be that much more traffic. Parking was addressed. The only change was the ability to market it. They were not requesting TIF. Mayor Jacobs was still concerned about parking and if people would park in neighboring lots (such as Target). Ms. McGonigal stated there were 80 surface parking spaces that were underutilized. Staff would park underground and there would be a system for guest parking. Councilmember Basill believed if they brought this forward they should require more from the developer such as 2:1 parking, better design, public art, etc. He requested they see options regarding unit counts and parking ratios for 150 and 138 units. Ms. McGonigal noted they met the standards. Mr. Harmening indicated they would bnng this back to Council and work with the applicant on parking and other"value added" improvements. Study Session Minutes -6- September 12, 2005 5. Cable TV Franchise Renewal Mr. Pires updated the Council on the franchise renewal. Kim Roden, Vice President of Public Affairs, Time Warner, stated the biggest issue was the public education government(PEG) access fee, which has been higher. It puts them at a competitive price differential and they were competing with different regulatory rules. Customers are concerned about their bills and will switch providers for as little as $1/month. They believed the .40 pass through was generous. The franchise fees can go toward the local origination and there are other sources of revenue to fund public access programming. Todd Hartman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller&Cerisi, representing Time Warner, indicated the survey stated that 50% of the customers would not pay the pass through. They tried to find creative ways to make money,meet the needs and continue the same programming, so it was a win/win. Local origination(LO) would continue to be on channel 16. They would transition from Time Warner to City staff with a .40 pass through and they would equip a studio for production and a mobile van. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they had to give up another channel? Mr. Hartman responded they have five PEG and LO channels and Time Warner was asking to reclaim one of the existing channels. They could fit PEG programming onto existing channels. Ms. Roden noted they would offer video on demand and people could get programs when they wanted to view them. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they would collect revenue from the channel they got back? Mr. Hartman responded they pay fees to put programming on. They wouldn't increase revenue unless they raised their rates. Councilmember Sanger stated people were upset with the prices,but not for LO. They were upset because of customer service issues. Comcast has higher LO fees. Have they produced evidence if that had decreased subscribership? Ms. Roden replied she could not comment on fees and subscribership for Comcast. Time Warner attempted to be consistent and the range for PEG pass through is .30-.40. Mr. Hartman believed it made sense for the City to do the LO programming because they were the experts and had the studios. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if there were any"wiggle"room on the pass through fee? Mayor Jacobs asked if other cities had settled for higher than .40? Ms. Roden replied they typically have a package and if one piece shifts, another one has to. There is always flexibility on the numbers,but something else would need to change. Fridley pays .45. Bloomington has an agreement of.55, which Time Warner wouldn't agree to today. Mr. Pires stated it would be useful to know last year's subscribership with the change of fees. Ms. Roden indicated that the number of subscribers had been flat. They had gained customers on the Internet and phone side. There was more competition. Study Session Minutes -7- September 12, 2005 Councilmember Basill stated he had never heard complaints about people paying the LO fee. That could be a marketing tool for Time Warner as a reason not to go to dish. Ms. Roden stated from a legal perspective, a cable company is no longer able to provide LO. They are getting out of that business. They will try to find a funding mechanism to help the City do it. Only a small percentage of people see it as a value. Mr. Hartman stated that St. Louis Park is a unique community. They tried to demonstrate up to two years to provide LO and find ways to have more funding. Mayor Jacobs stressed the importance of LO in St. Louis Park and he didn't believe people would switch because of an increase. Ms. Roden understood that, but the issue was LO versus their concern to have fairness for all cities. To use your own money meant LO was very important. 50% of the franchise fees go to LO and more could. She asked if the City would entertain using a larger portion of franchise fees toward LO. Mr. Pires stated staff was working to find solutions. The last best offer provides a two-year transition. They hadn't raised the .40 rate. They lose a channel. Staff can try to come up with the same result and provide similar programming for$55,000/year, which would fund a position to have the same level of programming. The Council discussed various options for the franchise agreement and local origination. Brian Grogan, Moss and Barnett, stated that the deadline on the transfer is in October. The Council needed to take action or extend the deadline. He discussed the pros and cons of formal versus informal negotiations. Council asked staff to continue negotiations regarding all points of the agreement, including issues of customer service, etc. The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. 41111111 City Clerk V V yor