HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/10/08 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session IIf St. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES
MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 8,2012
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, Sue
Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Julia Ross.
Staff present: Deputy City Manager/Director of Human Resources (Ms. Deno), City Attorney
(Mr. Scott), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Locke), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Inspection Services Manager (Ms. Boettcher),
Engineenng Project Manager (Mr. Olson), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling),
Administrative Services Intern(Mr. French), and Recording Secretary(Ms Hughes).
Guest: Michelle Swanson (Xcel Energy).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning— October 15 & October 22, 2012
Ms. Deno presented the proposed special study session agenda for October 8, 2012, and the
proposed study session agenda for October 22, 2012.
Councilmember Sanger requested further information regarding the wntten report on the
recycling contract with Eureka and questioned why the City has to pay more for glass recycling,
noting that the City is being asked to pay for something that is now a Hennepin County mandate.
Ms. Deno agreed to provide Council with further information regarding glass recycling.
2. Beekeeping in St. Louis Park
Ms. Deno presented the staff report.
Councilmember Hallfin asked how often the City has been contacted about beekeeping.
Mr. Hoffman replied the City has been contacted approximately once per year and received one
complaint regarding beekeeping.
Councilmember Hallfin stated there have not been a lot of complaints and preferred that there be
the least amount of regulation possible, adding that it made sense to require beekeepers to
provide a water source.
Councilmember Mavity agreed and stated she felt this issue was a solution in search of a
problem. She was hesitant to do anything about setbacks, flyway barriers or fences particularly
because the City has a variety of lot sizes and these requirements would have a disparate impact
on people with smaller yards. She preferred that the City allow beekeeping through the Code
and if minimum requirements are to be added, she would only support a requirement to provide a
water source. She stated a one-time license could be required so the City knows where bees are
being kept and the City should address any issues on an as-needed complaint basis.
Study Session Minutes -2- October 8, 2012
Councilmember Spano indicated that Councilmember Ross requested that he convey her support
for some regulation around best practices, e.g., providing a water source and requiring
beekeepers to register their hive location, but nothing onerous. He stated he felt the City was not
an expert on beekeeping and could rely on the Hobby Beekeepers Association for guidance,
adding that he preferred less regulation on this issue.
Councilmember Sanger stated she did not like the idea of allowing beekeeping because the City
is much too dense and beekeeping is a rural activity. She acknowledged that her point of view is
not the majority and was in favor of regulating beekeeping using the model the City has for
recreational fires which requires a one-time permit so the City knows where hives are being kept.
She indicated she was disconcerted that Council does not feel regulations are needed and this
puts staff in a tough spot to address a situation if no standards are established. She was
supportive of the model ordinance, particularly a requirement that beekeepers provide evidence
of training to certify their expertise in beekeeping. She requested further information regarding
flyway barriers and suggested adding language that if a hive is not within 25' of a neighboring
property, they are not required to add fencing. She added she did not see why one person's
hobby should constrain the neighbors from enjoying their property.
Councilmember Mavity recited a portion of the Code's environment/public health section related
to nuisances and felt this was a tool available to the City to address complaints.
Councilmember Sanger disagreed and stated the City's ability to claim beekeeping is a nuisance
has been taken away. She discussed how the term nuisance is too vague to allow any type of
enforcement.
Mr. Hoffman stated that this section of the Code is too vague if applied to beekeeping and it
would be hard to prove a nuisance exists.
Councilmember Santa agreed with using a less is more approach and likened this issue to the
issue of recreational fires. She supported a permit requirement so the City knows where hives
are being kept and this will help people be good neighbors. She was supportive of allowing
beekeeping and the City should use best practices.
Mayor Jacobs stated he was in favor of a best practices approach and was in favor of the setback
requirements. He indicated if for some reason a beekeeper cannot meet the 25' setback because
of their lot's configuration, a fence should be required, adding he did not see any need to limit a
colony based on lot size. He agreed with the recreational fire analogy and requiring a one-time
permit but did not feel evidence of training was necessary.
Councilmember Mavity did not agree with having setback requirements and felt a hive could be
placed on a small lot with no impact to neighbors.
Councilmember Spano asked if it was possible to address the setback issue only if a complaint
was received by the City.
Councilmember Sanger felt there should be setback requirements and stated an alternative might
be if the setbacks are less than 25'then the hive must be located in the center of the back yard.
Study Session Minutes -3- October 8, 2012
Councilmember Mavity called the question regarding setback requirements and stated that
beekeeping has not been a major problem and it felt like the City was making people jump
through hoops when there has not been a problem.
Councilmember Sanger stated a complaint was lodged because a resident was keeping bees on
the property line where it affected the neighbor and a setback requirement would have been
beneficial. She added beekeepers are taking on a hobby that carries inherent nsks and the City
needs to protect people.
Councilmember Santa stated the City regulates how people should treat their animals and there
are steps the City can take to address a problem. She felt it was reasonable to give staff some
tools to work with so if a problem arises with beekeeping it can be dealt with to keep the bees
and the neighbors safe and to make sure neighbors are not inconvenienced.
Councilmember Mavity suggested the Code define nuisance related to beekeeping and recited a
portion of the New York City Code that defines nuisance. She stated if the beekeeping becomes
a nuisance, the City can pull the permit.
Council continued its discussion regarding setback requirements and nuisance.
Councilmember Spano suggested that the City Attorney could look into nuisance and Council
can amend the ordinance at a later date if it is determined that nuisance should be added.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he would be okay with having setback requirements and if a
complaint was received, the beekeeper should be required to meet the 25' setback.
Councilmember Mavity stated she would not agree with that requirement.
Mayor Jacobs stated he would agree with a 25' setback requirement in the ordinance but that
existing hives would only be required to be moved upon complaint, adding this is similar to the
City's overnight parking restrictions. He indicated there is currently nothing in place regarding
setback requirements and the City cannot enforce something unless there is a standard for it. He
added that any new hive would be required to comply with the setback requirement
It was the consensus of the City Council to amend the City Code to allow beekeeping in
residential zoning districts and to include a regulation in the City Code requiring that a water
source be provided. It was also the consensus of the City Council to not allow in multi-family
and to add if setback of 25 or 20 feet could not be met that a fence or flyway zone could be
required.
3. Xcel and CenterPoint Energy (CPE) Franchise Ordinances
Ms. Deno presented the staff report.
Mr. Rardin introduced Ms. Michelle Swanson from Xcel Energy. He advised that staff met with
representatives from Xcel Energy last Thursday and at this time, the only issue to be resolved has
to do with Xcel's accountability to the City as it relates to facility relocations. He stated Xcel
Energy is willing to move forward on the franchise and staff is optimistic that agreement will be
reached; however, the second reading of the ordinance may need to be rescheduled to November.
Study Session Minutes -4- October 8, 2012
Councilmember Sanger requested further information regarding Xcel Energy's unwillingness to
commit to following the City's standards and ordinances. She questioned why Xcel Energy
would think it is not required to comply with the City's ordinances and also questioned why that
has to be in the agreement when it should be a given that Xcel Energy must comply with the
City's ordinances.
Mr. Scott clarified there was not an issue with Xcel Energy complying with the City's ordinances
but rather a matter of what terms would be contained in this ordinance. He advised the City has
permitting requirements in the ordinance but also has standards not contained in the ordinance
and the City added language requiring Xcel Energy to comply with the ordinance as well as the
City's administrative permitting requirements. He stated that Xcel Energy did not agree with that
requirement but has since eliminated that objection.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the City has legal authority to impose a franchise as an
ordinance. She asked what the difference would be if the City imposed the franchise as an
ordinance versus reaching an agreement with Xcel Energy.
Mr. Scott replied that his position is that the City has the legal authority to impose a franchise as
an ordinance. He stated at this time it would not make any difference if the franchise was in the
form of an agreement or in the form of an ordinance. However, future amendments to an
agreement would have to be with Xcel consent, whereas ordinance amendments would not.
Councilmember Santa stated that residents have expressed concern about Xcel Energy's lack of
responsiveness to residents when they call about a downed power line. She indicated that this
represents a performance issue and requested that performance be addressed so the City has an
understanding that issues will be dealt with in a timely manner.
Mr. Scott advised that this type of performance issue is not being addressed in the agreement
with Xcel Energy and stated he was not sure whether the agreement can address that kind of
performance issue, adding that the agreement deals with performance issues such as relocation of
lines, e.g., Highway 7 and Wooddale.
Ms. Michelle Swanson, Xcel Energy, appeared before the City Council and expressed concern
that a downed power line was not quickly addressed. She stated if residents are not getting a
response from Xcel Energy's customer service area, they can call her directly for follow-up and
agreed to provide her business card to Council.
Councilmember Hallfin indicated a tree fell on his property approximately ten years ago and
Xcel Energy trimmed the tree around the power line at no cost to him. He asked what has
changed during that time because it now appears the homeowner is responsible to pay for tree
trimming in the area from the power line to the house.
Ms. Swanson advised that it has always been Xcel's policy that the service line to the house is the
responsibility of the homeowner. Xcel Energy will drop the line and trim the tree at the
homeowner's expense. She presented a brochure entitled "Tree Pruning Near Power Lines" and
urged Council to call with any further questions.
Councilmember Hallfin asked if it was possible to require Xcel Energy to trim trees around
power lines at its expense to take the onus off homeowners adding there have been situations
Study Session Minutes -5- October 8, 2012
where a tree needs to be trimmed but the power line belongs to the neighbor, which means that
the neighbor has to pay for tree trimming on a tree that belongs to someone else.
Ms. Swanson stated that the section of line coming into homes from the pole is not what causes
massive power outages and is typically not where the focus is in terms of tree trimming.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the tree trimming done by Xcel Energy has been
characterized as butchering and asked that Xcel Energy improve the quality of its tree trimming.
Ms. Swanson stated that Xcel Energy's contractors use industry standards and trees are trimmed
to maintain the health of the tree and get the tree away from the power line.
Councilmember Mavity asked what tools are being built into the agreement to prevent a similar
situation to the Highway 7/Wooddale project.
Mr. Scott advised this issue is currently being discussed but has not been resolved. He explained
if you do not have a franchise agreement, the right-of-way rules indicate if a project requires
lines to be relocated, the utility needs to promptly move the lines following notice by the City.
He noted this is basically the same language as is contained in the current franchise agreement;
however, the City included liquidated damages language that states if the City gives notice to
move lines within 60 days and Xcel Energy does not move the lines, it would trigger a penalty
per day in addition to other remedies. He indicated that Xcel Energy is still reviewing that
language and if Xcel Energy will not agree to this language and the City adopts the franchise as
part of its ordinance, Xcel Energy is going to object to the ordinance and take the position that
the City cannot impose a franchise without Xcel Energy's agreement.
Councilmember Spam'stated he lives near Methodist Hospital and the neighborhood spent two
years negotiating ways to lessen the impact of lighting to adjacent properties. He indicated an
agreement was reached to plant slow-growing trees that shielded the lights and last year Xcel
chopped all the trees in half, which means the neighborhood will not have the benefit of
shielding because of the way Xcel Energy trimmed the trees. He stated the City has begun using
natural plantings to minimize impacts to property owners and it will be important to make sure
there is tighter coordination among the parties to avoid another situation like this.
Councilmember Sanger supported the liquidated damages language and asked if an expedited
arbitration clause could be added to the agreement to get disputes quickly resolved.
Mr. Scott agreed to add an expedited arbitration clause to the agreement and discuss the clause
with Xcel Energy.
4. Project Update—Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
Mr. Olson presented the staff report and advised that Cardinal Glass requested that their four
driveways remain permanently after construction is completed. Construction plans called for
removing two of the four driveways.' The City has been able to restore all four driveways into
the project. He stated that Sam's Club has not responded to their offer letter and the Oak Hill
office building wants it in wnting that the new storm water system will not be their responsibility
after construction of the project since their storm water pond will be removed as part of the
construction. He advised that Louisiana Oaks Apartments has been presented an offer but
nothing has been submitted in response and the City's agent has indicated that Louisiana Oaks
Study Session Minutes -6- October 8, 2012
will likely be going through commissioner hearings and negotiations with them are not likely.
He stated the Newport apartment building's new owners are reviewing the offer. He advised that
a meeting has been scheduled with the billboard sites on October 11th regarding relocating the
signs and stated the billboard sites have concerns that the new location might not have the same
visibility due to the higher elevation of the road. He then presented the staging and detour plans
noting that work will commence in April 2013. He explained that Highway 7 will have two
lanes open for in-bound traffic as well as one lane open for out-bound traffic and Louisiana
Avenue will have two lanes open but will be restricted to two-way traffic during the later phases.
He described the planned detour routes for phases 1-4 and discussed signage along the detour
routes.
Ms. Deno indicated that if traffic issues anse during construction, the police department will be
asked to provide assistance.
Mr. Olson explained that meetings were held with the business owners to discuss their concerns
about the planned rerouting. He stated that Mn/DOT has a public affairs coordinator and
engineer assigned to this project with significant expertise in this area and they will bnng
examples of what has been used on other projects and explain how the business owners can
incorporate these examples to keep customers coming to their businesses. He indicated the City
can provide maps showing alternate routes as well as specialty signage for business owners. He
then discussed the public art and explained that fabrication of the form liner for the bridge will
cost $87,000 and noted that construction of the form liner is covered under general aesthetics but
the crafting of the form liner is the City's responsibility. He stated the brick paver work will cost
$94,000 and the design has been simplified to reduce the cost and make it easier to construct. He
indicated that the two precast concrete elements are $11,000 each, the vertical towers will cost
$112,000, and the under bridge lighting will cost $135,300 and includes four hidden LED lights
which can be color changed. He added that streetlights are not yet shown but will include low-
level pedestrian lighting and selected high level lighting at intersections using LED lights.
Councilmember Mavity indicated the City is spending a lot on aesthetics and urged the City to
make sure the aesthetics and detail of the streetlights is taken into consideration.
Councilmember Sanger questioned the placement of seating elements under the bridge and felt
these benches should be removed.
Councilmember Santa agreed that benches under the bridge might not feel safe.
Ms. Deno asked Mr. Rardin to take out the two seating elements and leave them as an option.
Mr. Olson stated that Xcel Energy has provided an estimate of$450,000 for undergrounding the
power lines and indicated that a Special Facilities Surcharge can be used by the City to recoup
the undergrounding costs through a monthly surcharge of$.50 to residential customers for three
years. He stated the other option is to have the City pay the cost of undergrounding the power
lines out of the project budget.
Mr. Rardin noted that the City's franchise states that utility companies are obligated to relocate
their lines and if the City wants the lines undergrounded, the City is obligated to pay the
additional cost.
Study Session Minutes -7- October 8, 2012
Councilmember Spano stated that a monthly surcharge could be used towards undergrounding
lines throughout the City and felt this could become a vehicle for getting rid of overhead lines.
Councilmember Santa stated she was reluctant to impose another fee structure, adding that the
pavement management fee makes sense but she could not justify a fee for undergrounding lines.
It was the consensus of the City Council to pay the cost of undergrounding the power lines from
the project budget.
5. Disposition Process for Excess MNDOT Parcels—Wayzata Boulevard
Ms. Deno presented the staff report and policy question for Council consideration.
Councilmember Sanger stated she was in agreement with the current policy. She expressed
concern with the proposal to build one-story buildings and indicated her recollection was that a
two- or three-story building was proposed for the parcel east of Texas Avenue where there is a
significant grade change.
Councilmember Spano stated that Councilmember Ross asked him to convey her preference for
the KM Anderson Builders proposal for medical office buildings acknowledging that that would
require a policy change. He stated that the City has recently lost a number of single-family
homes and felt the property on the west end on Texas Avenue might present an opportunity to
replace some of those single-family homes.
Councilmember Mavity stated the site lends itself to clustered housing or low-density
townhomes.
Councilmember Sanger indicated there is another Mn/DOT parcel in Cedarhurst on the east side
of Highway 100 and asked if Council should discuss this again to see if Mn/DOT is willing to
give up that parcel for four or five single family homes.
Mr. Locke agreed to follow up on this Mn/DOT parcel.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
None.
The meeting adjourned at 8.46 p.m.
Wntten Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
6. Update on Potential Upcoming Redevelopment Sites and Projects
7. 2013 Budget& Property Owner Service Charges—Special Service Districts Nos. 1-6
8. Amend Recycling Contract with Eureka Recycling
9. Business Park Zoning District—Rezoning Upd•to
10. SWLRT DEIS Update nn
f '
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Ja lob)Mayor