HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/10/07 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session JIf St, Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES
MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 7,2013
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia
Ross, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmemng), Director of Engineering (Ms. Heiser), Senior
Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan), Operations Superintendent (Mr. Hanson), and
Recording Secretary(Ms. Hughes).
1. Ownership and Replacement Costs in Right of Way
Mr. Sullivan presented the staff report and reviewed the draft policy statement, stating that this
policy statement is consistent with other communities, including Edina and Minnetonka, that
indicates anything that a resident puts in the right of way would be at the resident's onus to
replace if damaged or to relocate if a City project was coming through. He advised that staff has
determined that Chapter 24 of the City Code is vague and needs to be updated, adding that the
League has a useful outline to follow as a way to better describe ownership and uses allowed in
the right of way, etc.
Councilmember Santa stated there were sidewalks installed during the last round of the City's
program that required retaining walls to be installed on private property because of the
topography and asked who is responsible for the upkeep of these retaining walls.
Mr. Sullivan replied the City's opinion has always been that if a sidewalk or roadway gets
installed and the retaining wall was necessary to construct that sidewalk or roadway, then the
City is responsible for the retaining wall. He added the City will always look for ways to
manage a particular yard based on what is best for the resident and the City as well as the lowest
long-term cost, and if sloping back is impossible, then a retaining wall gets installed. He noted if
the retaining wall fits within the right of way the City will install it there and if the property
owner desires a retaining wall then the City would talk with the property owner about putting the
retaining wall on their property and have an agreement in place with the property owner
requiring them to perform long term maintenance on the retaining wall.
Councilmember Santa indicated there were a few locations where the retaining wall installed by
the City was partially located in the right of way and partially located on pnvate property and
asked if the City was responsible for maintaining the retaining walls in those cases.
Mr. Sullivan replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Santa stated it would be important for the City to make sure there is
documentation about ownership and responsibility of these items to avoid any misunderstandings
in the future, particularly when a property is sold.
Councilmember Ross agreed and asked if there is any language either in the permit or in the
County documents that indicates items are located in the right of way and that it is the property
Special Study Session Minutes -2- October 7, 2013
owner's responsibility to make sure when the property is sold that the new owners are aware of
this.
Councilmember Hallfin asked if the City's permit allowing property owners to do work in the
right of way contains language indicating the City provided the property owner with permission
to install improvements in the right of way and whether that permission is granted in perpetuity
or if the permit indicates the City can come back and reclaim some portion of the land.
Mr. Harmening stated the City has issued some encroachment agreements where the City
allowed retaining walls and other decorative items to be placed in the right of way and the
document indicates that a property owner is doing so at their own nsk.
Ms. Heiser agreed that the language in the right of way permit needs to be clearer.
Councilmember Mavity felt the proposed policy made sense if the City were starting with a
blank canvas, but the challenge is that there have been inconsistent messages provided to
residents by the City as well as inconsistent understandings among residents about this issue.
She also felt there was an equity issue and gave an example of the significant row of hedges on
the corner of 39th and France that are located a very short distance from the street and the
pending installation of a sidewalk in this area will require the property owner to tear down the
row of hedges and redo their landscaping at their own expense. She stated this is the problem
with retroactive application of this kind of policy and felt the City should figure this out before
completing the Connect the Park plan, adding she felt the City needs to evaluate the cost for
residents to replace their landscaping as part of this plan even though the City might not pay all
of that cost, particularly in locations where the City is not yet sure where a sidewalk is going to
be installed.
Councilmember Spano questioned the practical application of Councilmember Mavity's
comments and felt this could lead to staff getting embroiled in neighbor-to-neighbor disputes.
He agreed the City needs greater clarity on this policy and the goal should be to have the City's
documentation clearly state that the City reserves the right to require a property owner to remove
anything in the right of way for public improvement projects and any exceptions to the policy
should be handled on a case by case basis, adding he was concerned that handling these
exceptions could become rather cumbersome and expensive.
Mayor Pro Tern Sanger felt that Council should first agree on some basic principles that can
provide the basis for determining what needs to be changed in the City's current practices. She
indicated the question is not dust who is responsible when an individual property owner puts
things in the right of way but also includes the question of what the City's responsibility is in
these situations. She suggested several principles for Council consideration, including the
principle that private property owners must inform the City in advance of any private items on
public property that they are installing, as well as the principle that the City is responsible for all
construction and maintenance of items in, under, or on the right of way that the City has decided
should be there, unless it is something for the specific use of the property owner, e.g., the
sanitary sewer line. She stated another principle might be that the property owner is responsible
for all items in or on the right of way that they placed there and must remove these items when
necessary for maintenance or construction as well as the principle that the City has to provide
advance notice to property owners if the City wants them to remove their items and whether they
can replace these items later if desired; in addition, the City should have one point of
communication for residents. She added the City maintains survey information on private
Special Study Session Minutes -3- October 7, 2013
properties in the City and suggested that the City publicize that these surveys are available for
residents.
Mr. Harmening noted the City has survey data if a property owner requested a building permit
but the City does not have survey information for all properties in the City.
Councilmember Ross questioned at what point the City puts the onus back on homeowners as it
relates to the right of way, adding this is urban living where there are public right of ways.
Councilmember Mavity stated that residents have historically been given inconsistent guidance
on this issue and felt that if the City has contributed to that confusion, then the City is
accountable in some way. She urged the City to consider this when determining the cost of
putting in new sidewalks and suggested providing some assistance to residents who can
substantiate that they received inconsistent guidance from the City.
Mr. Harmening stated the City could consider budgeting a stipend with a dollar limit to assist
homeowners with replacing their landscaping dunng a public improvement project.
Mayor Pro Tern Sanger requested the City consider other ways of sending notifications to
residents as it relates to these types of public improvement projects.
Councilmember Mavity agreed and suggested using phone alerts.
Ms. Heiser agreed to follow up on this.
Councilmember Spano stated one of the roles of the neighborhood block captains and
neighborhood association presidents is to engage their community in civic affairs and suggested
the City come up with a way to support these groups in engaging their neighborhoods. He added
he wants the City to be crystal clear about what it is telling residents as it relates to this policy so
that there is no confusion.
It was the consensus of the City Council that property owners are responsible for the repair and
maintenance of any fencing, irrigation systems, and pet containment systems placed in the nght
of way. It was also the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to further research the
possibility of providing residents with a stipend to replace landscaping impacted by public
improvement projects.
Council discussed right of way issues for Connect the Park and the sidewalk plan, as well as
right of way issues overall, and that staff agreed to come back to Council with some draft policy
language in order to create a more broad policy on this issue.
The meeting adjourned at 7:27 p.m.
Nancy Stroth, C y Clerk
/)-1"---42%-i---/
Sanger/Mayor Pro Tem