Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/06/27 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study SessionI��$t. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JUNE 27, 2016 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Spano Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Shamla), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Inspections Director (Mr. Hoffman) Principal Planner (Ms. McMonigal), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Mr. Walther), Police Chief (Mr. Luse), CIO (Mr. Pires), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas) Guest: Brady Mueller and Cindy Douthett Nagel - Krech, O'Brien, Mueller and Associates. 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning —July 11, 2016 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed Study Session agenda for July 11, 2016. There will be no meeting on July 4, due to the holiday, and no meeting on July 5. The next City Council meeting will be held July 11, 2016. At the July 11th meeting, there will be an update on the SWLRT, the American Legion's proposed liquor ordinance amendment, and the Teen Center. Councilmember Sanger asked to add a discussion on a possible change in city auditor as recommended by best practice. Councilmember Hallfin agreed that it is time for this discussion. He also added he would like a discussion on the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance before each council meeting, and if it is necessary or not. He added he does not see a purpose for it, and would like to discuss this at a future meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Mavity asked staff to balance the future agendas, so as not to have too many items on one and only a few on another. 2. Remodeling of City Council Chambers Mr. Hoffman stated the Council Chambers was last remodeled in 1999 and prior to that in the 1970's. He added that $300,000 is in the CIP for replacement of wall and floor coverings, chairs, lighting fixtures and ceiling tiles in the Council Chambers in 2017. Additionally, $100,000 is set aside for technology replacement and updates. Remodeling of the Chambers is the final portion of a three-phase remodeling plan being completed for City Hall. Staff is asking council for direction to determine if the current orientation of the space is desirable for the next 15-20 year life cycle of the materials. The existing public entry into the Council Chambers from the front/side of the room is atypical and generally not welcoming and also presents some security concerns. Chief Luse stated a safety audit of City Hall was conducted recently and the layout of the Council Chambers was reviewed. He noted the proposed south orientation in the architects concept drawing was created in order to provide a place for council to go in case of a safety threat. Additionally, it was noted there is a panic button under the desk that the new City Council Study Session Minutes -2- June 27, 2016 needs to be trained on. He noted additional options for Council Chambers might include more cameras and also bullet resistant materials that can be used in the design of the furniture. Currently there is one camera in Council Chambers. Chief Luse also explained that FEMA training provides for the run, hide, and fight method. Councilmember Miller noted that it seems odd to have the current hidden entry door into the Council Chambers, and added that it gets noisy at the entrance as some people enter not realizing there is a meeting in progress. He added council may want to discuss the possibility of having a police officer in chambers during City Council meetings. Councilmember Brausen stated he is not interested in more safety measures, adding he would not want to project fear about what could happen in the future. He added that we cannot protect against everything and noted he is not sure that spending money on safety is the answer. He would like to see more money spent on updating the technical aspects of the chambers. Mayor Pro Tem Mavity agreed and stated if someone wants to do harm, they will do it. She added she agrees that what has been done for safety in Council Chambers is fine. Councilmember Lindberg added he wants to have a smart discussion about Council Chambers, and feels upgrades to make the room look more like the rest of City Hall are definitely needed. Councilmember Sanger stated there has been feedback from residents asking why the city continues to remodel City Hall. She added people want the council to justify the remodels, and if council moves forward on this remodel, they will need to give reasons for spending more money. Having said this, Councilmember Sanger agreed the Council Chambers is not aesthetically pleasing. The council was shown a potential design plan for reorienting the Council Chambers during a remodel. Moving the dais to the south side of the room would add about 500 square feet of additional space that could be used for seating. The design plan also included moving the entrance to the rear and allowing windows to be added into the common wall with the lobby. The council members agreed that the screen to show presentations should be eliminated, monitors added to the room, and also individual monitors for each council member to view presentations. Councilmember Lindberg stated that while the City Hall building remains viable, the Council Chambers is dysfunctional, especially with councilmember's backs to the public entrance into the room. He agreed the use of glass and moving the entrance to the back of the room made sense. He added he does not want to be an alarmist but acknowledged that safety is an issue, and the council should understand the cost implications and how the room will function. Councilmember Miller stated he strongly agrees with Councilmember Lindberg and added he liked the preliminary design that was shown. He agreed coming into the chambers from the back of the room is much better. He added the chambers is the place where the most interaction with the public takes place, so it is worthwhile discussing and understanding the project fully. Councilmember Sanger stated she understands the comments from the other council members but doesn't feel a strong need to spend a lot of money on the project. She added she likes the idea of making this a friendlier room and having built in monitors. Study Session Minutes -3- June 27, 2016 Councilmember Hallfin agreed with the other council members and stated the design rendering P made sense to him. He liked the glass entryway and also entering the room from the back, noting it is more welcoming. He stated it is time to do something with Council Chambers, and it will be money well spent for the future Councilmember Brausen added he is in favor of cameras in the hall, and agreed that chambers is not perfectly efficient. He would prefer to invest in a better video system, as it is difficult for residents to see the meetings clearly from their homes, and he would also like to see the consent agendas and documents displayed on the cameras in order for residents to be able to follow along at home. He added, while he believes the current space serves the council well, better signage in the hallways of the building would also be helpful. Councilmember Sanger asked why the floors in the room are not flat and if the step up could be removed. Mr. Hoffman stated the east step can be removed; however, the south side is poured concrete into the floor and would need to be made ADA compliant. City Manager Harmening stated staff will bring back more cost estimates on a reorientation of the room and the addition of glass, along with more technology. This will include price breakdowns and a menu of items that the council can pick and choose from. The council members also agreed to add panic button training to the July 11 meeting agenda. 3. Construction Noise Regulations Mr. Hoffman stated staff was asked by council to research the issue of construction noise in the city's residential neighborhoods and to return to council for discussion. He noted that the current noise ordinance regulates construction activities involving the use of power equipment, manual tools, movement of equipment, or other activities. The city's ordinance limits hours of operation between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. on weekdays and between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m. on weekends and holidays. This information is communicated to contractors for both commercial and residential projects. Councilmember Hallfn asked what the enforcement action is for those who do not comply. Mr. Hoffman stated that a citation could be issued, and a fine included. Commissioner Sanger asked if an administrative procedure could be created in order to make it easier to enforce infractions. She added an example would be with an idling truck. Can a ban be put on the truck when it is not doing any work? Councilmember Miller stated his concern is the end time of 10 p.m. and stated that 6 p.m. would be a more reasonable time. Councilmember Brausen stated he prefers a 7 a.m.—7 p.m. or 6 p.m. timeframe and also possibly not having trucks on site until 7 a.m. He added that Eden Prairie has an ordinance with no Sunday construction and asked if St Louis Park could do this also. Councilmember Lindberg asked what time city trash collection begins. He added he has no problem with the 7 a.m. start time, but asked how other noises are regulated by the city. He also stated it is not reasonable to say no noise after 6 p.m., as some people work all day and have to do lawn mowing or construction in the evenings when they are home. Study Session Minutes -4- June 27, 2016 Mayor Pro Tem Mavity stated that she recalls only one time when this has been an issue during her 7 years on the council. She added the earlier end time makes sense, but typically it has not been an issue. Councilmember Hallfin noted there should be more concern with larger construction projects vs. homeowner projects. He pointed out a Facebook post where construction began at 5 a.m. and residents were complaining about it. He added that with this type of issue, the city needs to do more than present a citation. He added the construction company should receive a cease and desist order or have a larger monetary penalty presented to them. City Manager Harmening stated when a CUP or PUD is issued, the city has a provision about collecting a fine if the construction company is in violation. Principal Planner Ms. McMonigal added that the city would contact the developer right away to have them stop the early noise. Councilmember Sanger asked what it would take to actually impose fines and how contractors are informed upfront about these issues. Planning and Zoning Supervisor Mr. Walther noted that the city holds pre -construction meetings to review rules and regulations and that on-site supervisors are contacted by inspectors if reports are received that construction activity is occurring outside permitted hours. Residents should contact the police if construction is starting before 7 a.m. Councilmember Sanger added that a construction letter should be sent to residents telling them who to call if they have questions or issues with a project, and the contractor contact information should also be included. Staff will return to a future meeting with further details and possible ordinance changes on this issue. 4. Public Process and Participation Mr. Harmening stated in his 21 years with the city, staff has prided themselves with understanding the public process. He noted this past year, there have been some comments made to staff that the public process is flawed, and the process is overdone. He added that when staff hears this, it hurts morale. Staff feels they are doing a good job and do not feel their system is broken. Mr. Harmening added he hopes the council and staff can get on the same page with regard to this issue. The purpose of this discussion is to determine what outcomes the City Council would like to see as a result of a uniform public participation/community engagement model for city projects, action and planning — across the life cycle of these activities. Ms. Larson noted that last year an audit was conducted on the public process and participation. She asked the council what community engagement means to them; what it looks and sounds like; and what the council needs to see and hear. Additionally, she asked once a decision is made, what does council need to see and hear to know that the city has conducted a thorough public process. Mr. Harmening pointed out the matrix, which was included in materials given to council, related to communicating with and conveying messages to the public. Councilmember Lindberg stated staff has done a great job on the public process, and he is very appreciative of what staff does related to this. He noted that staff allows anyone to be involved in Study Session Minutes -5- June 27, 2016 the process if they want to. He added the public process has been accessible and encourages citizens to think outside of box and to frame conversations. He added when the council makes decisions, they need to be clear, and council needs to listen and continue the spirit of engagement Councilmember Brausen stated he likes the matrix and is very comfortable with the public process currently in place. He noted staff spends ample time talking to the public; however, sometimes the public has expectations, and if something doesn't go their way, it's not always good to continue having public meetings where residents keep saying the same things. He noted the city needs public input on the visioning process, where there can be goal setting and public empowerment. He added the city is not short on public process on any city projects. Councilmember Miller stated he appreciates staff bringing this up to council again, and added he was critical of the public process. He noted he appreciated the matrix and how it fits into the processes. He added we need to use the city's boards and commissions more, while also soliciting public input and asking residents to be on various boards and commissions in order to get more well-rounded participation. Additionally, it would be helpful to have a half hour open forum at every other study session, during which anyone from the public can present whatever they want. He stated this helps build trusting relationships, while people feel they will be heard. Commissioner Sanger stated that the more expensive projects may need to be handled differently with respect to the public process. Likewise, projects that only affect smaller groups vs. the larger community may need a public process that invites the larger community in. She asked if staff and the council can show they have informed the community and received the input that is needed. She also asked if there are other ways to notify the public about upcoming projects, in case they don't read e-mail or the Sun Sailor. She also pointed out that sending out the agenda on a Friday is too late, when a meeting is on Monday, and added the city should not put the burden on the public to check the agenda. Councilmember Hallfin stated he likes the matrix, and the way it flows. He added that through his time on the council, he has realized if a certain constituent doesn't win the day, they feel the process is flawed. He added staff does a great job on the public process and pointed out staff could present the perfect public process and still not please everyone. He does not believe the process is flawed. He liked the idea of using the boards and commissions more and agreed there are multiple ways to get information to the public, including mail, e-mail, social media, text, website, Park Perspectives, Next Door, adding he does not know if there is any other way to disseminate information. IIe stated the city is an open book, with a great website and meetings open to the public. He does not feel there needs to be any change in this area. Mayor Pro Tem Mavity stated the city generally does a good job, adding she liked the matrix. She noted the lack of clarity on expectations is where the process gets tripped up, and the website is frustrating. She added it would be helpful to have each project on the website, while noting the council needs to be careful what is delegated to the commissions. There must be clarity also when items come from the commissions back to the council. Related to technology, she noted there is much more that can be done with millennials and community engagement on the website. Also, she noted there needed to be different ways of engaging the public. It is not just about how much we communicate but how communication is done and the need for more engaging and dynamic ways of communicating. Study Session Minutes -6- June 27, 2016 Mr. Harmening read Mayor Spano's comments that the focus needs to be on the first two questions and not the third. Councilmember Sanger added another way to communicate is thorough the city's e-mail distribution lists, and the public should be reminded to sign up for this. She added she does not agree with the suggestion that the public be invited to comment at all study sessions, as this can become a time of complaints when the council has no background and cannot comment. She noted the current system is preferable where the public goes to Mr. Harmening first to have their issue addressed or mediated. Then, if warranted, it comes to council. Councilmember Sanger continued that with Connect the Park they need to be careful about the message sent to the public and that it is not a mixed message. She noted staff needs to clarify and tell the public if there is a final decision being made; when it is time for public input; and if there will be more meetings or not. Councilmember Lindberg stated there needs to be clarification now as it relates to the planning process and a process for checking in with our constituents. Mayor Pro Tem Mavity stated this is what the election process is for. Councilmember Miller added the neighborhood network and organized neighborhoods are helpful, and he would like to see it used as another possible channel. Councilmember Brausen added that staff needs to be clear about when the public meeting is and also to add neighborhood information meetings at the front end of a project. Mr. Pires noted these meetings are happening, with feedback from the public before resources are committed. Mr. Harmening stated staff understands that the council likes the matrix and that it is helpful. He also noted the council wants to be more intentional at the start of a project and also to confirm that the majority of the council is in agreement and there is clarity of expectations. He appreciated the positive feedback from council and thanked the council for their input. He stated the results of the public engagement audit will also be brought back to the council, as well as discussions about social media. 5. Vision and Comprehensive Plan Update Mr. Harmening explained that previous visioning processes laid a strong foundation for the direction of the city. Every 10 years the city is required to update its Comprehensive Plan, and it is due at the end of 2018. The first step was to investigate vision process ideas and identify a consultant to help with the process and prepare the overall Comprehensive Plan. The goal now is to have a consultant hired by the end of the summer so that a visioning update process can begin this fall. Additionally, the process must include robust outreach to all elements of the community. The goal would be to schedule the prospective visioning consultants to meet the City Council in mid to late July. Mr. Harmening noted the first consultant group is skilled in talking to the community about the present and future and at pulling input from the community. They deal with the big picture. The second consultant group will put together the actual Comprehensive Plan and will take Study Session Minutes -7- June 27, 2016 everything from the visioning process to write the policies and the plan. He noted that $200,000 or more will be spent on this process, but it will be well worth it, as the plan is to go deeper into visioning for St. Louis Park during this process. Councilmember Hallfin asked Councilmember Sanger for her thoughts on how the last two Comprehensive Plan processes went since she was on the City Council during both. Councilmember Sanger said the $200,000 or more will be extremely well spent, and the process will provide a basis for decision-making. She added her concern is the process which will be conducted this time around. She explained that in 1995, eight conununity task forces were set up, which met for six months. Community members were solicited for each task force, and each one was chaired and co-chaired. Additionally, there was an overall steering committee, which merged all the results into one document, and then asked for public input again. She noted this approach was much better than what was conducted in 2005, adding that there was no deep dive at that time, and a more superficial approach was used. She added that even though the process was not as robust, the results were still decent. She stated she hopes the process this time around will be more like the process in 1995. Councilmember Sanger also added she is concerned about a focus on the trendy topic of the day. She stated St Louis Park residents are most concerned about the basics, including housing, transportation, and what impacts people's lives. She pointed out that environmental sustainability is rather trendy, as is redevelopment. Councilmember Sanger stated that she disliked the 2005 process because the consultants only wanted to hear what was done right, not what was wrong. She noted it is important to also hear what people don't like during this process. Mr. Harmening pointed out the council approved this process in 2005, and there were 725 individual interviews conducted, plus committees and a steering committee. Mayor Pro Tem Mavity stated there will need to be a deeper dive this time around. Councilmember Brausen stated he appreciates the fact that public outreach is conducted and also that experts are involved. He added the city also has staff experts to guide the process, and he would like to see the use of the four council goals, which are reflective of the vision. Additionally, he would like to ask the community where they want the city to go with these guiding goals and to work to get more citizens engaged in this process. Councilmember Lindberg stated the depth and breadth of who is involved in the process is very important. He noted the robust visioning process along with the Comprehensive Plan will be money well spent and is a priority. Ile noted this process will be absolutely informative to him and is what needs to be done. Mayor Pro Tem Mavity added she is very comfortable spending the money on this process in order to dig deep and get to a place of agreement on the community vision. She added the consultants will need to look outside the box and go beyond engaging the usual people in the usual way. She likes the idea of looking at the values of our community and what St. Louis Park values. Additionally, she wants to know who lives here; who we want to live here; and how our housing determines this. She stated the vision needs to start at a higher level and include what we want the city to look like in the future. Study Session Minutes -8- June 27, 2016 Mayor Pro Tem Mavity noted she will be working on a similar task force for Hennepin County, and she will send all of this background information to the council for review. Councilmember Hallfin stated Councilmember Sanger's comments were helpful, when thinking of the visioning process. He noted the city is where it is today because of these past processes, and this will be money well spent. He added the consultants will need to pursue more than just the usual "suspects," and talk to those involved and those who care, along with many others. He added he is looking forward to this process. City Manager Harmening noted Mayor Spano's comments. Mayor Spano stated the focus should be on the future, and not the past. City Manager Harmening added staff made it very clear to the consultants that they will need to contact residents from every end of the community and that this deep dive is more important than the timing. Councilmember Lindberg added we need to think about ways to empower our neighbors to get neighborhoods organized. He noted that some neighborhoods are not organized, and there are holes. He added we will need to figure out the right processes and ways to get the right people at the table. Mayor Pro Tem Mavity added however, that neighborhood organizations tend to be older, richer, and whiter, so they don't always provide the input that is needed. It was the consensus of the City Council to meet the consultants at July 25th meeting. Communications/Meeting Check -In (Verbal) Councilmember Brausen stated he needs to follow up on the Hwy. 169 study, as he is the St Louis Park representative. He stated he would like to discuss what type of vision the city has on this project. Mayor Pro Tem Mavity stated the council tends to agree on most things, and views are not polar opposites, so Councilmember Brausen will not be too far off on presenting his own opinions. Councilmember Lindberg agreed and added there are benefits for councilmembers to be members of other metro groups. City Manager Harmening provided an update on the City Council/School Board sub groups that are meeting to discuss school district facilities. Councilmember Sanger asked if any discussions were happening on the future of Lenox. City Manager Harmening noted the school task force has looked at moving the district offices out of the high school and to Lenox. He stated they would need 15,000 square feet, and this would be part of the whole high school remodeling effort. Councilmember Sanger stated that not a lot of seniors go to the senior center at Lenox, and especially active younger seniors do not go there, but this might be an opportunity to find a way to incorporate a senior wing into the community center. She added she would like to discuss this idea farther as it relates to senior programming that is more accommodating. Study Session Minutes -9- June 27, 2016 Councilmember Hallfin also mentioned there have been discussions about building a brand new high school, and then the community center would move to where the high school currently is. Also, another idea that is circulating is to build the new community center on the old central building grounds and do this as a partnership between the city and school district. The meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 6. May 2016 Monthly Financial Report 7. SWLRT Updates — Historic Properties Review and Station Design Committee S. Temporary Health Care Dwellings Me ssa Kennedy, City Clerk Anne Mavity, Mayor Pro Tem