HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024/02/12 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study SessionOfficial minutes
City council study session
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Feb. 12, 2024
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Council members present: Mayor Nadia Mohamed, Paul Baudhuin, Tim Brausen, Sue Budd,
Lynette Dumalag, and Margaret Rog
Council members absent: Yolanda Farris
Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), community development director (Ms. Barton),
economic development manager (Mr. Hunt), redevelopment administrator (Ms. Monson),
planning and deputy community development manager (Mr. Walther), administrative services
director (Ms. Brodeen)
Guests: Will Anderson, Director of Development for Sherman Associates
Discussion items.
1. Beltline Station Development Updated – Ward 1.
Ms. Monson presented the staff report.
Council Member Budd asked if the parking ramp is shared by all three buildings. Ms. Monson
stated it is not shared by the affordable building, as all of the parking is underground for the
building. She added the parking is shared by the market rate and the mixed use building as well
as the park and ride.
Council Member Budd asked if the city is responsible for the cost of the utilities. Ms. Monson
responded that the cost of relocating the utilities is incorporated into the TIF numbers.
Sherman Associates is paying the cost of utilities up front and as they pay the applicable
property taxes for the site, the city pays them back through TIF. Ms. Barton added that the
costs will be offset.
Council Member Rog asked if the term “joint development” is something the city has used
before. Mr. Hunt stated yes, clarifying that this development is a joint partnership between the
EDA and Sherman Associates, and came out of the preliminary development agreement. Ms.
Barton commented that the joint partnership definitely exists relative to the parking ramp.
Council Member Rog noted the parking ramp numbers were developed in 2016 and things have
changed, adding people are not necessarily going downtown to work any longer, public transit
is also very low currently and asked if the parking ramp numbers had been updated.
Ms. Monson explained that the city contacted the Met Council to consider steps to reduce the
parking stall requirements. The Met Council’s response clarified that parking estimates feed
into their funding formula to pay for SWLRT, so they have to be able to meet ridership numbers
on light rail lines. Ms. Barton added if the number of stalls were to be reduced, which is unlikely
due to the funding issues, the CMAQ grant would be correspondingly reduced.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B796E180-3E2D-41A9-A1D0-14459EEA43EB
Study session minutes -2- Feb. 12, 2024
Council Member Rog stated this is unfortunate, and there will be disappointment from
residents because of the parking ramp’s appearance. She asked what was saved by modifying
the design of the parking ramp. Ms. Monson replied that the ground floor remained the same
with the same materials. There will be brick on the ground floor instead of metal, which meets
the minimum class for building materials (60%). She added the cost difference was $25.7
million for the first bid versus $20.2 million for the second bid, so a difference of $5.5 million.
Council Member Rog stated she was going to suggest getting the ramp back to where it was but
not at that cost. She asked about the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grant in the amount
of $6.4 million awarded eight years ago and noted those funds had reduced value in today’s
economy. She asked for staff’s thoughts. Mr. Hunt explained that as of December 2023, the
Met Council had agreed to provide approximately $1 million in additional project funding.
Council Member Rog asked if all the amenities remain the same. Ms. Monson confirmed this
and added all the building permits are ready to be issued.
Council Member Rog asked about the commercial space, noting her concerns and another
deliverable that council may have to modify based on the financial realities of today. She asked
if this has been any part of the discussion. Ms. Barton stated it has not and there is still the
expectation that the commercial space will remain as is.
Will Anderson, Director of Development for Sherman Associates, stated there is approximately
21,000 square feet of commercial space and noted it will not be modified at all, adding that
they will be seeking to fill three spaces of approximately 2000 square feet for smaller
community retail space. He added there are no commitments for that space as yet; they know
it will be difficult to lease the space given the economy today but noted they do want to bring
commercial users to the space.
Council Member Rog asked if there is a timeline for how long Sherman Associates will be able
to have the space vacant. Mr. Anderson stated their lenders are also considering this question
and there are provisions that hold back payments until certain portions of the commercial
space are leased. They have compelling reasons for leasing the space, but added he does not
yet have any dates.
Council Member Rog asked if the prospective grocery store’s interest had gone away. Mr.
Anderson confirmed that they have no active grocery in the commercial space now. Council
Member Rog hoped Sherman Associates can continue to partner in that space and she would
like to see that space preserved as commercial.
Council Member Budd asked if Sherman Associates envisions the commercial space being filled
before the light rail is in operation. Mr. Anderson stated that would be preferable but added it
would be nice to have the space filled one year prior. At present, he is not certain that will be
the case. Mr. Hunt added it could be a situation of “build it and they will come.” Mr. Anderson
added he expects the light rail to be a catalyst for securing a commercial tenant.
Council Member Baudhuin asked if the Cedar Lake Trail is located close to the development and
if there will be any closures anticipated. Ms. Monson responded that no closures are
DocuSign Envelope ID: B796E180-3E2D-41A9-A1D0-14459EEA43EB
Study session minutes -3- Feb. 12, 2024
anticipated and added there is enough space to keep the trail open, while the backage road will
be moved a bit to allow for vehicle traffic during construction.
Council Member Baudhuin asked how residents who live in the development would access the
bike trail. Ms. Monson stated there are stairs and a ramp that provide trail access.
Council Member Brausen noted the affordable units will be appropriately sized, as compared
with the Via Sol units.
Council Member Budd asked about the development to the south of the station depicted in one
of the slides. Mr. Hunt stated that was purely a vision design and not prescriptive. Ms. Monson
stated that land will be used as staging for SWLRT, but added the land will eventually be
developed, likely for affordable housing. Mr. Hunt added that space will not be freed up until
SWLRT is completely done – most likely, after 2027.
Council Member Budd asked if buses will have sufficient space to turn around. Mr. Hunt
responded that Metro Transit determined going to the north would be more advantageous for
buses to turn around.
Council Member Dumalag asked about the bus route planned for the site. Ms. Monson stated it
is a continuation of the route that is currently there with more frequent service.
Council Member Dumalag asked about project phasing as it relates to the buildings. Ms.
Monson clarified that technically, it will all be under construction at the same time. She added
the way it works is excavation for the affordable building will happen first as that is where the
majority of the cleaning will need to happen, but the majority of the construction will be
happening at the same time, and completion will be about the same time as well. Mr. Anderson
added the construction will likely be concluded by 2025.
Council Member Dumalag asked about the city’s suggestions for DEI for contractors. Mr.
Anderson stated they will have one general contractor that does all of the housing, and there
will be three separate contracts for each building with the goal of meeting the DEI
requirements on each of the three projects. He added the public parking ramp as a whole will
be constructed by a different contractor and that has a separate and more distinct DEI process
driven by Hennepin County and the Met Council. He noted that process has already been
reviewed and requirements have all been met. Council Member Dumalag pointed out that
those requirements are more stringent than the city’s due to federal funding. Mr. Anderson
added they are utilizing union workers as well and noted those additional requirements as well.
Council Member Dumalag asked if there is a way to make the ramp more energizing as it relates
to public art. Ms. Monson stated there is a public art requirement for this development, and
there will be a public process to select artists as construction gets closer.
Council Member Rog asked about additional design modifications on the ramp, and if Sherman
Associates is locked into a particular design and structure and materials based on the accepted
bid. Mr. Anderson stated there is now limited opportunity to change the design because of the
steps that would be necessary to modify the public bidding process. He indicated there is
DocuSign Envelope ID: B796E180-3E2D-41A9-A1D0-14459EEA43EB
Study session minutes -4- Feb. 12, 2024
opportunity for improvement with public art and other enhancements, but not major
modifications.
Council Member Baudhuin stated he is glad that Sherman Associates has been in contact with
the Orthodox Jewish community located in the project area, and he wants to be sure they are
kept informed.
2. Vision 4.0 process timeline and discussion.
Mr. Walther and Ms. Brodeen presented the staff report. They explained staff would like the
council’s input on a series of questions to ensure that the proposed process aligns with council
expectations.
Questions include:
• Why are visioning processes important to you?
• How do you feel about the past vision and priority setting processes?
o What should continue, what improvements should be made?
• What does a successful vision 4.0 process look like to you?
• Who would you like to see engaged in the process?
Why are visioning processes important to you?
Council Member Budd stated visioning is important, visioning statements are needed, and we
need to hear from everyone.
Council Member Brausen agreed and stated visioning is done to take the temperature of the
community; as in “here is where we are and what are your values.”
Council Member Dumalag said that usually, council hears around 80% complaints from
constituents, or requests for a change or a policy change. Very rarely does the city ask for the
public’s vision. She explained that some residents are able to provide their vision with their
vote, but some are not able to do so, so the visioning process is a way to engage the community
as to what is important.
Council Member Rog observed that the visioning process helps the city prioritize, to work to do
things well, and it helps people feel like they are part of something bigger and included in the
direction the city is taking through investments and policies. She has lived in St. Louis Park for
over three decades and looking back, it is very clear the visioning has defined the community
they have become, especially in 1995 with Children First. She observed that young people who
grew up here really feel that, and stressed the importance of the process.
Council Member Baudhuin stated the visioning process is important because vision gives you
direction and helps you know the things you want to do and also the things you do not want to
do, which then enables you to say no. He pointed out that really good vision work is hard work
to do well, but when done well, it enables a city to take some big risks and to dream big. He
likes the idea of taking big risks and visioning.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B796E180-3E2D-41A9-A1D0-14459EEA43EB
Study session minutes -5- Feb. 12, 2024
Mayor Mohamed noted how demographics have changed in St. Louis Park, and how priorities
have also changed. She is looking forward to involving the community as to what is missing,
what gaps need to be filled and where focus should be. She reminded the group that the 3.0
visioning process included priorities and tasks.
Council Member Rog indicated that the visioning process can help differentiate our community
from others. This process can - and does - create unity and community pride.
Mayor Mohamed added it also allows new residents to become part of the process.
How do you feel about the past vision and priority setting processes?
What should continue, what improvements should be made?
Council Member Dumalag said the steering committee was a council process and there were
questions as to how it was formed. She appreciated council was not involved on the committee,
and she recalls almost everyone in the process was white and introduced themselves as to how
long they had lived in St. Louis Park. She remembered doing a home tour also, and she would
like to be intentional this time around about how many people are asked to participate.
Council Member Rog stated these processes have been meaningful to her and others. She
stated input online and on social media are important, but also the process of bringing people
together to talk about community also builds community. These are some of her fondest
memories of living in the community; being in a room full of people and the feeling generated
when coming together to talk about community is worth preserving. She is not interested in the
return on investment but is interested in the “training the trainer” portion. She observed that
open houses is not a draw. Instead, she suggested an event with fun, food and music and
children welcome as a draw for participation.
Council Member Baudhuin stated he did not know this had happened, but he likes the
outcome. He can see the fruit of that work and that it was done well, noting St. Louis Park has a
tradition of good visioning and tangible results that everyone feels. He asked how a wide
variety of residents become engaged, including schools and retirement/nursing homes, as these
can be forgotten communities. He agreed that events are positive and suggested engaging
diverse ethnic communities by providing food from all the different groups in an effort to help
people to learn from one another.
Council Member Budd stated she likes the statistics from the report and the multiple methods
of engagement. She asked how the 60 trainers were selected. Mr. Walther stated there was a
recruitment process and community partners and the steering committee also assisted.
Council Member Dumalag observed that the recruitment process was about “who do you
know” and the diverse demographic from Aquila was also engaged. She did not recall that the
work was focused on reaching a certain demographic.
Council Member Budd commented that mindfulness around something such as gift cards could
make a world of difference in participation. She stated there was over-representation of
minority racial groups, which she observed is very good. She added getting new residents
engaged and renters versus homeowners is also important feedback.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B796E180-3E2D-41A9-A1D0-14459EEA43EB
Study session minutes -6- Feb. 12, 2024
Council Member Brausen encouraged casting the net as far as possible and doing intentional
outreach to community faith leaders to get their groups involved. He agreed with getting
renters involved and that the council needs to actively recruit from their networks. He also
suggested contacting all of the 60 past trainers to ask them the same questions that council is
answering. He reminded the group that the online process is also important for those who
cannot go to an event.
Mayor Mohamed stated she was not involved in past visioning processes. She agreed about the
importance of events and wide outreach, and recommended hosting pop-ups for
neighborhoods that do not typically participate. She noted Oak Park Village, Louisiana Court,
Meadowbrook, and areas of high-density renters that need to be part of the next process. She
observed the Vision 4.0 is a good opportunity to challenge people to participate and come sit at
the table. The city will need to be thorough in order to get residents to participate and she
urged all to be involved and participate.
Council Member Rog commented on events that are already happening at the water park, at
the Roc, at the Nature Center and also engaging the business community.
Council Member Dumalag stated commercial businesses pay more in taxes than residents, and
she was only able to engage a few businesses last time from the West End.
Council Member Rog added a suggestion to collaborate with residents to engage customers in
stores as well. Engaging elders is also important. In the past, gift cards were utilized for
supplying food when a group met. She clarified that gift cards were intended not to burden
participants and the practice was not just to hand gift cards to participants. She agreed about
online participation as well.
Council Member Baudhuin suggested that engaging people at restaurants is also a good place
for outreach. He said the city can be intentional about engaging residents who live in rental
properties, as well as talking to people who live at Park Shore Senior Living.
Council Member Rog added the community who goes to Parkway Pizza for trivia is another
place to engage residents in visioning. The council discussed Bunny’s, Park Tavern, and Steel
Toe Brewing as other places to engage residents in visioning.
Council Member Brausen said that leveraging resources with the businesses community
through community development is another way to reach businesses, especially since
relationships were developed with outreach during the Covid pandemic. He agreed that
providing food is important to get people to attend events and engage in the visioning process.
Mayor Mohamed observed that engaging high school seniors and youth is an important group
to engage, and recalled a straw election was conducted in 2008 with high student engagement.
Council Member Dumalag added engaging See Our Abilities Realized (SOAR) or Youth in
Government students. She added there are people of color who said they do not feel seen or
heard, and thinking about connections here will also be important.
What does a successful vision 4.0 process look like to you?
DocuSign Envelope ID: B796E180-3E2D-41A9-A1D0-14459EEA43EB
Study session minutes -7- Feb. 12, 2024
Council Member Rog stated, “who we have been is who we are.” She noted the priorities from
past visioning are the thread that run through the community identity and she is concerned
about this future. She went on to say that is not because she does not like change or does not
want to evolve. She stated it is important to treasure St. Louis Park’s priorities while ensuring
that the community does not become static.
Council Member Brausen stated that visioning is a process where residents are invested and
feel heard.
Council Member Dumalag stated this process is one where we need to get buy-in from
residents and it is also a way to test if people are still passionate about what the city has
prioritized. She added it is also a way to find new leaders to serve as well.
Council Member Baudhuin stated he would be pleased if new residents come out of the
process saying they are glad they moved here, are engaged and proud to be a resident. He
would like to see the engagement participation numbers trend up with specific goals.
Council Member Budd added St Louis Park is trend-setting in terms of initiatives and programs,
climate change and community health alliance. She would like to see these initiatives continue
to be included in the visioning process, as well as global trends.
Mayor Mohamed shared that she would like the visioning process to be one that the council
and city can be proud of.
Who would you like to see engaged in the process?
Council Member Baudhuin asked about the new boards and commissions and how they might
be involved in this process. Ms. Brodeen stated with the new model of one large commission, it
may be that they are involved in the future, adding that members are definitely stakeholders in
this work.
Council Member Dumalag recommended that it not be members of boards and commissions as
they are already deeply involved, and it would be better to bring in new stakeholders, or a
mixture of both.
Written reports.
3. Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard reconstruction project update (4023-7000) –
Ward 1.
4. Subordination and assignment of redevelopment contract – Zelia on Seven – Ward 2.
Council Member Rog noted there will be a one-month delay on the Minnetonka Boulevard
project and asked if staff had any information. Ms. Keller clarified that additional work time was
needed, and there are no concerns from staff about the new timeline.
Council Member Rog stated the city will discuss the Lynn Avenue crosswalk with Hennepin
County. She asked if anything should be happening now to demonstrate resident or council
DocuSign Envelope ID: B796E180-3E2D-41A9-A1D0-14459EEA43EB
Study session minutes -8- Feb. 12, 2024
support. Ms. Keller stated staff will develop a recommendation and if the county includes the
crosswalk, then the county would own it and maintain it.
Council Member Dumalag stated she is glad to see the developer is making headway on the
Zelia on Seven project and is looking forward to seeing improvements.
Council Member Rog asked if council has the right to know if area median income levels are
changed and impacts and affordability levels at Zelia on Seven.
Council Member Dumalag stated her understanding is that current residents will not be
displaced. Ms. Keller added staff is not concerned about this.
Council Member Rog added this developer has a history of displacing residents, so this is
important for the community.
Communications/meeting check-in (verbal)
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor
DocuSign Envelope ID: B796E180-3E2D-41A9-A1D0-14459EEA43EB