HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975/10/27 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - RegularC
MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
October 27, 1975
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Frank Fleetham at 7:30 p.m.
The following City Council members were present:
Seymour Druskin
Rose -Mary Griak
Lyle Hanks
Keith Mel and
Leonard Thiel
The following staff members were also present: City Manager, Director of
Public Works, City Assessor, City Planner, City Attorney and Director of
Finance.
The City Planner reviewed the background of Development Districts, des-
cribing the State law and the purpose of Development Districts. He
described the financial feasibility formulas that were used in preparing
the three proposed Development District feasibility models.
The City Planner described each of the proposed Development District
models: Excelsior Boulevard - model block; Highway 12 and 100; and
Lake Street and Walker. He described the types of public improvements
that could be proposed as well as the major physical changes (i.es
reconstruction of intersections and roadways, skyways and pedestrian
facilities, etc.). He also described the anticipated types of redevelopment
which were used in the calculation of projected increased property valuations
to offset the project costs.
In response to a question from Arthur Owens,
Sports and Health Club,
anurhased by
the Cit Planner stated that the resale cost oil, andamaypbecdependent
the City would be determined by the City Counc
upon several factors such as the actual acquisition costs or the type
p parcels of proposed development for that p
er
In response to a question from Den nis Sederholm West Suburbtionhofbthe
of
Commerce, the Planner stated that in the
this)venredevelopment and donated
resulting from there
40% increased valuation, Pool is returned to the City,
to the metro area fiscal disparitieS p from this valuation
is a possibilitythat the increased revenuManagertstated that this matter
may bearmarked for this area. The City
is unclear and that staff would have to review this subject with the
City Manager's Office.
In response to a question from
Warren Phifer, Citizens State Bank,
P41
Plinutes, October 27, 1976
Counci1 the City Council to determine
.
ham stated that i t wool ci t�E' up to
Mayor Fleet develop' districts would be i implemented,
which of the three proposed lso stated that there are currently restated
if any. Mayor Fleetham a In this event,
made to change the State law• factor in how
being Commission could then be aimplementedgby cities.
that the County
man and which development. districts were weigh
Y
would
Councilman Meland sta
ted that the City Count regard towhatproblems
proposed development district mode�erieachegn that respect.
each prop solve, and cons
each could potentially
ion from Warren Phifer, the Mayor stated that the
In response to a quest ro osed models as
Cit Council could designate all three
of the
The City Manager
Y
development districts at this time, he designation
costs incurred after the designation of a development
added that all the c but costs incurred before t 9
district couldb�ouldonotebe reimbursed.
of the district
Manager stated
s onse to a question from Councilrnan Griak�ashonlytthe beginning
In rep
that the designation of a development designation of a district, additional
of the implementation process lan a tax increment
planning along with formation of a financial plan
went on to state
financing plan) would be necessary. The City exact plant as
that such preparation would notbergeublicChearingsity to ny
such decisions would come only a P
ion from Alice Anderson,
4246 Vernon Avenue, the
In response to a quest
City Manager stated that the City has no current planattonPtheheventnY
large parcels of property. The City Manager noted th
a development district was designated, and developers purchased
the
the
land and agreed to develop it in accordance with plans
ropos p
City should not purchase any land within the district.
In response to a question from Bill Mullin,
3029 Toledo, the City Planner
stated that because increased tax revenue, resulting from increased
property valuation, goes to pay off the tax increment bonds, it is
correct to assume that other taxing governmental agencies would also
benefit from the project.
In response to a question from Phil Eder, Leaning Post, the City
Attorney stated that once a development district is designated and a
plan developed, it may be modified by the City Council anytime within
five years of the designation date. In response to another question
from Phil Eder, the City Manager stated that in the event that the City
would purchase land currently occupied by a tenant, a formula relocation
allowance would be provided for the relocation of that particular
business. He noted that relocation costs had been accounted for in
the financial feasibility calculations.
312
Council Minutes, October 27, 1975
16
In response to a question from Warren Phifer, the Mayor stated that
in the event the development district model was established, and an
individual wishes to develop a parcel outside the development district
with the assistance of the development district, it would be possible
for the City Council to redefine the development district area to
include that parcel. The Mayor went on to state that it is the wish
of the City Council to work with the residents and tenants in the
three proposed areas to reach a consensus of all parties involved and
work for the best interest of the total area.
Bill Mullin questioned which, if any, particular parcels the City was
currently considering for purchase in the event that a district were
designated. In response to this question, the City Planner pointed
out that for purposes of designing a model_, some parcels which were
considered to be difficult for assemblage by developers and were
designated for possible purchase. The City Planner then pointed out
these parcels in each proposed feasibility model.
Mayor Fleetham then questioned if the proposed models were designated,
whether the City would be endorsing the concept or the purchase of
the proposed parcels. In response to this question, the City Planner
stated that the designation of a district committed the City to nothing.
He stated that before implementation of the development district a
public hearing would be held, and at this time it would not be neces-
sary to establish the development objectives, financial plan or specific
plan, as these would require additional public hearings.
Phil Eder stated that the Miracle Mile development district model
designated the purchase of the land which he is occupying and that
acquisition costs were included in the total figure. He then questioned,
suitable site for relocation could be found,
that in the event that no
would the City be prepared to purchase his business interest. In
respones to this question, Mayor Fleetham stated that this may be
possible but highly unlikely as the objective of the City Council
nants The
would be to work for a suitable agrehmsnwaslonlyth hantenformational
City Manager went on to state that t
meeting and that the City Council has not considered such commitments.
erhol m then presented the results of the survey rofSther. Miracle
racl e
Dennis Sed the Chamber of Commerce.
lm
Mile businesses, conducted by indicated that of 41 respondents,
stated that the results of the survey
32 felt that the
commercial base of the Miracle Milvorrof the developea was ing,
and he also stated that a clear aliresultsoritY eof there in surveywere then
ment district concept. Additional re
distributed to Council members.
313
Council Minutes, October 279 1975
tinned whether the Miracle Mile redevelopment
the City- of Edina for
Councilman Druskin then questioned rocess used tbyManager stated that he
district plan was similar and France* The y method used, but staff
the redevelopment at 50th •nformation on its plan.
if this was the same finance meth
was not certain of Edina and obtain
would contact the City the City Council
Mayor Fleetham stated that t the
eall
to set a public hearing anda
• f that date.
step would be for
individuals present would be
notified o '1 n Griak
Calendar Bids - Councilman Thiel moved, second ndiCblebuddermto furnish
to designate Kraftman Press as twsconaoct. The motion passed 7-0.
h 1976 Civic Calendar and authorize a
to
Special Permit
Re uest - Ro er Ilstru John Miller spoke
staffhinfan
of the applicant and stated that he hwithethe en wcity nrelative to expansion
effort to reach a suitable agreemential
r store. Mr. Miller stated because of finaandecisionmbements
of the grocery it was imperative that
and construction time schedule,
as possible. In response to a question from Cones wouldThie ,
made as soon
Mr. Miller stated that all trash storage, soda and ice machi
be enclosed within the structure.
Planner stated
In response to a question from Councilman Thee newtplanstfor the modifica-
that the Planning Cornms��u°nhadhad
agreedwto meet thesevenprovisions
tions, and that Mr. P
which were included in the resolution.
Councilman Hanks stated that if all the contingencies listed within
the resolution were not going to be met, theyshould ube left
of out. the
Councilman Hanks went on to explain that he dl
applicant could agree to the condition for bidding the placement of
signs in the windows of the building. Councilman Druskin then moved,
seconded by Councilman Meland, to waive reading and adopting Resolution
No. 5395 entitled, "A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 5150 and
Resolution No. 4850 Granting Permit Under Section 6:121.2 and 6:llltl3(1)
of the Zoning Ordinance to Expand an Existing Motor Fuel Station an
str
Grocery Store for Property Located in the B-2 General Business Dianaict
at 5430 Minnetonka Boulevard," with provisions 1, 2, 41 51 61 7
provision 3 with the exception of the words "and interior" on the
second line. Mayor Fleetham then pointed out that the Council had
previously stated that they would not allow any further expansion of
this particular building, and that he did not feel it was appropriate
to approve further expansion at this point without allowing the area
residents an opportunity to express their concerns. Mayor Fleetham
stated that he opposed voting on this issue at this time. The motion
passed 6-1 (Mayor Fleetham voting opposed.)
There being no further discussion, t
Attest
r
eting was putned at 0#15 p''
314