Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/01/21 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular1. Call to Order 2. Presentations Resolution --'96-13 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA January 21, 1986 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Mayor Pro Tem, Keith Meland. Mayor Pro Tem Meland read a resolu- tion commending Clayton Timian for his 21 -year career with the City's maintenance force. It was moved by Councilman Backes, seconded by Councilman Mitchell to approve the resolution. The motion passed 6-0. 3. Roll Call The following Council members were present at roll call: Ronald Backes Keith Meland Thomas Duffy Larry Mitchell Allen Friedman David Strand Also present were the Assistant City Manager, Director of Public Works, Director of Planning and City Attorney. The City Manager arrived at 8:20 p.m. 4. Approval of Minutes It was moved by Councilman Mitchell, seconded by Councilman Duffy to approve the minutes of the January 6, 1986 City Council meeting. The motion passed 6-0. It was moved by Councilman Mitchell, seconded by Councilman Strand, to approve the minutes of the study session held Jan. 13, 1986. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Mayor Pro Tem Meland abstained). 5. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Councilman Friedman, seconded by Councilman Duffy to approve the consent agenda for January 21, 1986 with the removal of item 9i to the agenda. The motion passed 6-0. It was moved by Councilman Mitchell, seconded by Councilman Backes, to approve the agenda for January 21, 1986 The motion passed 6-0. None. PUBLIC HEARINGS -12- City Council meeting minutes January 21, 1986 PETITIONS, REQUESTS, COMMUNICATIONS None. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 8a. 1600 block Quentin/Princeton It was moved by Resolution No. 86-14 seconded by to waive reading Councilman Friedman, Councilman Duffy, and adopt Resolution 86-14 entitled "Resolution supporting the acquisition of 1600 Princeton Ave. No. for the construction of alley access to W. 16th St." Councilman Strand asked why City action was required when private land is being acquired by the Department of Transportation. The Assistant City Manager responded basically it was to put the City on record relative to a change in the construction of I-394, letting them know this is an acceptable plan. Councilman Friedman said the taking of these homes is in a piecemeal manner. He felt additional homes should be taken because of the detriment to come from the highway construction. He said the City's District 448 legislator would be willing to introduce a bill to assist in the taking of those homes. He felt the human problem involved in this project was one that could not be ignored by the City. The motion passed 6-0. 8b. Tax forfeit land Resoluti—on-7867T5 Reconveyance of tax forfeited land It was moved by Councilman Backes, seconded by Councilman Mitchell, to waive reading and adopt Resolution No. 86-15 entitled "Resolution authorizing reconveyance of tax -forfeited lands." The motion passed 6-0. 8c. Camille Andre Resolution endorsing Camille -eso utTon -16 Andre's reappointment to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. seconded by Councilman Friedman, It was moved by Councilman Backes, / to waive reading and adopt Resolution 86-16 entitled "Resolution endorsing the reappointment of Camille Andre to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers." Councilman Strand said he did not know who this individual was and asked what the process was for notifying individuals when an opening such as this occurs. Councilman Meland responded that Cam Andre was a former City Manager of St. Louis Park, a former Mayor of the City and former director of the MTC. He said that Mr. Andre had served on the Watershed District Board for a number of years. He added that this particular appointment VF, ,...44 -13- City Council meeting minutes January 21, 1986 was made by the County Commissioners. Councilman Friedman felt it would be helpful if the Council could be supplied with additional information in cases such as this, something more informational than just a resolution. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Councilman Strand abstained). 8d. Indemnification ordinance It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Backes, to waive first reading, set second reading for February 3, 1986 and authorize summary publication. Councilman Strand had a number of questions relating to the ordinance: are Council members covered for errors and omissions that may occur while in office but brought after leaving office? Should not the City be advancing costs for people and let them provide own defense and select own attorney? He felt the indemnification should go beyond tort claims to cover any threatened proceeding rather than defining any type of cause of action. He asked how eligibility would be determined - the Council? Finally, he was concerned there was no provision for disclosure of the amounts to be indemnified. He suggested it be deferred. Mayor Pro Tem Meland felt it would be appropriate to proceed with first reading at this time and have the City Attorney take Councilman Strand's comments into consideration before preparation of a final ordinance. The motion passed 6-0. Be. Workers Compensation coverage It was moved by Councilman Backes, Resolution No. - seconded by Councilman Strand to waive reading and adopt Resolution No. 86-11 entitled "Resolution: Workers' Compensation Coverage." The motion passed 6-0. 8f. Transfer of funds for salary adjustments First reading of an ordinance authorizing transfer of funds and providing appropriations for salary adjustments. It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Backes, to waive first reading, set second for Feb. 3, 1986 and authorize summary publication. In answer to a question from Councilman Manager said funds for salary adjustments unallocated account at budget time and the end of the year for salary adjustments. The motion passed 6-0. -14- Mitchell, the Assistant City were factored into the general then the funds distributed at City Council meeting minutes January 21, 1986 89. Rezonin : Belt Line Business Park Second reading of ordinance r mance o. - It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Backes, to waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1672-86 entitled 'An ordinance amending the St. Louis Park ordinance code changing boundaries of zoning districts." The motion passed 6-0. 8h. Reconveyance of deed Belt Line Business Park It was Raved by Councilman Friedman, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to waive first readontain ing, set second for Feb 3, 1996 and to add an am mdnent that the quit claim deed will c the restrictive covenant to run with the land that no ingress/egress will be permitted to or from France Ave. Councilman Duffy asked if this covenant were necessary, that is, does this piece of property run all the way to France Ave. The City Attorney responded the very eastern edge of the property runs into what is now France Ave. and there remained the possibility of a straight intersection on the eastern edge. Dean Saeugling, 3332 France Ave. So., asked for clarification of what had been said. Councilman Friedman said his motion said, basically, that there would be no opening from the proposed development onto or from France Ave., and be- cause the deed runs with the land, acess to or from France Ave. will not occur in the future should the land change hands. Councilman Strand said he would encourage staff to have available for the audience some type of brief description of what the agenda items are all about. Councilman Backes felt a brief explanation of items would be helpful to not only those in the Chamber audience, but those watching on tv at home. A lengthy discussion ensued relative to covenants on the property. The Director of Planning said that potentially the property under discussion could be used for access unless there was an exclusion or covenant. Councilman Mitchell was concerned that land was being deeded that could not be cul-de-saced and that access to France Ave. would be possible. The Director of Planning displayed a map in an effort to clarify where the strip of land under discussion was and its relation to France Ave. The motion passed 5-1 (Councilman Mitchell opposed). -15- City Council meeting minutes January 21, 1986 8i. Final plat: Belt Line Business Park It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to waive reading and adopt resolution. Lois Bredahl, representing the developer, addressed Council, to request several changes be made to the resolution. First, it was their understanding the easements on all other lots on the parcel are 10 feet, not the 20 feet designated in the resolution. Also, the easement is between lots 3 and 4 on Block 1, not Block 2. Councilman Strand referred to staff's comment that a 20 foot easement was necessary not just for utility easements, but possibly a fire lane which would require 20 feet. The Director of Public Works verified that 20 feet was the intended width of easement for emergency access potential. This was in conflict with the developer's understanding. She said they had requested to not specify the easement width because of potential future development, but that staff had requested it be specified and so they specified a 10 foot easement as on all other lots in the parcel. The Director of Public Works said that although it is true a 10 foot easement is the standard, in the plat under discussion, staff had felt a wider easement desirable because of potential future development over the existing lot lines, in which case part of the easement could be vacated. Councilman Strand voiced the opinion he'd prefer to have this type of question resolved by staff and the developer before coming to Council. Councilman Friedman concurred. Councilman Strand withdrew his motion. It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Mitchell, to defer the matter to February 3, 1986. The motion failed 3-3 (Councilmen Friedman, Mitchell, Strand favor; Councilman Backes, Duffy, Meland opposed). It was moved by Councilman Backes, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to waive reading and adopt the resolution with the following modifications: Change Block 2 to Block 1; delete subparagraph 2 and in subparagraph 3, change 32 feet to 30 feet. Councilman Strand asked why the street width was being reduced to 30 ft. when staff had recommended 32 ft. The City Manager said since parking was to be prohibited, 30 ft. was acceptable. Councilman Strand asked for clarification on covenants. It was his understand- ing, that by approving the preliminary plat, the City would not get locked into not being able to have certain conditions. He referred to the letter -16- City Council meeting minutes January 21, 1986 from the developer stating that under Minnesota law, the City can't put the proposed covenants on the lot. He asked what was right and what was the City's ability to restrict this property. The City Attorney said that a review of Minnesota Statutes shows that the time restrictive covenants can be placed on property is at the preliminary plat stage. Also, under City Ordinance it appears that protective covenants are placed by the developer or private land owner. Zoning is the vehicle by which the City controls the types of uses for property. Councilman Strand expressed his concern over what sort of development would be going in on this property and its potential adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhoods, for example, noise and air pollution. He didn't believe zoning was sufficient to protect the neighborhood and thus, certain covenants were being proposed. The City Manager responded that the covenants merely tie the use of the property that is proposed and it also ties to the Environmental Impact Statement. He said that if future different uses were proposed, another EIS would be required. He noted as the City Attorney had pointed out, there is no legal basis for covenants being required. Councilman Friedman asked if the final plat could be turned down at this time, to which the City Attorney responded if based on certain findings, the plat is found not to comply with rules, regulations and/or requirements, it certainly could be denied. On the other hand, if it fully complies with all City codes, it is to be approved. Councilman Duffy did not understand where all the confusion was coming from as he said the developer intended to comply with the zoning ordinance in all respects as evidenced by what he intended to put on the property, for example, building height is limited to three stories which is what he has proposed. Anything other than what is provided for in the ordinance would be controlled by a special use permit which the City controls. Councilman Friedman said his dilemma was that the Planning Commission had asked for the covenants which Council was now being told were not necessary. He felt he was not fully aware of what was attempting to be accomplished at this point. The motion failed 3-2-1 (Councilmen Backes, Duffy, Meland approve; Council- men Mitchell, Strand oppose; Councilman Friedman abstain). It was moved by Councilman Backes, seconded by Councilman Duffy to defer the item to February 3, 1986. The motion passed 6-0. REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, COMMITTEES 9a. Study of need : for property Study of public need for property located south of water treatment C 1 plant on Cedar Lake Rd. Jerry Martin spoke for the developer Darrel Farr. He said the developer -17- City Council meeting minutes January 21, 1986 was addressing the three concerns of the Planning Commission. First, the developer will provide compensating water storage at the time the parking lot is constructed. Because of the poor soil (based on their soil borings), this land would be a poor choice for a treatment plant. Relative to open space and what that space is to be used for under the Comprehensive Plan, the only use they could see was for water storage which is impractical because of the soil. As to the Planning Commission suggestion for leasing the land, the developer felt this was too complicated a procedure to investigate further. It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Backes, that there is no public need for the property and that staff meet with the developer to draw up an agreement for the purchase of the land. Councilman Mitchell asked how the basements of the buildings would be policed so that they were not being used without adequate parking provided, should the developer notbuild parking on the adjacent land. The City Manager said it would probably come to the attention of City officials because people would be parking in the fire lanes, there would be overcrowding. It might also be discovered in a routine fire inspection. Councilman Strand asked on what basis a public need was found, and what was the percentage that the land might be used. The City Manager responded less than a 50 percent chance it would be used. In answer to a question from Councilman Strand re the wetlands, Mr. Martin said they would not be touching the wetlands; indeed, their plan would be to dig down to the flood plain level, gaining for the City an additional one acre foot of water storage capacity. Councilman Strand asked if there were a precedent for a developer coming back after building a project to request additional space for parking. The City Manager said he was not aware of this type of request in the past five and one-half years. Councilman Friedman asked why the three buildings under construction could not be marketed such as the other eight buildings had been marketed. Mr. Martin said it all depended upon how long you wanted to leave something on the market. The developer's preference was to get the project done and sold. Darrel Farr, the developer, spoke of the change in the condominium/office building market in the past 2} years. He said the major detriment to their marketability was the inability to expand, and Sunset Business Park affords any owner that option. -18- City Council meeting minutes January 21, 1986 Councilman Friedman asked for clarification as to who on staff had recom- mended retention of the property. The City Manager responded that the Directors of Public Works and Planning along with the Planning Commission had so recommended, but there had been the option for the developer to lease the land. One of the conditions of a lease would be that the property owner return the property should the City need it. Councilman Mitchell asked, since this concerned the flood plain, would any other agencies have to be involved. The Director of Planning said the request would have to be sent to the watershed district and possibly the Department of Natural Resources. This conflicted would be happy that necessary. with the applicant's information, but he conceded that the, to conform to all watershed district requirements were Councilman Duffy withdrew his motion, and made a motion to defer the item to February 3. This was seconded by Councilman Mitchell. The motion passed 6-0. Councilman Friedman asked that staff review its findings in more detail to determine if there is not a public need for part of the property. He also asked for further information as to how far in the future retention of this land for potential use might be. 9b. Traffic signals: Minnetonka Blvd./ This report ordered filed by consent. Cedar Lake Rd &T1w­y-.—Tff- 9c. Parking restrictions Edgewood/Florida/Georgia/Hampshire Bradley Smith, resident of the neighborhood, said he had asked to be on the committee exploring this problem. He felt the parking problem is only a symptom of a greater problem - that of high school students who do not respect others' property and are generally disrespectful to the residents of the neighborhood. He felt if the committee were going to meet only to discuss the parking problem, the real problem was not being addressed. It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Friedman, to accept the recommendations of staff's report. The motion passed 6-0. 9d. Street lighting: Hwy. 100/W. 36th St. 9e. Agreement with Beth El Synagogue agreement. Report filed by consent It was moved by Councilman Backes, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to authorize execution of the Councilman Strand asked for background information. The City Manager responded this is relative to a new street being constructed between fq,,40M 44 �,• City Council meeting minutes January 21, 1986 the synagogue and Benilde to be called 25J St. The adjacent property owners have donated the property in exchange for not being assessment. Councilman Friedman abstained because of his membership on the board of Beth El. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Councilman Friedman abstained). 9f. Recycling It was moved by Councilman Backes, seconded by Councilman Duffy to waive reading and adopt Resolution No. 86-18 entitled "Resolution terminating recycling service contract No. 15498 with U.S. ReCyCo, Inc." In answer to a question from Councilman Strand if all procedures relating to a performance bond in the contract had been followed, the Director of Public Works said they had, and that he had heard just that day from the bonding company they were were amenable to reimbursing the City. The motion passed 6-0. It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 86-19 entitled, "Resolution accepting proposal of Beermann Services to provide interim recycling services." In answer to a question from Councilman Friedman, the City Manager said the interim contract was a significant increase to the taxpayers participat- ing in recycling. Councilman Friedman asked if Council should not be exploring if this was in the best interests of the City. What are the tradeoffs? Even though he participates in recycling, he was concerned about the increasing costs. Me 1 and Mayor Pro Tem /felt the increased costs would most certainly be reflected in the increased costs for landfill if the City does not support some sort of recycling program. The d)irector of Public Works said that the Waste Management Act required that by 1990 recycling be enacted and that St. Louis Park is one of the first major cities involved in a recycling program. Councilman Duffy felt start up costs, should the recycling program be suspended, would far exceed the increase in the present contract. The City Manager agreed with Councilman Friedman on the costs for the program and concurred that a breakdown of costs and benefits should be investigated. Councilman Strand felt it would be a good idea to put the recycling matter on a study session agenda. -20- City Council meeting minutes January 21, 1986 The motion passed 6-0. It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to waive first reading of the ordinance and set second reading for Feb. 3, 1986. The motion passed 6-0. 99. Signal: 36th b Boone Preliminary engineering report: Project 86-01: Signal at 36th A Boone It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Backes, to authorize execution of a contract with OSM and set public hearing for Feb. 17, 1986. Councilman Strand wondered if the assessment for this project would wait until the large project going in nearby was completed, and could the signal wait until after the project is completed. The City Manager said he would research the assessment question, but it was recommended staff proceed with the signal. The motion passed 6-0. 9h. Time transfer station Councilman Mitchell moved, and Councilman Strand seconded that upcoming study session. the matter be deferred to an The motion passed 6-0. Mitchell Counci ]man /asked staff to research any legal options as far as this proposed station was concerned. 9i. Planning Commission minutes Councilman Friedman referred to item 4c, Zoning Ordinance. He asked if Council had ordered looking at a new zoning ordinance, The Mayor Pro Tem replied that was true, occurring in the fall of 1983. Councilman Friedman asked for a report. He asked what the reason was for looking at zoning. The City Manager said it came as a result of a Council study session reviewing the Comprehen- sive Plan. Council thought it well to look at the ordinance because of the Comp Plan, because of changes in state law, because the zoning ordinance had been amended several times, and that it was in many areas difficult to understand. Councilman Friedman said he had attended a d meeting and felt many questions were left unanswered. He felt thatbeforeneighbor- hood meetings are held, Council should approve them. H became unjustly upset when called to meet over itemslikeethe Comprehensive Plan and that Council should have a thorough knowledge of what neighborhood -21- City Council meeting minutes January 21, 1986 meetings were to cover before they were held. It was moved by Councilman Friedman, seconded by Councilman Strand, that no neighborhood meetings be held without Council approval. Councilman Mitchell wondered why some meetings come to Council for approval and some don't. Councilman Backes said that during the extensive review of the Comprehensive Plan, many neighborhood meetings were set and it was his recollection that Council was always informed about this in staff reports. As far as zoning is concerned, he didn't know if pre -approval of neighborhood meetings was necessary, but he felt a schedule given to Council for approval might be helpful. The City Manager said that notification of neighborhood meetings is usually mentioned in the Council Newsletter and that perhaps while reading through it, that item was overlooked. He agreed with Councilman Friedman's suggestion. Councilman Friedman said he would limit his motion to state there be no neighborhood meetings on zoning issues unless approved by the Council. This was agreeable to the seconder. The motion passed 6-0. It was moved by Councilman Friedman, seconded by Councilman Duffy to file the Planning Commission minutes The motion passed 6-0. It was moved by Councilman Mitchell, seconded by Councilman Friedman that the matter of neighborhood meetings be brought to a study session. The motion passed 6-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10a. Boards and Commissions Councilman Mitchell felt that due to the weather, some candidates were not able to attend the interviews and that the item should be continued. NEW BUSINESS Ila. Westwood Lake manhole sealing It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Backes, to designate Visu-Sewer Clean b Seal as lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract for $1870.00. The motion passed 6-0. -22- L_ -d City Council meeting minutes January 21, 1986 llb. Bid tab: Front end loader It was moved by Councilman Backes, seconded by Councilman Mitchell to reject all bids and readvertise for bids. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Councilman Strand abstained because of a conflict of interest). llc. Showmobile The motion passed 6-0. lld. Gambling license It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Mitchell, to authorize Wenger Corporation as the successful bidder and authorize execution of a contract for $58,973. Gambling license renewal: VFW, Legion Auxiliary It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Backes, to receive the report for filing. Councilman Strand expressed his opposition to these license renewals. He felt this type of activity was not needed in St. Louis Park and was opposed to this manner of raising revenue. With respect to the Legion, during his campaigning he heard many complaints from neighborhood residents relative to the activity around the Legion building. He felt some effort should be made, on a continuing basis, by the Legion to meet with represent- atives of the neighborhood to discuss how they can deal with the problem. He felt that along with filing the report, it should be moved that City staff meet with members of the Legion and residents of the neighborhood to work out on an on-going basis the problems in this neighborhood. Councilman Duffy was very aware of what Councilman Strand was referring to, and said that many residents are well aware of the steps the Legion has taken to alleviate the parking problems, but that some residents were not satisfied. Councilman Strand wondered if the bingo hours couldn't be curtailed. Councilman Duffy said he would not want to see the charitable organizations in the City prevented from the one way they can raise funds to support their activities. Councilman Friedman asked if it was the norm not to receive police reports on illegal activities at these facilities. Mayor Pro Tem Meland said any police reports would have been attached to the request for liquor license renewal. The motion passed 5-1 (Councilman Strand opposed). -23- City Council meeting minutes January 21, 1986 Ile. Street between Alabama 8 Zarthan on W. 32nd Councilman Friedman asked that staff look at the parking situation on this very narrow street. He said there is no parking on Sundays between certain hours and it creates a problem when there is snow and there is parking only on one side. The church and the two families living there would like the situation looked into to see if there could be no parking on both sides of the street. With reference to water meter purchases, he felt that the notice that went out could be more understandable to residents. He felt that a better public relations job would be helpful to residents. MISCELLANEOUS 12a. Claims Kathleen Palm, 3024 Brunswick, SLP Michelle LaBeau, 315 University Ave., Mpls. By consent, the claims were referred to the City Clerk and City Attorney. 12b. Communications from the Mayor 12c. Communications from City Manager None It was decided to hold an executive session on litigation on Thursday, Jan. 30 at 7:00 a.m. CLAIMS, APPROPRIATIONS, CONTRACT PAYMENTS 13a. Verified claims It was moved by Councilman Backes, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to approve the list of verified claims prepared by the Director of Finance dated January 21, 1986 in the amount of $582,385.31 for vendor claims and $12,358.34 for payroll claims and that the City Manager and City Treasurer be authorized to issue checks in the appropriate amounts. The motion passed 6-0. 14. Adjournment R-ty 2 PatSmRecording Secretary -24- It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Mitchell to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m. J Maypr Pro Tem