Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/10/20 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular1. Call to Order 2. Presentations 3. Roll Call MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA October 20, 1986 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Lyle Hanks at 7:30 p.m. George Bohland, Hennepin County Health Department, gave a presenta- tion on the services available. The following Council members were present at roll call: Ronald Backes Thomas Duffy Allen Friedman Larry Mitchell David Strand Lyle,Hanks Also present were the City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Planning and Director of Public Works. 4. Approval of Minutes It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Mitchell, to approve the minutes of the October 6, 1986 City Council budget session with the following correction: Item 10, after the word account, insert "for the purpose of anticipated increase in legal expenses." The motion passed 6-0. It was moved by Councilman Backes, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to approve the minutes of the October 6, 1986 City Council meeting with the following addition: Item 6j, pg. 215, third paragraph from end, insert after word Synagogue, "A representative from the Synagogue was present but did not address this item." The motion as amended passed 6-0. It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Strand, to approve the minutes of the October 13, 1986 City Council study session. The motion passed 6-0. 5. Approval of Agenda The motion passed 6-0. It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to approve the consent agenda for October 20, 1986. It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Backes, to approve the agenda for October 20, 1986. The motion passed 6-0. City Council meeting minutes Oct. 20, 19B6 6a. Daystar special permit We—solution86-IIZ PUBLIC HEARINGS Special permit request: J. D. Inter- national (Daystar), 2900-2940 Monterey Ave. So. Marjean Cooper addressed the Council and spoke in opposition to this project. She alluded to the developer's other project in the area that was supposed to be cluster housing for the elderly, but that this concept does not appear in their advertising. She asked what guarantee would there be in the proposed project that they will be owner -occupied, not become rental properties. Mayor Hanks explained that any change in the concept before Council this evening would have to be brought back to Council. The Director of Planning stated any homeowner may exercise his option to rent his property. Carmen VanWetring, 4604 Minnetonka, said when she purchased her home, this area was a residential area. She expressed her concern over the increased housing proposed along with the increase in traffic. She felt the City should be concerned with people already living in the area. There being no one further wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the hearing closed with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. Councilman Strand said questions had been raised by the Planning Commission regarding the closeness of the units and that the architect said this would be modified. The Planning Director said he was in receipt of plan modifications to the landscaped area and that the walkways had been made wider. Councilman Strand felt this proposed development was not well timed what with the other development taking place on Minnetonka Blvd., but he did feel the rationale for voting against the special permit was not there. He was of the opinion the development does not seem particularly well suited to the location and may have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. He noted that since he was not on the Council when the project was first approved, his participation now was a bit late. Councilman Friedman was concerned about the constant encroachment into residential neighborhoods, both at this site and elsewhere in the City - HP said he, toc. may have come into the process once it was underway, out he must vote his conscience in thot this project is not beneficial to the City. Just because it's been through the Planning Commission and Comprehensive Plan processes does not mean it's a good project, that it is right. He said no one has made a strong enough case to convince him that this particular area needs 20 3 -story townhouse units at this time. On top of that, he felt the traffic generated would make the present traffic problems horrendous. -224- City Council meeting minutes October 20, 1986 It was moved by Councilman Friedman, seconded by Councilman Strand, to authorize preparation of a resolution of denial. Councilman Mitchell said he had felt that initially it wasnot a good plan, but that it has been improved on. He felt Council should be looking as much as why its being denied as approving it, but that would be difficult to do at this point. He said although he had reservations and shares the concerns of Councilmen Friedman and Strand, he would support the request. Mayor Hanks asked the Planning Director to briefly review the progress of this proposal. The Director said the project involved both a zoning change and a special permit. The zoning change requires submission of both a preliminary and final plat. Initially, the plan was found to be lacking as well as in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. There followed a three to four month deferral period with re-examination of the proposal. A new preliminary plan was approved and finally approval of a final PUD plan which provided for 20 units of townhouses on the site. Mayor Hanks said it was important to him that the Council approved the PUD in July and thereafter the developer has moved forward now to the point ofaspecial permit request which is the last opportunity for amendments such as closeness of units, landscaping, walkway widening, etc. He said it would be desirable if guarantees could be made for owner -occupied units only; however, that is not possible. Councilman Duffy stated that to all extent and purposes, this is a vacant lot which cannot be used for single-family homes. He said the first time around, the plan was not acceptable to anyone. The developer met with the neighborhood, made accommodations and have come up with the present plan. He felt Council should face reality and get the best results from that. He said they were sizable units, all over 2,000 sq. ft., and he did not see any more of a chance of them becoming rental units than the single-family homes in the neighborhood becoming rental units. He felt the developer had worked hard to accommodate the City Council and the City and that they have done a relatively decent job. Councilman Friedman didn't feel it was the Council's obligation to accommodate a developer who owns a piece of property and can't fit single-family homes on it. He felt the question was to whom does Council have an obligation a developer or the people in the neighborhood and community at large. He wondered who the ombudsman for the community was. The motion failed 2-4 (Councilmen Backes, Duffy, Mitchell, Mayor Hanks opposed). It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Backes, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 86-172 entitled "A resolution granting special permit under Section 14-124.101 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit the construction of 20 townhouse units for property zoned PUD, planned unit development district, located at 2900-2940 Monterey Ave. so." The motion passed 4-2 (Councilmen Friedman, Strand opposed). __ -225- City Council meeting minutes October 20, 1986 6b. Vacation: Utility easement Gerald Tesch briefly explained his request. Request for vacation of a utility easement at 8600 N. 25th St. There being no one further wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the hearing closed with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilman Mitchell, seconded by Councilman Strand, to waive first reading of the ordinance, set second for November 3, 1986 and authorize summary publication. The motion passed 6-0. 6c. Special permit: Methodist Hospital Amendment to special permit: Re—solution NO:bb-173-6500 Excelsior Blvd. (Methodist Hospital There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the hearing closed with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Backes, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 86-173 entitled "A resolution rescinding Resolution No. 66-63 adopted on May 19, 1986, rescinding Resolution No. 7445 adopted on August 15, 1983 rescinding Resolution No. 7254 adopted on October 4, 1982 and granting special permit under Section 14-123.100(2) and 14-141(3) of the St. Louis Park ordinance code relating to zoning to allow the construction of an addition, to amend the site plan by removal of a previously approved addition and to permit excavation and placement of fill in the floodplain for property located in the R-4, multiple family residence district and F-2 flood plain district at 6500 Excelsior Blvd." The motion passed 6-0. 6d. Parking lot: 3977 Zarthan Tesl� ution86-1/4 Special permit for parking lot at 3977 Zarthan Ave. There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the hearing closed with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Strand, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 86-174 entitled "A resolution granting special permit under Section 14-126(4) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit the construction of an off-street parking lot for property zoned R-3, two family residence district, and B-2, business district, located at 3977 Zarthan Ave. So." The motion passed 5-1 (Mayor Hanks opposed). 6e. Preliminary Plat: Suburban Plumbing would by a berm with plantings on top. -226- Councilman Strand had concern that the storage area be properly screened. The City Manager said it City Council meeting minutes October 20, 1986 1 There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor closed the hearing with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Friedman, to approve the preliminary plat. The motion passed 6-0. 6f. Vacation: Suburban Plumbing Vacation of right-of-way at 6215 W. 36th St. There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the hearing closed with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilman Backes, seconded by Councilman Strand, to waive first reading, set second reading for November 3, 1986 and authorize summary i publication. The motion passed 6-0. 6g. Open storage yard: Suburban Plumbing Preliminary special permit for an open storage yard at 6215 -� W. 36th St. I There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the hearing closed with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. J It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Mitchell, to approve the preliminary special permit subject to revisions. The motion passed 6-0. 6h. Preliminary plat: 2651 Burd Preliminary plat: Hausken Addition, 2651 Burd P1. There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor closed the hearing with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilman Mitchell, seconded by Councilman Backes, to approve the preliminary plat. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Councilman Friedman abstained). 6i. Alley vacation Resolution --8-6--175 Vacation and rededication of alley at 2701 Brunswick Ave. There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor closed the hearing with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to waive first reading, set second reading to November 3, 1986 and authorize summary publication. City Council meeting minutes October 20, 1986 It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by �� Councilman Strand to waive reading and adopt Resolution 86-175 entitled A resolution accepting land for dedication of easement for alley purposes". The motion passed 6-0. 6j. Sign interpretation Intepretation of zoning ordinance for replacement of a sign at 8000 Minnetonka Blvd. J. E. Brill, attorney, reviewed the history of this rooftop sign. He said Mr. Stone wants to change the letters IGA on the sign to read Red Owl so as to advertise that his store is part of the Red Owl chain. He noted the ordinance prohibits rooftop signs; however, there is the amortization clause providing for approximately 15 years to amortize those signs out of business. He said the ordinance also prohibits rebuilding, relocation and altering of such signs. He said. the Zoning Administrator has interpreted changing from IGA to Red Owl is an alteration and thereby prohibited, and that was the ruling they were appealing. He said they feel this is too harsh an interpretation of the ordinance. He alluded to the tall brick pylon in Miracle Mile on which the bank has been permitted to change its name. Councilman Backes asked if this rooftop sign was not actually an extension of one of the building's existing walls, that the vestibule was added later. He asked if this fact would not allow room to interpret the ordinance a little differently. As it is not a sign set on top of the building, but a part of the original structure, it would seem it is a wall sign, not a rooftop sign. Allan Stone, 7010 W. 23rd St., the applicant, displayed a drawing of what the sign would look like. There being no one further wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the hearing closed with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilman Friedman, seconded by Councilmnan Backes, to approve the request for replacement of a sign Councilman Duffy said he agreed with the Zoning Administrator's interpretation, but he did see there was some difficulty in coming up with a definitive answer to exactly what Council means re roof signs. He noted that agenda item 7b was a request from the Board of Zoning Appeals asking for clarification on sign provisions. He said he would support the present request and hoped that further study would provide clarification and a better definition of Council's intent. It was his intent that whenever there was a change proposed in a rooftop sign, it was to be removed as a means of eliminating non -conforming signs before the amortization period was up. Councilman Mitchell felt the main thrust of the sign ordinance was to get rid of rooftop billboards, not a sign such as was being discussed. -228- City Council meeting minutes October 20, 1986 thing Mayor Hanks said the key word is alteration and certainly laasmaant repl�ment, gore than merely changing paint. He did not viewrequestHe thou ht the not a rebuilding, not a change in the use of the property. 9 Zoning Administrator was right in catching this and that the definition Council came up with should be looked at. The motion passed 6-0. 6k, Variance: 4164 Webster Request for variance: 4164 Webster 'RESTtUtMo- i There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the hearing closed with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Strand, to waive adopt Resolution 86-176 en reading and titled "A resolution granting variance in front yard setback fron Section 14-133(5) and Section 14-198(4) of the ordinance code relating to zoning to permit the construction of a one-story addition to the front of the hue single familyback of residence3•districtnsata 4164 of the required 26.3 ft n the R2 Webster Ave. So." The motion passed 5-1 (Councilman Backes opposed). 61. Variance: 2614 Xenwood Request for variance: 2614 Xenwood Ave. Bill John, 2614 Xenwood, said he was requesting a variance to build a two -car garage. He said the Board of Zoning Appeals denied his request because it would change the uniformity of the neighborhood. He said there aren't any two -car garages and the City not would capp9eciate every two-care wo car gare the looks of tha ge r ge built It was his opinionY as it would get more cars off the streets. Matt Chambernick, 2620 Xenwood, said he was opposed to the garage as it would be right next to his bedroom window. Councilman Friedman pointed out an error in the sketch before Council which showed the proposed garage abutting the neighbor's garage, not bedroom window. There being no one further wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the hearing closed with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. Councilman Backes asked if Mr. John had not had a grading problem a few years back with his driveway where it met the street. Mr. John said that when the street was put in some 10 years ago, the City lowered it which caused the problem where his driveway met the new street. Councilman Backes asked that there be a drop or a rise there would be some rise. if he expanded the garage and driveway, would where the drive met the street. Mr. John said -229- City Council meeting minutes October 20, 1986 Councilman Duffy noted that BOZA had recommended construction of a garage 18.7 ft. and did Mr. John find that unacceptable. Mr. John said that size was really not adequate for two mid- or full-size cars. It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Backes to authorize preparation of a resolution of denial with findings. Councilman Strand said he felt this was too much encroachment and that the applicant had a reasonable alternative to back it off a couple of feet, and if he were going to do anything, that's what he should do. Councilman Backes commented that as is known, he usually votes against variance requests unless there are findings in accordance with the ordinance to allow it. In the present case, there are not the findings as contained in the ordinance to allow Council to approve it. He viewed it merely as a convenience which he consistently votes against, in most cases. Councilman Friedman said a decision would be easier if the neighbor didn't object. On the other hand, he said he was usually in a dilemma on these types of decisions. He felt there was a reasonableness as to how close one gets to their neighbors, and in this case, there was concern about a garage being so close to a neighbor's bedroom window. He could see both sides of the argument, and the advantages of one being able to garage their cars. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Councilman Friedman abstained). 6m. Roger's Petroleum Amendment to a special permit: 5430 Minnetonka Blvd. Jeff Ilstrup spoke on behalf of Roger's request. He displayed a photo showing where they wished to place the sign. Councilman Duffy asked if this sign was in addition to what already was on the property. Mr. Ilstrup said the current signage is on a different piece of property and advertises the service center, a different corporation. He said the proposed sign would be of brick and will match the canopies over the gas pumps. Councilman Strand asked if there were two different owners of the two corporations, and Mr. Ilstrup responded that Roger Ilstrup owned both. Councilman Strand asked if one sign couldn't serve the entire operation. Mr. Ilstrup said not really, as the convenience/gas store was trying to attract the customers coming off Vernon Ave. and east down Lake St. and Minr-Etonka Blvd. Councilman Mitchell asked why the previous sign was removed and the Director of Planning said it was at the time they remodeled and signs were no longer allowed in the setback. -230- City council meeting minutes October 20, 1986 Councilman Mitchell said there seemed to be some sort of a tradeoff involved with removal of the previous sign which they would now like waived in order to place a new sign. He quoted from Roger's letter which alluded to the many variances approved for Jet across the street. He recalled there had been variances for Rogers as well. Relative to the landscaping, he asked how much had been invested in the present landscaping which he felt was hardly adequate. Mr. Ilstrup said the curb would be extended, additional trees to be planted and rock to be laid. He said there was plenty of land available to accommodate such a sign, that it would still be 40 feet away from Vernon Ave. With the proximity of a 10,000 underground gasoline storage tank, it was not possible to meet the ordinance requirements. Councilman Friedman asked about other variances alluded to in Mr. Ilstrups letter, such as the Mobil station on Excelsior Blvd. Councilman Duffy said none of the variances referred to in the letter had been granted since the sign ordinance was adopted. The Director of Planning clarified the reference to a variance given to asynagogue which in reality was approved for the Jewish Community Center. There being no one further wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the hearing closed with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Mitchell, to authorize preparation of a resolution of denial with findings. The motion passed 5-1 (Councilman Friedman opposed). Councilman Backes noted the second half of the applicant's request re additional signage on the westerly lot. It was moved by Councilman Backes, seconded by Councilman Mitchell, to approve the applicant's request for signage changes on the westerly lot as this is within ordinance requirements. The motion passed 6-0. REQUESTS, PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS 1a. Raffle Notice by Knights of Columbus of intent to conduct raffle It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Backes, to approve the request. The motion passed 6-0. 7b• Request from BOZA Request from Board of Zoning Appeals for clarification of sign provisions -231- City council meeting minutes October 209 1986 reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1698-86 entitled "An ordinance the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code related to liquor liability by revision of Section 13-120 and addition of Section 13-120.101" amending insurance The motion passed 6-0. 8c. MnDOT/1-394/CSAR 18 eso u on - Resolution requesting to include watermain and sewer as part of the 1-394 MnDOT sanitary project in the area of CSAH 18 It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Mitchell, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 86-177 entitled "Resolution requesting the Minnesota Department of Transportation to provide for necessary watermain and sanitary sewer improvements related to I-394 construction." The motion passed 6-0. it was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Friedman to establish the public improvement and set a public hearing for November 17, 1986. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Councilman Backes abstained). 8d. Audit ell—solution 86-178 Post audit of City's accounts and records for 1986 It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 86-178 entitled "Resolution providing for the employment of George M. Hansen Company to audit the accounts and records of the Ci ty for the 1986 f i scal year. " The motion passed 6-0. Councilman Friedman asked if the Housing and Redevelopment Authority was audited, and Councilman Duffy said it was. Councilman Strand asked if there would be any economy in having the City and HRA audits done by one f i rm. The City Manager said they would check into it. Be. Park Blvd. Towers eso u ion - Park Blvd. Towers - Multifamily housing It was moved by Councilman Strand seconded by Councilman Duffy to waive reading and adopt Resolution 86-179 entitled "Resolution providing for amendment relating to $17 million variable rate demand purchase multifamily housing revenue bonds Series 1985 (Park Boulevard Towers project). The motion passed 6-0. -233- City Council meeting minutes October 20, 1986 8f. GAC plant esR so ufion 86-180 Resolution accepting the ownership transfer of the GAC plant from Reilly Tar b Chemical It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Backes, to waive reading and adopt resolution 86-180 entitled "A resolution by the City of St. Louis Park accepting quit claim deeds and a bill of sale from Reilly Tar and Chemical Corp. for land in St. Louis Park occupied by the granular activated carbon treatment plant (GAC)." The motion passed 6-0. REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, COMMITTEES 9a. Remedial Action Plan Escrow agreement: City Remedial Action Plan In answer to a question from Councilman Strand, the City Attorney said his office had reviewed the agreement and that it was in compliance with the Remedial Action Plan. It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to enter into an agreement appointing Citizens State Bank as escrow agent for the St. Louis Park contingencv fund. The motion passed 6-0. 9b. St. Louis Park/Minnetonka FI Agreement between City of Minnetonka and City of St. Louis Park re exchange of municipal services Councilman Mitchell asked for background information in terms of liability. For example, what if a house on the property burned down - who was liable, in view of the fact Minnetonka has a volunteer fire department and St. Louis Park's is fulltime. The City Attorney said his office had reviewed the agreement. He stated municipal liability for providing services to the public in general is very limited, In Councilman Mitchell's question, he doubted liability to St. Louis Park. Councilman Friedman asked if when dialing911, it did not go directly to the City's dispatcher. The City Manager sid he believed phones can be coded to go to a different answering center. Councilman Friedman felt the City might not be liable, but it certainly has the vulnerability to be sued, and then the question of defense arises. HE said h,E could find nath,ing it, the agreeiment about Minnetonka holding the City harmless, indemnifying or providing defense for St. Louis Park. He asked for some background on this matter. Mayor Hanks said the developer first wanted to put in an annex to Amhurst, which Amhurst was not interested in. Then thedeveloper came to Counci1 to see if the City would permit Minnetonka to annex the property. That was denied and the next maneuver was the proposal before Council that evening, -234- City Council meeting minutes October 20, 1986 Councilman Friedman suggested it might be appropriate for the matter to go back to the City Attorney for more clarification on the liability issue. Councilman Mitchell did not recall Council had given any direction of pursuing this matter. He thought the whole thing stopped when the proposed annexation to Minnetonka was denied. To his knowledge, there's never been a discussion as to the policy question involved, i.e. when, why, how would the City enter into agreements with other municipalities and what was the criteria. He felt it appropriate to have a discussion first before getting the attorney involved as well as staff Is of the two cities discussing it. land to Minnetonka and then asked staff to work out some possibility aMayor Hanks said it was his recollection Council did not want to give the Minnetonka access to the property via their roads. llowing Councilman Strand said if Minnetonka terminated the agreement, the City would then be obligated to provide police and fire services to the property simply because it is in St. Louis Park. In that event, City vehicles would have to come out of the City, cross over Minnetonka property, to get to that piece of property which didn't make a whole lot of sense to him. He couldn't see the sense in the City getting into a situation where we would have to provide fire and police service to this property. It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Mitchell to reject the proposal. Councilman Backes asked if the City maintained Ford Park 100 percent. The City Manager said yes, that the City has over the years. He said it is primarily used by St. Louis Park residents. Relative to Councilman Strand's comments, he said there were occasions when City services do go outside of the City to get back into the City, for example, 44th and Browndale whereby we go through Edina. The bigger issue is the liability issue. He said the final question from a staff standpoint would be, if the motion passes, the property owner will be contacting staff to ask what the next step is. He asked for additional direction from Council. Councilman Strand said his point is that sometimes you need open space. Mayor Hanks disagreed stating this property in the City is developable. He felt the attorney could certainly solve the liability issue and also that both cities would be willing to keep that with the property to be serviced. He didn't think Council could fall back on calling the property landlocked. Councilman Backes said when Amhurst was developed, nothing in the plans or in the Comprehensive Plan showed there would be a couple of homes on this property. He felt it was an afterthought. It was excess County right-of-way and he didn't feel it was Council's problem. The motion to reject passed 5-1 (Mayor Hanks opposed). 9c. Krinke wall Hold harmless agreement: Krinke It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Strand, to approve and -235- City Council meeting minutes October 20, 1986 authorize execution of a hold harmless agreement. Councilman Friedman suggested adding a clause in paragraph 2 after the word claims "and defend the city". The City Attorney said relative to hold harmless, the attorneys office would tender defense to the landowner, and it would be their responsibility to defend us. He said they could take such an addition back to the landowner. Councilman Friedman said it was his understanding that if the City were sued, it would have to defend the hold harmless agreement. He said hold harmless does not protect one in defense; you have to provide your own defense to prove that you should be held harmless. The City Attorney said this was a negotiated settlement between the landowner's attorney and the City and that they could certainly go back for clarification. He said the hold harmless portion would include any and all possible claims. The motion passed 5-1 (Councilman Friedman opposed). 9d. Aldersgate Church Stipulation agreement between Aldersgate United Methodist Church and the City Mayor Hanks had two questions: (1) he thought when this was being negotiated, it was the interest to date on that amount; and (2) it appears interest is being added beyond that amount. The City Attorney said the only interest is being paid on $121,700, and that paragraph 1 relates to the total principal paid. It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Backes to waive reading and adopt Resolution 86-181 entitled "Resolution authorizing execution of stipulation agreement between Aldersgate United Methodist Church and the City of St. Louis Park for certain lands for highway purposes." The motion passed 5-1 (Mayor Hanks opposed). 9e. Board of Zoning Appeals minutes Sept. 25 9f.PTanning Lommission minutes ct. 9g. Lable TV Advisory Commission minutes Sept. 25 9h. September financia repot All minutes were ordered filed by consent. a. Boards and Commissions UNFINISHED BUSINESS The following youth representatives appointments were made: Helen Kaplan to the Planning Commission, moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Duffy, passed 6-0. Erica Strohl to the Parks and Recreation Commission, moved by Councilman Friedman, seconded by Councilman Duffy, passed 6-0. -236- City Council meeting minutes October 20, 1986 10. Indihar claim It was moved by Councilman Backes, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to reject Mr. Indihar's claim for reimbursement in the replacement of his furnace. The motion passed 5-1 (Councilman Strand opposed). lla.Chan a order Resolution 6-182 NEW BUSINESS Change order , final payment: Layne MN It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Backes, to approve and authorize payment, waive reading and adopt Resolution 86-182 entitled "Resolution accepting work on Well No. 1 abandonment, City Project 85-21, Contract 1730." The motion passed 6-0. 12a. Claims MISCELLANEOUS None 12b. Communications from Mayor Mayor Hanks referred to the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and League of Minnesota Cities information in the agenda packets. Councilman Mitchell asked about Council's involvement in the A14M. He felt there should be more attention paid to the workings of this organization, particularly as pertain to its policies. He said he'd like to see this item on an upcoming study session. Councilman Backes said it can use its delegate to voice agreement or disagree- ment at the annual meeting. 12c. Communications from City Manager The October 27 study session agenda was discussed CLAIMS, APPROPRIATIONS, CONTRACT PAYMENTS 13a. Verified claims It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Strand, to approve the list of verified claims prepared by the Director of Finance dated October 20, 1986 in the amount of $897,933.75 for vendor claims and $11,444.54 for payroll claims and that the City Manager and City Treasurer be authorized to issue checks in the appropriate amounts. Councilman Friedman asked who the following vendors were: CALL, Green Touch and Mach III Flyers Swim Club. The City Manager said he would provide him with that information. The motion passed 6-0. -237- 14. Adjournment N4-4,� r a mit Ir tLng--S5e-trea r y The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Maycf