Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/04/21 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - RegularMINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA April 21, 1986 1. Call to Order Mayor Lyle Hanks called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Presentations Mayor Hanks presented a proclamation to Mel Larson, VFW representative, ' in honor of the Buddy Poppy drive. 3. Roll Call The following Council members were present at roll call: Ronald Backes Larry Mitchell Thomas Duffy David Strand Keith Meland Lyle Hanks Also present were the City Manager, City Attorney, the Director of Planning, Director of Public Works. 4. Approval of Minutes It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Mitchell, to approve the study session minutes of April 7, 1986. The motion passed 4-0 (Councilmen Backes, Meland abstained) It was moved by Councilman Mitchell, seconded by Councilman Strand, to approve the City Council meeting minutes of April 7, 1986 The motion passed 6-0. It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Backes to approve the minutes of the study session held April 14, 1986. The motion passed 6-0. 5. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Councilman Meland, seconded by Councilman Strand to approve the consent agenda for April 21, 1986 The motion passed 6-0. Councilman Friedman arrived. It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to approve the agenda for April 21 with the following additions: 7d. Michael Pattison and 7e. Request from Rainbow Inn. The motion passed 7-0. -68- ,m City Council meeting minutes April 21, 1986 6a. Walker Place Apts. project PUBLIC HEARINGS Multifamily revenue bond document amendment: Walker Place Apartments Project (Dominiuo Group, Hwy. 7/Pennsylvania Ave./Walker Ave.) It was moved by Councilman Meland, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to continue the hearing to May 5, 1986 The motion passed 7-0. 6b. DABCO addition Request for preliminary plat approval by DABCO Addition 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 approve the preliminary plat. The motion passed 7-0. 6c. Holiday Inn, Shelard Park Request of Harry Johnson (Holiday Inn, Shelard Park) to amend an approved special permit to permit expansion of the parking lot stalls at 9970 Wayzata Blvd. Don Wesenberg, 20 Westwood Rd., said he lived across the street from the hotel. He said he would just as soon not be looking at the parking lot and wondered if something to block the view was planned other than the bening that is apparently now being installed. The Director of Planning displayed a map showing elevations and landscaping plan for the area under discussion. He said the elevation of the berving would be three to seven feet in height, and there was planned a combination of maple and black hill spruce to be planted on the berm. Steve Laufers, 405 Shelard Pkwy., wanted to go on record by stating that although his townhouse development did not agree with a fifteen foot setback and would prefer it were the original 70, they will go along with the plan because the plan is mutually acceptable. Items he did want to bring up were: agreement with the developer to do grounds maintenance on the five feet bordering the townhouse development; an agreement with the developer to change the sprinkling system from a half-moon system to full -moon syste� to cover their five feet and the hotel's 15 feet; a re-evaluation of the foliage on the plan to determine its adequacy, particularly some type he evergreenfoliage to screen throughout the winter. He inquired about t $9,000 bond put up by Duraps some years ago. He asked if the bond was to be invoked and the monies used for additional foliage or to further enhance this area. The City Manager said if the requirements of the landscaping plan have been -69- City Council minutes April 21, 1986 the bond would not be invoked. Mr. Laufers said he thought that money was being held until a determination had been made regarding the undeveloped five feet of their property abutting the development. The City Manager said he would ask staff to look into the status of that matter. 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 Mitchell asked for clarification as to why the amendment was being requested, that ig,-Apthad changed from the original special permit. Jerry Romine, representative of the developer, said they had not been able to get a definite answer from the state on exactly how much land they are planning to take for the proposed highway. They were asking for this to allow more flexibility in their planning. Also, the high volume of business they anticipate the hotel to do, for example a large banquet facility, it was apparent additional parking was needed. It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Mitchell to adopt the resolution with a change to condition No. 6, that it read "That at the discretion of the applicant, parking can be expanded to the north to allow the addition of no more than one additional row of parking containing 8? TO98eth4gs6Qo8PRF89d" Councilman Strand felt discretion to choose the number Councilman Strand said the Planning Commission had determined their needs could be accomplished by adding one additional row containing a maximum 60 spaces and not come as close to the residential development. Mayor Hanks expressed his concern about overflow parking during times banquets would be held. Councilman Duffy said this was the first time he recollectgd the City arguing with a developer to put in less parking spaces. He felt the developer's request for 109 spaces satisfied the concerns of the neighbors to the north, that they were berming and landscaping. He felt that allowing the 109 spaces would prevent calls from nearby residents complaining of cars parking in their driveways, etc. Councilman Friedman's concern was that the plantings chosen would not provide a year-round screening of the parking lot from nearby residents. In answer to the various questions relative to landscaping, the Director of Planning said to provide a screen on the west, additional plantings would be required and that the plan for the property to the west was designed to provide more of a screen. Mr. Laufers said the homeowners association was in agreement with Mr. Strand's amendment to the resolution. -10- •��,�T'T 1 n�,ll• 1/ /.��' ��.tl! •f: .a; ••. a. •�•..." :i: •n::yy_ i�, ,� •1.. .��. City Council meeting minutes April 21, 1986 Councilman Meland shared the feeling that although 109 spaces seemed excessive, overflow parking onto the nearby residential area would certainly be undesir. able. He wondered if it wouldn't be possible to get a better estimate from the state highway department how much parking space they plan to take. It was moved by Councilman Meland, seconded by Councilman Duffy to continue the hearing to May 5. The motion passed 7-0. 6d. MEPC Properties Resolution 86-46 Request of MEPC American Properties to amend a special permit at 1550 Utica Ave. So. Mr. Weiblen representing the developer was present to answer questions. Councilman Strand asked how the traffic generated from the site was going to be handled. The Director of Planning displayed an overhead drawing and explained how this would be handled. 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 Duffy, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 86-46 entitled "A resolution rescinding Resolution No. 85-175 adopted on October 21, 1985, rescinding Resolution 85-101 adopted on July 15, 1985 granting special permit under Section 14-124 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code relating to zoning to allow the construction of an office building and parking facility on property zoned DDD, diversified development district, at 1550 Utica Ave. So." The motion passed 7-0. 6e. Johnson sideyard variance Request of John Johnson for a side yard variance at 3100 Nevada Ave. Mr. Johnson was present to answer questions. He was accompanied by several neighbors who he said had no objection to his garage. The neighbors were Harry Santeen, 3056 Nevada and Larry Sandrowski, 3104 Nevada. There being no one further wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the hearing closed with the right of Council to reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilman Meland, seconded by Councilman Mitchell, to• authorize preparation of a resolution of approval. The motion passed 5-2 (Councilmen Backes, Duffy opposed). 1r,, -71- City Council meeting minutes April 21, 1986 1a. Thompson: Taxi license Denial of taxi license to Gregory Thompson Councilman Friedman alluded to the report in which Mr. Thompson said the City Clerk had entered the words "or suspend" on the application after he had turned it in. Had he signed the application and the words penciled in or vice versa. The City Manager said he believed the applicant had been informed at the time of his application that the referenced question included revocation or suspension. Mr. Thompson said that was correct. It was moved by Councilman Mitchell, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to grant a taxicab license to Gregory Thompson. The motion passed 7-0. 1b. Taxicab license requests Request of Yellow Taxi Company and Airport Taxi for additional licenses It was moved by Councilman Mitchell, seconded by Councilman Backes, to set the public hearings for May 5, 1986. The motion passed 7-0. 1c. Northwest Tennis raffle Request of Northwestern Tennis Association for a one -day raffle It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Friedman, to receive the report for filing. Councilman Strand alluded to the newspaper article in front of Council indicated that out of every $100 Minnesota spent on charitable gambling in 1985, only $13.50 was given to charities or available for charitable purposes. He felt this might be a good reason for other Council members to join him in opposition to this type of gambling. Mayor Hanks said if raffles were outlawed it would affect'such organizations as Little League as well. He asked staff when the Northwest Tennis Association became a charitable organization. The City Manager said they receive a charitable designation by meeting certain criteria of state and federal law - the City does not make such a determination. It appeared to him the Association was separate from the Northwest Tennis Club. Councilman Strand said he believed all a group had to do was spin off a non-profit association that has some sort of a purpose that is in line with the non-profit laws of the State of Minnesota and so done, you can enter into the charitable gambling procedure. Councilman Friedman said he had checked with the City Clerk because of his concern. He was informed that this application has not been acted upon by the state and the City had the option to deny it. It was his understanding -72- City Council meeting minutes April 21, 1986 the Council does not make the determination whether they qualify under • state law; Council simply determines whether any applicant can conduct pulltabs, raffles, or whatever, in the City. Councilman Friedman pointed out some of the questions on the application were answered erroneously which meant it would have to be amended or reapply made. It was moved by Councilman Mitchell, seconded by Councilman Backes to defer the matter to May 5, 1986. The motion passed 7-0. 7d. Mike Pattison Mr. Pattison addressed the Council and described a situation in which he had planned to build a garage at 2529 Oregon Ave. He had proceeded through all necessary City procedures, had a survey conducted, submitted his plans for approval, was issued a permit. After verifying property lines with the survey, he received the go-ahead. Four hours later he was told by a building inspector that the permit was being revoked due to the fact a 10 foot setback is required. He was appearing before Council to ascertain why he was not given the right information throughout this process. Mayor Hanks said that with no information to go on outside of Mr. Pattison's comments, it was appropriate for him to be referred to the City Manager and find out what the problem was. Mayor Hanks suggested Mr. Pattison check with the City Manager first thing in the morning to follow up on this matter. 1e. Rainbow Inn Councilman Mitchell said he had a request from a restaurant in his ward, Rainbow Inn, to allow them to put a few tables in their restaurant in order to conduct business. He felt it was a question that came up from time to time and was an area in the ordinance staff might want to look at. Councilman Mitchell asked that staff research this item. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 8a. Reilly Tar b Chemical:Consent Decree Resolution86-47 Resolution authorizing execution of the Consent Decree in Reilly Tar and Chemical litigation It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Backes, to naive reading and adopt Resolution 86-47 entitled "Resolution authorizing execution of Consent Decree in Reilly Tar litigation." The nation passed 7-0. -73- City courwil motting minutes Apr i l ;1, 19ft ft, C i t y Re i l l y Agree w"t --- Resolution authorizing execution of an Agreement by and between the City Of St. Louis Park and Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation as Exhibit B to the Consent Decree. It was iK%ved by Councilman (puffy, seconded by Councilman Backes, to waive reading and &&'%Pt Res0lutlon 86-48 entitled Resolution authorizing execution of a9re~nt by and between the City of St. Louis Park and Reilly Tar A Cheoical i%:%rp, as Exhibit 8 to Consent Decree.' Following are verbatim cvtnts by City Council members: :ouncilman Strand; This is an important vote as we all know for the City, and we have talkeo In the past about the importance of letting people know why we're vkZi ny the way we are on this particular mot on. For that reason, I will make Line more -peech tonight. I've written these remarks out because I'd like to have them included in the minutes of the meeting. Deciding whether to settle a lawsuit or going to trial is never an easy decision. When the stakes are high, as in this case, that decision is even nor* difficult. A decision is always a matter of balancing -- balancing the certainty of obtaining part of a desired result on one hand, against the risk of losing at trial on the other. I believe on balance the City of St. Louis Park, in the greater public interest, is best served by settling this lawsuit now. There should be no mistake about my feelings towards Reilly Tar. This company polluted our water, damaged the environment and caused tremendous public anxiety about the health risks associated with the contaminants on the site. They have financed protracted litigation to serve their own business interests and have taken previous little action to evidence any corporate responsibility toward the public at large. Regardless of the settlement, we will live with the problem they caused for years to cawe. So why vote for the settlement? We have spent many Years dealing with this problem. We have expended countless hours of staff time. Council time and attorneys' fees towards finding a solution. But there comes a time when the City must look towards the future, and I believe that time is now, There are many aspects of the settlement with which I do not agree and which cause me some concern. Of greatest significance is the City's assumption of contingent liability for certain remedial actions. I wasn't comfortable with that concept the first time I saw it in December, and I'■ not comfortable with it now. But it became clear to •e that forcing the issue further at this time clearly would have prevented settlement short of trial. I'm somewhat assured, though, by our experts' estimates that the $1 million contingency fund will cover the costs of the contingent liability we assume. In seeking the settlement, we have Also had to keep in mind the risk associated with trial. The greatest risk, of course, was the possibility the City would not have prevailed. This risk was greatly magnified by the presence of a hold harmless agreement given to Reilly by the City in the early 70s. Without this earlier agreement, I wouldn't have voted to settle. But with it, our hands are tied. To do anything but settle, I believe, would expose the City of St. Louis Park -74- City Council meeting minutes April 21, 1986 to an unacceptable level of risk. A settlement involves compromise. There will no doubt be questions about the wisdom of certain aspects of the settlement, but this settlement allows us to go forward. With it, we will have the certainty that a comprehensive remedial action plan is in place, and it's my hope the settlement will also give us the certainty of an adequate and clean water supply. Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry to take so much time, but I wanted to make sure the reasons for my vote on this were very clear to the people in the Park. Councilman Meland: I feel, too, that on a vote of this significance 1 should give some of the reasons why I will vote in favor of this resolution authorizing the execution of this agreement between the City and Reilly Tar 8 Chemical. I've invested a little over 12 years of time and study on the problem of the pollution in the Jordan -Prairie du Chien aquifer. I feel comfortable with the assessment that the scientists have made, the assumptions of the contingent liabilities and tNtthe funding that is going to go with it from Reilly Tar and Chemical is going to be adequate to do the job that needs to be done should those contingencies arise. I share with the scientists the inability to actually take a look deep into that aquifer, touch it and see what's down there, but I have confidence in them and confidence that this agreement will do the job to ensure that the future water supply is cleaned up and the contaminants removed. Councilman Backes: I have one comment I'd like to make for the audience. This matter has been in litigation, and therefore, the Council over the years has discussed this in executive session. This Council as well as other Councils has spent considerable time discussing, debating, sharing, and so forth. I think it's a tribute to the process and to members no longer on the Council. I think it's a tribute to the type of government we have. I welcome the comments made by the new members. This is a very complex subject and they participated very aggressively and constructively. I think it's a tribute to this City that elected officials work diligently and hard for the benefit of the public. Councilman Friedman: I'd have to agree with Mr. Strand that it is somewhat of a balancing that has to take place in something like this. Admittedly, I came on a short time ago, although I was not unf amiliar'with the problem, but not realizing it would materialize into this much of a problem years ago. I believe that the important thing is to make sure that we have a safe and clean drinking water supply for the citizens of this community and protection for citizens in any other areas. I believe, too, that there is a time to fight on and a time to move on. I'm not satisfied completely with everything, but I think the fighting time is over and the moving time is here. There are people who know far more than I do in terms of the environment and in the scientific area, and I'm relying on those people at the EPA and the state people to give us that information. I have looked and read diligently and talked with my colleagues on the Council and have come to the same conclusion, that we are providing for the citizens of this community a safe and potable drinking supply. And to this end I would not have allowed my daughter, son-in-law and my 2J year old granddaughter to move into this community last month if I thought there was the slightest chance that they would have been harmed by this water supply. I've lived in this community since 1958 and I continue to live here, and as far as I know 1 will continue. I will allow my children to -75- City Council meeting minutes April 21, 1986 move into this community and feel perfectly comfortable that they have a safe drinking water supply and we are protecting the environment. On that basis, I will vote for this matter. Councilman Mitchell: I hope the fact of the audience turnout on this issue is indicative of the support for us and that there is not m overwhelming concern out there in terms of the settlement and its contents. One of the things I noticed in researching theissue the two years I've dealt with it, is that there was not a lot of documentation as to the reasons for previous actions going back to 1972-73. It was simply actions taken but not really explained or documented. I'm sure at that time there were very good reasons for what was done. What I would like to do is just to mention several things, at least from my perspective. If someone wants to disagree with it afterwards and provide a different assessment, please feel free to add on. I would, just for the record, like to establish how I see this going together and the reasons for it. Basically, I see this as less than an ideal agreement. Obviously, a compromise agreement. It's probably one that everyone would like to change if they could including Reilly. That's the nature of negotiations. I think it's worthwhile to point out that the Council faced and really reviewed certain realities with this settlement that need to be mentioned. I think it's important that some of the possible court-ordered scenarios that the Council was facing need to be reviewed. I'd like to go over that if I could. The first one was the potential that we would have what I would call a win-win situation. That being, that we would win in court and Reilly would immediately comply with that action from the court and pay everyone their money. Though remote, that was one possibility we had to look at. The second was to win and the appeal process from Reilly could be lengthy, at which point they do make settlement and pay all the parties involved. The third one I think we looked at was what I would call a win -lose scenario, that being, after a long appeal process - assuming we won in court both on the hold harmless, the trial divided into two sections -- Reilly for some reason went out of business. Then we would be in a position where we would have to turn to the Superfund. We would be responsible for taking care of the treatment system and turning to the Superfund process for payment. That could be lengthy and unknown if we could receive those funds, but it would be a lengthy process. Right now, it's a very slow process for those participating with the federal government. The fourth scenario I saw we were dealing with was a situation where we could win on the hold harmless, and Councilman Strand alluded to that - it goes back to 1973- but at the same time lose on the water standards. This would be due to the fact that the trial would have been set up to where the hold harmless would have been dealt with first and had it been ruled in our favor, we would then go and argue water standards. If the standards set by the state were not upheld, we could have potentially had a situation where on one hand we won, but the standards are negated by the legal process and Reilly could basically get away without having to pay much of anything. And we had the risk of a public out there that after years of hearing about this issue, would not be convinced that the water was safe. It was a real dilemma, one that we did not want to face. Another scenario I saw as a possibility was one where we would lose the hold harmless and really be in a position to say nothing about the standards - we'd simply have to implement whatever was required, because on one hand we couldn't argue against the hold harmless and at the same time turn around and argue against the water standards. The last one I saw -76- �1rHw/'wrrw,�4t�_ _ I City Council meeting minutes April 21, 1986 us dealing with mostly was what I would call really a lose -lose situation where we lost in the hold harmless which I think most of us felt was remote, but a real possibility. It was not likely to happen but was one we had to deal with. At the same time, losing on all other fronts, thereby having to pay not only all costs including local, state and federal plus Reilly, which frankly would have probably resulted in the requirement that the City float a bond to pay for that. Also, I'm afraid result in a new Council. Frankly, I don't think most of us felt that was likely to happen, but at least it was a legal possibility we had to deal with. Those were the types of scenarios I think we were facing. Another reason I'm going over this, and Councilman Backes alluded to this, we've met many hours on this, it's been a real struggle within the Council pulling a consensus together. It has not been dealt with lightly. I'd like to mention something, too, about past costs. I would say basically the City did not seek past costs. My feeling about this was that in order to initiate the negotiating process to encourage, if you will, to ensure that we would get to this point where we would in all probability have a settlement without the necessity of a lengthy trial process, which results were highly unpredictable, we didn't pursue past costs. In addition past costs can be a highly nebulous figure. For example as part of past costs, staff time is very hard to pin down, and the court could have made a judgment on that as well. It also should be noted that the other settlements - the state and federal- only speak to the final figure for past costs, and not to their initial negotiating position. I don't know what they are, but I would rest assured they are considerably less in final figure than they were from the beginning. Their process, like ours, was a negotiated one. In addition, I would like to say that really as late as a month and a half ago, I think it would be accurate to say that the Council was divided on the proposed settlement. Some of us were ready to go to trial, and some were not. After considerable discussion we established conditions or changes in the proposed settlement that if Reilly agreed to, we all basically would then support the agreement. I would like to review those considerations and changes. First of all, we wanted a change that required Reilly to guarantee financial performance. We felt that had not been adequately dealt with. Secondly, Reilly must agree to not use the settlement in further legal actions against the City. I think some of these are self-explanatory. Third, Reilly would not have access to the contingency fund. That was in there and we felt it should not be in there at all. Four, that the City would not be responsible for any remedial action or well monitoring outside the City of St. Louis Park - we felt very strongly about that. Five, that there must be a speed up of the payment to the City on the part of Reilly to the contingency fund. This was because we want to make sure that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. We didn't want to have to deal with something 7 years out. After several weeks of further negotiation, Reilly agreed and then we had the preliminary settlement. This agreement still has risk. Councilman Strand alluded to the contingency fund, but I think we've reached the point where we must either accept it and move forward or reject it and take the risk and expense of further legal action. I think it is time to move forward. Thank you. Councilman Duffy: I think it was Attorney General Humphrey who said at the press conference that the sign of a good agreement was when nobody was completely happy with it. I think it's obvious that is what we have -77- City Council meeting minutes April 21, 1986 here. I think it was a give and take and that everybody did a tremendous job. Our staff worked tremendously hard, our attorneys worked tremendously hard as well as Council members past and present. I've been on the Council three years and it's been probably one of the most time—consuming items in all of my experience. I can't say any more than the other five Council members have said without making sure that the Mayor had nothing to say, so I'll turn it over to him. -78- Mayor Hanks: I want to say, as Mayor, that I'm proud of you as a Council as well as other Council people who worked on this. I would like to review one thing said by Councilman Mitchell. The question bothered me at the Thursday night press conference when an allusion was made to the state receiving past costs, the federal government receiving past costs and why the City had not received past costs. I determined to look into that and found very straightforwardly that the state and federal governments had received past costs which would be termed "hard costs", where they actually had to get people who were not on their staffs, such as the U.S. ' Geological Survey teams that were around here, the Hickock-Barr study that was done. Staff costs, the same as our staff costs, and as Councilman ' Mitchell alluded to, referred to as "soft costs", have not been paid for. I think all through negotiations, I always refer back in my thoughts being ' a member of this Council when all of a sudden coming down 35W one day ' on the radio came another story about the Park water. If there is anything I have heard in the last week in this community - and I want all of you .� to understand this very clearly - is how happy the people are that we have put this behind us and that we're moving forward to a solution. I don't know whether you people are hearing it, but I'm hearing it from people. I think if there is one thing I'd like to say as genuinely as I can is to thank this Council for the time they've put in on it. The new members, Councilman Mitchell, I've got to say this to you, when you came to this you brought a tremendous amount of questions that were important. Councilmen Strand and Friedman, you brought so many questions. For all ' three of you, as you were new to this situation, as you moved into it you brought a new perspective to it. Probably the only one that was difficult for was the City Manager. I guess at this time I'd like to tell him we • appreciate all the time he spent - hours and hours, which probably accounts for your feeling of how much went in to this. That you put practically your whole life into it in the last two or three years and the many, many meetings. I think we owe you a debt of thanks. As I stated before at the . press conference, and I hope this is correct, that this is a great day for St. Louis Park. We can move forward. Our water supply is hopefully going to be abundant again. People won't have to worry about the water ., shortages and they won't need to worry about the water. So, again, I'd like to thank the Council. I think everyone contributed to it, and I include everyone who was on the Council through the periods we worked on this. This has been something I've lived with for 14 years, and I would suspect the hours we've spent in litigation and in special sessions must go between 100-200 hours after Council meetings when most people thought we were ' through and had gone home, thinking our meetings weren't too long. I'd like to make one statement, whether you've read it or not: I received credit today for leadership in this role. I want to say everyone here received credit for leadership in this role and I thank you. -78- City Council meeting minutes April 21, 1986 The motion passed 7-0. 8c. Excelsior Blvd. Purchase of right-of-way at 6100 Excelsior eesso u ion - 9 Blvd. It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Strand, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 86-49 entitled "Resolution authorizing purchase of property for the Excelsior Blvd. widening project." The motion passed 7-0. 8d. Sanitary landfill Termination of sanitary landfill at Resolution - W. 36th St. & Hwy. 100 It was moved by Councilman Meland, seconded by Councilman Backes, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 86-50 entitled "Resolution authorizing the termination of landfill located at W. 36th St. and Highway 100." The motion passed 7-0. I 8e. Construction agreement: MnDOT Cooperative construction agreement ll—eso u ion 86-51 between the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of St. Louis Park - south Hwy. 7 frontage road west of Texas Ave. so. It was moved by Councilman Meland, seconded by Councilman Mitchell to waive reading and adopt Resolution 86-51 entitled "Resolution authorizing a cooperative construction agreement between the Minnesota Department i of Transportation and the City of St. Louis Park south highway frontage road west of Texas Ave. So." The motion passed 7-0. 8f. Request of Hopkins Request of the City of Hopkins to designate Resolution Highway 3 as Excelsior Blvd. in Hopkins. It was moved by Councilman Mitchell, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 86-52 entitled "Resolution requesting designa- tion of CSAH 3 as Excelsior Blvd. in the City of Hopkins." The motion passed 7-0. Councilman Meland said this would take approximately a year to go into effect because of postal regulations. REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, COMMITTEES t 9a. D'Lites Restaurant Dedication of easements for Mites Z Restaurant located at 8700 Hwy. 7 It was moved by Councilman Backes, seconded by Councilman Meland, to accept deeds and authorize execution of an agreement. The motion passed 7-0. -79- City Council meeting minutes April 21, 1986 9b. Traffic Study: Zarthan/ north of Cedar a e Resolution - Trafrfic study No. 352: Zarthan Ave. north of Cedar Lake Rd. It was moved by Councilman Meland, seconded by Councilman Strand, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 86-53 entitled "Resolution authorizing the modification of parking restrictions along the west side of Zarthan Avenue from 200 feet north of W. 16th St. to 130 feet north of Cedar Lake Rd." The motion passed 7-0. 9c. Ridgedale Electric Concerns regarding City contract with Ridgedale Electric Councilman Mitchell moved, and Councilman Strand seconded, this item be placed on an upcoming study session agenda. The motion passed 1-0. 9d 'rlanninq Commission minutes 9e, WHRAffmi2nujes onP pea s minutes 9f,i 99. HRA minu es pri 9h. March financialreports The above items were ordered filed by consent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10a. Boards and Commissions It was moved by Councilman Meland, seconded by Councilman Mitchell to Human Services Planning Board. The motiontpassed Trove to the West Hennepin It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Friedman to appoint the following persons to the Human Rights Commission: Diana Evenson, Charles Goldstein and Elizabeth Mandel. The motion passed 7-0. J It was moved by Councilman Duffy, seconded by Councilman Meland to appoint Robert Brandel and Charlotte Kafitz to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The motion passed 7-0. Ila. Street materials NEW BUSINESS Bid tabulation: Bituminous street materials It was moved by Councilman Meland, seconded by Councilman Backes, to authorize execution of a contract with Bury & Carlson in an amount not to exceed $42,250. The motion passed 1-0. City Council meeting minutes April 21, 1986 llb. Asphalt paver Bid tabulation: Asphalt paver It was moved by Councilman Meland, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to authorize the purchase of an asphalt paver from Ruffridge-Johnson in the amount of $12,790. The motion passed 7-0. llc. Diseased tree removal Bid tabulation: Diseased tree removal It was moved by Councilman Strand, seconded by Councilman Friedman, to authorize execution of a contract with Ceres Tree Removal in the amount of $115,750. It was further moved to recommend that staff be directed to conduct a study to improve the subsidy bidding process and study the insurance liability limits prior to the 1987 bidding process. The motion passed 7-0. 12a. Claims 12b. Communications from Mayor MISCELLANEOUS None Mayor Hanks expressed his thanks to staff for their work on the Reilly Tar settlement. 12c. Communications from City Manager The City Manager reminded Council of the study session scheduled for April 28. The one item of discussion would be the organization of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. CLAIMS, APPROPRIATIONS, CONTRACT PAYMENTS 13. Verified claims It was moved by Councilman Meland, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to approve the list of verified, claims prepared by the Director of Finance dated April 21, 1986 in the amount of $351,738.90 for vendor claims and $6,713.05 for payroll claims and authorize the City Manager and City Treasurer to issue checks in the appropriate amounts. The motion passed 7-0. 14. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. r � a r /J at Smith, ecor ng ecretary