Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987/05/06 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session (2) 4c MINUTES STUDY SESSION - { ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL May 6, 1987 1. Call to Order The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. 2. Roll Call The following members were present: Allen Friedman, Larry Mitchell, Lyle Hanks. Also present were the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager and Administrative Assistant. The Mayor recommended proceeding with the meeting even though there was not a quorum as themeeting had already been scheduled with the Planning Commission. 3. Inspectional Services The City Manager recapped the report provided to Council . He stated that under workload, the lag has been reduced from four weeks to three weeks which he felt was still too long. Councilman Friedman asked for reconfirmation as to why the program was established and stated wasn't it to maintain good housing stock. Mayor Hanks added that it was also for safety reasons. Councilman Friedman stated that it may be well just to advise the owner and prospective buyer of items that should be corrected. Mayor Hanks stated that he would want an opinion from the City Attorney with respect to liability issues and added that items such as a leaky faucet could just be advised. Councilman Friedman recommended the establishment of a policy or criteria to judge items and stated that the program should be limited to the first inspection only. Councilman Mitchell recommended the establishment of a grievance procedure. Mayor Hanks suggested the inspection checklist be reviewed and establish two columns: one for life-threatening items and one column to serve as information only. He stated that an item missed during the first inspection but caught at a later inspection should be recommended to be corrected but not mandatory. Councilman Mitchell stated that he did not want to modify the program to be like the Minneapolis program. He recommended moving forward to establishment of a grievance procedure and problem resolution. He stated that there should be more structure to training and stressed the importance of quality control. 116 Councilman Friedman stated that the Council has decided twice before to limit the violations to the first inspection only and wanted to ensure that the _ ' I Page 2 policy continued. Mayor Hanks stated he would like to see a follow-up survey. Councilman Mitchell stated that the fact there is no established complaint41111 system makes it unfair to the citizens. Mayor Hanks stated that he has not received many complaints until Council members were also in the real estate business which probably exposes them more to the potential problem areas. councilman Friedman stated that Council does not hear the complaints and the attitude of citizens is that you don't fight City Hall . 4. Joint meeting with Planning Commission The meeting was called to order at 8:05 and the following Planning Commission members were present: Marilyn Hoeft, Cari DeWall , Doug Carney, Stanley Barton, Cell Gordon, Al Henry and Judith Str=: 1 . Also present were the Director of Planning and the Senior Planner. The Mayor stated that he was embarrassed that the City Council requested the joint meeting and now a majority of the Council is not present. He stated since the Planning Commission was present, the meeting should proceed. He said the minutes would be distributed to all Council members. ( The Planning Director stated that informational meetings were set up to discuss inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance and how the zoning ordinance could be made consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the scope of the project was set up in 1983. He stated that 011/ the following tasks as listed in the materials have been completed: 1. Background documents 2. Review of alternative-zoning-approaches 3. Establishment of new zoning ordinance philosophy and goals 4. Identification and discussion of major zoning issues 5. Preparation of -new zoning ordinance table of contents and general context He stated that the Planning Commission is currently working on preparation of a new zoning ordinance draft for review and preparation of modifications. He stated that the zoning ordinance was first adopted in 1932, major revision occurred in 1942 and revisions again occurred in 1956. He added that through the process, a generic zoning map has -peen established...-die highlighted- two industrial park areas, Elmwood post office & Bass Lake. He stated there are 56 areas inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Director referred to one map identifying shoreland. He stated that state law requires that shoreland zoning be adopted. He said that under State Statutes, the kinds of lakes in the area are identified by the state. The Mayor asked what informational meetings have been held. The Director responded that they began at the north side of the City and three meetings have been held: one at Shelard Park, where one person showed up; one meeting Hwy. 12 41111 north of Texas area where 14 people were present and came with good questions; and a meeting in the Texas/Minnetonka - area which was really a mock hearing with the Planning Commission to discuss issues.- No residents were present. r -2- Page 3 The Director stated that the neighborhood meetings were driven by state law which requires that once a Comprehensive Plan is adopted, a city is obligated i to change the zoning ordinance to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. I 111I The Mayor asked how many more neighborhood meetings need to be held and where 11 are they. The Director responded that there are 8-9 areas and outlined them as follows: 1. Louisiana Ave./28th St. 2. Virginia Ave./28th St. 3. Cedar Lake Rd./Alabama Ave. 4. Win Stephens Buick 5. Dakota/Minnetonka Blvd. 6. Knollwood Mall 7. Walker Park 8. Walker/Louisiana Ave. 9. Elmwood 10. France/Excelsior Blvd. 11 . Edge of Bass Lake 12. Areas along Excelsior Blvd. The Mayor asked whether the intent of the neighborhood meetings was to gather comments, both pro and con. The Director said that it was. Councilman Mitchell asked about the timeframe under State Statutes to bring the two into compliance. The Director said it was implied but that it was not written well and there may be no legal implications. I 1111 The Mayor asked how long it would take for the shoreline zoning to be in ordinance form. The Director said it would be a minimum of 60 days and more realistically 90 days. The Mayor asked if the Planning Commission proceeded with neighborhood meetings, what would be the timeframe for completion. The Director said it could forseeably be in front of the Council in the form of a public hearing in the fall of 1987. The Mayor stated that proceeding with this process doesn't cast anything in stone. Once it comes before Council , changes can be made. He then asked if the neighborhood meetings are required by law. The Director stated that they were not, but were considered a practical approach. Councilman Mitchell asked what this achieves. The Director said three things f are achieved: consistency between the 1Comprebensive -Plan and zoning ordinance; it will implement state law; and will implement certain elements in the Comprehen- - sive Plan. The City Manager added that design standards could be adopted and as long as request for variances and special permits meet the design standards, it would not be necessary to come before the Council and more time could be devoted to policy issues. j Councilman Friedman stated we are chapging something that appears to be working. 1111/ The Mayor stated that the basic zoning will remain unchanged 80% of the time. Councilman Mitchell asked the procedure to change the Comprehensive Plan. The Director said if it is a routine matter, it would be presented to the Page 3 Page 4 Met Council and they have a certain timeframe in which to respond. The Mayor recapped the position of the City Council as the dialogue between the Planning Commission and Council . He stated the Council adopted the Comprehen- sive Plan and the intent of the Planning Commission is to make the zoning ordinance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He further stated that someone on the Council is uncomfortable with changing the zoning ordinance. Stanley Barton recommended that the Planning Commission be authorized to proceed with the neighborhood meetings and coordinate with the respective Council member. The Mayor reiterated that the reason for the neighborhood meetings is to inform citizens and seek comments from them. Nothing is cast in stone. Leonard Thiel stated that the Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed. Specifically, he was concerned with the property between Louisiana Ave. and Virginia Ave. He stated that he represented the property owner and that the property was bought on the basis of the zoning and didn't want to stand in limbo. Al Henry asked Mr. Thiel if he would like to be moved to the front of the list. Mr. Thiel responded that he would. Mr. Henry asked if there was a reason why this could not be done. The Mayor stated that in that case, the zoning ordinance would be approached separately instead of as one document. He said a neighborhood meeting could be scheduled. The Director said that the intent was to gather information, restudy the Comprehen- sive Plan arrive at one conclusion and make one final recommendation to the Council broken down into each of the areas. Al Henry stated he did not think all 56 areas could be addressed at one time. Mayor Hanks stated that all areas would be addressed at one public hearing. Cari DeWall asked what kind of direction the Council would like to give the Planning Commission. She restated the intent of the Commission was to hold informational meetings and submit a recommendation to the Council so that the Council could hold one public hearing. Mayor Hanks stated that Councilman Friedman had to leave and that he and Council- man Mitchell could not give direction without the other five members present. He stated he would place the item on the Council agenda. He said that the Council is not in argument with _the Planning Commission, but rather wants to be kept informed on what's going on. He thanked the Commission for their time. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. aU/N4.eg../A4/4p,L,, Carmen Kaplan Recording Secretary i i 11 Page 4