Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/01/19 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 11111 January 19, 1988 1 . Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Lyle Hanks. 2. Presentations Resolution 88-5 Resolution commending George Haun for his years of service to the City of St. Louis Park. It was moved by Councilmember Friedman, seconded by Councilmember Meland, to adopt Resolution 88-5 entitled "Resolution commending George Haun for his years of service to the City of St. Louis Park." The motion passed 7-0. Councilmember Friedman added his additional thanks to Mr. Noun for his long associa- tion with the City. 3. Roll Call The following Council members were present at roll call : Bruce Battaglia Keith Meland Thomas Duffy Larry Mitchell Allen Friedman 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 Councilmember Duffy, seconded by Councilmember Meland to approve the minutes of the January 4, 1988 minutes. Councilmember Battaglia referred to item 8a. Water/sewer/refuse rates. As a point of information, he recalled that Council had discussed an implemen- tation program for the City's recycling program and that staff was currently undertaking a study on how residents would be billed. He commented that the Sun Sailor newspaper this week had an article on implementation of a program re billing. He wanted it made clear that an implementation program has not yet been developed, \\ that it is still being reviewed. The motion passed 7-0. It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Battaglia, to approve the minutes of the January 11 , 1988 study session. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Approval of agenda pp 9 It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Duffy, to approve the consent agenda for January 19, 1988 -10- City Council meeting minutes January 19, 1988 The motion passed 7-0. It was moved by Councilmember Duffy, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell , to approve the agenda for January 19, 1988 with the addition of item 7a. Smith property-W. 27th St. The motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6a. Billboards Amendment to sign ordinance re billboards 'like Cronin, Naegele Outdoor Advertising, addressed Council . He said the existing billboards in St. Louis Park are there because various companies have messages they want to convey and they find outdoor advertising a good use for that. He said they had also upgraded a number of their outdoor boards. ,;,Hex,w,as -asking that Council not adopt the amendment under consideration. He felt it would put the City and Naegele in the worst situation, that of staring at each other where neither can change. He felt their proposal made in 1987 was still a valid proposal .He said Naegele wishes to continue to work with Council to address problems and move towards conformance. There being no one further 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 Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Strand, to waive first reading and set second for February 1 , 1988 and authorize summary publication. Councilmember Meland said he would not support the amendment. It appeared to him that the City would be closing the door on any near-term ability of the City to deal with the problems with signs, particularly those along Excelsior and Minnetonka Blvds. He felt it was a preservation ordinance that basically tables any discussion on what the City might do to improve the situation on those boulevards. Councilmember Mitchell felt Naegele's proposed modifications were actually an enhancement of its marketing position. He said he's always felt they should aggressively represent their company. He felt the studies that had been undertaken over the past years prove the community really doesn't care to have billboards. He felt the amendment was a vehicle which will allow billboards to exist until such time as they come down through redevelopment at which point they will not allowed to be replaced. Mayor Hanks said he would not support the amendment basically because he would find it difficult to face the residents on Excelsior Blvd. if indeed Council were going to approve an action permitting billboards to remain virtually in their backyards. He felt that cutting the size of the existing billboards was a more productive approach to the problem. Councilmember Mitchell noted that the situation with a large billboard on Excelsior and Monterey prompted the new ordinance back in 1983 with the result Naegele agreed to downsize billboards) at least on Excelsior as well as change the arrangement in terms of the number of billboards. He felt this was unrealistic as it was not in the best interests of the company to pursue this course of action, and that they had not done this. -11- City Council meeting minutes January 19, 1988 Councilmember Duffy agreed with Mayor Hanks that the door cannot be closed. He felt there were some things in Naegele's proposal that were unacceptable - Louisiana Ave. to be opened up for boards, for example - but he felt their proposal was an area the City could work on. He felt the end result was to reduce the clutter of billboards on Excelsior Blvd. and that the Council indicate its seriousness about getting going on this once again. As long as there was still something on the table to negotiate about, he was willing to keep at it. Councilmember Battaglia noted one of the areas for improvement was the sign at Smith Motor Co. ; yet when he met with Mr. Cronin that week, he said Naegele has invested $10,000 on the roof of Smith Motor Co. To him, that indicated Naegele was not serious about reducing the sign on Smith's roof, rather to maintain the status quo. For that reason, he was supporting the motion. Councilmember Mitchell was wary of negotiation with Naegele as past negotiations have resulted in a beneficial marketing environment for Naegele. He said Naegele had simply not delivered on past promises. He felt the proposal in the amendment, i .e. billboards will stay where they are until they come down through redevelopment at which point they are permanently down, was a good solution to the problem. He felt since there was no acceptable negotiated settlement in the past, there was no reason to believe there would be one now. The motion passed 4-3 (Councilmembers Duffy, Meland, Mayor Hanks opposed) . 111 To clarify a question, the City Attorney said five votes would be required for an amendment to the zoning ordinance and that this item would be on the Feb. 1, 1988 agenda. 6b. Amendment to Comp Plan Northwest corner of France Ave./Excel- Resolution 88-6 sior Blvd. Paul Dunn, Welsh Companies, addressed Council . He said they have worked very hard with the neighborhood association and City staff to bring this project about. He was available to answer questions. Mayor Hanks noted a modification to the report in which there would be no restaurant as part of the proposed project and therefore no on-sale liquor. 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 Councilmember Duffy, seconded by Councilmember Friedman, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 88-6 entitled "A resolution approving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 1980 to the Year 2000 for the City of St. Louis Park under Minnesota Statutes 462.351 to 462.364." Councilmember Strand was opposed to the development. He was concerned that the City was providing two anchors of retail at either end of Excelsior Blvd. with no real idea of what the combined effect would be on the entire street. He felt II it made little sense to approve this project with no long-range plan for the street. He felt approval of any proposal inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan should be held in abeyance until long-range planning is explored and Council has a better idea of what they want this street to. look like in the future. The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Strand opposed) . -12- City Council meeting minutes January 19, 1988 , 6c. Zoning change: 3501 Hwy. 100 Zoning change from 1-2 to PUD Zoning change from I-2 to PUD at 3501 So. Hwy. 100 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 Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Duffy, to waive first reading, set second reading for February 1 , 1988 and authorize summary publication. The motion passed 7-0. 6d. Special permit: 3501 So. Hwy. 100 Special permit for auto dealership 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 Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Friedman, to defer the item to Feb. 1 , 1988. The motion passed 7-0. 5e. Special permit: 1361 Hampshire Amendment to special permit for Resolution 88-7 additional 45-unit apartment building at 1361 Hampshire Ave. Councilmember Mitchell asked how this request was affected by the 1-394 moratorium. The City Manager said it was an already platted piece of property and this had been applied for prior to notification that a moratorium ordinance was to be considered. Councilmember Mitchell asked about the traffic to come out onto Hampshire which is really no more than a residential street. He asked at what point the City Planner would become concerned about the development of this plot that the road could no longer handle the traffic. The City Planner compared the street to Minnetonka Blvd. which handles up to 20,000 vehicles per day. He felt Hampshire could handle all the traffic; that perhaps any holdup would be near the intersection with the frontage road or in the event of a heavy snow with cars parked on each side. In response to a question, the Planner said an appropriate development of the Prestige Lincoln Mercury property, should that ever occur, would be office and residential . Councilmember Friedman asked if there were any other developments along the frontage road that the City Manager was aware of that might be affected by the interim moratorium. The City Manager said this was the only one. It was moved by Councilmember Duffy, seconded by Councilmember Meland, to waive reading and adopt Resolution No. 88-7 entitled "A resolution rescinding Resolution 85-61 adopted on May 6, 1985 rescinding Resolution No. 5688 adopted on Feb. 7, 1977 and granting special permit under Section 14-141 (9) and Section 14-195 of the St. Louis Park ordinance code relating to zoning to allow a 108-unit apartment building and a 45-unit apartment building on property zoned R-4, multiple family residence district, at 1341, 1351 Hampshire Ave." -13- Zity Council meeting minutes January 19, 1988 The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Mitchell opposed) . I' 6f. Special permit: 8600 Hwy. 7 Special permit to expand a driveup — 1 Resolution 88-8 banking facility and provide additional parking at 8600 Hwy. 7 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 Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Battaglia, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 88-8 entitled "A resolution granting special permit under Section 14-156( 11 ) and 14-123. 100(2) of the St. Louis Park ordinance_ code relating to zoning to permit the expansion of a driveup , banking facility and provision for additional parking for property zoned B-2, general business district, and F-2, floodplain district, located at 8600 Highway 7." In answer to a question from Councilmember Friedman, the Director of Planning showed on a transparency where the additional parking would be located. Councilmember Friedman asked if they had adequate parking for the building as it now stands. The Planner said they did. Councilmember Friedman asked why they were requesting additional parking. The Planner responded that (1 ) they were asking for it and (2) if they were to more actively use the conference room space in their building, they might need more parking space. He said _ that traditionally the savings and loans buildings in the area provided upstairs community meeting rooms which are not used on any scheduled basis. As best staff can determine, the ordinance did not apply that office space to parking space determinations. Councilmember Friedman said that the ingress/egress to all the properties in this area are heavily used, and that it seems when parking is increased, traffic is increased. He was reluctant to make more blacktopping throughout the City, eliminating greenery and landscaping, especially with the demands for setback, landscaping and so forth made on new development. Mayor Hanks asked if the setback requirements were not being met, to which the Planner responded they would be. Councilmember Meland expressed his concern about the stacking that would be created by the drive-in windows and the left turn that would be permitted into the bank driveway. He saw stacking on 37th St. as creating a serious traffic problem and asked if there had been any thought given to creating an island on 37th St. to provide for left turns. The Planner said this had not been discussed. Councilmember Meland said the problem of stacking was most certainly going to become a problem that will have to be addressed. He noted the stacking at Twin City Federal and First Western was on their own property, but in this situation, the stacking will occur on a public street. The motion passed 5-2 (Councilmembers Friedman and Mitchell opposed) . 11110 6g. Variance: 7600 Hwy. 7 It was moved by Councilmember Meland, seconded by Councilmember Strand, to continue the public hearing to February 1 , 1988 as requested by the applicant. The motion passed 7-0. -14- City Council meeting minutes January 19, 1988 . 6h. Easements: Excelsior Blvd. Vacation of public easements at Hwy. 100/Excelsior Blvd. 41111 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 Councilmember Duffy, seconded by Councilmember Strand, to waive first reading, set second reading for ceb. 1 , 1988 and authorize summary publication. The motion passed 7-0. In answer to a question from Councilmember Mitchell , the City Manager said the issue of soil borings would be discussed later that week when the consultant would be providing staff with a report. 6i . Perkins Restaurant Special permit to reinstate conditions of previous special permit for Class II Restaurant and off-street parking lot at 4150 Excelsior Blvd. The City Manager said that he, the City Attorney and Attorney for Perkins had talked about the major concerns Council had: (1 ) the chronology dealing with the whole project; (2) the history in terms of dealing with health and litter problems; (3) removal of abandoned facility to the west of Perkins and resolving how that property is to be used. The representative of Perkins41 indicated that Perkins might be willing to demolish the building and do some interim landscaping and that if they would offer the property for sale, the necessary easements would be retained and show up on the transfer of title when they sold it. He suggested the resolution should reflect a date for the demolition of the building and language relative to sanctions or contractual obligations of special permit conditions not followed to the letter of the law. This latter item refers to all special permits issued, not just to Perkins. Some discussion followed as to when the demolition and landscaping would be completed. Councilmember Battaglia asked if the parking easement on the liquor store property was going to complicate the sale of the property. Linda Fisher, representing Perkins, said Perkins would have preferred not to impose the easement. However, after lengthy negotiations with staff, it was determined the property could be sold subject to the easement. Councilmember Strand asked the City Manager if there were any sanctions to be considered that would be appropriate for placement in the special permit or is that something staff needs more time to review relative to this project. He said that was something to be looked into which would apply to all special 41111 permits. One thought was that if one obtains a special permit, a bond or irrevocable letter of credit be posted, and in the event of non-compliance, the City would have the option to call in the letter and do the project itself - in the present instance, demolition of the liquor store building. -14a- City Council meeting minutes January 19, 1988 • Councilmember Strand felt this was something Council should definitely look into. He said he was not prepared to vote this evening on the Perkins request until staff and legal counsel has provided Council with options relative to special permits and their enforcement. The City Manager said another option in the event of the conditions of a special permit not being met within the required timeframe would have the applicant returning to Council to explain why the conditions were not met. He did not know what the sanctions would be in that event. Councilmember Mitchell alluded to the chronology, noting the items which had not been complied with and stated there was a credibility problem with this project. He was opposed to adding item 17 to the resolution as it was not the solution to the problem. He felt time should be taken to look at enforcement mechanisms that can be made to work. He concurred with Councilmember Strand in that he was not prepared to vote on the item this evening. Councilmember Friedman could not see not voting on the item as there doesn't seem to be anything the City can do to enforce special permit conditions. He questioned why special permits were even issued. Councilmember Meland felt this case might be somewhat different and he felt that for the most part, unless it was a question of landscaping, the mechanism for at least a new structure has been that they would not be given an occupancy permit until the conditions of the special permit had been met. He felt that tool worked very effectively. He felt that in the City 95 or greater percent of people given special permits do comply with the conditions or make a legitimate attempt to comply. Sometimes they do run into problems. He felt it would be simple to put in a condition 18 which would have Council stating no certificate of occupancy will be given until all conditions are met. Councilmember Friedman asked that since they are already occupying the premises, what would a condition 18 mean. It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Battaglia, to continue the hearing to February 1 , 1988. On the advice of the City Attorney, Councilmember Strand withdrew his motion until any others present wishing to speak had done so. Ms. Fisher asked if Council ' s concern was the enforcement mechanism. Council- member Strand replied it was his concern, and the Mayor concurred. Ms. Fisher wanted everyone to be aware that until they receive the special permit, the items such as the trash bin and other items would be on hold. Councilmember Friedman hoped that in the interim, Perkins would be a good neighbor, that it be policed adequately so that trash does not 11110 become a problem. Ms. Fisher said she had talked to a member of the Inspections department who in driving through the property on several occasions felt the trash problem had been taken care of. -15- City Council meeting minutes January 19, 1988 It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Battaglia, to continue the public hearing to Feb. 1 , 1988. 411 The motion passed 7-0. It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Battaglia, to direct staff to consider the options available to the City to enforce the conditions placed in a special permit and to include in that study an analysis of the legality of the various options. Also, to research if enforcement procedures can be applied on a discriminatory basis or whether they must be included in every special permit. The motion passed 7-0. PETITIONS, REQUESTS, COMMUNICATIONS 7a. Smith property: W. 27th/Oregon Councilmember Leland said that approximately one month ago, Mr. Smith held a neighborhood meeting and subsequent to that applied for a building permit for office/warehouse to be located south of the Burlington Northern tracks near the old abandoned Hutchinson spur line. He was under the impression it was coming to Council on January 19. In the interim, Mr. Smith received a denial of his building permit. He was requesting whether or not he should receive a building permit to build an office/warehouse on property zoned B-3. John Schaumberg, attorney for John Smith, the developer, addressed Council . He said the building permit was denied primarily on the basis of the trail location on the official map of the Comprehensive Plan. He said the trail coincides with the abandoned spur. He said Mr. Smith has been working with the Planning staff since 1986 to resolve the problems involved with his building on this parcel . He said they were appealing the denial to the extent it is based on the trail location coinciding with the abandoned spur since this has never been the location identified as a potential for trail acquisition on this parcel . He said the developer has been consistently trying to proceed with development on this B-3 zoned parcel with office/warehouse. He said the Planning Department has taken the position they would prefer to see the property developed as medium and high density residential . The City Attorney asked that Council provide him the opportunity to review whether or not the appeal would be in accordance with the code or whether he would have other advice for the Council in terms of referral to another appeals procedure. Councilmember Strand did have some concerns about making a formal appeal . Since his first knowledge of this matter was when he arrived for the meeting, he felt in no position to comment or vote. He was not sure what the appeals process was, but he was surprised that a matter concerning a building permit was before Council . 41111 -16- City Council meeting minutes January 19, 1988 IP It was the City Manager's understanding that the reason for the item not being on this evening's agenda was because a deferral had been requested of the Planning Commission in December so the developer could hold another neighborhood meeting. Then with the item having to be reviewed by public works, planning and inspections, there simply was insufficient time to gather ' all the pertinent information for this evening. He said it will be on the Planning Commission's agenda the next evening. Mayor Hanks saw many unanswered questions in the developer' s letter relative to ingress/egress and so forth. He agreed with Councilmember Strand in that not knowing the correct procedure for an appeal , he did not feel able to take any position on the matter this evening. Councilmember Meland said it was confusing to say this was on the Planning Commission agenda as the commission was looking at a land use to bring it more into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, not at his request for a building permit to construct office/warehouse. The City Manager said one of the crucial zoning issues not resolved, relative to how far Mr. Smith could build his proposed development, is that of a shoreline ordinance. In answer to a question, Mr. Schaumberg said the appeal process is addressed under Section 14 and 15 of the code, and he believe it was properly before the Council and not appropriate for the involvement of the Planning Commission. IBasically, he said the developer has scaled the project back to where it l° should qualify for a building permit with involvement of the Planning Commission except for the trail issue which requires resolution by the Council . All other problem areas as noted in the January 15 letter from the Inspections department would be worked through with that department. Councilmember Meland asked when a conflict exists between zoning and the Comprehensive Plan, which prevails. The City Attorney said there is a state statute which says that in the event of a conflict between the Plan and zoning, zoning governs. It was his recommend- ation that Council take no action and that the developer be directed to meet with the City Manager and City Attorney to try to understand what the dispute is regarding the non-issuance of the building permit. - It was moved by Councilmember Meland, seconded by Councilmember Duffy, to defer the item to February 1 , 1988 and direct a meeting be held between the developer, City Manager and City Attorney. Councilmember Strand assumed that implicit in the motion are that the Council is the correct body to bring the item back to and secondly, that the matter is resolved in a manner that staff believes to be appropriate to bring to the Council . Otherwise, he thought it premature to return on Feb. 1 . If he was not correct in those assumptions, he would want to amend the motion. III Councilmember Meland felt Council could rely on the advice of the attorney whether or not this was the appropriate place, but it did seem to him if -17- City Council meeting minutes January 19, 1988 . it were only the matter of the building permit, then the appropriate place to appeal it is the Council . 411 Councilmember Strand wanted to be assured that that determination is made before it returns to Council rather than simply putting it on the agenda. The City Manager said Council still had to resolve the matter of the trail because the Council needs to decide if they are going to re-amend the Comprehen- sive Plan to abandon the trail on the Plan or negotiate with the developer to move the trail somewhere else in exchange for property or buy the property so the property owner gets his full property right he has coming to him. Councilmember Strand was concerned that the neighborhood be apprised of what is proposed and he believed it was necessary that the neighborhood be informed as part of this process as they were entitled to an explanation and to give input. Mayor Hanks felt strongly that the Planning Commission should address the matter of the trail and whether or not it is to be moved or what the disposition of it is to be should be discussed so Council can have some better direction on February 1 . The motion passed 7-0. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 8a. Taxicab rates of fare It was moved by Councilmember Ordinance 1731-88 Strand, seconded by Councilmember 4111 Duffy, to waive reading and adopt Ordinance 1731-88 entitled "An ordinance amending the St. Louis Park Municipal Code related to taximeters and rates of fare: Sections 13-1460 and 14-1461 ." The motion passed 5-2 (Councilmembers Meland and Mitchell opposed) . 8b. Transfer of funds Second reading of ordinance Ordinance No. 1732-88 transferring funds for salary adjustments It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Battaglia, to waive reading and adopt Ordinance 1732-88 entitled "An ordinance authorizing the transfer of funds and providing appropriations for salary adjustments for the year ending Dec. 31 , 1988." The motion passed 7-0. 8c. Oakmont Partners project Resolution approving amended Resolution 88-9 and restated indenture of trust and loan agreement: Oakmont Partners Project It was moved by Councilmember Duffy, seconded by Councilmember Strand, to ii -18- • City Council meeting minutes January 19, 1988 waive reading and adopt Resolution 88-9 entitled "Amending the execution and delivery of an amended and restated indenture of trust and an amended and restated loan agreement relating to the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, $8,715,000 multifamily housing revenue refunding bonds (Oakmont Place Project) and providing for the security of the holders of such bonds. " The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Meland opposed) . 8d. On the Avenue Ordinances approving land transfers It was moved by Councilmember Duffy, seconded by Councilmember Strand, to waive first reading, set second for February 1 , 1988 and authorize summary publication. The motion passed 7-0. REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, COMMITTEES 9a. Request for neighborhood meeting By consent, staff was authorized to sponsor a neighborhood meeting relative to filling of City-owned property along the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, south of Cedar Lake Rd. (lb. Planning Commission minutes Dec. 23 9c. Planning Commission minutes Jan. 6 9d. BOZA minutes Dec. 20 9e. Building Construction Codes minutes Jan. 7 All minutes ordered filed by consent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10a. Boards and commissions No business NEW BUSINESS lla. Braille Sports Foundation Pulltab application It was moved by Councilmember Meland, seconded by Councilmember Duffy to approve the application. The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Strand) N llb. Gambling license renewal By consent, motion to approve 1111/ llc. Legislative liaison It was moved by Councilmember Meland, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell to appoint Robert Hent es of Faegere & Benson as the City's legislative liaison. The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Friedman opposed) -19- City Council meeting minutes January 19, 1988 . Councilmember Friedman said he was not opposed to Mr. Hentges; he was opposed to the concept of a legislative liaison. MISCELLANEOUS 12a. Claims Daniel Ray By consent, the claim was submitted to the City Clerk and City Manager 12b. Communications from the Mayor Mayor Hanks asked for a five minute meeting upon adjournment. 12c. Communications from City Manager The City Manager reminded Council of the 6:30 meeting with the legislators at 6:30 p.m. on Feb. 1 and a 6:30 meeting with `> the School Board on Feb. 16. The City Manager presented an update on the recycling program and proposed plans for counting recyclers, billing, publicity, marketing of the program, Council- members provided input on various aspects of the recycling program. CLAIMS, APPROPRIATIONS, CONTRACT PAYMENTS 13a. Claims By consent, the list of verified claims prepared by the Director of Finance dated January 19, 1988 in the amount of $296,289.25 for vendor claims and $21 ,677.06 for payroll 4111 ' claims was approved and the City Manager and City Treasurer authorized to issue checks in the appropriate amounts. 111/4 bi . 'firlAi Lyle F .nks, Mayor R cor ing Setar l 4111 -20-