Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/12/27 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA December 27, 1988 1 . Call to order The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Keith Meland at 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll call The following Councilmembers were present at roll call : Bruce Battaglia, Thomas Duffy, Larry Mitchell , David Strand and Keith Meland. Also present were the City Manager, City Attorney, Acting Planning Director and Director of Public Works. 3. Approval of agenda . It was moved by Councilmember Duffy, seconded by Councilmember Battaglia, to approve the agenda for Dec. 27, 1988. The motion passed 5-0. 4111 4. Consideration of first reading of an ordinance authorizing sale of land and execution of purchase agreement: Oakmont The City Manager said this matter was continued from the December 19, 1988 meeting. Council had continued the matter in order to see what action, if any, the Planning Commission took on Wed. , Dec. 21 . He said the staff recommenda- tion to the commission was to study it further. The action taken by the Planning Commission was that it desired to further study the zoning of the parcel . The commission neither approved or denied Mr. Cox' s proposal . Steve Cox, applicant, attempted to clarify the details of the matter. He said they originally considered the parcel of land on Cedar Lake Rd. in an effort to preserve tax exempt bond financing that the City and Oakmont partners sold in 1985 to develop a multi -family project in Oak Park Village. After two plus years, it became obvious that due to certain environmental concerns on that parcel , that project was not going to go forward and the bonds redeemed. He said they looked at the parcel on Cedar Lake Rd. as it was included in the City' s Comprehensive Plan and zoned as multi-family residential . He said that two studies of the property in 1984 and 1987 had reconfirmed the R-4 zoning on the property. What he was asking for this evening was not approval of the project; rather, approval to enter into a purchase agreement for the parcel with certain contingencies. One major contingency is that it will be contingent upon the issuance of a special permit, probably in the spring of 1989. If the special permit was not issued, it would be the City's option to cancel the purchase agreement and the land would revert back to the City. He said at the Planning Commission, there was much discussion of previous studies of the parcel and whether it should be studied again. At least three commissioners recalled the 1984 and 1987 studies and recalled study by the Parks and Recreation Commission which rejected it as potential park land. He said he intended to work for how many weeks it might take with the neighborhood -1- Special City Council meeting Dec. 27, 1988 2. and the Jewish Community Center to develop a proposal that meets, as well as he is able, everyone' s concerns. He did want to clarify one piece of misinformation, i .e. there is up to $1 million worth of subsidy going directly to the developer. He said they save 1-li percent on their financing vs. conventional financing which, given their current mortgage, equals about $80,000 per year over a ten-year period. Essentially, that money does not go into the developer' s pocket; rather, it allows more money on their mortgage to develop a higher quality rental project. Mayor Pro Tem opened the meeting up for comment. Many speakers reitereated their comments presented at the Dec. 19 Council meeting - all being opposed to the project. Those speaking were Bob Lepinski , 2124 Parklands; Sheldon Bernstein, of the Jewish Community Center; Phil Mutter, 4405 Cedar Lake Rd. ; Ward Johnson, 2206 South Hill Lane; Phil Disraeli , 4412 Cedar Lake Rd. ; George Reiman, 4406 Cedar Lake Rd. ; Robert Schwartz; Henry Blackburn, South Tyrol Hills, Golden Valley; Mary Provost, 1429 So. Tyrol Trail , Golden Valley; David DePaw, Cedar Lake Rd. ; Contrary to a comment made by Robert Schwartz that a Mr. Sid Bader had an interest in developing this parcel , Mr. Cox said he had talked to Mr. Bader at the Planning Commission meeting and he indicated he had no interest in developing the parcel . Mayor Pro Tem Meland opened the discussion up to the Council . Councilmember Strand said the beauty of the site made a decision all the more difficult. In all cases when deciding whether or not to develop a parcel of land, it must be decided whether a balance can be struck between preserving the natural environment and trying to enhance the commercial tax base of the City. He believed that the sale of the land was appropriate for the City. He felt it important for people to know that the City Council invited Steve Cox to look at the site. He believed the funding to be an asset to the City, the bottom line being if you have $750,000-$1 million additional money created because the financing of a project is cheaper and that those extra dollars will be plowed back into the project as upgrading, you do have an asset. Without this kind of financing, he felt it unlikely that the City will have a quality project proposed. He felt it important to keep in mind Council was contemplating taking an incremental step - the issue this evening is sale of the property, not commenting on the site, what can go on the site, how traffic problems can be dealt with, etc. Council was saying that the Comprehensive Plan designation of high density with an R-4 zoning are correct and that the study which preceded designation of high density and R-4 was appropriate. If the parcel was not developed as high density, he had to question the decision to bring the Comprehensive Plan into compliance with the zoning on the prop- and is now something the Council and Planning Commission should look at. erty on the south side of the Councilmember Duffy said that back in 1984, the Council determined there rai d was a need for reasonable rental housing in the City, reasonable meaning tra market rate. To that end, available to the City were tax exempt bonds. He said a considerable number of tax exempt bonds were issued for various projects in the City, Parkshore Place and Newport on Seven amongst them. The bonds allow a better development at a more reasonable rate and therefore becomes a valuable asset to the City. He agreed with Councilmember Strand that R-4 Special City Council meeting Dec. 27, 1988 3. was appropriate for the parcel . He did not want Council ' s action that evening to become confused with the special permit process which would commence with the Planning Commission. He felt there were enough controls in the purchase agreement to assure the City that if what is proposed is not appropriate for the parcel , the agreement can be cancelled. Councilmember Mitchell could argue for or against the proposal . However, as a Councilmember, he had to make a decision. What it came down to for him was dealing with the known vs. the unknown. He felt in all probability it was going to be developed. The question was what kind of development would there be. He would like to see the highest quality development - would it be townhomes, multi-family or something else. He felt more realistic to think that there could be a quality development out of this then open it back up to a process that is unknown. If he had known that the neighborhood was taking the position re zoning on the north side of the tracks, he would not have supported the zoning of the area. He was somewhat angry about the amount of time spent on these two parcels and now the neighborhood wants something different. He would not support looking at rezoning of one parcel unless the other were looked at also. Councilmember Battaglia said when it first came before Council , he was willing to go forward with it. He also might have been a bit naive to think the whole process could be completed in a period of two months and still maintain the processes of public hearing, citizen input and so forth. In hindsight, he would have voted not to even let the process start - there simply was not 41 enough time. He thought it was a good project; whether R-4 is or is not a good use is another issue. He had to ask himself: do we have the best project, do we have the best use of the land. He did take issue with the inference that the project was being railroaded through by the Council . He was of the opinion the Council tries to do thoughtful deliberations on everything that comes before it. To whatever extent he could contribute, that is the direction Council will continue to take in the future. It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Duffy, to waive reading and set second reading for Jan. 3, 1989. The City Attorney suggested that because of sufficient number of days required between readings of ordinances, Council choose the Jan. 17, 1989 meeting. The motion failed 3-2 (Councilmembers Battaglia and Meland opposed) . 5. Consideration of a resolution extending date for closing on bonds It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Duffy, to table. The motion passed 5-0. 6. Approval of year-end claims It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell to approve the year-end claims. The motion passed 5-0. Special City Council meeting Dec. 27, 1988 4. 7. Determination re Dec. 29, 1988 City Council meeting By consensus, it was determined there was no need for a Dec. 29 meeting. 8. Other business None. 9. Adjournment It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Duffy, to adjourn the meeting at 8:37 p.m. The motion passed 5-0. sr qro Tem R cordingecr Y