Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989/02/21 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular 111 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA February 21 , 1989 1 . Call to order The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Keith Meland at 7:30 p.m. 2. Presentations None. 3. Roll call The following Councilmembers were present at roll call : Bruce Battaglia David Strand Allen Friedman Keith Meland Larry Mitchell Also present were the City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Public Works, Director of Community Development and the City Assessor. III 4. Approval of minutes It was moved by Councilmember Friedman, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell , to approve the minutes of the February 6, 1989 City Council meeting. The City Attorney noted that on page 20, paragraph 5, the response should be "approved first reading." The minutes were approved as amended on a 4-0-1 vote (Councilmember Battaglia abstained) . 5. Approval of agenda It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Battaglia to approve the consent agenda. It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Battaglia to approve the agenda for February 21 , 1989. The motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6a. I-394 traffic management Steve Slocum, 2013 Georgia, expressed overlay ordinance his concerns about the proposed ordinance. III First, he felt the traffic counts used to trigger the plans were too high and should be reduced. Also he felt that Cedar Lake Rd. and Louisiana Ave. intersect- ions should be included in the managed areas. The City Manager commented that the traffic counts used to trigger certain actions in the ordinance has been a subject of considerable review by the joint task force representing Golden Valley and St. Louis Park. He said what was -25- City Council meeting minutes February 21 , 1989 before Council represented the best thinking of the task force, although it may not satisfy everyone. With regard to diversion of traffic onto neighborhood streets, the Director of Public Works said no provisions have been made for dead-ending any streets which may be affected by traffic going through residential areas at this time. As further clarification, the City Manager referred to page 6, Sec. i,�rtnere was the following sentence: The city may restrict development below the projected reserve capacity or the traffic levels if, in the exercise of its judgment, it deems it appropriate to do so." He said the numbers reflected in the ordinance don't necessarily mean those scenarios are going to happen. The city does have the right to take action under those standards if it chooses to do so. Mr. Slocum said it seemed to him that the traffic problems to be created for new' development were being addressed after the fact rather than in the planning stages. Councilmember Strand?qe object of the ordinance was to address the cumulative effect of all the individual projects. As usual , each individual project and its attendant parking problems will be addressed on an individual basis. This ordinance would address the global traffic situation should the cumulative effect of many individual projects be greater than anticipated. Councilmember Friedman thanked Mr. Slocum for bringing his concerns to Council . As a member of the task force, he said many of his concerns were the same concerns the task force investigated. Councilmember Mitchell said, unless MnDOT has changed its mind, that there are plans for the widening of the frontage road to accommodate a turn lane. He viewed this as an attempt to divert traffic off Cedar Lake Rd. onto the frontage road once I-394 is clogged up. He felt Mr. Slocum's question as to why Louisiana Ave. and Cedar Lake Rd. weren't included in the count area was valid and that ought to be looked at. He wondered why the city was not using the Minnetonka model . The City Attorney said the task force did look at the Minnetonka model in terms of the circumstances facing the cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley, circumstances which included the fact that Minnetonka had more unimproved land more redevelopment proposals immediately adjacent to the freeway than the other two cities. Also the Minnetonka approach imposed under a certain set of assumptions, trips per acre. Those assumptions were subject to challenge and did not have a grounding in the performance of the existing intersections -- performance that would obviously change after I-394 was concluded. This would make it more enforceable based on development presently or projected in place. Also close scrutiny was given to the relationship between prospective study of major develop- ments requiring an EIS as well as the aggregate impact based upon existing and future development. Councilmember Friedman pointed out that the Minnetonka planner and city attorney attended several of the task force' s in-depth meetings, so the latter did not proceed without knowledge of the Minnetonka model . Councilmember Mitchell said he would support the ordinance although he remained -26- City Council meeting minutes February 21 , 1989 111 uncomfortable with the traffic counts. Rick Weiblen, MEPC, was representirr that company as well as the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce. He said they were /concerned as anyone that the roadway systems work. He was concerned that the added verbiage in the ordinance put certain restrictions on future development. He was proposing that in Section 3 after the word "judgment" the following be added: . . .in accordance with other provisions of the City Code applicable to the development proposal . . ." The other area of concern was 4c. relative to an exhibit to any developer's leases for anyone taking office space in the project. He felt if this section were made a part of any lease document, it would unduly harm potential tenants and give them a negative connotation that there is a significant traffic problem in the area, when in fact the City, MnDOT and developers have been working closely to ensure traffic mobility. Councilmember Battaglia supported the ordinance as presented to Council , mindful that from time to time changes will be necessitated and making those changes should lie with the Council . Councilmember Strand asked the City Attorney if the proposed language restricts the freedom of the City than if the language were left the way it is. The_ City Attorney said this ordinance will be codified into the City' s zoning code and would be read in part and parcel of the zoning code and would not IIIrestrict the City under other applicable provisions of the code. He felt the language suggested by Mr. Wieblen would be redundant when this document is codified as part of the City' s zoning ordinance. _ Councilmember Strand was inclined to support inclusion of the language as proposed by Mr. Weiblen without at all reducing the rights of the cities. The City Attorney offered that the Council may wish to refer this and any other amendments to the joint task force because the joint powers agreement, which will come before the City on March 6) talks about the adoption of the ordinance by both cities. Councilmember Mitchell felt if one added language in accordance with other provisions, it sounded restrictive to him. Councilmember Strand wondered if lessees could come back to the City with some form of complaint or whether the rights would simply be vis-a-vis the landlord on the property. The City Attorney did not wish to guess what any creative lawyer might come up with down the road. Originally, he said the ordinance was proposed to be attached to each lease; however, this was of great concern to landlords. Instead a summary was incorporated for each tenant. He did not think a tenant would have a cause of action under the law against the City. He felt it was intended to achieve notice to any potential tenant. III • Councilmember Strand believed any _person who is a tenant of any property in the City is subject to the ordinances of the City regardless of whether the lease states it or not. He felt the proposed language would be an impediment on the ability _to lease property and does not further any real City purpose. He felt he could not support the ordinance unless the task force can reconsider -27- City Council meeting minutes February 21 , 1989 the language of Section 4(C) Imposition of Conditions which specifies language to be included in each lease. The City Manager felt a meeting of the task force could be scheduled before Council 's second reading on March 6. He did remind Council that the City of Golden Valley has seen the same section and chose to leave the section in as written. Councilmember Friedman said the task force wanted to make sure that everyone leasing buildings within this area understood that the cities are preparing for the potential , real or imagined, problems in the future. Also, the task force wanted it understood at the outset so all developers/lessees would not have a causative action against the cities passing the ordinance later on. He did not feel the language in the ordinance would deter anyone from wanting to lease in this highly desirable area. Councilmember Mitchell could see from a business point of view why one would not want this language. However, it is this Council ' s responsibility to communicate clearly what the City' s position is and to put the City in a position that is least likely to be liable for lack of clarity in the ordinance. It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Friedman, to refer to the task force whether a less onerous notice provision should be included in the final ordinance to be passed by each city. The motion passed 5-0. III It was moved by Councilmember Friedman, seconded by Councilmember Battaglia, to waive first reading and set second reading for March 6, 1989. The motion passed 5-0. 6b. France Ave. reconstruction Charles Kelly, 3828 France Ave. , addressed Council to voice his objections to the proposed reconstruction of France Ave. He felt the residents would not only be getting an assessment but increased and faster traffic which is unacceptable. He felt installation of stop signs was a viable alternative he would like to see explored in an effort to slow the traffic. John Miller, 3550 France, felt the residents of France were overwhelming against this project and agreed with Mr. Kelly' s comments re increased speed and amount of traffic on France. He also felt the residents of St. Louis Park living along France Ave. should be paying for this project. He said the new roadway was basically for people moving through, it is not an improvement to those residents along France Ave. He felt either the project should be turned down or, at the least, have more meetings of the neighbors involved to determine what is a fair assessment for them to pay. Don Mosher, 3754 France, asked for clarification of the proposed modifications of 38th St. and France Ave. which the Director of Public Works provided. John Hisel , 3800 France, supported the comments of the previous speakers re the speed and dangers of this roadway. -28- City Council meeting minutes February 21 , 1989 IIIThe Mayor Pro Tem closed the hearing with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. The - Mayor Pro Tem noted that six votes were required to order this project in which means it would have to be continued. The project could be ordered in, however, if the assessment were to be waived. Councilmember Strand felt the project should be ordered but that the issue of stop signs should be looked at and a traffic study completed. He believed Mr. Miller had a good point in that the residents along France would not be the biggest beneficiaries of this improvement; in fact, in some respects the improvement would be a detriment to them. He asked what the figure of $54,000 called Revenue Available for Reallocation by the City referred to. The Director of Public Works responded that this was Municipal State Aid Funds allocated to cities for similar projects. He said this amount could be used to offset the special assessments to residential properties. Councilmember Strand felt that this sum should be applied to residential assess- ments. In answer to a question from Councilmember Friedman, the Director said 44 parcels were affected and all 44 were invited to the neighborhood meeting. He said that the per foot rate for residential assessments was $16/front foot. - III Councilmember Friedman wanted it clarified that this street was not being upgraded to permit increased and faster traffic, but was a project of routine City ' maintenace of its streets. Outside of being somewhat wider to provide for parking, it was no different from any residential street upgrading project. Mayor Pro Tem Meland noted that this street was being constructed to carry heavier weights than on an average residential street. Councilmember Battaglia asked if the $54,000 was designated for any other budget items, i .e. if this amount is allocated to this project, will the City have to forego something else. The Director said no and if not used, would be returned to one of the funds of the City for expenditure as the Council sees fit. It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell to waive reading and adopt resolution ordering in the project and direct a traffic study to be held relative to the feasibility of placing 4-way stops at France and W. 38th and W. 39th. Mayor Pro Tem Meland reminded Council six votes were required for passage or that it could be passed should the assessment be waived. It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Friedman to continue the hearing to March 6, 1989. Councilmember Mitchell said that III before it comes back to Council he would like information relative to any comparable situation occurring in the City. Mayor Pro Tem said this was a discretionary decision on the part of Council as to whether a particular street would be assessed at any time. He recalled that projects 9n Minnetonka Blvd. and Cedar Lake Rd. improvements were not -29- City Council meeting minutes February 21 , 1989 assessed as they were county projects. He did recall that the property owners on Texas Ave. between W. 36th and Hwy. 7 were not assessed for the improvement because Council felt that they were not getting the type of benefit with the increased traffic and all else that goes along with the widening of busy streets. Councilmember Strand urged Council not to support the motion. He felt that no benefit accrued to anyone living along this street. He would prefer to order it in without the assessment. The City Attorney asked the Director of Public Works if a petition of property owners along Texas Ave. was received. The Director said there was not, that waiving of the assessment was brought up by staff. The City Attorney said he was not sure if under Minnesota Statutes 429.031 even if the assessment is deleted that it does not require six votes in the absence of petition. He said he would have to advise Council that on his reading of the statute, six votes are still required. The motion passed 4-1 (Councilmember Strand opposed) . Mayor Pro Tem explained this item will be on the March 6, 1989 agenda for consid- eration and the public hearing is still open. Councilmember Battaglia said his vote in support of continuing the public hearing does not reflect the fact that he is opposed to eliminating the assessment. 6c. Louisiana Ave. office/retail Special permit to construct an office/retail facility at 3501-3551 Louisiana Ave. There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor Pro Tem 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 Friedman, to waive reading and adopt the resolution. Councilmember Strand said the site plans include the gas pumps which have been previously discussed by the Economic Development Authority and the Council . He asked if by approving the special permit would development be permitted in accordance with the site plan including the gas pumps. The City Manager said he was aware of Mayor Hanks position on the gas pumps, i .e. he is opposed to the sale of gas at this site unless it could be demonstrated it was essential to the viability of the project. He was in receipt of a communication from the developer stating the gas pumps were essential to the operation. Councilmember Strand was cognizant of the fact the developer would like to move along rapidly. However, he felt the whole reason for the EDA was to do the type of planning with_ respect to site development which it will now forego by approving this special permit. Until the EDA has resolved the question with respect to the use of the property, this special permit should not be taken up by the Council . -30- City Council meeting minutes February 21 , 1989 IIICouncilmember Battaglia had several concerns. One was the overall parking problem that may result when you combine the Park Tavern parking with another parking variance. Also the easement Public Works has asked to be included in the purchase agreement is not assured and the potential use of public right-of-way. Councilmember Mitchell withdrew his motion. In answer to a question from Mayor Pro Tem Meland, the City Manager said this item would not go to an EDA agenda until the question of contamination is resolved and the property is ready for sale. At that time, the concerns as raised by Council that evening would be addressed. Staff felt that the land use question for which the developer had filed a petition was a question that needed an answer and that was why it was on the agenda. It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Battaglia to continue the public hearing to April 3, 1989. The motion passed 5-0. 6d. W. 26th St. sidewalk Status of special permit There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor Pro Tem closed the hearing with the right of Council to reopen and continue it at a future date. IIIIt was moved by Councilmember Battaglia, seconded by Councilmember Friedman, to continue the hearing to March 6, 1989. The motion passed 5-0. 6e. Modifications: Shelard Park Modifications to sign policy and Resolution 89-19 to modify driveways and building entrances: Shelard Park Terry Luick, Equitable Real Estate, was present to answer questions. It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell , to waive reading and adopt Resolution 89-19 entitled "A resolution rescinding Resolution No. 88-58 adopted on June 6, 1988, rescinding Resolution 86-107 adopted on July 21 , 1986 and granting special permit under Section 14-124.101 (2) of the St. Louis Park ordinance code relating to zoning to allow modifications in the sign policy and to modify driveways and building entrances for property located in the PUD, planned unit development district, at 300, 400 and 600 So. Hwy. 169 and 435 Ford Rd." In answer to questions from Councilmember Battaglia re the proposed changes to the entrances, Mr. Luick explained they are currently virtually hidden from view from Ford Rd. Also the nearest access after Hwy. 169 going west was County Rd. 73 and then come all the way back east to Shelard. The motion passed 5-0. -31- • City Council meeting minutes February 21 , 1989 6f. 7825 Wayzata Blvd. Special permit for an office at Resolution 89-20 7825 Wayzata Blvd. 111 There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor Pro Tem 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 waive reading and adopt Resolution 89-20 entitled "A resolution granting special permit under Section 14-141 (7) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit an office use for property zoned R-4, multiple family residence district, located at 7825 Wayzata Blvd." The motion passed 5-0. 6g. Variance: Knollwood Request for sign variance at Knollwood 8332 Hwy. 7 Dave Shannon, American Sign Indicator, explained what it was they proposed to do with the signage at Knollwood shopping mall . They proposed to replace two existing free-standing signs with one sign which would have the shopping center's name, a theater marquee at the bottom and the center for advertising by various stores and public service message center. Councilmember Battaglia asked if they could not design a sign in conformance with the zoning ordinance. Mr. Shannon responded the height restriction is a problem as they don't want to remove any trees. 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 Strand, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell , to authorize staff to prepare a resolution of denial with findings. Councilmember Strand said that although he does not like the existing signage on the property, he likes the proposal even less. He particularly did not like the center section of the sign with additional advertising. The motion passed 5-0. 6h. Amhurst 4th Addition Council discussed at length why this issue kept coming before Council when the applicant was never ready to present its case. It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Strand, to table the matter. The motion failed 3-2 (Councilmembers Mitchell and Strand opposed) . Councilmember Friedman felt the responsibility rested with the applicant to get action moving, not the Council . -32- City Council meeting minutes February 21 , 1989 IIIThe City Manager said he would not like to see the City Council take an action that would weaken its position and strengthen the petitioner' s position on a court other than the one the City controls. It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Battaglia to table. The motion passed 5-0. Councilmember Strand said he would like to know if the developer has ever been in effective control of the Amhurst homeowners association and whether thereby they would have been allowed to vote through the association the approval , if necessary, to allow access through the Amhurst parking lot. Councilmember Mitchell said he brought this same issue up the last time the item was before Council and their attorney had promised to supply that information. No one in attendance had seen anything to that effect. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 8a. Alley vacation 2nd reading of an ordinance vacating ` Ordinance No. 1778-89 an alley between 36th and 37th Streets, Yosemite to Wooddale. IIIIt was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Battaglia, to waive reading and adopt Ordinance 1778-89 entitled "An ordinance vacating public alley lying easterly of Wooddale Ave. between 36th and 37th Streets." The motion passed 5-0. 8b. Parking lot modifications 7500 Excelsior Blvd. Resolution 89-21 It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Friedman, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 89-21 entitled "A resolution rescinding Resolution 87-162 adopted on Oct. 5, 1987 and granting special permit under Section 14. 123. 100 of the St. Louis Park ordinance code relating to zoning to allow modification to the parking lot design at 7500 Excelsior Blvd." The motion passed 5-0. 8c. Perkins Restaurant 120-day special permit extension L/ It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Friedman, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 89-22 entitled "A resolution rescinding Resolution 89-04 adopted on Jan. 3, 1989, rescinding Resolution 88-116 adopted on Sept. 6, 1988 rescinding Resolution 88-11 adopted on Feb. 1 , 1988 rescinding Resolution 85-150 adopted on Oct. 7, 1985 and restating Resolution 1177 adopted IIIon Feb. 15, 1960 and Resolution No. 3022 adopted on March 21 , 1966 and granting special permit under Sections 14-156(18) and 14-125(4) of the St. Louis Park ordinance code relating to zoning to allow a Class II restaurant and off-street parking for property located in the B-2, business district, and R-3, two family residence district, at 4150 and 4200 Excelsior Blvd." The motion passed 5-0. -33- City Council meeting minutes February 21 , 1989 8d. Agreement with Hennepin County Cooperative construction agreement with Hennepin County for reconstruction III of France Ave. It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Strand, to defer this item to March 6, 1989. The motion passed 5-0. REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, COMMITTEES 9a. Cablecasting of meetings Expansion It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Friedman, to select the Economic Development Authority to initiate the expansion program and review the program in six months. Councilmember Battaglia asked how the effectiveness of the program was to be ascertained. The Assistant to the City Manager said an informal evaluation could be done through a random phone call or post card. Secondly, it could be referred to the Cable TV Advisory Commission for its recommendation. Councilmember Friedman felt the public could never receive enough exposure to government happenings except where restricted. He believed a fair number of people were viewing the proceedings. He didn't view monitoring as all that important. Councilmember Battaglia said he would be interested to how many people watch the Council meetings on cable. The motion passed 5-0. 9b. Recycling Report ordered filed by consent. 9c. Disposition of City-owned land Southeast quadrant of T.H. 12/Vernon Ave. It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Strand, to accept recommendations in staff's report. Councilmember Battaglia asked why Council was being asked to act on this now. The Director of Public Works said the bank and MnDOT are the two entities interested in acquiring the property both for the mitigation of the bank for land loss as it relates to the 1-394 improvement. MnDOT is in negotiations with many property owners in the area including the bank and would like to be assured that the City would be amenable to disposal of the land and that it is done in the best reasonable timeframe. Councilmember Battaglia asked if there were alternative possibilities for sale. The Director said there were. Staff had identified three alternatives: (1 ) to use it as a drainage facility; (2) use it as an expansion of a Park -34- City Council meeting minutes February 21 , 1989 111 and Ride facility; and (3) dispose of it as in sell it to other properties. He felt there could be others interested in the property, but based on several elements, staff is most interested in discussing disposition of the land with MnDOT and the bank. Although a large enough piece of property, its proximity to the intersection of I-394/Vernon Ave. put a potential use in question. Councilmember Mitchell felt the bank would have the greatest interest in the property and negotiating with it would receive his support. Councilmember Friedman asked if staff was going to look at other options or just negotiations with MnDOT and the bank. The City Manager said, as the Director had pointed out, other options had been studied and that MnDOT and the bank were the two most likely candidates which would best serve the community. Councilmember Friedman asked if there were some way proposed disposition of the land could be made known to other interested parties. The City Manager felt that notice to that effect could be published. The motion passed 4-1 (Councilmember Battaglia opposed) . 9d. Yosemite/Brookside bridge Reconstruction of Yosemite Ave./Brookside Ave. bridge at Minnehaha Creek IIIIt was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Strand, to authorize execution of a contract with Erickson Engineering Co. in the amount of $19,100 for bridge design and direct staff to hold a neighborhood meeting. # 141.0 The motion passed 5-0. 9e. January financial report 9f. Human Rights Commission minutes Feb. 1 9g. Housing Authority minutes January 10 9h. Board of Zoning Appeals minutes January 26 9i . Planning Commission minutes February 1 Reports and minutes ordered filed by consent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10a. Boards and Commissions None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS lla. Agreement with Bury & Carlson Atel. Hauling rubble from T.H. 7/Louisiana Ave. Area It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Battaglia, -35- City Council meeting minutes February 21 , 1989 to authorize execution of a contract with Bury and Carlson at a price not11/ to exceed $15,000. The motion passed 5-0. , lld. Dehumidification system-Rec Center It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell , to authorize staff to advertise for bids for the purchase and installa- tion of a hot gas coil for the Rec Center dehumidification system. Councilmember Battaglia was reluctant to support the motion because this was an unbudgeted item. He felt such equipment ought to have been forecast. The City Manager said there was an allocation of $10,000 in the budget for capital improvements, albeit not specified for specifically. So, of the $15,000, $10,000 is budgeted. Councilmember Friedman was uncomfortable with the fact that there was insufficient documentation to substantiate the fact that $15,000 was the right number to accomplish this project The motion passed 4-1 (Councilmember Friedman opposed) . MISCELLANEOUS 12a. Claims Sisouphanh Virasy Denelle Wedge Reed vs. City Rose Maher By consent, claims referred to City Clerk and City Manager. b. Communications from Mayor None. c. Communications from City Manager The City Manager referenced the letter received from Rabbi Heisler commending the work of police officer Matt Reilly. CLAIMS, APPROPRIATIONS, CONTRACT PAYMENTS a. Verified claims By consent, the list of verified claims prepared by the Director of Finance dated February 21 , 1989 in the amount of $514,410.53 for vendor claims and $14,553.06 for payroll claims was approved and the City Manager and City Treasurer authorized to distribute checks in the appropriate amounts. 14. Adjournment The meeting was adjo, rned at 9:40 I � cor i n ecretaryMa or Pro Tem Zfl y 9