Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/05/18 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular 1 ( _ 4a III MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA May 18, 1992 • 1 . Call to order Mayor Lyle Hanks called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Presentations Mayor Hanks presented Resolution 92-68 to Sally Olsen, most recently State Legislator from St. Louis Park and soon to be a member of the Workmen' s Compensation Review Board. Mayor Hanks presented Resolution 92-68 and a plaque to retiring Director of Inspections Harvey McPhee with sincere thanks for his 33 years with the City. 3. Roll call 111 The following Councilmembers were present at roll call : Jeff Jacobs, George Haun, Allen Friedman, Larry Mitchell , Gail Dorfman and Lyle Hanks. Also present were the City Manager, Deputy City Attorney, Director of Public Works, Director of Community Development, Director of Parks and Recreation and Personnel Officer. 4. Approval of minutes It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell , to approve the minutes of the May 4, 1992 Council meeting. The motion passed 6-0. It was moved by Councilmember Haun, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to approve the minutes of the Long Range Planning Session on May 11 , 1992. The motion passed 6-0. 5. Approval of agenda It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Haun, to approve the consent agenda for May 18, 1992. The motion passed 6-0. It was moved by Councilmember Friedman, seconded by Councilmember Dorfman, to approve the agenda for May 18, 1992 with the removal of 8d (at applicant's III request) . The motion passed 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6a. Special permit: City of St. Louis Park 26,000 sq. ft. Police facility, Resolution 92-69 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. -56- City Council meeting minutes May 18, 1992 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 Haun, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to adopt Resolution 92-69 entitled "A resolution rescinding Resolution 6259 adopted on May 7, 1979 and granting special permit under Section 14-124.101 (2) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code relating to zoning to allow construction of a 26,000 sq. ft. Police facility at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd." The motion passed 6-0. 6b. Special permit: RREEF MidAmerica Additional parking for Park National Resolution 92-70 Bank, 5353 Wayzata Blvd. There being no one further wishing to speak, the Mayor closed the hearing with the right of Council to thereafte- reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell , to adopt Resolution 92-70 entitled "A resolution rescinding Resolution 6916 adopted on August 3, 1981 granting special permit under Section 14-124(2) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code relating to zoning to allow additional parking for the Park National Bank at 5353 Wayzata Blvd." with direction that a new resolution correcting the legal description in the event that becomes necessary return to Council . In answer to a question from Councilmember Friedman, a representative displayed a rendering of proposed landscaping. - The motion passed 6-0. REQUESTS, PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS 7a. Petition for traffic signal Minnetonka Blvd./Hampshire Ave. George Montgomery and Dale Shultec, representing the seniors at Lenox, addressed the Council re the petition for a traffic signal . ` Councilmember Friedman asked if the City approves it, it will be responsible for the $80,000 installation costs. Mr. Grube said that if a study shows the signal is not warranted, the City should be prepared to pay. He believed if the signal were not warranted, Hennepin County staff would recommend no participation in the funding by the County. Councilmember Dorfman said a representative of the County said an evaluation was probably 3-5 months out. The representative also indicated it was unlikely the County would approve a signal . Councilmember Friedman felt it important to inform the neighborhood about what is happening. He wondered if that could be done quickly and at the same time direct staff to get together County people to see if there is any hope for their participation in funding. He suggested staff take along a resolution from the Council stating the necessity for a traffic signal, and re- port back within 30 days. -57- City Council meeting minutes May 18, 1992 Councilmember Friedman made those three elements as a motion which was seconded by Councilmember Dorfman. Councilmember Dorfman asked if the traffic signal were to be installed, paid for by the City, how would the maintenance costs be handled. Mr. Grube said the County would assume the maintenance of the cabinet and hardware therein; the City would take care of painting, changing bulbs, etc. Councilmember Mitchell had trouble with the part of the motion involving a resolution of support for the signal thinking the County might take the tack if the City wants it so much, go ahead and do it and pay for it. Mayor Hanks was concerned about holding a neighborhood meeting, which will involve residents of Hampshire, with the Council already having a position. Better to elicit their input first. Councilmember Friedman amended his motion to state Council supports the investigation of a taffic. sig al and report back as soon as possible, also looking at fun ng possibilitiespwith the oun y, Councilmember Mitchell had a problem with the 30 days' timeframe given the information Councilmember Dorfman had shared. He asked if funds were available in this year' s budget to fund this. The response was there are not monies earmarked in the budget for this project. Councilmember Haun thought there was formerly a control box at this corner. Mr. Grube said that was the property of the County and long since removed. He asked that staff look into this to determine is anything has been left that could be used. The motion passed 6-0. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 8a. Comprehensive Plan amendments A lengthy discussion ensued with a number of items discussed at length. Among those items were the notification procedure; a chance for property owners and affected residents/businesses to address the changes; the legality of the notification process that has been used; how items deferred from May 4, 1992 meeting would be handled; notification to just property owners vs. everyone within 350/500 ft. The City Attorney offered the following: The Statutes don't require individual notice in the case of a Comp Plan amendment. All Comp Plan proposed changes addressed thisyear have gone to public hearing at the Planning Commission level and have had benefit of a legal notice in the newspaper. As the amendments move through the process, they become attenuated from that notice required at the Planning Commission level . If further notice were to be given, she suggested it be along the lines of a status report. For those items being referred back to the Planning Commission - both from May 4 and tonight' s meeting - she suggested that the City could provide published notice in the newspaper that, rather than generic, spells out what is under consideration. -58- City Council meeting minutes May 18, 1992 In addition, staff might want to send individual letters to affected property owners informing them of the status of their property. It was moved by Councilmember Friedman, seconded by Councilman Dorfman, that henceforth, in the consideration of Comprehensive Plan amendments, the notice and hearing requirements of the proposed zoning ordinance will be adhered to and that amendments 10-16 be referred back to the Planning Commission for consideration with the notice and hearing requirements on the proposed zoning ordinance being utilized. Councilmember Mitchell asked about the timeline because the amendments before Council could not be acted on tonight under the motion that was offered. The City Manager said he did not believe this could be readied for the June 1 meeting, but probably for June 15. He said three of the amendments deferred from May 4 were scheduled at the Planning Commission on May 20. Mayor Hanks said that if the motion passed, the items on the May 20 Planning Commission agenda would have to be deferred. Councilmember Friedman included in his motion that the three items scheduled for the May 20 Planning Commission (items 7, 8 and 9) be handled in the same fashion as the others in his motion. The motion passed 6-0. 8b. Sara Thom Variance appeal , 7008 Hwy. 7 Neil Meyer spoke on behalf of his client who had been denied a variance to construct a 6 ft. fence on her property. The strange configuration of her property was such that she had two front yards: one fronting on Walker St. and one on Hwy. 7. She wishes to be able to create a patio area to entertain clients which would be impossible unless allowed to construct a 6 ft. high fence for privacy and noise abatement. It was moved by Councilmember Friedman, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to authorize preparation of a resolution of approval to be returned to the June 1 , 1992 meeting. The motion passed 6-0. 8c. Legal fees Increase in hourly rate to Popham, • Resolution 92-71 Haik It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Haun, to adopt Resolution 92-71 entitled "Resolution authorizing the amendment of City Attorney compensation." The motion passed 5-0-1 (Councilmember Mitchell abstained) . 8d. Item withdrawn -59- City Council meeting minutes May 18, 1992 8e. 5-year Capital Improvement Program Resolution 92-72 It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Haun, to adopt Resolution 92-72 entitled "Resolution approving 1992-1996 Capital Improvement Program." The motion passed 6-0. 8f. Human Rights Commission First reading of ordinance increasing complement from 7 to 11 members It was moved by Councilmember Friedman, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to approve, set second reading for June 1 , 1992 and authorize summary publica- tion. The motion passed 6-0. REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, COMMITTEES 9a. Banquet/reception facilities Recreation center It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to approve the recommendations in staff's report: (1 ) Proceed to develop specific plans for the renovation/building improvements; (2) Draft an ordinance which would allow consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with banquet/reception facilities; (3) Develop a proposed policy for provision for additional security; and (4) Develop a tentative rental rate schedule. The motion passed 5-1 (Councilmember Friedman opposed) . 9b. Air conditioning at Rec Center - It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to direct staff to prepare specs and advertise for bids. The motion passed 6-0. 9c. Watermain looping City Engineer' s report: T.H. Resolution 92-73 169 from Cedar Lake Rd. to W. 23rdSt. • It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to adopt Resolution 92-73 entitled "Resolution accepting the City Engineer' s report, establishing Project No. 90-43, ordering Project No. 90-43, approving plans and specifications and authorizing receipt of bids for Project No. 90-43, watermain looping along the east side of T.H. 169 from Cedar Lake Rd. to W. 23rd St." The motion passed 6-0. -60- f City Council meeting minutes May 18, 1992 ( 9d. Reconstruction of W. 28th St. Jordan Ave. east to cul-de-sac Resolution 92-74 III It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Haun, to adopt Resolution 92-74 entitled "Resolution accepting the City Engineer's report, establishing Project No. 90-22 and establishing an improvement hearing for Project 90-22, W. 28th St. from Jordan Ave. east to cul-de-sac." The motion passed 6-0. 9e. Street lighting: 1-394 frontage road Texas to Utica Resolution 92-15 It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to adopt Resolution 92-75 entitled "Resolution accepting the City Engineer' s report, establishing Project No. 89-09 and establishing an improvement hearing for Project 89-09, street lighting along the south frontage road of I-394 from Texas Ave. to Utica Ave." Mayor Hanks asked why there was not provision by MnDOT to install lighting on the frontage road. Mr. Grube said the assumption is that because the frontage roads are not mainlines carrying highway traffic, the State did not provide for installation along any of the frontage roads. Mayor Hanks had a problem understanding this because the State built the III road; therefore, they ought to pay to light it. Councilmember Friedman asked about requesting funding from MnDOT. It was moved by Councilmember Friedman to table. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Grube said the resolution before Council just called for a public hearing. He felt staff could approach MnDOT regarding funding. It was the consensus of Council they didn't want to wait until this Fall _ or next year to get the lighting installed, to move forward and contact MnDOT. The motion passed 6-0. 9f. BRW services Contract amendment, TH 7/Louisiana Resolution 92-76 Ave. It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to adopt Resolution 92-76 entitled "Resolution authorizing execution of Amendment No. 1 to Contract 1997 with BRW, Inc. for engineering services related to the construction of improvement project 89-05, T.H. 7/Louisiana Ave. intersection. The motion passed 6-0. III -61- City Council meeting minutes May 18, 1992 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10a. Boards and commissions No business NEW BUSINESS lla. Bid tab: Diseased Dutch Elm tree removal It was moved by Councilmember Haun, seconded by Councilmember Friedman, to designate Arp's Tree Service as lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract not to exceed $99,999.69. The motion passed 6-0. MISCELLANEOUS 12a. Damage claims - None 12b. Communications from the Mayor Mayor Hanks reminded Council of the upcoming AMM meeting on May 20. Also the League of MN Cities conference starts June 9. 12c. Communications from the City Manager - None CLAIMS, APPROPRIATIONS, CONTRACT PAYMENTS 13a. Verified claims By consent the list of verified claims prepared by the Director of Finance dated May 18, 1992 was approved and the City Manager and City Treasurer authorized to distribute checks in the following amounts: Vendor claims: $793, 117.25 and payroll claims $9,639.76. 14. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:30- p.m. A06)' /4-4A4L-' Ly �� Hanks, Mayor i ecor ing ecretary -62-