The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995/05/15 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular *Vr:/Z S M „iesio►f atittsae4tr•‘ ilecoit r • ' t Minutes of the City Council meeting May 15, 1995 6e. Comprehensive Plan amendment: Change land use designation from IL(Light Industrial) to C (Commercial) at 1625 Zarthan Ave. (Honeywell site) Tom Harmening: As was stated Ryan Construction is requesting an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to redesignate the property commonly known as Honeywell from an industrial land use designation to a commercial land use designation. As a bit of background for some of you who might not be familiar with City processes, a Comprehensive Plan is a document that most cities have which is used from a policy perspective to establish land use policies, future land use policies as well as development/redevelopment policies for the community. So it really is a guide for how land should be used in the community. Some of you are probably very familiar with zoning ordinances. A zoning ordinance is very different from a Comprehensive Plan in that the zoning ordinance basically carries out the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning ordinance will commonly have very specific requirements relating to setbacks, height, design features and those kinds of things. We're not talking about those specifics tonight. What the Council is really faced with is a decision on what the future land use characteristics should be for that site. In this case, the developer is proposing a commercial land use character. Although not being specifically reviewed tonight, I think it's important to note that it does appear Ryan is interested in this land use change in order to allow some type of large scale retail project on the property. If Ryan should receive approval of its Comp Plan amendment, it should be noted there are a number of approvals which the developer would be required to receive. Those would include actual rezoning of the property from an industrial classification to let's say a commercial classification; it's possible they would have to plat or subdivide the property; it's possible a conditional use permit would be required which is really a site plan approval process; it's also likely an environmental assessment worksheet would be required for the site as well as perhaps an indirect source permit which is a permit process by the PCA and essentially reviewes air and water quality types of issues. So there are a number of things which would have to happen if the land use plan or the land use amendment should be approved before the project could be built. As was indicated during the Planning Commission discussions regarding this matter, several studies have been done on this project, more specifically traffic studies have been done either by the developer or by the City as well as adjacent property owners. In addition the City commissioned a market impact study as well relative to the anticipated project on the site. I won't go into the details of those studies at this time, but I'd be happy to answer questions regarding the results of those studies. I might also add for the Council that our traffic consultant is in attendance if you have any specific questions. As was indicated in the staff report, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project on two occasions and accepted testimony during their review. As a result of the information they received and the input from staff and our consultants as well as from the developer, the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council direct staff to prepare a resolution which would present findings of fact which, in effect, would deny the land use application which has 1 `� been made by Ryan Construction. In addition, the Planning Commission has further suggested that the Council direct staff to work with the landowner and the developer on a different type of land use development that is more mixed use in character. In the staff report, staff outlined for the Council several alternate actions it could take in addition to the recommendation that the Planning Commission provided. In actuality, there were 5 alternate actions. It's possible there could be more or derivaties of the 5 that we provided, but for our purposes we have provided you with those 5 alternatives. Again, I won't go through those in any detail at this time; however, in summary the alternatives include various forms of approval of the land use change, whether for the entire site or for a portion of the site and it also includes various forms of denial of the land use application which has been made by the developer. Staff has recommended that the Council consider denying the applicant's request and direct that staff return to the Council with a proposal which would essentially allow for a land use analysis of that entire area including the Honeywell site as well as properties surrounding the Honeywell site in terms of land use considerations for that area and how the Honeywell site should be developed or alternatives for the redevelopment of the Honeywell site.. In addition that study would include a market analysis component as well as a financial feasibility component in terms of the various land use alternatives that might be suggested. The purpose of that analysis is, in essence, to provide the Council and the City with a clear understanding of what its alternatives are relative to the redevelopment of that site and allow to make a sound decision in terms of the future use of that property. '� So with that, your Honor, I hopefully have provided somewhat of a clear understanding of where111 we're at this evening and turn it back to you. Mayor Hanks: I'll let the developer give their proposal at this time. Bill McHale, I believe, is first. Bill McHale introduced the individuals who had accompanied him this evening. I think Ryan considers themselves and hope the City considers Ryan a long-term friend and ally of the City. We've been involved in a lot of developments here including Byerley's and recently-completed Suburban Plumbing Supply redevelopment. We always think we've worked with the City representing integrity, excellence and have always worked for a win-win situation and we're here again for that tonight. Our proposal is a 400,000 sq. ft. community shopping center. A lot of issues have been raised over the last year. We believe most of them have been answered. One of the issues was the economic vitality of our proposal. The City hired Economic Research Corp. and their partners, Cimaros and the findings were that the project and economic viability increased the tax base, generated jobs and they felt had site compatibility. Also they showed there was a distinct economic superiority to our project over the existing project. Another thing that was discovered through the various traffic studies was that our project complemented the existing traffic situation, maintained the level of services and was superior to all other uses other than the existing industrial. Our project works with the traffic--BRAA agreed ' with that, Strgar-Roscoe agreed to that. Barton Ashman agreed to that and Westwood agreed to 2 • that. So we think that issue is settled. If there is a unresolved issue, it's probably the appropriateness of the land use. That is certainly a much greater area. Staff has been suggesting and they discussed again that we should look at some type of mixed use development. And it's never really been quantified but mixed use has been thrown around and there were certain examples including Centennial Lakes and Edinborough in Edina. Just to make sure we weren't missing anything, Honeywell hired BRW, the land planner for Centennial Lakes and Edinborough to walk in with a fresh mind, look at what we were proposing and see if they thought it made any sense. We asked them to look at a few things specifically. The rep from BRW will testify that as far as he's concerned, we are appropriate users of this multi-use district, we fit the Comp Plan, our traffic plan works also in BRW's estimation and that a mixed use project such as Centennial Lakes and Edinborough on this site would require massive subsidies which are problematic because of the existing high assessed value and the changes in the TIF laws since the Edina project was completed. One thing we've been missing for the last 6-8 months, and I guess I'm guilty of not listening to the hammer that was falling on my head, was that even though land use as staff has laid out is the major issue, most of the things that are of concern to to people have to do with esthetics -other than traffic what are you going to see, what's going to be there. And I guess that certainly is normal. Our project architect, Greg Matson, is here and he will walk you through many of the elements of the site including types of architecture we're thinking of, materials we would be looking at, landscaping and beaming issues, views, etc. to give you an idea of the quality of the project we're proposing here. But first of all what I'd like to do is to introduce Bill Weber of BRW to discuss the major issue tonight, and that is the appropriateness of the land plan. Bill Weber: I'm with the local planning and design firm, BRW, been with them for 20 years and I'm also a resident of St. Louis Park by the way. BRW was involved in a couple projects which were cited by City staff as perhaps being models to emulate for the site, Centennial Lakes and Edinborough. We were involved in the conceptual planning, municipal negotiations, site planning, overall engineering and environmental reviews. I was involved in those projects for several years. So I have some familiarity with those projects and with other mixed use or multi use developments. In addition to that, I have been a city planner as consultant and a municipal employee-- as a matter of fact I used to here in St. Louis Park for 20 years--and have done a lot of suburban comprehensive planning and a lot of suburban site planning. So I'm familiar with a lot of the issues — all of the issues, actually—that you are wrestling with here tonight. There are 3 or 4 points I'd like to discuss and I'd like to start with this point about the interest in a mixed use of multi use development on this site. (Greg put overhead up). As you already know, in the district bounded by I-394, 100, the railroad tracks at the west and the tracks at the south, there is a multiplicity of activities.You've got office, industry, hotel, commercial, apartments, single family housing, multiple family housing, the whole range, even industry and warehousing. You're comprehensive plan indicates that this area I've just described can be planned for multiple uses. It doesn't indicate that this particular site needs to be planned for muliple uses. It's silent on 1. the Honeywell site. But it talks about the area. Even going back to the old Diversified Development District from the later 70s, early 80s, that called for a multiplicity of activity. And so, by adding commercial to the mix here, replacing the industrial designation that currently exists, 3 many you would be continuing and fulfilling that aim of a multi use, mixed use district. In / ways, this district would be similar to the Centennial Lakes and Edinborough area. Centennial Lakes along France Ave. is not a mixed use development. It's a multi use development; it's got a number of free-standing independent activities that are woven together by a public park and some shared parking and a design theme. Edinborough, on the other hand, is a true mixed use development as you've got several principal uses united by the indoor parking in one single building. The effect is that Edinborough, Centennial Lakes and several other developments around there are a multi use area just like you've got here. In fact in many ways it is similar to the multi use area we've got here at Byerley's, AAA, Target, the senior housing, medical offices, retail and so on in the Park Center Blvd. neighborhood. So the proposal to change from industrial to commercial really is fulfilling and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan intention of a multi use development. Now despite the fact that this area would be in many ways similar to the Centennial Lakes/Edinborough area which was held up as a model. To do true integrated multi use or mixed use on the 40-acre Honeywell site is problematic at this time. CB Commercial and Towle Real Estate both did market analyses for this site and indicated that commercial, especially retail, is really the only viable activiti y for this site in the foreseeable future. The office market is really overbuilt as you well know--MEPC right across the street, in fact, has approved commitments for additional office space when the market ripens; 394 has certainly seen more than its share of office development since that highway was improved; housing on this site, while there is a general demand for housing in the vicinity, would probably underutilize the site given the value of the land, proximity and so on. The hotel market is soft, so commercial seems to be the only viable use; in fact 2 or 3 of the other activities that would seem to be viable components of the multi or mixed use on the site are simply not strong in the present market. Office is overbuilt; I talked about hotels; I talked about housing. So CB Commercial's best recommendation is commercial for the site. I forgot to mention industrial — who knows what could happen with continued industrial use. I'm not sure, in fact I'd be surprised, if another industrial user would be as good a neighbor as Honeywell has been. It's a big site, you can do a lot of truck parking, a lot of storage on that kind of site. So, I'd like to emphasize that changing the guide plan from industrial to commercial is really consistent with the City's interest in a multi use district;it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because that plan calls for multi use in the district and, in fact, very specifically the neighborhood guide plan indicates primary guided use as industrial and the alternate or option guided use as commercial. Industrial is probably no longer a viable and appropriate use for this site given the hotel, the office, the housing around it, given the way the land values have increased, the access and visibility is simply not an industrial site because it's too valuable for industry any longer. It was planned for industrial by the City, I believe, out of deference to Honeywell which is a terrific occupier of the site and a good neighbor. Honeywell is not gone from the site and so it's appropriate to consider some alternative land use. Your Comprehensive Plan indicates commercial is a desired, alternate land use; it indicates that the area ought to be a multiplicity of uses which this plan would do. A couple of major differences from Edinborough and Centennial Lakes: Both were built in the _- heydays of the 80s, They both had substantial public financial participation on the part of the City 4 ! 1 of Edina. Edina put millions and millions of dollars into those projects in the form of direct subsidies, land writedown, roads, utilities and public parks. Really, really substantial tax increment went into those sites; In fact, both were gravel pits before they were redeveloped so they were paying practically no taxes; therefore, anything built on the site generated tremendous increases in assessed value which could be captured to pay the bonds which were used to build the roads, parks, etc. - tax increment projects. All that money went back into the sites. That's a major difference between what I understand had been proposed here where I understand the City has indicated not much interest in establishing a tax increment finance district. Also those sites, certainly the Centennial Lakes site, has even better traffic access and visibility than this one. So there are some similarities to CLE and also some major differences. Doing mixed use on this 40 acres would be problematic at this point in time and I'm pretty well convinced from what I've seen of the requirements needed to intensify a site like this to get a true mixed use or true multi use and a higher floor area ratio than you typically get really takes some City participation, mostly in the form of structured parking but also in the form of some financial assurances from the lending community which is not always totally comfortable with doing mixed use or true multi use on a suburban setting. I'll conclude here quickly. Traffic: 2 or 3 engineers including one hired by the City concluded that traffic would not be a problem even at higher densities. You've got pretty good capacity especially on Park Place Blvd. very close to the freeways so I don't think traffic is an issue. Many people have studied it more than I have and they've all agreed on that issue. So I would conclude that commercial on the site consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan designed for multi use in the district . It's going to be difficult to do true mixed or multi use on the site without City participation. The change in the Comp Plan would be consistent with what we read as the intentions of the City's Comp Plan. I think I have performed, certainly for my client, the land use analysis that Mr. Harmening suggests the City ought to do. Thanks for your attention. McHale: Right now I'd like to clarify one point. Traffic is very important. I think what Bill meant is that this traffic with the shopping center and how it will affect the adjacent roadways as opposed to some of the alternatives, the mixed use being much higher density with the office and hotel, certainly not as opposed to the industrial. Now I'd like to bring Greg Matson up, put up some boards and we'd like to go through some of the aspects of what we're proposing to show not only the appropriateness but I think some of the level of quality we're talking about. Greg Matson: I'm the project architect for Ryan Construction in charge of the esthetics of the development. Just like to go through some issues on the site and then through the building. On the site On this site plan, we're showing the subject property, the grey dashed lines are existing or proposed paths for pedestrian systems that the City is recommending. The yellow that we're showing internally on our site is pedestrian paths which we will connect into the existing pedestrian paths around the site to compliment the existing path systems that are there. These pathways or sidewalks won't just be linear sidewalk through the site but we will undulate them similar to the MEPC property and make use of bermings and landscape elements to soften that whole edge around the site. Also on the site we're using existing curb cuts that are going into the Honeywell site. We're closing off 3: 2 on Zarthan Ave. and 1 on Cedar Lake Rd. that we are closing off so that we can separate the customer and truck traffic from our site and therefore try 5 to buffer the residential areas from the traffic going in from our trucks. Both beaming and `r landscaping will be utilized around the site especially at the edges at this point and this point. On Zarthan Ave., the setback or bermed area, landscaped area, varies from 80 to 140 ft. and in all III cases on that edge, the buildings are farther away than the existing Honeywell property. Again earth berming and landscape edge at Zarthan Ave. is going to vary from 80 to 140 feet deep. At that point also we're looking at a dry pond which will help some of our ponding issues. In all cases the edges of the buildings will be further away than the existing Honeywell building. In most cases it will be about 140 ft. away from the property line on Zarthan Ave. Earth beaming and landscaping will also be used to screen the parking areas from the surrounding neighborhoods and streets. We'll do this similar to the MEPC property is doing. They've gone with about a 3 ft. buffer or bermed area that simply screens the bituminous areas in the parking lot. We'll do something very similar to that. Landscape island will be used in the parking lot to break up the asphalt areas and what we'd like to do in these cases typically is use larger landscape area rather than a lot of smaller areas. It adds to the plant life. Plant life survival is much greater when we go to larger planting areas and we will meet the green percentage of the sites. Site lighting will be accomplished by the use of shoebox fixtures -we call them shoebox, it will be a light pole fixture which directs the light downward and not into the neighboring sites. The exterior materials we are proposing will be earth-toned, rock faced block which are a couple of colors we're showing right here; some face brick again, earth tone and some andriva-type material which we can use for accenting some of the signage areas and articulating the building facades to add interest. We'll be using this same material around the entire facility, all the way around the backs and everything. Of course there won't be storefronts but we will have interest in trying to articulate the different materials to create some site excitement and not to produce a big blank wall look. Rooftop equipment will be screened by roof parapets or screening devices which we'll put on the roofs and we're also looking at sloped roof and protruding eaves which will create a residential esthetic which will feel will fit with the site and with the residential and other buildings around this site. Some of the individual buildings will be separated from eachother so that massing will be broken up which will scale down the whole project and also create some interest. This will also allow for additional corridors through the site between the buildings and allowing for clients and neighbors to protrude through the site. Trash will be handled internally with compactors. Most of the clients we're looking at have internal compactors and will be picked up inside, no trash outside. They will be screened from view by walls and/or landscaping. Also truck duct areas which we have of course will be screened with walls which will match the building esthetic with the rock based block again and the face brick and also will have landscaping which will help screen those areas. So that's where we're at with the building, site and architecture. We'd like to go through a few brief slides to give you an idea of the beaming area, giving you an idea of the esthetic views around the different corners of the shopping center and try to bring that to life with some pictures of existing projects we've taken care of in the past few years. Again, this slide illustrates the beaming and typical screening we're using around the entire 111 perimeter of the street. This is similar to what MEPC is using on Park Place Blvd. Again we're 6 using an undulating sidewalk that will wrap around the entire site which will connect into the existing pedestrian patterns. We'll be using evergreen and also about a 4 ft. berm about the site. This is a site plan that will indicate the views I'm going to show you. Right now you can see the No. 1 arrow which is protruding into the site-that's where this view is taken from. There are berming and landscape elements so you can see some of the articulation we're using on the architecture. There is the sloped roofs, mixed materials, the darker color, at least at this point, we're looking at using rock faced block in the bodies of the face brick to meet City ordinances. This would be from the intersection of 16th and Zarthan looking due east towards the MEPC project. This is more of an overall view into the site; again the berming and the sloped roofs. View 3 is probably a bit closer to the corner of 16th and Park Place Blvd. looking south to the health club.View 4 is from Cedar Lake Rd. looking north using heavy landscaping and the building articulation. The last view is looking more or less straight north on Zarthan Ave. I'd like to point out we will be screening the truck dock areas. The screening will be the same material as the building itself of rock face and face brick. (slides were then shown of existing shopping centers constructed by Ryan) McHall: I'd like to wrap it up with a conclusion or two. We really feel that Honeywell/Ryan has been working in good faith with the City for over a year now. We are the only real project to come forward. We will increase the tax base, we'll add job, we will not negatively impact the existing traffic patterns or the levels of service. We complement the hotel and office adjacencies. We think we will help create a true, vibrant mixed use development. The City knows who Ryan is, you've done business with us before, we are a quality developer and builder. We're always striving for a win-win situation and we have successfully worked with your staff before. The staff has urged the Council to study the area once again. I don't need to remind you that that issues has come up 4 times in the past year and each time the vote has been the same. We truly feel it will benefit the City, the adjacent businesses, the neighbors. We think we can really make it a centerpiece for the community. I'd like to thank you for your time. Carson Brooks, 2230 Ridge Dr. represented the Sunset Ridge Neighborhood Assoc. which is 240 units and 400 adults living on the property in the largest concentration of homeowners in the area. We have a strong response to this issue as you can see by the attendance here and at the Planning Commission's meeting from our association stronger than we have over any other event that has come up to our condominium association. Re the proposed Comp Plan change, we think some of what is available to us as choices is not as current as it could be. We'll talk about the environmental factors, property values and the need for move-up housing, something that has been recommended by the housing task force. St. Louis Park, as a city, is in a redevelopment phase--you can see that with what is going on on Excelsior Blvd. and in discussion of the Comp Plan and needs of revising and some new options there. We believe as a homeowners association that in spirt of what is written in the zoning for this area, primarily on 2 sides we have a residential neighborhood and commercial-- some of which is designated as industrial--on the other side. We believe the transition will improve the quality of life and blend from the residential area into the commercial area particularly important not to block off or wall off any areas given the fact this is a primary entry into the City. We do not want to sever any connections with neighborhood areas that need change and redevelopment if we cut things off and I've not seen that improve any 7 residential community to be cordoned off. We support mixed use as a community--all big boxes are not bad. Ryan is a very good developer, they do very good projects. But we believe more evaluation is needed because we don't have a comparison as to what mixed use is for St. Louis Park. We need other proposals; we need to look at what mixed use means for the City of St. Louis Park; we need to look at what positive lessons are learned from Centennial Lakes and Edinborough. In addition to living here for many years and working at the Honeywell building, I also was a homeowner at Edinborough and comments have been made about it being a designation to come to this retail development here. Living in the Edin/CL area when you drive to a bedroom community, it's a wonderful relief to be able to get out of your car and walk to restaurants, walk to parklands, walk to the theater and other aspects that are not available in much of this proposal. It is a prominent entry into the City of St. Louis Park and I believe what mixed use means in the 90s in an updated sense is creating natural transi ti atom what is already existing, enhancing the hotel and their uses and the offices and enhancing the neighborhood that it backs up to. Jeff Spielman, 2120 Ridge Dr. said he believed it was back in the 60s and Joni Mitchell used to sing a song about paving paradise and putting up a parking lot. I won't pretend for a minute that the Honeywell site is paradise, but one of the prominent features of any big box retail center, despite the berming and landscaping, seems to parking lot and cars. The proposed project strikes me as the most unimiginative use of a special and important specific property. Park Place Blvd. and adjacent traffic routes are major entrance points to the City. The City should do something with this property that citizens can look on with pride. I feel this is a pivotal decision for this part of the City and will determine the look, feel and attractiveness of the neighborhood for years to111 come and will significantly impact the quality of life for the current residents. A decision to change the zoning to straight commercial will provide tax dollars for the City, but in my opinion that would be shortsighted and shortchange the residents of the neighborhood and in the long term, the City. Mixed or multi use blending a combination of residential, commercial and/or office would ultimately serve the City better. People I've spoken with are not dead set against retail or commercial component but feel it should ideally be located on the north side of the property in proximity to the retail/commercial that is already there. I suggest Council members consider some of the existing amenities or planned improvements for the area that will make this portion of the city an even more desirable place to live and reside in. First let me say that this part of St. Louis Park is very convenient to any portion of the metro area. If the adage location, location, location which realtors like to use is true, then this area has it in spades. Downtown Mpls. with its shopping, nightlife, entertainment and restaurants is 5 minutes away. Secondly, to be completed this summer will be a major state-of-the-art recreational trail skirting the north end of Cedar Lake and ending at Hwy. 100 although I've read, I guess, that St. Louis Park is thinking of linking that trail to other trails that already go out to Hopkins and west. The entire system, when finished, would provide bicyclists,joggers and walkers access to the entire Mpls. chain of lakes, Calhoun, Isles and Harriet as well as now to downtown Mpls. meaning the riverfront, riverplace and the restored stone arch bridge. The path is already quite heavily used. An entrance point to this recreational route is right at the Honeywell site's back door. Thirdly, across the street from the Honeywell site are first class fitness and sports facilities, namely Northwest Racquet Swim and Health Club and the Northwest Tennis Club. With the emphasis on health and physical fitness today many people view proximity to a health club as an amenity. Finally, this pocket of St. Louis 8 II'; ' Park is also blessed with a sizeable marsh area which is home to all kinds of wildlife. From my i, unit at Sunset Ridge, I frequently observe deer, fox, pheasants and woodchuck. Ducks and Ii Canadian geese currently enjoy a small pond that is already on the Honeywell site south side directly across Cedar Lake Rd. from the Marsh. The possibility of being able to enjoy the suburban pleasures of nature with downtown only 5 minutes away was an irrestible lure for me and would be for future residents, too. Many of the pieces are already in place to support a residential component to any proposal for the Honeywell site. I understand the City needs move up housing. Why not some mid to upper end townhouses or condos as part of a mixed or multi use development here. A mix used development would preserve and enhance the neighborhood, not regulate a unique property with lots of possibility to a stop and shop parking lot on the way to more desirable places. Thank you very much. Esthetics was only one of the concerns expressed by the residents of Sunset Ridge. Another equally important concern was property values. Karin Schoeberl, 2010 Ridge Dr. said a poll had been conducted at Sunset Ridge re the issues surrounding the development of the current Honeywell site. The poll revealed the No. 1 concern of residents is property values. Sunset Ridge has experienced fluctuations in property values. Now, however, property values are rebounding. In the last 4 years the assessed value of my own home rose $9,500 and the real estate section of the newspaper shows sale prices of Sunset Ridge units steadily increasing. Sunset Ridge is a thriving community with 85% of the units occupied by the homeowners. However, the proposed Ryan development threatens owner occupancy levels and property values. The Sunset neighborhood which lures potential homebuyers will be displaced by big box retail imposing image. Potential buyers will especially avoid getting near a retail center that houses as 24-hour store with 24-hour noise and 24-hour traffic. One thing that would lower property values more than big box retail would be unsuccessful big box retail. The Minneapolis area already has more square feet of retail space per capita than any other city in the U.S. So can we support more? If not, what to we do with the empty boxes?But whether the big box retail stores are successful or not, big box retail will likely be detrimental to our neighborhood. Instead of big box retail, a mixed use site would likely increase property values in the neighborhood and could also fill the City's need for move up housing which has been identified by the Housing Task Force which is part of the City's Vision 2000 program. Homes at this site could be purchased by local residents who appreciate the area and would like to move up. One of those considering such a move up is another Sunset Ridge resident, Lauren Dillard. Lauren Dillard, 2040 Ridge Dr. I am vice president of the board of directors of Sunset Ridge Condominiums. I'd like to point out that a lot of times I smile when I look at maps of the area and see our complex of 400 taxpayers referred to as a group of apartments--we're not apartments, we're homeowners and taxpayers and very interested, as you can tell, in the developments in our neighborhood. I've been earmarked tonight to be the one to speak to you with passion about move-up housing because I've articulated that at a recent meeting. I've lived in the Sunset Ridge Community for 11 years and over that time have been fortunate to see my income grow. I'm looking to stay a taxpayer in St. Louis Park and I love the location of where I live. I'm an independent consultant, have clients on the far side of St. Paul, in Minnetonka and in Chanhassen and I can be at their places in 20 minutes and that makes that a very special place for me to want to look in this neighborhood for some move-up housing. I'm very excited that the Vision 2000 proposal that you're already looking to implement has this as a goal --why not look to the very 9 i special property at the second most highly trafficked intersection in the State to find the property ,-- to be able to take advantage of that initiative. Articles like the current one in Newsweek talking about 15 ways in which we can take the suburbs today and not have them be parking lots and find new ways to breath vitality into them. That gave me hope to think that we might be able to do this in St. Louis Park. as well. You've seen a survey we've done from the residents. If you have any questions on that survey, I'd be happy to entertain that. Thank you for your time. Ed Wintheiser, 6114 Cedar Lake Rd. dlisagreed with the gentleman on the traffic. We already have congested traffic on Cedar Lake Rd. If they widen that road, as I understand they're going to do, I'm going to be shakin' hands with the buses as they go by. Ben Steinberg, 5801 Cedar Lake Rd. said all Councilmembers had received a letter from him which expresses his concerns. He did not want to dwell on those tonight, but spend a moment to urge Council to be patient and get a mixed use development that a fabulous site like this should have instead of a bunch of big boxes no matter how pretty they look. When the retail development was first proposed, it was in a whole different market atmosphere. Since that time, the market has strengthened dramatically in almost every phase of real estate. This site will be great shortly for hi-rise apartments, maybe another hotel and the office market is already beginning to pressure developers to plan new buildings to accommodate large space users. The quick taxes you get from the big box development will only be a fraction of the taxes you get by waiting and doing something of which St. Louis Park can be proud. Thank you. Brian Rule, resident of Sunset Ridge Condominiums, wanted to bring up a couple of items of vital interest to our fellow residents. One of the things I've not heard addressed is the amount of crime that might indeed increase with big box development and any other commertial/retail development as far as that goes. But I believe that statistically and historically you look at in most instances where you have a large retail complex, the crime element does increase and especially if these stores are opened into the later evening hours, sometimes 24 hours a days. I also want to give 2 quotes out of the April 10 Wall St. Journal: "Local economic analysts say Minneapolis has more retail space per capita than any other city in America. The oversupply began with the invasion of national retailers in the 1980's."This is the 1990's, people, we need to wake up. I think there comes a time when we have to say,"Enough is enough." Another quick item, also quoted from that same article in the Journal, entitled"One Risk Too Many"..."after years of steady growth, the Twin Cities economy has entered a new phase, the risk-taking phase, or maybe just the risky phase. Only 18 months ago, Rottlund Homes, the Twin Cities largest home builder, could not get a bank loan. Today it is being courted by a parade of bankers from as far away as Boston and California. They are offering all kinds of deals;they're even again willing to finance the purchase of raw land. The trouble is Rottlund has turned cautious. The Rottlund Co. division doesn't need large loans. Builders make their bad decisions in the latter part of an expansion, said David Rotter the president. I say it's time to accumulate cash. We see a recession by 1996." Diane Markin, 1616 Alabama, which is one block away from the area you're talking about. I've lived there for 19 years. We've put thousands of dollars into our house. We plan to kind of die there unless you guys run us out. I grew up in the neighborhood, five houses from where I'm .___ currently living. 10 The neighborhood has fought against heavy commercial ever since I can remember and this is back when I was a kid my parents were fighting against it. I think by the turnout here the City should realize that we haven't changed'our mind but it seems like you have to keep fighting to be heard. We don't want to become another statistic with our home values declining. They're our life. I don't want any large grocery store or box. I don't mind driving seven or eight minutes to get somewhere else to get my groceries or anything else I need. The thought of semis coming all hours of the night, deliveries, the dust, the lights on all the time and just the general noise would be irritating. With Honeywell it was just certain hours, it wasn't that bad but with a big box it would be. This is a prime location, there has to be other locations, other uses for it, uses that would keep the close homeowners happy. There has got to be something. As was said before, this area is great, you can get anywhere you want to in 15, 20 minutes. Earlier there was a petition that was circulated. Many signed this because they were feared of low income coming into that area because no one wants that. If we, a step up housing sounds find to me. I have no problem with that. Cedar Lake Road is a disaster at times and how anyone can say different I don't know. They are saying the store wouldn't affect the rush hours that much but in my eyes what it would change to rush hour to all day instead of certain hours and those who say that it is not going to change, come and live in that neighborhood and see for yourself. Come and go at morning rush hours. Thank you very much. My name is Gary Bursch. I live at 1604 Blackstone and I have been there about 17 years myself, and I have seen a lot of changes. There was some references made in the Planning Commission about our neighborhood which is a little set of housing just west of Honeywell. References were made that they're older houses, smaller houses that need repair. It is true that these are older houses, post World War 2. But they're our homes. This is where we are living at. We have our Christmases there, we have our Christmas trees, we still have Christmas lights on the houses. We have our high school graduation party and there is a Blackstone park in the area where the kids play. This is our home. But the houses are small but that is what we can afford, that is who we are. I kind of wish at times that we had the political strength, the resources like Lake Forest, or Westwood Hill to have our voices heard more, or have an attorney to represent us, but that we don't have. There is one topic they haven't talked to much about, about the noise from the traffic, excellerating, speeding up the horn honks, the braking, the want not that would be at Zarthan and Cedar Lake Road. You can't keep that noise out of the neighborhood. When cars get a little fender benders, you are going to hear the tires squealing. The question is, is this really necessary? We have the same stores down at Ridgedale, Brookdale and Southdale right now. This seems to be only duplication of what's available to us currently. There is a question of what happens in the future. Are they going to throw a whole bunch of fast food places in it, like the other big boxes are happening. Are we going to have fast food, ATM cash machines, video machines sitting out in front to put extra cluster. Will this arrive in 5 years? But the real question is the quality of life in the neighborhood and that's what it really comes down to. And I feel that the neighborhood will suffer and our values and our emotions) will suffer also from the traffic. Thank you. 11 Good evening. I am Frank Freedman and I live at 2530 Pennsylvania Avenue which is about a mile west of this particular area and I want to speak a little bit about this development from the perspective of the traffic and excuse me if I am just a little bit in shock because I am seeing what's going to happen to Cedar Lake Road and the character of that neighborhood is going to change and to me the only self fulfilling prophecy is just build a parking ramp on the facility to accommodate all the additional traffic that you will pull down Cedar Lake Road in addition to what is all ready going to come down there from Minnetonka. I think the traffic issue really has to be taken into consideration not only by those who live nearby but also all those of us who live within a couple of blocks of Cedar Lake Road. You are really changing our quality of life and I want you to think about that. Thank you. Mayor, anyone else wish to speak? Which one is going to speak? My name is Karen Noby and I live at 1619 Alabama right across from Diane Marken, so two against a whole bunch I guess here. I notice a lot of people are putting out a lot of their points of view and a lot has been said what I have thought since this all started. I think I have an opinion on here we are shoving all these new businesses into that new place, let's build up. I guess what I am trying to say is why build up these new things when we need to build up the Knollwood Mall. We need to fix the Texa Tonka place. Why can't some of these Cubs go into there. We have all these open things, it looks crappy, I mean I don't think that's right and there is a lot of better uses and I think if we just take all our time, let's say give it a year, let it sit and think about it. I think people can put their input in and figure out what's the best use for this property. We already have enough shopping, you know all these little track places that don't even have businesses and work on getting those filled with some of these that really want to put a business in over there. Thank you. Mayor, anyone else? My name is Kris Russ and I live at 1626 Zarthan and I am speaking on behalf of my parents as well as myself. We have lived on that property since 1959 and we have dealt with Honeywell coming in, making promises that they never kept. There was suppose to be no driveways into the Honeywell property off of Zarthan but we have two. We did get one closed. We also had to put a no parking sign on there because they were parking right in front of our driveway and we couldn't get in and out of our home. We have a big concern regarding some of the promises that are going to be made. They said there was going to be " a nice berming. People in the office building across the street were watching our house all the time. We are concerned about some of the people it is going to bring into that area. We don't feel that so many are going to come from the west, but more coming from the Mpls. area and it is just a concern we wanted to share. Mayor, anyone else? Anyone else? 12. Good evening Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Tim Keane and I am here this evening on behalf of the property owner, Honeywell. Mayor, do you want to give us your address too Tim? Oh sure, you bet. Lark & Hoffman, 7900 Xerxes South, Bloomington. Honeywell believes that the proposed redevelopment plan is one that does provide significant benefits to the community, including goods and services to the trade area, an increase in tax base and a high quality-high evanity development with long term viability, all on a site that the experts all agree is well suited to the proposed commercial use. Honeywell also believes that the accumulated record that we have before the City supports reguiding the property from light industrial to commercial. Some of those reasons are found in a comprehensive plan. The Honeywell site was originally guided in 1977, the DDD District and this would have been an allowable use under the DDD District. In 1991, that comprehensive plan was updated and reguided this to light industrial and although there wasn't much discussion in the record about planning for this site, the discussions seemed to support that the change was simply uncertainty with a future and to guide consistent with the then existent land use. I think there is some strong statements found in the comprehensive plan supporting this request. In chapter 3, there is a position statement, the City's traditionally strong industrial base is becoming outdated and obsolete. I think what we have in terms of the transition of this land use is the coming of the prophesy of that statement and what we have in response to that is that the proposed Ryan shopping center affords retail uses and complements the economic base with uses and sales opportunities that are not generally available in this area and in some cases not available anywhere in the City Oof St. Louis Park. There is also support found in your commercial goal statement of the comp. plan. Police 2C provides that the City's insure that commercial developments have access to transportation facilities which have the capability of serving the traffic needs based on facility size and trade area and policy 2D provides that the City maintain itself as a major commercial and business center. But the record is replete with statements to the affect from the many traffic experts that have looked and the City's own Planner, that the property does have superior access and it is served from several different directions that provided an opportunity to be significant contribution to the City's economic base and a strong major commercial center. They also find in the policy portion of the City's commercial element of the plan that the City intends to insure that regional commercial businesses have access to expressways and freeways. And that the City actively pursue the elimination of adverse impacts associated with strip commercial development and insist upon a positive image both aesthetically as well as functionally. I think some of the images we saw from the developer throughout this process demonstrates that this is a new generation of architecture and the sensitivity with which pedestrians access and edges are softened I think are well demonstrated with the visuals that the developer provided. We also have the statements of BRW, a highly regarded land planning and engineering consultant and their report submitted to the City May 5 included several positive statements as to the appropriateness of the proposed use. The first being that the retailed development really would help fulfill the comprehensive plans intention of mixed use for this area and we have significant discussion on the complemented uses but really a strong retail component is the only piece that is not found in this trade area that is defined as the 394 Highway 100 quadroon. The BRW did include imfactedly that commercial would be consistent with the comprehensive plan, that industrials no longer appropriate as a land use designation and that retail activity is the only viable use for this site. Traffic has been discussed at length and I won't dwell on that but we have had 5 reports submitted to the City, the City's own traffic consultant concluded that the proposed use would not degrade the level of service or create burdens on the existing infrastructure. 13. , r,'r With that we do respectfully request that the City approve the reguiding application. I think the record strongly supports the reasonableness of this request and the reasonableness of the reuse of this site and with that I would be happy to answer questions and request that �.- this letter be made a copy of the record. Mayor, thankyou. Anyone else, anyone else wishing to speak? Actually as the Mayor, I am a little disappointed that no one seems to have convinced me tonight of what I should do about what is proposed to be done tonight. Now that is whether to change the comprehensive plan or not. We are all making assumptions beyond that and I understand that, but I have to say that this Council tonight faces the problem of do we change the comprehensive plan making it commercial or do we leave it as industrial and go from there and that is, am I right Mr. Harmening, the action that should be taken or something in that concern and I would just kick this off and I think maybe each of the Council have their own concerns. I think that I am very concerned in leaving this industrial. The developer also knows that I have a major concern about the development and somewhere I hope that we can come together with some kind of a match that is usable in this community. I certainly heard from all the people that want to contact me, I have heard from other people of what this is going to do. I guess I would say and I have been here long enough to know that this place was equally as full when we determined that we would do something at Miracle Mile. And it was going to be just as bad a thing but there I think that the City was able to work, we had some guidelines to work with to move forward with. I think this development probably is never going to be at anyone's liking but I think before it's something that comes true for wishing there is going to have to be some give and take as there was in the Miracle Mile development. I can remember the people thought the traffic over there was just going to be horrendous. The only nice thing that has happened is that I can now get out of Wooddale Avenue and I didn't use to be able to because we did work on the traffic and the traffic lights and how traffic moved. The other thing that we heard here was how terrible the noise was going to be, the lights, the parking ramp was going to be so high that the whole area would be flooded with light and most of the Council have been here and heard all those things and so I just say, in most cases what we need to be concerned about is to try to do what we think is best and work together and I think everyone probably is going to have to realize that maybe everything you want may not happen or nothing may happen. I don't know that. So just with that as background, I would certainly open it up to the Council or whatever. Anyone want to speak before, yes this is the last time because we will close the public hearing. Diane Markin again. Since you are saying that no one proposed anything as to what should be done. I'm proposing that heavy commercial be turned down until something that is acceptable is brought forth. Mayor, a public hearing is a public hearing but I'm sorry we can't take motions. thank you. Mayor, anyone else? If not then, I 'II close the public hearing subject that accounts reopen to any future. Council if you have questions of any presenter or any one, certainly that is your prerogative. Public hearing is closed. Councilmember Haun. I'd like to ask Honeywell a question. A representative from Honeywell please come up to the podium. Have you had any other offers, other than Ryan Construction on this property. 14 Honeywell Representative. Yes sir. We had called CB Commercial do a process for us to study the site first. And the process when into all different potential uses. And then offers were solicited by CB Commercial. Seven came in, six came in. All were for commercial developed. This was not the highest bid. This was a bid we expected would be the most acceptable to the neighborhood. We chose Ryan because of their quality, because of their ability to work with Councils, to work with neighborhoods and again was not the highest price. Mayor, can you give us your address? Bill Boen Yes sir, my home address is 40 Park Lane in Mpls. right across the Cedar Lake from St. Louis Park. Haun, what you are stating is that you have had no other offers other than commercial ventures. None what so ever sir. Haun, I'd like to ask Mr. McHale from Ryan Construction. Mr. McHale, ilf this project was to go on, do you have an agreement with Super Value or Cub Foods at the present time to develop a store there. McHale, we have exchanged letters of interest etc. We do not have a signed document binding anybody to the site. Mayor, any other Council. Councilmember Dorfman. The process leading up to tonight has sometimes seemed very long and probably longer to you than to us at times and has been somewhat torturous at times. There has been some pressure on Council to make a speedy decision. It has been suggested at times that we were not being fair to interested parties by "dragging this our or 'requesting additional studies' or looking for developmental alternative? and I argue on the other hand that a speedy decision in this case would have been an all too hasty one and one that might not have been in the best interest of our community and fundamentally for us sitting up here, that has to be the bottom line, what's in the best interest of our community. Too often, I think, during this process we focused on questions like what's best for Honeywell, are we being fair to Ryan, what will the market bear, are big box developments being over built in the twin cities metro area and while these are questions that need to be addressed and have been addressed, I would argue that they are secondary questions. And the newsweek article that I think Lorin pointed out Bve Bve Suburban Dream which is dated today talks about these kind of developments and says that fundamentally the focus needs to be on what kind of place do people want to live. And that that needs to be our prime focus. The article in terms of dealing or talking about shopping malls, talks about those smallest that have more frequent side in America, says we need to transcends the definition of a shopping center as a grouping of unrelated stores in the middle of a parking lot. It talks about that parking and says a shopping center surrounded by acres striped asphalt whether it's empty or full of cars might as well put up a mote against pedestrians. 15. And it comes back to that questions of what kind of place do people want to live and says we can in fact answer that question and provide the kind of developments that people want for their neighborhood. It says " architects know how to design them, developers can build — them, banks can make money on them, all it takes is a measure of political will to overcome the inertia of 50 years of doing things the wrong way". Well here in St. Louis Park, we have not been doing things the wrong way and as the Mayor pointed out we have developed at Excelsior Blvd. that we are very proud of and not only was it a give and take process, a very long process but it was a partnership and it was a partnership between the City and the developer and the community. And through that give and take process we came up with something that everybody is happy with, at least I think. And so I would hope that we could do that with Honeywell and with Ryan. I would like to think that not only are we a friend and ally but we could become a partner. And clearly what that requires, as Hesben pointed out, is some sort of investment of public dollars and up at Excelsior Blvd. we used Tiff. We created a tax increment financing district. There was strong justification for doing it up there because of the environmental clean-up issues. There is not the same kind of justification for doing it at the Honeywell site. It's a bit harder to justify. So where do we come up with public dollars to become a partner in this; to come up with a good design compatible with adjacent land use, encourages pedestrian access, all the things that our comp plan sets out as goals and goals for this site. And so that's something we need to look at and I will tell you that I received a memo today from our State Senator Ted Mondale that refers to a bill that he has introduced that has received a fair amount of press and says, this memo says that the Livable Communities Act should be signed into law by the end of the session. The bill has a demonstration account that will have approximately 6.25 million dollars per year and will grow along with the tax space of the 7 county metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Council will fund grants or loans through projects that do everything that we have talked about in terms of mixed use, interrelate development, redevelopment and transit, interrelate affordable housing and employment growth, intensify land use that leads to more compact development or redevelopment, involved development or redevelopment that mixes incomes of residents and housing including introducing higher value housing in some of the lower income areas to achieve a mixed of housing opportunities and well this isn't signed yet, there is a commitment, it's not three if there is a commitment from the Governor to do so and Senator Mondale has indicated that if the Council so chooses he certainly would work hard to have the Honeywell site named as a demonstration account demonstration project under the livable communities account and so there are clearly other areas we can look in terms of public funding to become a partner in this and try to do more of what many of you have asked for tonight. So I would hope that as we look at this comp plan and I agree with the Mayor that I don't want to leave it industrial, that it probably needs to go commercial, but I want to make sure if we approve a comp plan amendment that we are not giving green light to the development that is in front of us, a big box development. I would hope that we could work with Ryan, with Honeywell, with the community to come up with something that methodical of our comprehensive plan. And lastly, I want to thank many of you for taking the time and really studying this issue and writing and calling. It's your neighborhood, it was important to hear from you and last, I just want to correct a call that was left on my message machine this morning from a woman on Cavell who said she lived near my parents on Cavell and I just want to say that as fond as I am of the Dorfmans' on Cavell, they are not my parents and that Gail Dorfman had the good sense to stay out of politics. Thank you. Mayor, anyone else. 16 Councilmember Haun, I guess I'd like to address the issue again of the Park Nicollet project which we are getting into the closing stages. I happen to represent the people in that area in Ward 2 and we had this council full'of people'jut like yourselves at that time when we presented this project. And there was a lot more problems with that project, believe me, than there is with this one. And I fully understand your commitment to your neighborhood. I live on Wooddale Avenue myself and believe me it was a very important project for me when they developed the Park Nicollet project. But I think that the fact as councilperson Dorfman pointed out that we work together with all parties including the neighborhood and I think that maybe that's something that maybe we haven't done here. I think there is a lot of clouded issues here. I think number 1, I hope you realize if we do not change the comprehensive plan we leave it in its present state of industrial if someone comes in here and wants to put in a smoke stack business in there we cannot prevent it and we would probably be in court if tried to simply under our present zoning ordinance. So what we are doing here tonight is only amending this to the availability of any type of project. , If you talk about housing, you talk about apartments or anything else, it has to be changed. It cannot be built under the industrial/light industrial zoning which it is now. And basically, that's all we are talking about tonight. So in essence for anything to go whether the Ryan's project or anybody else's project its going to go it's going to have to be done and to wait to change the comprehensive plan until somebody comes in here with a better way of inventing the wheel in which I have been here quite awhile, I haven's heard of any other developer come in on this project. I am very concerned about our taxes in this community. And you may say well that isn't worth it, yes it is. My taxes alone in my house have gone up $700 and some dollars in the last three years and I don't live in a very big house. Because the property values in my neighborhood have gone up and I'm sure they're going up, I heard somebody say here in Sunset that the property values are going up. They are going up all over but I think that means, in essence if we loose our base for taxation we are going to be in an awful lot of trouble. I think it's something, I have to consider the whole community and I certainly have empathy for you people. If I lived in your neighborhood I would have all the empathy in the world but we have to consider the whole community here. And I think this is something it's a project that is going to be very close to you such as the Park Nicollet project was close to those people living on the other side of town. I would hope that by enabling us to on the comp plan it will only tell us that we are going to be able to open the door primarily for other discussion. Without that we have no discussion with anybody. It's a dead issue if we don't do this. So I thing you have to understand what we are doing if we did or didn't do it tonight, what the ramifications are. As far as the using tiff money for this project, I am highly against putting City funds in there when we have somebody who wants to expend dollars in there as a private developer that's the best way to go. Anytime you use government funds you are going to be restricted as to what you can do no matter what they tell you, you are still restricted as to what you can do. You got to go through a lot of hurdles to do that. You can come in with low income housing, you can come in with all kinds of things which may not be as acceptable as some of the other things you may see. I think we ought to consider all the issues and I hope our Council will do that tonight and what we are doing here in essence is not giving the green light to one 'developer, were only giving the green light enabling us to look at other things and possibly work with Ryan and Honeywell to be able to have a project at some point in time whether it's theirs or somebody else's, that's all were doing. We are not changing the whole world tonight. Thank you. Mayor, I don't know yet what we are doing, Mr. Haun. You're ahead of me evidently. We don't have a motion that I know of. Is there a motion? 17 Councilmember Jacobs, a couple of questions and a comment. I guess this has been without question one of the most difficult decisions I will be making here tonight. I mean this is a very, very difficult issue. I have looked at a number of factors on this property from traffic, to appropriate land use planning to property values to taxes to environmental issues. This has been a difficult decision and I think what will probably end up here tonight may well be an imperfect solution for everybody concerned. I guess I have a couple of questions just to lay out the procedure for where we are going here tonight. First of all, I agree with the other councilmembers that I think it is important that the neighborhood and the developer understand that what we are doing this evening is making a comprehensive plan amendment. It is not an approval of or disapproval of or any commentary about a particular plan, color photos not withstanding. The other thing that I think the people have to understand is that if we do not institute a comprehensive plan amendment this evening it is my understanding that the comprehensive plan will then stay as industrial and Honeywell would at that point be free to sell that property to a developer that would use it for any industrial usage and that • • 1• 18 Council Member Jacobs Honeywell would, at that point, be free to sell that property to a developer that would use it for any industrial usage in that, either a smoke stack industry, which I frankly doubt would come in there, quite honestly, but the other concern that I would be some sort of a warehouse office place. Ladies and gentlemen, you ain't seen truck traffic until you've seen a warehouse. I mean, I lived not too far away from a warehouse once in my life and that's all you have there is truck traffic. They're backing up and, you know, the diesel fumes and the noise and the vibration in the streets...I don't think it would be, in my personal opinion, a good idea to leave that property as an industrial use there. I don't think it would be good for the City as a whole, I really don't think it would be good for that neighborhood for all kinds of different reasons. Council Member At this point, I guess I have a question for our staff and maybe our city attorney, whoever be the person to ask this. If we were to take the action this evening to change the comprehensive plan designation from light industrial to commercial, what control would the Council have or would the City have over the kind of development that would go in under those circumstances, if we were to do that tonight. Then, as I understand it, then madam...City Attorney, we would then have to make a zoning change along with that at a subsequent meeting because this evenings action is only the comprehensive plan change and we II were to then zone it consistent with the comprehensive plan designation as commercial. What kind of control would the City have over that development or would the development, as we've seen here this evening, be able to just simply go in basically, as it's been shown to us here? City Attorney Council Jacobs, it's my understanding that the proposed development, were the comprehensive plan to be amended to provide for commercial, there would have to be...you're correct, a subsequent re-zoning to commercial to be consistent with the comprehensive. It's my understanding that commercial would allow the development that Ryan has proposed as a conditional use depending upon what the developer wants to do. There might be, as Mr. Harmoning said, some subdivision and other subdivision applications. There could be a number of State and Federal permits that would have to be issued. But you are correct that we, other than the conditional use process, do not have any controls in place. Council Member Jacobs See, I guess my sense is, is that what I hear being expressed by the community here and what I've heard from both our staff and our council in previous meetings is that there is a concern. I know the Mayor said at one point this evening that he has a concern about the size of that development and I guess I'm wondering if there is a way to use Mr. Mikail's terms to gain some kind of a win/win situation here. If there is a way to designate a comp plan or to 19 come up with a comp plan designation that would allow for, you know, some form of commercial development along the lines of what we have seen here this evening, but would...which would give the Council some discretion to control the size and perhaps the layout of that development so that we could, you know, better meet the needs of the community around there. Is there a way, for example, and I'm just sort of thinking off the top off my head here, to put in some sort of a designation as a...I don't know, a mixed use commercial kind of designation that we could have drafted up along the lines that would allow for something like that. We don't have a comprehensive plan designation like that at this point. Could we come up with something like that this evening? City Attorney Well, we certainly could Council Member Jacobs, with sufficient time. As the Metropolitan Council indicated, in responding to inquiries about this project, this is...they view this as a unique site. And certainly in St. Louis Park we don't often have the opportunity to develop forty-one acres at one time. So, perhaps the controls, the zoning ordinance and the processes we have in place with that are not...I don't want to use the word sophisticated enough, but aren't comprehensive enough to deal with a development of this size and this magnitude given it's proximity to residential areas, given the impact of the traffic, given the surrounding land uses, so I think you certainly may create, in terms of a comprehensive plan, a new district that may apply to this site and other sites in St. Louis Park and when you come to...subsequent to that, when you looked at the zoning, you would also have to provide a new type of zoning district that addressed the kinds of issues unique to this new designation that I am assuming is bigger in size and has the complexities to give yourselves the kinds of leverage in terms of process and review and flexibility to work with the developer and negotiate the partnerships you've been thinking about. So, that...the staff could write an ordinance that would control the process in that way. Council Member Jacobs Would we have to come up with all the specifics of that this evening, 'cause I frankly, am probably not prepared to do that but, what I guess I'd like to do...'cause I...my understanding is that it takes five votes of this council to change the comp plan designation. So, if we don't get five votes this evening it stays industrial to change it to something else. City Attorney That's correct. Council Member Jacobs My thought is, I guess...my thinking is that I would like to allow some form of commercial development to go in to that property, but which would control the size and the layout, but maybe not the type of that development, is this something that could act on this evening? That would allow the developer to go forward, but which 20 • would also then put in place some kinds of controls for the City to look at so that we could meet the needs of the neighborhood. , ' , City Attorney If I understand correctly what you're attempting to pursue is to provide some direction. Council Member Jacobs Yeah. City Attorney You could certainly pass a resolution or pass a motion directing the staff to approve...to bring back a resolution approving a comprehensive plan amendment that designated the Honeywell site as something other that industrial and give some guidance to the staff what you would like that designation to look like. And that would require four votes, because you're passing a motion authorizing the preparation of the resolution to approve the amendment. When it comes back to you it would take five votes to pass it. And you have the opportunity, when it comes back to you, to look at whether it provides all the types of controls and considerations and consistencies with the comp plan, it's goals and policies, the plan by neighborhood and the comp plan that I hear you all expressing concern about. Council Member Jacobs Okay. And we would...could I call that mixed use/commercial? Does it have to be called anything? City Attorney Well, you're describing, I think, what you're trying to describe in concept. So, I think as long as you...the Council gives some direction what they would like to contain. Council Member Jacobs So, in other words, it would have to be consistent with the comprehensive plan goals I assume? City Attorney Yes. Council Member Jacobs For that neighborhood. All right. Well, let me try this Mr. Mayor for...I'm not sure whether they're ready for a motion yet or not. Maybe we are beyond ready for a motion, I don't know. At any rate. I guess I'll move, at this point, that we direct the staff to prepare a resolution approving an amendment to the comprehensive plan to change the land use plan designation for the property at 1625 Zarthan from light industrial to a designation which describes, I'll call it a mixed use/commercial land use that's consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan and the plan, I thinks it's call the Neighborhood Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Now, the resolution, I think, should specifically provide that the approval the of amendment in the comp plan does not...is not an approval or disapproval of the site plan that we've just seen here submitted by Ryan Development. It is not an approval or disapproval of the comp plan amendment for purposes of Long's Big Bucks retail development. I would like it 21 also to include direction that any changes to the City's map and comp plan would control relating to the property and should provide a controlled...some method to control and perhaps mitigate the impact of a future land use on the neighborhood and that ..... surrounding residential area. Is that specific enough? Mayor Is there a second? Then we can discuss. Council Member Jacobs Well, that the firs question, I guess. Council Member Dorfman Second. Mayor We have a motion and a second. I guess I'm trying to mull that all over in my mind and trying to think of how that's going to work. You made a statement neither approving or disapproving the Ryan...are you inferring or would ask or would hope that the partnership might include, while we're trying to put together this ' kind of comp plan designation, that it would include discussions with Ryan, with Honeywell, with the City? Council Member Jacobs Oh, absolutely. I would hope that that's all part of that. I guess my intent this evening was to try and make sure that the industrial designation did not, for whatever reason, due to lack of five votes or for some other reason, would remain on that property. My intent is that the...that our staff and that Honeywell and Ryan would continue to discuss, very seriously, what's going to go in to this particular property to discuss, very seriously, what's going to go in to this particular property, but I guess I don't want...given the action that we are faced with procedurally this evening, which is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan only. I do not want to, you know, say that we're approving or not approving that particular site plan, 'cause I don't think that's before us, unless I'm incorrect on this madam, City Attorney. That...I guess that's my intent in that language is that I don't want to say...my intent is not to give any indication that this is an approval or a disapproval of that particular, merely that this is a comp plan designation to something other than industrial, which will move it from industrial. Mayor Okay. Council Member Jacobs I guess the other intent is that I would like to have...'cause what I...the concern that I hear on the Council is that, you know, if we just simply change this to commercial land use, that development can go in without a lot of control by the City, not only on the size, but everything else. I hear that that's a concern on the Council. My intent is to give the Council some more discretion in terms of perhaps controlling that...the size and the nature of that ,_ development to some extent while, you know, making sure that we do not have...we're not faced with leaving it as an industrial use. I 22 , want to move it off of that to get it something kind of commercial, is kind of my intent. Mayor Mr. Jacobs, I think that I can support your motion. My...thank goodness fishing was not much good on Saturday 'cause it rained all day, so I sat and mulled over in this mind and I've been here for • , twenty-four years and I've got to tell you people this is one of the toughest decisions because Ryan, I think, is a good developer and I think what they would do would be good. Ryan and I have certainly discussed this and I've said that I have a hard time and I think if it was strictly up or down tonight, I would have voted against changing it because I can't fathom 400,000 square feet up there and I... been in that position, but I would hope that maybe we can work together and come up with something that makes some real sense to this city and I think some of that's going to be commercial, but I have a tough time and I don't know, you know, how others feel. I'm just expressing myself. Council Member Latz Thank you. There have been a lot of concerns expressed here tonight about a whole bunch of different issues and somewhere in this voluminous material to employment to the alternative uses for the site and one of the concerns that I've had all along here and I raised it very early on in the proceedings is the impact that any kind of a commercial development would have here on other commercial sites in St. Louis Park. When this issue first came up...I represent the Third Ward which includes Texatonka and includes Knollwood Mall and there have been problems in those shopping malls. I mean, there's no denying that there are empty store fronts in those shopping malls. Texatonka, in particular, has been a real neighborhood shopping mall and Knollwood has served a strong neighborhood purpose as well as drawing traffic off of 169 and Highway 7. I'm real concerned about the way that the viability of those shopping centers affects the viability of the residential neighborhoods that are nearby. When you drive by something like that it begins to affect the neighborhood. You talk about blight, where does blight start. It can start in the neighborhoods themselves or it can start in the commercial areas around, but there's no question that once it starts it tends to catch on a little bit and I think we need to keep, in very much the front of our own minds as we work through this, the fact that whatever comes in, at least from my standpoint, I want to make sure that it compliments whatever existing retail space we have in St. Louis Park and doesn't destroy it. Some of the retail space we have is just hanging on. Some of the particular tenants are just hanging on now and this kind of a competitor on this side of 394 is going to have an impact on neighborhood retail establishments. I think that there's a way that we can work that concern into Council Member Jacob's proposal. I think one of the important considerations will be tenant mix. I mean, there are some tenants which may come in to some sort of a commercial development at this site which aren't 23 • • • , going to have any direct impact on other tenants in our neighborhood shopping centers. There are other tenants who will compete head to head and I don't care what you say about how L close, you know, how other big box retailers are coming in nearby and it's going to draw people there instead of here. Convenience is still a watch word for a lot of people who shop and it is, for me, and like a lot of people in here, I think I consider my time valuable and I'm sometimes willing to pay a few extra cents or a few extra dollars for a product if I can catch it on the way home rather than going out of my way to go to a huge shopping mall to do it. On this which I did not see in the materials was any effort by CB Commercial to specifically market this site as a mixed use development. I appeared to me it was marketed as potentially as residential, it was marketed potentially as commercial, potentially as industrial, but there wasn't any package put together saying this is an ideal situation for a mixed use development and is anyone willing to come in with a mixed use proposal here that would put all of this together? I'm not convinced that we have yet determined what the economic vitality of mixed use would be here and I think we need to look long term enough on this site that we may need to hold this project a little bit until the market catches up with it and that may mean stage development, not just, you know, a hole in one. At this point, I think, we can put enough controls in what Council Member...well, that's where the battle will be, frankly I think, is over what those controls are going to be and ultimately if the City Council has enough control to shape what our priorities are going to be. But if we don't ultimately have enough control to make sure that we're not putting our own local retailers out of business, not to mention some of the other traffic concerns, then I'm not going to be able to support any subsequent comp plan amendment. Because I think that really poses a big issue for the future of our City. What do we want it to look like? I mean, that is the real question. This is a land use decision, what do we want it to look like and we have the control over that right now and I want to make sure that we maintain the control over that. If Ryan is willing to work with us to come up with something which will look the way we want our city to look, all the power to it. If Ryan isn't, I'm willing to look elsewhere to other sources of funding, whether it's through the Metropolitan Council or whether there would be anything left of a tiff district that would be a viable alternative. This is too important a parcel for St. Louis Park not to give it that kind of consideration. Mayor Council Member Dorfman. Council Member Dorfman Mr. Mayor, I just want to follow-up on some questioning that you started. This motion before us is to direct staff to come up to redefine a new mixed use commercial land designation under the comp plan and so, I am too concerned about the process and it ' was suggested that staff should work with Ryan to do that. Let me 24 just start a couple of things. We could probably tell staff just to do it. I mean, clearly they know, sort of, what the interests are out there and that, I-imagine...and we could put that on the table for everybody to participate in that discussion. That would probably come to us much quicker, 'cause the intent here is not to delay ..is to move this forward and not create some barriers to moving along and discussing this. If we, on the other hand, direct staff to do it in consultation with Ryan, and then bring it back to us, then clearly we need to include the community as well. That, I don't know what form that takes, it may call for creating a task force. So, that gets into a slightly different process and so I'm basically thinking the interest of moving it forward because there's still plenty of time for all the interested partners to way into this of just directing staff to do it. But I just wanted to throw that out. Mayor Any comment on that? Council Member Jacobs Well, yeah. I guess my original motion was to direct the staff to prepare a resolution approving the amendment to the comp plan, I think, to change the land use designation for the property, you know, to a designation which describes this mixed use commercial kind of property...or Comprehensive Plan designation. You know, my intent is to get this thing moved forward quickly too. Something tells me that, you know, forming a task force there is not faster way in the world to make it go slowly, than that. And so, I guess I'd like to move something forward. The property sets vacant over there as we speak and I don't know that I want to have it set vacant any longer than we have to. I suppose we could have our staff come up with that, but certainly I want to involve all the interested parties in this at some point down there, because, you know, I guess my...I've said this before, I'll say it again, I guess, my intent is to get some control over the particulars on this. I don't; know that I necessarily want to get protection as to whether as, you know, to protect other businesses. I regard this as a land use planning issue here and I guess, the...my original motion was to have the staff prepare the resolution approving the amendment to this, I suppose when it comes back to us we could then debate the issue whether or not we wanted to have Ryan get involved in that. I don't know. City Attorney Well, Council Member Jacobs and Council Member Dorfman, there are a couple of issued in terms of you are now acting in your legislative capacity. And the reason you have the public hearings and you've had a series of public hearings, both tonight and at the Planning Commission, is to provide you input to exercise your discretion in doing that. I would remind you that the official controls, the zoning ordinance amendment that will come subsequently will also require that series of public hearings and provide an opportunity for comment and concern about the adequacies of the proposals that are set before you. I'm sure the 25 Planning Commission will play an active role in providing some recommendations vis-a-vis that and ultimately when it gets to you there will be the opportunity to discuss whether or not this meets L. the concerns and for you then to exercise your legislative discretion in the capacity of amending the zoning ordinance. Mayor I guess I have a little concern what you just stated Jeff. I have concern about the project that's proposed. I don't want this misunderstood, but I also know that right now Ryan basically has an option on the land and if we expect anything to come out of this I think we need to consider them unless they just all of a sudden just say, what's there, we can't do it. That, I guess, but without that, I mean, as much as we might agree or disagree, I think right now we have to take the fact that I believe they have an option on the land am I correct? Council Member Haun I guess I go with those sentiments. I think we've been...we certainly concerned with the neighborhood or we wouldn't be listening to you tonight. I think we certainly are taking that into consideration, but I think, in all fairness, the developer has been fair on this project. It's been about a year and I think whether this project goes or doesn't go I think we owe it to them to give them an answer at some point in time. Whether it's up or down, I really think they need to know. I don't think by committing them for several more months of negotiations, it's not going to work and I guess that's only being fair to the developer. I think that if the project...and I've said this all along, that I think you can carry a project so far and then I think you have to be fair to both sides. Both to the community and the developer and I think it's only fair that we make a decision. I agree with most of the things that were said, that I don't know exactly what we're doing here. We're creating a mixed use area and there again, I'm not going to ask them to answer the question tonight, but, I mean, I don't know if Ryan is interested in a mixed use area. Ryan I mean our...my concern is that you've heard tonight from the experts and it's come up many other times that if you want to drive something that's not market driven, and what you're talking about is not market driven on this site, there needs to be subsidy and we've got one or two council members that agree to subsidy and one or two that are saying no and I mean, I'm going to be real honest, I still don't see a consensus, I don't know how it can happen. And time marches on in the meantime, Honeywell's got empty property that is currently guided and zoned and if I was them I certainly would resist any dramatic down zoning. It's already happened once on the four years. I think that the conditional use permit or process would put plenty of controls on the property if there was specific areas of concern I've told staff that for the last couple weeks we would be glad to address them or have them conditions. But, we need to know if we got a project or not and Honeywell 26 needs to know what they've got to sell I guess and we need to get on with this. My biggest concern is we've just had five council people speak and there's„ five different views of what should happened and...so, we've got one vote for five different projects. It just doesn't work that way. We're real conc...we just don't know what to say I guess or what to do. Mayor Would you prefer it voted up or down? Ryan Well, I guess. Mayor We certainly can do it, I guess. Ryan Yeah, I understand. I guess I'm not even sure what everybody is trying to do tonight. I guess... Mayor I don't know either. I just say we can go to that side. Ryan What I'd like to know is if there's going to be a vote first for a mixed use development. First I'd like a vote for public subsidy because without the subsidy there can't be a mixed use. And at least then that settles that issue. That's being honest. City Attorney Mr. Mayor, Mr. Harmoning will...has described the process. The council is acting tonight on the comp plan amendment not on a project. So, we need to remain focused on what you're being asked to do. And I thinks that's the part of Mr. Jacob's motion. It's that admonishes to remain focused on the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in terms of guidance and the other issues come subsequently. Council Member ? Mr. Mayor, I just want to make a point or two. My understanding is there going through this processes is that there was a lengthy span in the last year when the City didn't have a whole lot of contact from Ryan because Ryan was working on trying to nail down tenants. Well, I don't remember it coming up before the Council every week or every other week and the application for comp plan was only make within the last...change was only made within the last couple of months. So, I don't know that the City or the Council has been dragging it's feet on this. We're talking about a monumental property in St. Louis Park and I think as Council Member Dorfman said, we owe it to the citizens here to decide what do we visualize for that site. I, for one, visualize more than just big box retail with actually some greenways in there and perhaps with some move up housing in there and some actual connections to the other properties that are around there and I can tell you the apartment vacancy rate in St. Louis Park is three percent. I mean, no one's gonna convince that you can't build market rate apartments there and rent all of them. The townhome market is rebounding in St. Louis Park and the condo market is 27 strong. I mean, I'm convinced that there is a residential market there. I'm not sure that that's the only use, but there are a number of developments including a Laurel village downtown which mixes high rises and low rises and some street level retail which could meet the needs of the people who live in that vicinity. So, you end up bringing in your own market to a large degree. That's the kind of thing that I visualize. Maybe it means that we have to wait for a little while. One of the items in this...in the materials that we got, and I think it was materials supplied by the developer or one of the developer's consultants said that if it goes back industrial, it probably...Honeywell's next option was to send it back to some sort of a warehouse use and that was probably a short term use, which means we're not likely to get a smoke house industry in here.. a smoke stack industry and we're likely to end up with another short term use which may mean that the market will change in the next couple of years and we can re-visit this. I'm prepared to move forward to a certain degree with some of this stuff. I think there is some merit to what we want to do here, but I'm not prepared, right now, to enable just a large retail development which, frankly, in terms of jobs and customers is going to draw a lot of people from outside of St. Louis Park and I want to make sure it directly benefits St. Louis Park. Long term, I think this site is more important than just a large big box retail. I've expressed those views from the very beginning, so no one is surprised...or should be surprised that that's ultimately where I've come down on this. But, I will admit I came here tonight not quite sure what I was going to do. Council Member Young I'll probably get off the track a little bit here, but I have a lot of constituents who had concerns about traffic. And a lot of numbers have been bandied about. There was a flier that used the number 17,000...the flier is unsigned, which is illegal by the way, but I've heard other numbers of 13,000. I understand our traffic consultant is here, is that correct? I'd live to hear what the truth is. We're talking about somewhere between maybe 1,000 increase in traffic per day to one that's 7,000 and I'd like to shed some accuracy on some of these numbers. Sheldon Johnson My name is Sheldon Johnson, I'm employed by bonus through Rocine Anderlicht and Associates, 2335 W. Highway 36, in St. Paul. The average daily traffic that would be generated by the development that was proposed for this Comprehensive Plan would be approximately 17,000 vehicle per day. Now, not all of those are new trips. That's not all new traffic. Some of that traffic, approximately 40% is already out there on the roadway system. So, if you multiply approximately 17,000 by .6, you get approximately 10,000. So, you're talking about 5,000 trips going in the development and 5,000 going out that are brand new to the roadway system. Those are the numbers you can hang your hat • on from a planning standpoint. 28 • Council Member Jacobs Though your report, as I read it here, says 13,500. Sheldon Johnson Now, you're talking about,just Cedar Lake Road? Council Member Jacobs Right. Yeah, I'm talking about Cedar Lake Road. Sheldon Johnson Oh, 1,300 to 1,500 per day. That's what you'll see increase on Cedar Lake Road. Council Member Jacobs Not 17,000 on Cedar Lake Road. Sheldon Johnson No...no...no, not 17,000. Council Member Jacobs That's the number that shows up on this flier. So, what affect would that have on Cedar Lake Road with regard to whether any additional changes would be needed west of Zarthan? Sheldon Johnson That won't require any changes to Cedar Lake Road in terms of what you're going to build out there, I think, next year. It will be a two lane street. Council Member Jacobs No wide lane road, no four lanes, no...all sorts of other changes? Sheldon Johnson No, this development will not require that you do anything to improve Cedar Lake Road. Council Member 'Jacobs Thank you. Second question. More to the...I guess to either Ryan or to Honeywell. I know there's a wish that we could have mixed use and maybe that's still possible, but what impact of the fact that you have a very old building that needs to be torn down, has asbestos issues and things like that, what is the cost of tearing that down and how does that impact the cost of any kind of future apartment or mixed use development? Ryan I don't know. Some of the other uses that we've been talking about tonight don't carry the land values that commercial or industrial would. It's costing approximately two and a half million dollars to tear the building down, clean it up and tear out the old asphalt...two and a half million dollars. Council Member Jacobs So, that would inhibit, in some way, some uses that are less... Ryan Makes the land that much more expensive. I mean, for that matter, yeah. 111 Council Member Jacobs Unlike the situation in Edina where they had a gravel pit. I guess the final point I'd make is that I am concerned about industrial use remaining on this property. I'm concerned that that could worsen what's there now, could double the size. I know of a company that's interested in putting in distribution in there which sounds a lot 29 like what Council Member Jacobs was talking about before, with a lot of traffic and a lot of trucks and so I'm especially concerned that we get this off an industrial designation and I support the motion so that we can at least move towards getting it off the industrial. If it goes to commercial/mixed use fine, but let's get it off industrial. Council Member Jacobs Mr. Mayor. I can understand the frustration of the developer because I've hear a lot of people...we've gone in different directions here and I think a lot of that has to do with the complexity of the issue, the size of the project and the impact that it will have on the City, not only tomorrow, but well into the next century. You know, let me just tell you where I'm at on this. I, frankly, when I first heard of this development, I thought, I think it's a nice idea, I think it's a little big, but I'm not adverse to the commercial development that Ryan has proposed here. I got a concern about traffic and I've got a concern about, you know, the kind of the impact that it's going to have on the appearance and sort of the flavor of, you know, what is obviously a main entry point to the City of St. Louis Park. What I'm trying to do with this motion is to get things moved forward here because I, you know, I think frankly, you know, from what I've heard here this evening, if we voted up or down on the issue of commercial, it's going to die, we going to leave it industrial. I think that's a bad idea. Now, I'm just one guy out of seven here. And, you know, I want to...I would like to have something very similar to what they've shown us here this evening, go forward. I have a concern about the size, the sea of parking, but my main issue here is the control of the size and layout of the development as proposed because I think that's, you know, at least that I've heard in discussions with this Council in study session and even some of it has been expressed this evening. My main issue and the main intent of this motion is to get this moved forward because I'm not real sure what a mixed use/commercial development really is going to be, I haven't make that decision yet tonight and I'm not sure whether that's something that we necessarily want to approve or disapprove and that's why included language in here that does not approve or disapprove any particular site plan. I want to have a designation in here that will allow the Council some control over the development over what we would have if we were to simply, you know, institute a comprehensive plan amendment coupled within a subsequent zoning designation for commercial. It doesn't give us that kind of control. I think I would like that, but at the same time I'd kind of like to see this project move forward here and maybe this is the only way for that to happen because I think frankly, the reality is that if we were to vote it up or down on the issue of just straight commercial it would probably fail and I don't want to see that happen because I think that would be adverse for the City and '�- certainly adverse for that neighborhood and so that kind of is where I'm at. 30 -T"•--•-•-ter--. t i. r. ., Council Member Haun Mr. Mayor. I guess I'd echo Council Member Jacob's sentiments. I think that the only way I'll support the motion that we presently have in forward is I think that I would like to ask Ryan to come back on June 5th, two weeks from tonight, determining what is in this motion, giving you time to think about it and come back and tell us if you're still interested in this project. I think it's only fair to you, I think it's fair to the neighborhood. I don't think there's any sense in carrying this thing on another two months, three months down the road for anybody. I think the neighborhood wants to know what's going to happen, you want to know what's going to happen and I think within two week, based on the language, it's the only way I'm going to support this because I think we've got to make a decision here. I agree with Council Member Jacobs. Based on the fact...it's not going to...I can tell you right now, if we voted based on just changing it from commercial and leaving it industrial it's not going make it baby, it ain't going to make it, I can tell you that right now. It needs five votes. It's only got two and a half right now. Mayor I think that I've taken everything, unless we ask questions from the audience. We had the public hearing and I closed it so, I'm sorry to that, but I think that we're...unless we have more discussions, unless you're ready for the question, any more...yes. Council Member Mr. Mayor, Council Member Haun just raised some timing issue there and that is the issue that is of some concern to me. I believe I understand the motion and the intent behind the motion as it's been discussed. It would be the expectation of this Council, I assume, to have the staff bring back a resolution responsive to the motion and staff has no more important issue that is before us than this development project. In addition, we have had a good working relationship with Ryan, even though we have had differences in terms of what the recommendations have been relative to the project. We would be happy and eager to work with Ryan in terms of this particular site. I would like to suggest to the Council that if there is an absolute expectation that a clear cut resolution responsive to the motion tonight will be presented on June 5th, that we may need the discretion of being able to report back to Council if it is possible for us to produce a resolution with findings that's consistent with the motion by June 5th, we would do that. But, I have to indicate to the Council that in order for us to really understand this, because we are creating a somewhat different...a different concept under the Comprehensive Plan that we may not be able to come back with something as definitive as the motion is calling for by June 5th. But we would report back by June 5th. Council Member Haun Mr. Mayor, in answer to our City Manager's information, I only suggested that Ryan be privy to the information that you are working on. I did not ask-that you had to come back. I think they'll fully be aware of, in two weeks time, what you're contemplating in this resolution, even though it's not down on paper, they're going to 31 know what it is. All I'm saying to them is that gives them a window to discuss...I certainly don't want to ask them the question tonight, I don't think that's fair. And I think that they need this time and I think the public and the constituents out there need a decision and I think that, again, I think it's unfair to ask them to answer that tonight, it give them time, they certainly know what the motion is, it doesn't have to be on the table. They certainly going to be in contact with out planning director, they certainly know what the content of the motion is and I think they'll have enough information at that point in time to determine if they're still interested in this project or not. That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking for it to come back and have that on the table. Mayor You look like you're confused Mr. City Manager. City Manager Not me boss. Mayor I guess that I sit in my chair wanting to support in the worst way and will support the motion because I don't like the alternative. I do have to admit that many people are going to go home and say, you know, what did that council do and I don't know that I could tell them tomorrow morning what we've done because I think we are in a position where I am going to read what I'm reading into this motion so that no one jumps me next week and says you got rid of that. What I'm reading into this motion is that we are going to look at this in conjunction with Ryan. We might be able to work through ,— their project and fine tune and maybe make some changes here or there and so forth, and make the project go. We might come back with something that...completely that Ryan says we just can't do it with what we paid for the property. Those are all alternatives which, if you ask me what we did tomorrow morning, is the development going to go, I would have to get my coin out and flip it and say I don't know. But I think that what we are doing is getting it off from my biggest concern is that we don't end up with some kind of an industrial use. I don't think a smoke stack could make it up there in today's pollution control, but that we get it off from industrial use and that we start moving it forward and I have my greatest for the developer will do the best that he can, but if the numbers say that they can't, I assume they can't, and they should know that in two weeks. But, the position I'm in doesn't come as any surprise 'cause I've had a hard time with the size and I would agree with someone that spoke from the neighborhood that if a developer comes, Ryan is as good as there is and they've done great work for us. It's one of those things. Anyone else want to comment before we call the question? You know what you're doing now, you told me. Council Member Jacobs Now I figured it out. What I'm asking is that the Council, I expect, is looking for a resolution to be returned on June 5th, which is three weeks from tonight, out next council meeting, and that what 32 • I'm asking is the understanding that we may come back and request a...if we cannot product a resolution that answers the motion that wer,may, ask for a deferral on that date, but I'm I assuming that the Council is not looking for an indefinite opening as to when that resolution comes back, so I'm suggesting the next council meeting, with the understanding that it may need to be deferred if it's not completed at that point. Mayor And hopefully not. I . 1 . , 33 8a Second reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment related to Group Homes; Ordinance 95-2030. This ordinance amendment increases the residents permitted in group homes in the R-2 ill I District from six to nine. John Trepp, Executive Director of Desks, Ltd., representing group ', homes, advised that both the existing and proposed residency language are acceptable It was moved by Councilmember Haun, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to waive second reading and adopt Ordinance 95-2030, entitled "An ordinance amending the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code related to zoning by amending Section 14:5-4.3(C)(1)." The motion passed 5-0. 8b. Second reading of ordinance approving amendment to 1995 budget; Ordinance 95- 2031. It was moved by Councilmember Dorfman, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to waive reading and adopt Ordinance 95-2031, entitled "An ordinance amending the 1995 budget as adopted by Ordinance 94-2015." The motion passed 5-0. 8c. First reading of ordinance amendment related to adoption the Minnesota Uniform 111 Fire Code by reference; Section 8-301. It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Haun, to waive first reading, authorize summary publication, and set second reading for June 5, 1995. The motion passed 5-0. 8d. First reading of Ordinance Code amendment related to expansion of parks for pets. Code Section 6-406(L). It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Dorfman, to waive first reading, set second reading for June 5, and authorize summary publication of the ordinance which expands the pets-in-parks program to include six additional parks with paved walking trails: Aquila, Carpenter, Oak Hill, Shelard, Wolfe Park and Otten Pond. The motion passed 4-1 (Mayor Hanks opposed). Responding to Councilmember Jacobs, the City Manager stated the publicity related to permitted parks would be with signs and other publications -- however signs have been the most effective in the past. , Councilmember Haun directed staff to return in six months with a report on the number of problems or lack thereof resulting from the program, so the City may evaluate its effect upon the community. • Later in the meeting, Councilmember Latz apologized for being absent during this item, but wished the Council to know he was in Oak Park Village the previous day and looked in vain for a place on the ground to sit that was not contaminated with dog droppings. He cautioned the need to monitor the situation closely, especially when any further expansion is proposed. Mayor Hanks reported droppings are found where children play in BroWndale Park, and dogs are not permitted in that park. REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS AND COMMITTEES 9a Amendments to Board of Zoning Appeals Rules of Procedure. The Mayor explained that proposed changes to the Board's Rules and Regulations must be submitted to the Council for review; if the Council elects not to modify the proposed amendments, they become effective immediately. - Following brief discussion of the "rail" and its former location, it was moved by Councilmember Young as a former member of the Board, seconded by Councilmember Dorfman, to approve the rules of procedure as presented. The motion passed 6-0. I 9b. Neighborhood Revitalization Commission minutes of April 12. 1995. Approved by consent: 9c. City Engineer's report: Reconstruction of sanitary sewer lift station at 37th Street/Minnehaha Creek. Proiect 95-04; Resolution 95-70. It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Haun, to adopt Resolution 95-70, entitled "Resolution accepting the City Engineer's Report Project 95-04, establishing, ordering, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids." The motion passed 6-0. , 9d. City Engineer's Report: Reconstruction of 37th Street at Minnehaha Creek Bridge approaches. Project 90-52, Resolution 95-71 It was moved by Councilmember Dorfman, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to approve Resolution 95-71, entitled "Resolution accepting City Engineer's report, Project No. 90-52, establishing, ordering, approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids." The motion passed 6-0. 9e. Proposed trail agreement with the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District (Hennepin Parks) This cooperative agreement would take the first steps toward acquisition,.development, maintenance and operation of a southwest regional trail. It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Haun, that the Council direct staff to work with Hennepin Parks staff on the development of a cooperative agreement. The motion passed 6-0. 9f-9h. April 1995 financial report; Planning Commission April 19 minutes, Housing Authority April 11 minutes, Parks and Recreation Commission May 11 minutes. The above items were received for filing by consent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10a. Appointments to Boards and Commissions. (1)Bassett Creek Watershed Board Alternative Commissioner; Resolution 95-73. It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Haun, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 95-73, entitled "A resolution appointing alternate commissioner to fill unexpired term on the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission Board (Engineering Supervisor Carlton Moore)." The motion passed 6-0. (2) Community Education Advisory Counci and Human Rights Commission. It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Dorfman, to appoint Ann Bauer to CIAC, and Jay Levinson to the Human Rights Commission. The motion passed 6-0. (3) VACANCIES. The Mayor said the absences on the various boards and commissions should be advertised in both the television and newspaper. He stressed that persons having filed interest forms in the past and who remain interested in serving should call and request inclusion on the lists of candidates. Councilmember Jacobs encourged people to apply whether or not there is a vacancy on a particular board or commission, because often members leave the City or resign from commissions on a frequent basis. 10b. Lighting at Dakota East softball field. Deferred to June 5, 1995. NEW BUSINESS 11a. 1995 Arbotect infection contract. Bid tabulation It was moved by Councilmember Haun, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to designate Rainbow Treecare lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of contract. The motion passed 6-0. 11b. Bid tabulation, air handling system upgrade City Hall. Project MB-90-21, Resolution 95-72. Following comments upon the evening's need for an improved air system, it was moved by Councilmember Haun, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 95-72, entitled "Resolution accepting bid and authorizing execution of contract with Faircon Service for upgrade of air handling system in City Hall." The motion passed 6-0. MISCELLANEOUS 12a. Damage claim -- Maria Polonsky -- by consent referred to City Clerk and City Manager. 12b Communications from Mayor. Mayor Hanks announced the AMM annual meeting date and place, stated he and the City Manager will be attending, and interested Councilmembers may contact Pat Smith. The Council requested that the AMM reservation form be furnished along with the next packet. 12c. Communications from City Manager Mr. Meyer reminded the Council and the public of the upcoming community celebration and ice-cream social sponsored by Children First which is expected to be bigger and better than 1994. He believed it does a nice job in terms of pulling the community together. The Council discussed the possiblity of July 11 for a meeting on AVR. CLAIMS, APPROPRITIONS AND CONTRACT PAYMENTS 13a. The list of verified claims prepared by the City Manager and the Finance Director was approved and payment authorized by consent. ADJOURNMENT 14. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous vote at 10: 30 p.m. 111 'yor Respectfully submitted, I&m4r641J Recording Secretary Beverly Flanagan