HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/12/10 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular CITY OF OFFICIAL MINUTES
ST. LOUIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PARK ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
December 20, 1999
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7 35 p m
2. Presentations - None
3. Roll Call
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call Ron Latz, Sue Santa, Robert Young,
and Mayor Jeff Jacobs
Chris Nelson arrived at 7 40 p m
Also present were the City Manager(Mr Meyer), City Attorney (Mr Scott), Economic
Development Coordinator (Mr Kleve), Planning Manager (Ms Jeremiah), Police Chief(Mr
Luse), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr Moore), Public Works Director(Mr Rardin),
Housing Programs Coordinator(Ms Larsen), and Recording Secretary (Ms Olson)
4. Approval of Minutes
4a. City Council Meeting of December 6, 1999
The minutes were approved as presented
4b. Study Session meeting of September 13, 1999
The minutes were approved as presented with changes
Page 19, Item 3, delete Paragraph 4 starting with"Councilmember Latz "
Page 17, last paragraph of Item 1, change last sentence to"Mr Moore suggested residents living
within a block and half on the East side of the noise wall should be invited to an educational
meeting and there will be a meeting in January with residents on the West side"
4c. Study Session meeting of September 27, 1999
The minutes were approved as presented with change
Page 24, Item 8, change address to "4312 Coolidge Avenue South"
4d. Study Session meeting of October 25, 1999
The minutes were approved as presented
Council Meeting Minutes -2- December 20, 1999
4e. Study Session meeting of November 8, 1999
The minutes were approved as presented with change
Page 27, Item 1, Paragraph 6, change first sentence to read "Councilmember Nelson stated that
during comprehensive planning discussions, it was suggested that the designation be
commercial/office"
4f. Study Session meeting of November 22, 1999
The minutes were approved as presented with changes
Page 30, Item 1, Paragraph 3, change "eminent domain" to "slow-take"
Page 31, Item 3, add comments "Councilmember Nelson does not want to see repeated sweeps
of the City each time looking for different violations" and "There was a discussion that the
Inspections Department already has a checklist in place where they look at certain things and
they could adopt that for survey type enforcement"
4g. Study Session meeting of July 26, 1999
The minutes were approved as presented with change
Page 34, Item 6, add comments "Councilmember Nelson was opposed to the trade area
restrictions and the continuation of charitable gambling authority"
5. Approval of Agendas
a. Consent Agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the
consent agenda with the removal of Item 8f and Item 8h The motion passed 5-0
b. Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by CouncilmemberSanta, to approve the
agenda with the removal of Item 11 d and addition of Item 8f and Item 8h Motion passed 5-0
c. Resolutions and Ordinances
By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions andordinances
6. Public Hearings
6a. Zarthan Ave/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District
Mr Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator presented a staff report
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing
Council Meeting Minutes -3- December 20, 1999
Mr Kleve asked that a memorandum dated 12/15/99 from Sandra L Vargas, Hennepin County
Administrater be entered into the public record
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing subject to the right of the Council to reopen it at a future
date
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt the
resolution establishing the Zarthan Ave/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District within
Redevelopment Project No 1 and adopting the Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor
7. Petitions, Requests, Communication
7a. Variance Appeal, 6200 Minnetonka Boulevard
Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator presented a staff report which identified three
alternatives for the City Council
1 The City Council may uphold the decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals If the
Council chooses this option, they should move to deny the variance request and uphold the
Board of Zoning Appeals' Resolution of Findings denying the variance
2 The City Council may grant a variance to permit a fence in the front yard with a height of
six feet instead of the maximum 3 5 feet IF the Council chooses this option, they should
indicated their findings and direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval with the findings to
present at the January 3, 2000 City Council meeting
3 Based on a recommendation of the BOZA, the City Council may direct staff to research
the fence section of the Zoning Ordinance again to determine whether the code is still
appropriate This recommendation could be in conjunction with Alternative 1 or 2
Mr Moore stated that staff recommended that the City Council choose Alternative 1
Councilmember Nelson asked why there was a delay in enforcement from December 15, 1997 to
February 25, 1999
Mr Moore explained that he prepared a letter on January 5, 1998 to be sent to the applicant,
however the Director at that time, who is no longer with the City, said he was going to handle the
enforcement of this issue
Councilmember Latz asked if this was a new question before the Council
Mr Moore indicated that this was not a new question The code permits that the same variance
can be applied for six months after it has been denied
Councilmember Latz suggested changing that provision in the code permitting unlimited number
of reapplications in order to save administrative time
Councilmember Nelson asked if that provision stopped the City from continuing enforcement
Council Meeting Minutes -4- December 20, 1999
Mr Moore indicated that a written agreement was signed where the applicant agreed with the
City to suspend any further enforcement of the code allowing him the right to go through the
111
appeal process one more time and in the event that the city council decided not to approve the
variance then Mr Manthey has agreed to bring the fence into compliance
James Lundgren, Attorney representing Mr Manthey explained his involvement in the process
He indicated that Mr Manthey does not want to take the fence down because of livability issues
He indicated that this thoroughfare was different than a residential street in a quiet part of St
Louis Park where the zoning requirements were appropriate He submitted that Minnetonka
Boulevard was not appropriate in order to obtain livability on that thoroughfare He
recommended that the City complete a comprehensive planning study of this area or table the
motion at this time, at least until Susan Sanger who is Mr Manthey's representative would be
available He believed that this was more than just one stubborn guy with a fence, but impacts a
lot of neighbors who have shown support and feel they are in a similar situation
Mr Manthey stated that this issue was not about a six feet fence, but rather the fact that
Minnetonka Boulevard and the intersection of Brunswick and Blackstone were going to be
impacted greatly by the upcoming changes in the railroad as indicated in the Railroad Study of
March, 1999 and Hennepin County's plan to widen Minnetonka Boulevard He stated that he
brought this up to BOZA and City Council three years ago and believes we are failing to see the
sagacity of the issue and trying to be a motivater in the community to address these issues He
indicated that he would like to have his issue tabled until this whole comprehensive planning
study can be done to see the true impacts to his neighborhood and Councilmember Sanger would
be present
Mr Meyer, City Manager clarified that there was not an item on the agenda relative to the rail
issue and there were no changes under consideration by the Council tonight He gave a brief
update on the current process that the City was in regarding the Railroad Study and stated that it
would be at least 18 months before there would even be any recommendations for commuter rail
He stated that he was not aware that Hennepin County has anything in there capital plan that
calls for that work to be done
James Lundgren, Attorney representing Mr Manthey, stated that the wall has been there for 3
years and designed originally that it would not pose a safety hazard to traffic He asked that
given the period of time that is has been there, and given the fact that it doesn't appear to pose a
safety hazard that perhaps allowing the livability to continue until some of these other issues
have been resolved
Councilmember Nelson asked if there were other members of the audience that were going to
speak to the variance issues
Mayor Jacobs stated that he would like to keep the comments on the issues that are relevant to
the variance issues and not the rail issue or Minnetonka Boulevard He asked if there was
anyone present wishing to speak on the variance itself
Heather Ofterdahl, 2936 Blackstone Avenue South, asked why the City didn't want a fence at
this location and how this was decided
Council Meeting Minutes -5- December 20, 1999
Mayor Jacobs explained that all cities were required to look at 7 statutory factors in terms of
granting a variance and that the ordinances have to uniformly be applied and enforced
throughout the City
Mr Scott, City Attorney indicated that was a question of whether or not there was something
unique about this particular property that would create some undue hardship and therefore the
City should not apply our general rules to this particular property
Mr Meyer, City Manager explained that the Council had to consider and apply many
discretionary factors, but the courts have decided that these questions have to be asked and
answered
Mr Mayor indicated that the variance was denied the first time because five out of the seven
factors were not met
Councilmember Latz asked what the basis was for claiming that the fence having been there in
violation of the ordinance for three years ought to get credit for having been there for three years
Mr Manthey stated that there visibility triangles that were met when the fence was designed
Mr Lundgren stated he was not suggested that that fence isn't out of compliance, but what we
are saying is that there is no evidence that this fence has caused any safety problems in three
years and we are just stating the fact that the fence has been there for three years due to the lack
of action for three years had something to do with the City not moving very rapidly toward
enforcement
Councilmember Latz stated that the fact that it hasn't been enforced for three years is not an
issue The fact is that from the beginning Mr Manthey was aware that he was in violation of the
ordinance, and it was his obligation to be in compliance with the ordinance whether or not the
staff takes affirmative steps to enforce the ordinance He asked how this home was different
than any other on Minnetonka Boulevard in that area
Mr Lundgren stated that the problem exists all along that corridor of Minnetonka Boulevard and
some of the houses have six feet walls who are fortunate enough to have a side-yard facing
Minnetonka Boulevard He stated that this was not a unique property in that situation
Councilmember Latz believed that the implication was to change the height requirement along
Minnetonka Boulevard for all homes
Mr Lundgren believed that the environment would call for this, but he was asking that it be
modified for his property since his circumstances are unique
Mr Manthey exclaimed that his property was unique because of the presence of a narrow bridge,
increased traffic, increased bus traffic, slowing of traffic at his intersection that causes accidents,
and future increase in rail traffic He showed pictures of other six feet fences in the
neighborhood and explained other fences in surrounding area He provided a petition with 116
resident signatures stating they approved of the fence
Council Meeting Minutes -6- December 20, 1999
Mr Scott indicated that all the fences shown were researched and they are all in the sideyard
abutting the street
Councilmember Latz asked if there was anything in the record indicating Councilmember
Sanger's viewpoint
Councilmember Nelson researched the past minutes and found that "Councilmember Sanger
emphasized that the high fence was not in accord with the livable community principles and she
made the motion to uphold the BOZA decision"
Councilmember Latz believed this was not a questions of safety, but how the residents in St
Louis Park look to people who walk and travel Minnetonka Boulevard The current fence that
exists does not look welcoming at all and it should not be any surprise to any purchaser of that
property that they are purchasing one with a front door on Minnetonka Boulevard There is no
doubt that traffic has increased and the railroad is an issue, but they are an issue for a lot more
than this particular property and therefore this property is not unique He had a concern about
tabling this issue since the Council wouldn't have any idea of when these issues that would be
addressed He was opposed to the request for the variance
Mr Manthey stated that Councilmember Latz suggested that he built the fence knowing the
ordinance and went against the ordinance He indicated that he did not do this He was
cognoscente of his plans, wrote them up and brought the plans to the City and they said good job,
go for it After ten days, City Staff stopped by and suggested the fact that there was a complaint
and he was building the fence at an inappropriate height and could discontinue building the fenceI/
or continue building the fence and apply for a zoning variance He stated he did not start the
fence with bad intentions
Councilmember Latz stated that he appreciated Mr Manthey making the comments because he
had a conversation with Mr Manthey today about this fact and since Mr Manthey had not
pointed this fact out in initial presentation after the staff report suggested to Councilmember Latz
that Mr Manthey was dropping the issue
Mr Moore briefly reviewed the background of the inspection in response to a complaint He
stated that he did not tell Mr Manthey that one of his options would be to finish the fence and
apply for the variance, but rather he told him the fence could not be constructed at the 6 feet
height It is up to the individual resident to research and know the ordinance requirements in
regards to the fence height He agreed that in starting the fence, if Mr Manthey came to the City
two times this showed that he thought he was doing the right thing
Mr Manthey stated it was unfortunate he did not have the opportunity to speak with Mr Moore
at the time, he would have gotten better information and he would not have started the fence
knowingly that it was against the variance
Councilmember Latz stated that the problem was that Mr Manthey did finish the fence knowing
it was against the variance
Council Meeting Minutes -7- December 20, 1999
Councilmember Nelson stated that he knows Mr Manthey and he likes him, but he voted against
the variance request on December 15, 1997 He believed that Mr Manthey acted in good faith,
but that is not really relevant He was not in favor of tabling this issue He agrees that there has
been increased traffic, but doesn't see it as an issue of hardship because it is the same all down
Minnetonka Boulevard He believes that is important to try to get Hennepin County to take care
of this road He briefly commented on the other issues raised, but didn't believe that they made
this a particularly sensitive area He was not in favor of a row of six feet fences along
Minnetonka Boulevard He was in favor of upholding BOZA's decision to deny the variance
request and recommended discussing increased noise and traffic on the collectors and highways
in St Louis Park at a study session
Councilmember Santa concurred with Councilmember Latz and Nelson and didn't believe that
the issue has changed from three years ago and there were no new factors introduced
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to uphold the Board
of Zoning Appeals' decision to deny the variance request The motion passed 5-0
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. PPL Louisiana Court Redevelopment Project
Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator presented a staff report She indicated that Steve
Bubul of Kennedy and Graven was present to answer questions
Councilmember Latz was in support of the project and stated that he had been working with PPL
and Perspectives
Councilmember Young was concerned about condemnation since in previous discussions the
Council felt that they didn't want to do that and had such bad luck in the past with legal costs and
much higher prices
Mayor Jacobs believed there were initial steps authorizing the process to be started if it was
deemed necessary
Mr Bubul pointed out that the actual condemnation would be handled by the Housing Authority
and the resolution that is before the Council is to approve that and request that the Housing
Authority move forward at the Housing Authority's option if PPL has demonstrated that it has
exhausted its effort to acquire that property Then if the Housing Authority chooses it can file
condemnation with the understanding that both parties are going to be paying 50% of the
condemnation while the action was going forward If the point where there is a deposit to be
made in order to acquire the property under a quick take, that is going to come at the same time
that the City is prepared to issue the bonds and then the bond proceeds would be used to actually
acquire the property
Councilmember Young asked what would happen if there was a price that wasn't acceptable
Mr Bubul indicated that at this point the City has analyzed the prospects and have determined
the project was feasible
Council Meeting Minutes -8- December 20, 1999
Councilmember Young questioned if the project was going to include all the buildings
Mayor Jacobs stated that there were four properties, owned by two different owners that have not
responded
Councilmember Latz noted that these buildings were located in Louisiana Court in a place where
there acquisition would be critical to the success of the overall project and they include two of
the worst buildings in Louisiana Court If those two properties are not acquired, there would be
no value in moving forward
Councilmember Young asked what would happen if the City can't obtain these properties
through the condemnation process
Councilmember Latz believed the project would go away since the project would not make sense
without those buildings He noted that the condemnation process involved with the Hutchinson
Spur property was a unique property that was very difficult to find comparables for purposes of
evaluation, but was not the case in this project
Councilmember Young was opposed to the project He believed that there was a perception in
this neighborhood that this was a real problem area and the solution was that the City take over
through a partnership with PPL which would reduce the number of units available to low income
people by consolidating some of the one bedrooms into three bedrooms He believed that there
was an element of social engineering being introduced indicating that the new management will
be able to help the people to be better individuals and he didn't know if they asked for that, but
that is what they will get if this goes through He also believed it involves some cosmetic
changes to the buildings He felt that there was going to be a lot of public expenditure and risk
to the City and in the end these solutions were not going to change the perception of the
neighborhood and would not accomplish what the we think we are going to accomplish
Councilmember Nelson was in support of the project which facilitates an ownership change He
pointed out the similarity of this project to the significant changes at Meadowbrook He believed
that the neighborhood perception would change over time and if the City could start in the right
direction then that was a good goal He also noted that the City was fully secured on this project
and that changing the number of units was addressing a different low income need
Mr Bubul clarified how the building mix was identified and the process of condemnation
Councilmember Nelson asked if the leases were terminated if deemed necessary to facilitate a
change
Lisa Krueger, Consultant to PPL, indicated that there were many units that were on month-to-
month leases and there was plenty of time to assess the situation on the units with annual leases
and there was considerable flexibility in terms of relocation
Councilmember Nelson asked if part of the problem at Louisiana Court was tenant related and if
there was a need to relocate people and was that a legal possibility or impossibility
Council Meeting Minutes -9- December 20, 1999
Barb McCormick, PPL stated that one of the reasons that the project was going to be managed by
acquisition and then a delay before construction is that in her experience, one of the most
important things to do was to establish a new management philosophy and the controls necessary
which would make it very clear about what the expectations for acceptable tenant behavior was
and then the management would have legal action necessary to assure that the lease terms were
respected She indicated that it was not PPL's intent to have wide spread dislocation by virtue of
this project She indicated that those who have existing leases would be offered the new lease
that assures them a specific rent for a certain time and would be evaluated case by case She
stated that all tenants were going to be required to sign new leases
Mark Ruff, Ehlers and Associates stated that his understanding has been that the City was not
intending to buying out any existing leases
Councilmember Latz believed that the goals of the project were important and could be
accomplished by the proposal presented
Mayor Jacobs supported the project and believed that the risk of doing nothing was that the City
would continue to deal with a blighted area which has many problems He was comfortable that
the City's financial investment is secure and protected
Councilmember Young explained that in the end the net was going to be a reduction in the
number of people and not just the number of units at Louisiana Court He stated that he would
be all for this if this was a Meadowbrook, but believed that this was not a Meadowbrook and
couldn't be compared since there was not the help of a Cop Shop, Linda Trummer, Hospital
Foundation and the City with tough inspections requirements
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt a resolution
authonzing execution of Contract for Redevelopment by and among the City of St Louis Park,
the St Louis Park Housing Authority and Project for Pride in Living The motion passed 4-1,
Councilmember Young opposed
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution
authonzing execution of Cooperation Agreement between the City of St Louis Park and
Housing Authority of St Louis Park The motion passed 4-1, Councilmember Young opposed
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution
requesting condemnation of certain real estate by the Housing Authority The motion passed 4-
1, Councilmember Young opposed
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution
giving preliminary approval to a proposed issue of multifamily housing revenue bonds The
motion passed 4-1, Councilmember Young opposed
8b. Towing Contract for Years 2000 through 2004
John Luse, Police Chief presented a staff report
The Council discussed the appropriate and legal action to be taken
Council Meeting Minutes -10- December 20, 1999
Mr Scott, City Attorney indicated that the Council had to award the lowest responsible bidder
the contract
John Mulligan, Attorney representing Schmit Towing was present Mr Schmit, Schmit Towing
was present
Mr Mulligan briefly explained the content of the letter that he had sent to the City He stated
that knowing that the contract was revenue neutral the City ought to choose a company with
integrity and who had not disregarded any other prior contracts
Markus Hughes, 3635 Hampshire Avenue South, All Hours Towing was present and briefly
responded to the violations He also presented a letter from the City of Golden Valley related to
the impound lot identifed as a possible loction by Schmit Towing
It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to recommend that
the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Manger to execute the attached five-year contract
with All Hours Towing for towing services The motion passed 5-0
8c. This report discusses a resolution for adopting a Standard Operating Policy
for Code Administration
By consent, Council adopted the attached resolution supporting the Inspection Department
Standard Operating Policy for Code administration
8d. Second Reading of Ordinance Amendment revising Permit Fees for
Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical Permits.
By consent, Council adopted the ordinance revising plumbing, mechanical and electrical permit
fees, approved the summary and authorized summary publication
8e. Police Uniform Contract
By consent, Council authorized the Mayor and City Manger to execute a contract with Uniforms
Unlimited for police uniforms for a two-year period from January 1, 2000 through December 31,
2001
8f. Resolution to Adopt the 2000 Budget
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to approve
resolution adopting the 2000 budget The motion passed 5-0
8g. Second Reading of the Ordinance Amending Water & Sewer Utility Rates
for 2000
By consent, Council adopted the ordinance and approved summary ordinance for publication
8h. Resolution Approving the Property Tax Levy for 2000
Council Meeting Minutes -11- December 20, 1999
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the
resolution The motion passed 5-0
8i. Advancement of Funds from the MSA Account
By consent, Council adopted the attached resolution requesting the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (Mn/DOT) to advance funds in the amount of$720,000 to repay MSA approved
construction costs
8j. Amendment to Ordinance 1325
By consent, Council approved the ordinance to vacate a portion of Meadowbrook Road, and
authorized publication of summary ordinance
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
a. Housing Authority Minutes of November 10, 1999
b. Planning Commission Minutes of December 1, 1999
c. Vendor Claim Report
By consent, Council accepted reports for filing
10. Unfinished Business
a. Board and Commission Appointment(s)
It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to reappoint
James Gainsly and Susan Bloyer to the Board of Zoning Appeals, Bruce Browning, Robert
Jacobson and Mary Jean Overend to the Telecommunications Advisory Commission, Herbert
Isbin to the Human Rights Commission, James Nordgaard to the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission and Paul Carver and Sally Velick to the Planning Commission Motion passed 5-0
11. New Business
l la. Approval of lease agreement for a free standing communications antenna
with Sprint Spectrum L.P. (SSLP).
By consent, Council moved to approve the attached resolution authorizing execution of lease
agreement
11b. Traffic Study No. 548: Three way stop signs at Alabama Avenue So. and W.
32nd Stet
By consent, Council accepted this report for filing and adopted the attached resolution
authorizing the installation of three way stop signs at the intersection of Alabama Avenue SO
and W 32nd Street
Council Meeting Minutes -12- December 20, 1999
11c. Traffic Study No. 549: HealthSystem Minnesota request for Parking
restrictions on the north side of Louisiana Circle.
By consent, Council adopted the attached resolution authorizing the change in parking restriction
s on the north side of Louisiana Circle to "One-Hour" parking from Louisiana Avenue west to
the westerly driveway for 3900 Louisiana Circle
lld. Authorize Publication of notice of availability of Park Commons East EAW
for public comment.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa to authorize the
publication of the notice of availability of the Park Commons East EAW Motion passed 5-0
12. Miscellaneous - None
13. Claims, Appropriation, Contract Payments- None
14. Communications
15. Adjournment
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adjourn the
meeting at 9 40 p m The motion passed 5-0 .11
- -`� ' / _
Ci'Clerk Ma o