Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/06/07 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular CITY OF OFFICIAL MINUTES ST LOUIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING PARK ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA June 7, 1999 1. Call to order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7 30 p m 2. Presentation Mayor Jacobs presented a certificate of Appreciation to Finance Director, Kathleen"Mac" McBride, who had resigned to take the position of Business Administrator for the College of St Katherine Mr Meyer also expressed his appreciation to Ms McBride for her years of professional service Mayor Jacobs also acknowledged that Peter Hobart School has been named a"Blue Ribbon School of Excellence" Principal Frank Johnson was present and spoke about the award and the excellent staff and students at Peter Hobart School Mayor Jacobs also pointed out that the only other school in the state to receive this high honor was the Minneapolis Jewish Day School, also located in St Louis Park 3. Roll Call Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Robert Young, Sue Sanger, Chris Nelson, Ron Latz and Mayor Jeff Jacobs Also present were the City Manager(Mr Meyer), City Attorney(Mr Scott), Director of Community Development (Mr Harmening), Director of Inspections (Mr Hoffman), Fire Chief (Mr Gill), and City Clerk(Ms Larsen) 4. Approval of Minutes a. City Council meeting of May 17, 1999 With a minor correction, the minutes were approved as presented 5. Approval of agenda a. Consent agenda Motion to approve the consent agenda was made by Councilmember Nelson and seconded by Councilmember Sanger Motion passed unanimously b. Agenda Motion to approve the regular agenda was made by Councilmember Sanger and seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer Motion passed unanimously City Council Minutes -2- June 7, 1999 *c. Resolutions and Ordinances By consent, Council waived the reading of resolutions and ordinances II 6. Public Hearing 6a. Public hearing on an application for intoxicating on-sale and Sunday sale liquor licenses for Brinda-Heilicher of St. Louis Park d/b/a "Shelly's Woodroast" at 6501 Wayzata Boulevard Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing There being no one to speak to the issue he closed the public hearing with the right of the Council to reopen at a future time Motion to approve the intoxicating on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses was made by Councilmember Young and seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer Motion passed 6-0 6b. Public hearing on the transfer of an off-sale intoxicating liquor license at 8242 Minnetonka Boulevard from Summit Liquors to Texas-Tonka Liquors. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing There being no one to speak to the issue he closed the public hearing with the right of the Council to reopen at a future time Motion to approve the transfer of the off-sale liquor license was made by Councilmember Latz and seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer Motion passed 6-0 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications 7a. Appeal of John Mohler, 4313 Brook Avenue, to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Brian Hoffman gave a brief overview of the item He stated that the appeal was being made by a resident who was questioning building height of an accessory structure, the maximum square footage allowable for detached accessory structure and the type of permitted uses that can occur within an accessory structure He stated that Mr Mohler had met with staff to discuss his concerns and differences in how the Zoning Code is interpreted Following that he made an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals and on April 22, the board heard the discussion and itstheir decision was to concur with staff's interpretation in the three areas in questions Mr Mohler is now bringing this appeal to the City Council so that Council can make a decision on how the zoning code needs to be interpreted and applied in these situations He stated that the structure in question was at 4312 Coolidge and had been issued a permit in September of 1998, and that it has been under construction Mr Hoffman felt that when Mr Mohler first came to the department, the communication that had occurred and the staff response to his concerns had not been up to the standards of the Department He apologized for any inconvenience Mr Mohler had experienced City Council Minutes -3- June 7, 1999 Mr Hoffman stated that though Council's decision on the appeal may affect the structure in question, Council would be making a decision on how the Zoning Code is applied to all buildings within the City which are presently standing as well as buildings that will be constructed in the future At staff's first review of the plans there had been some inconsistencies and misunderstandings between the homeowner and staff The City reviewed the plan and believed the roof height was in accordance with the zoning code After neighbors pointed out their concerns, the plans were reviewed and it was realized that the building would actually be taller than allowable A stop work order was issued and consultation with the homeowner and contractor was held Staff also realized after construction began, that there was an error in regard to proximity to the lot boundary That set-back requirement has now been met Mr Moore, Zoning Administrator, presented to Council an overview of how the zoning ordinance is interpreted by staff in regard to roof height Mr Moore stated that he believed the ordinance had been interpreted correctly by staff, and also stated that the City Attorney concurred with staff's decision, and that the Board of Zoning Appeals had upheld the decision Council asked questions regarding different scenarios of right of way frontage and how each would affect a building height measurement according to the ordinance Mr Moore explained the second interpretation appeal regarding the size of the accessory structure in relation to ground floor area ratio He explained how that calculation had been done and said that he believed that the floor area ratio for the structure was in compliance with the zoning code Mr Moore also pointed out that the use of the accessory structure is also in question He explained that there were no water or sewer utilities in the structure, and that precludes its use as a dwelling unit He compared the use to that of a gazebo Councilmember Nelson asked about discrepancies in measurements stated in reports presented at different meetings Mr Hoffman stated that the discrepancies were caused by using measurements taken from the building plans as opposed to those measurements taken from the actual structure after completion He further stated that the height in the current report is that of the garage as constructed The garage is not currently in conformance with the zoning code as it is interpreted, and staff will be working with the homeowner to bring it into compliance Mayor Jacobs indicated that several records had been submitted by vanous parties and that those records would become part of the public record for this item John Miller, 4500 Park Glen Road, was present as legal representative for the Mohlers of 4313 Brook Ave S He felt the history of this case was important and wanted to be sure all facets were covered in the event that the issue would move forward to another kind of judicial body John Mohler, 4313 Brook Ave South, said that the building was directly behind his home He felt the height of the structure violated their open space and privacy and would lower the value of their home He described the building and said that several other homeowners were also opposed to the structure He did not feel that the City's oversight of the project plans and construction was adequate He had experienced problems with obtaining copies of the plans, and with the City's response to his concerns that the building was not being constructed in compliance with the City's building requirements In order to ensure that his interests will be served, he had retained the legal counsel of John Miller City Council Mmutes -4- June 7, 1999 Mr Miller presented photographs of the structure for Council review Mr Miller had also had trouble obtaining the plans for the project, but did eventually receive a copy. On reviewing the plans he determined that staff had not correctly interpreted the ordinance with regard to building height He met with staff and they again stated that the plans were in compliance with the ordinance Upon further review, staff did realize that the allowable building height had indeed been miscalculated Mr Moore stated that he would work with the property owner to reduce the building height Mr Miller again reviewed the plans and found what he believed to be further problems with zoning code interpretation in regard to floor area ratio, use and set back requirements In response to Mr Miller's concerns, Mr Hoffman had offered to ask the City Attorney for an opinion on the interpretation Mr Miller also consulted Bill Thibault, a consultant well-versed in zoning code interpretation Mr Scott subsequently agreed with the City's interpretation regarding building height, floor area ratio and use, but found that the set-back requirements had not been met Mr Miller stated that he believed the original plans had been lost or destroyed and that a second set had been submitted to the City for review He also felt that the permit was void and therefore the construction on the building had been done without a permit Court decisions have held that the owner is charged with constructive notice as to what requirements of an ordinance are and cannot rely on a permit given by an officer who did not have the authority to do so Since, in his opinion, the plans had been approved in violation of the ordinance and had been approved by a building official without authority to approve non-conforming plans, then the permit was entirely void. Councilmember Nelson asked what would be the legal effect of constructing a building with a void permit Mr Miller cited Lawry v Mankato as an example of building with a void permit Mayor Jacobs asked for clarification on Councilmember Nelson's question Councilmember Nelson wanted to know if the building would need to be torn down Bill Thibault, 11712 Wayzata Blvd (business address), offered to speak to the use, size and height of the structure in question Regarding use, he stated that when the plans had been submitted in September of 1998 it had been identified as a detached garage The drawings, however, include the terms"office space and living" which he felt should have caused concern for staff because living space and office are not allowable uses in an accessory structure Councilmember Nelson stated that the original request for living space was refused at the time the plans were reviewed Mr Thibault concurred with Mr Miller that the permit was void at the time issued due to the fact that the plans had been approved by an official not authorized to approve a non-conforming structure He felt the plans should have been revised prior to the permit being issued Mr Thibault also addressed the square footage issue He felt the ordinance as written would not allow the square footage identified on the plan because the ordinance did not specify"ground" floor area, merely square footage City Council Mmutes -5- June 7, 1999 Councilmember Latz asked how 25% of the rear lot area had been interpreted and if it applied to ground area or area above the ground as well Mr Thibault stated that he felt the calculation should be made on total lot coverage Councilmember Latz asked for clarification as to whether Mr Thibault meant square footage covered rather than volume Mr Thibault said that he meant total square footage on any floor of a structure or 25% Councilmember Latz asked how floor area ratio would be determined if someone built a 1/2 story only 4 feet high, would that also be considered in the calculation of floor area ratio Mr Thibault stated that it would affect the floor area ratio City Attorney, Mr Scott was asked to address the issue He stated that there was another provision in the zoning ordinance that states the maximum size for all accessory structures that uses the language"ground floor area" of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 25% of the area between the principal structure and the lot line Councilmember Nelson felt that the zoning section clearly refers to ground floor area, but the section Mr Thibault had presented was ambiguous He assumed that if they are in conflict Council would be required to go with the most liberal interpretation Mr Scott said that was correct and that the ground floor area would be the measurement. If the 800 square foot limitation was read in conjunction with the 25% limitation, he felt it more sensible to consider ground floor area In addition, ground floor area is specifically referenced in another code section He also stated that in these cases, the applicant is given the benefit of the doubt Mr Thibault felt that the courts would prefer the most restrictive interpretation In reference to the height, Mr Thibault reviewed the ordinance language and how it could be interpreted to measure height He felt that staff's interpretation of methods for measuring height were in conflict with the language of the ordinance He gave a detailed account of how the building in question should be measured using the highest gable rather than the gable in the front of the building He concluded that by all accounts, the building is 4 feet too high Councilmember Brimeyer asked for clarification on Mr Thibault's measurements as they relate to the gables located on different sides of the building Councilmember Brimeyer believed the measurement should be taken on the curb line or east side Mr Thibault replied that the curb side was the starting point of the measurement, but that the line should extend to the highest gable, whether or not the highest gable is located on the curb side Mr Miller addressed Councilmember Latz's question about floor area saying that he believed the total square footage of a building is considered in the floor area ratio measurement Councilmember Latz responded with a hypothetical of an unenclosed suspended storage area in a garage and asked if that space would be included in the calculation of floor area Mr Miller believed it would Mr Miller reviewed his client's objections to the building height, size and use and stated that he believed staff's interpretation of the zoning ordinance was in error and did not conform to zoning code definitions and specifications City Council Mmutes -6- June 7, 1999 He pointed out errors and inaccuracies in the Board of Zoning Appeals minutes and expressed his s. disappointment in not being given a chance to review the minutes to make corrections He believed that corrections should be made in the event that the minutes would become part of the 11 record in a court of law He again stated that the building permit should not have been issued and stated that the Mohler's objections were not to a garage, but to a garage that does not meet ordinance. He also pointed out that a petition had been submitted Mayor Jacobs stated that the petition had been received and would be made part of the public record. Mr Miller thanked Council for their consideration Councilmember Nelson asked Mr Scott about his interpretation of building height and if he agreed with staff's interpretation or with the interpretation of Mr Thibault Mr Scott responded that his interpretation of the ordinance language was that measurements should be taken on those portions of the structure having frontage on the public right of way Councilmember Sanger asked how the ordinance would be interpreted in the case of a flat roof with equipment Would the total height include equipment located at the back of the roof as well as the roof structure or only equipment located at the front of the roof Mr Scott stated that if there was a flat roof that measurement would be taken to the top of the equipment regardless of its location Councilmember Sanger asked why that would be different than if there was a gable Mr Scott said that in this particular case, the garage is oriented toward the roadway and a gable roof fronts on the roadway The City's ordinance only regulates the front of a building which faces the roadway He suggested that Council may want the language clarified, but as it is currently written he felt staff had applied the ordinance appropriately Councilmember Sanger asked if the back of the building could be of unlimited height using the language of this ordinance Mr Scott said that, conceivably, it could be Councilmember Brimeyer found it an interesting result that he did not believe was intended when the ordinance was drafted Councilmember Nelson asked a procedural question of what action is required of Council at this time Mr. Scott suggested that if Council differs with the Board of Zoning Appeals decision on any one of the three points, the appropriate motion would be to direct staff to prepare findings outlining Council's rationale for disagreeing with any one of those decisions for consideration at the next regular meeting of Council Councilmember Sanger spoke to the intent of the original drafters of the ordinance and she did not recall any discussion which would have led her to believe two-story garages would be permitted in the City She likened the structure to a carriage house rather than a garage and did not believe there were provisions in any of St Louis Park's ordinances allowing for structures of that nature City Council Minutes -7- June 7, 1999 Councilmember Nelson stated for the record that he did not believe there was bad faith on the part of the home-owner and felt they had done all they could to comply with the ordinance He also believed that staff had acted in good faith He did feel, however, that Mr Thibault had swayed Councilmember Nelson's opinion with his common sense interpretation He felt that the Board of Zoning Appeals decisions on other aspects, namely, use and ground area ratio were correct, but disagreed with their interpretation of building height Councilmember Nelson moved to direct staff to draft findings on calculation of building height limitations consistent with Mr Thibault's interpretation Motion seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer Mr Scott commented that Council would be addressing whether or not staff and the Board of Zoning Appeals had properly applied the ordinance to this particular structure, not building height in general Councilmember Nelson asked what the effect on this particular structure would be Mr Scott stated that even using the interpretation of staff and the Board of Zoning Appeals, this particular building is still too high and that the issue would be addressed Councilmember Nelson asked what the next steps would be Mr Hoffman stated that orders would be written to the property owner stating that the building is not in conformance At that point there would be two options, apply for a variance, or modify the structure in some way as to lower overall height Depending on Council's decision tonight, the extent of those modifications would most likely change Councilmember Nelson modified his motion to the extent that it is specific to this building and would not be a general statement Councilmember Brimeyer stated that the modification to the motion was acceptable Councilmember Brimeyer wanted to look at the ordinance in the near future to clarify language Councilmember Latz asked for clarifications about staff's measurements and how it may affect the issue of unlimited height at the back of a building Mr Hoffman spoke about different roof configurations and how height could be measured on each Councilmember Latz shared the belief that the measurement should be taken from the highest gable and disagreed with the interpretation of the Board of Zoning Appeals Councilmember Latz stated and Mr Scott concurred that if the permit was inappropriately approved based on drawings that identified living space, but staff had corrected the owner and informed him that the use was not allowed, that the correction would remedy any error in the original approval Mr Scott felt the records should be corrected so that a future buyer of the property would not believe that the space could be used as living area Councilmember Sanger asked Mr Scott to comment on the validity of the permit and if the permit was indeed considered void since its issuance Mr Scott stated that if a building permit is issued by mistake and that mistake is subsequently discovered, that the City is not prevented from correctly enforcing the ordinance He felt the issue is whether the City can enforce its ordinance in a court of law District Court Judges sometimes have different interpretations on these issues City Council Mmutes -8- June 7, 1999 Councilmember Young agreed that the use and ground floor are not issues, but felt the height was interpreted correctly by staff and the Board of Zoning Appeals even if that interpretation was not the original intent of the drafters of the ordinance He felt the best way to address the issue would be to support the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals and begin working on re-drafting the ii_ ordinance to take care of any loop-holes which exist Mayor Jacobs asked for clarification on the motion stating that the motion made was to uphold the decision with respect to use and floor area ratio and to direct staff to prepare a resolution reversing the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals with respect to the height limitation Councilmember Nelson said that that was correct Mr Scott cautioned the council that this action would only apply to this particular structure and that in the future Council would need to take separate action to revise the ordinance language He also pointed out that if the language is ambiguous as it is applied to this particular structure, a court of law would give the benefit of the doubt to the property owner He asked Council to consider the actual language rather than the intent of the ordinance Councilmember Latz understands that if language is clear its intent is not questioned Where there is ambiguity it is appropriate to look at intent Mr Scott agreed in general on City ordinances, but in the area of zoning a different rule applies to interpretation of ambiguous passages Motion passed 5-1 (Councilmember Young opposed) 8 Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. Application from Minnesota Youth Athletic Services to conduct lawful gambling(pull tabs) at the Classic Café located at 4700 Excelsior Boulevard. Resolution #99-70 Mayor Jacobs entered into the record a letter received May 13, 1999 from Mr Jim Rocklin indicating his objection to acceptance of the application Mike Dwayne, President of the MYAS was present Councilmember Young asked what the organization does and what contributions they've made directly to St Louis Park Mr Dwayne gave a description of services the MYAS delivers and specified some St Louis Park organizations which directly benefit from the proceeds Councilmember Sanger asked what percentage of revenues directly benefited St Louis Park activities Mr Dwayne did not have that information, but estimated approximately 20-25% Councilmember Latz also was interested and hoped that the next time they come before Council they would bring pertinent financial information. Councilmember Nelson asked what discretion Council held in approving or disapproving the license Mr. Scott said there was little discretion Councilmember Nelson said that he would not support the growth of gambling and therefore would not be voting in favor of approval City Council Minutes -9- „ June 7, 1999 Councilmember Latz pointed out that the Legislature had already acted to make gambling legal I. Councilmember Young pointed out that Council had directed staff to prepare proposed changes to the ordinance Councilmember Brimeyer also did not feel there was basis for denial and moved to approve Seconded by Councilmember Latz Councilmember Sanger and Mayor Jacobs also asked that the issue be taken up at study session Motion passed 4-2 (Councilmember Young and Councilmember Nelson opposed) 8b. Resolution appointing Third Ward Councilmember Resolution #99-71 Councilmembers thanked all the applicants and commented on their qualifications Mayor Jacobs asked their preferences those were stated to be as follows Councilmember Latz Marcia Oleisky Councilmember Nelson Marcia Oleisky Councilmember Sanger Sue Santa Councilmember Brimeyer Sue Santa and Paul Ohmot Councilmember Young John Palmatier Mayor Jacobs Sue Santa Council was then asked to vote and those votes were cast as follows Councilmember Brimeyer Sue Santa Councilmember Young John Palmatier Councilmember Latz Marcia Oleisky Councilmember Nelson Marcia Oleisky Councilmember Sanger Sue Santa Mayor Jacobs Sue Santa With no one receiving four votes, Mayor Jacobs again asked for votes to be cast Councilmember Latz Sue Santa Councilmember Nelson Paul Ohmot Councilmember Sanger Sue Santa Councilmember Brimeyer Sue Santa Councilmember Young Paul Ohmot Mayor Jacobs Sue Santa Councilmember Nelson made a motion to adopt a resolution appointing Sue Santa to the office of Ward Three Councilmember effective as soon as possible Motion seconded by Councilmember Latz Motion passed unanimously Candidates not chosen were encouraged to run for office in November City Council Minutes -10- June 7, 1999 8c. Ratification of an appointment to the position of Interim Director of Finance, and authorization of a contract with RHI Management Resources Mr Meyer introduced Mr John Brooks to the council. Councilmember Sanger moved to ratify the appointment of John Brooks to the position of Interim Director of Finance effective June 10, 1999 and to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement with RHI Management Resources for temporary financial professional services Motion seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer Motion passed unanimously 8d. Strategic Plan for the Arts for the City of St. Louis Park Resolution #99-72 Member of the friends of the Arts were present and Councilmembers expressed their appreciation to the group for their hard work in developing a Vision for the Arts Councilmember Brimeyer moved to adopt a resolution of support for the Strategic Plan for the Arts for the City of St Louis Park Motion seconded by Councilmember Nelson Motion passed unanimously 8e. Resolution approving the updated City Emergency Preparedness Plan Resolution #99-73 Motion to adopt a resolution approving the revised Emergency preparedness plan was made by Councilmember Sanger and seconded by Councilmember Nelson Motion passed unanimously *8f. Urban Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement Resolution #99-74 By Consent, Council adopted a resolution authorizing the execution of a joint cooperation agreement between the City and the County concerning the Community Development Block Grant Program in FY 2000 - 2002 *8g. Electronic Proprietary Database (EPDB) License Agreement with Hennepin County Resolution #99-75 By consent, Council adopted a resolution entering into conditional use license agreement with Hennepin County for use of Electronic Proprietary Database 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees *a. Human Rights Commission Report of 1998 -By consent, Council accepted the report for filing *b. Planning Commission minutes of May 5, 1999 -By consent, Council accepted the report for filing City Council Minutes -11- June 7, 1999 *c. Board of Zoning Appeals minutes of April 22, 1999 -By consent, Council accepted the report for filing *d. Housing Authority minutes of April 14, 1999 -By consent, Council accepted the report for filing *e. Vendor Claim Report -By consent, Council accepted the report for filing 10. Unfinished Business a. Appointment of Board and Commission Members Councilmember Young moved to appoint Linda Trummer to the Police Civil Service Commission and also moved to reappoint Bryan-Leary, also to the Police Civil Service Commission Motion seconded by Councilmember Nelson Motion passed unanimously 11. New Business *11a. Bid Tabulation: Two (2) City Entrance Signs and Site Landscaping—City Project No. 98-15 By consent, Council moved to reject all bids and readvertise for two (2) entry signs and site landscaping 12 Miscellaneous -None 13. Claims,Appropriations, Contract Payments *a. Contract payments-By consent approved and authorized the following payment Hardrives, Inc $ 82,403 28 Construction of Excelsior Blvd/Phase 2 Contract No 14-98 14. Communications 15. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10 45 p m Ci Clerk May•r