Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/07/06 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular CITY OF OFFICIAL MINUTES ST. Louis CITY COUNCIL MEETING PARK ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA July 6, 1999 1. Call to Order Mayor Pro-tem Latz called the meeting to order at 7 30 p m 2. Presentations 3. Roll Call The following Councilmembers were present at roll call Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Sue Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, Jim Brimeyer Also present were the City Manager(Mr Meyer), City Attorney(Mr Scott), Director of Community Development (Mr Harmening), Director of Public Works (Mr Rardin), Planning Manager(Ms Jeremiah), and City Clerk (Ms Larsen) 4. Approval of Minutes 4a. City Council Meeting of June 21, 1999 The minutes were approved as presented 4b. Study Session Meeting of May 10, 1999 With the following corrections, the minutes were approved as presented Page 14, Councilmember Sanger asked that her comments be replaced with text she provided to the clerk and read to those present Change to "Councilmember Sanger stated that this plan seems to be what Metro Transit wants and not what is really needed by St Louis Park She pointed out that the plan does not facilitate getting around St Louis Park, that people would have to make the two or three transfers, and she did not think people would want to do this or let their kids do this She indicated that this plan is primarily facilitating commuting into downtown Minneapolis and that is not why the study began She stated that Metro Transit should return the planning monies to St Louis Park unless they redid the plan to do what was asked" 4c. Study Session Meeting of May 24, 1999 With the following corrections, the minutes were approved as presented Page 17, Change the word "educated" to "knowledgable" under Councilmember Nelson's comments regarding Friends of the Arts City Council Mmutes -2- July 6, 1999 5. Approval of Agendas Consent Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to approve the consent agenda The motion passed 6-0 Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve the agenda The motion passed 6-0 Resolutions and Ordinances By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances 6. Public Hearings 6a. Vacation of a portion of a utility easement at 2902 Flag Avenue by Daniel and Karen Vetch Case No. 99-8-VAC Janet Jeremiah, Planning Manager presented a staff report and recommended that final approval be contingent on dedicating a new 2 foot easement rather than the 20 foot easement that is currently on the lot. Mayor Pro-tem Latz closed the public hearing subject to the right of the Council to reopen it at a future time Councilmember Brimeyer asked if there was any research done on a previous request for vacation of this easement Ms Jeremiah did not believe there had been any previous requests for vacating the easement and indicated that the property had been forfeited for taxes and that Hennepin County recently transferred it to the current property owner She believed this was the first request for the easement to be vacated Mr Scott, City Attorney stated that there was an issue before the Council when it went tax forfeiture about retaining the large easement on the north side of the parcel and there is a long history involving this lot, but he did not recall anything specifically with this street right of way on the south side Councilmember Nelson asked if the vacation was contingent upon the granting of the easement presumably at no cost Ms Jeremiah stated that Councilmember Nelson was correct and that the property owner would be responsible for all costs regarding the writing of that easement language and the recording of the easement City Council Minutes -3- July 6, 1999 Mayor Pro-tern Latz stated that the Council had received a letter through the Planning Commission from the property owners adjacent to the piece of property expressing their concerns It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve First Reading of the proposed ordinance and set Second Reading for July 19, 1999 The motion passed 6-0 6b. Public Hearing and First Reading of Amendments to "M-X" Mixed-Use District Ordinance and associated sections of the Zoning Code Case No. 99-3-ZA Janet Jeremiah, Planning Associate presented a staff report and recommended approval of the amendments to the"M-X" Mixed-Use District to improve consistency with the new Comprehensive Plan and to reflect what has been learned in the past regarding mixed-use development Mayor Pro-tern Latz closed the public hearing subject to the right of the Council to reopen it at a future time Councilmember Sanger had some concerns with respect to the live-work units primarily in the"R- C" District Her concern was that she was not sure that the definition was tight enough to ensure that business uses that are disturbing to neighbors in terms of noise, traffic and vibration could be prohibited She said she was a little more willing to consider that in the"M-X" Distnct because that was dense by design and a little less willing to consider that at this time in the"R-C" District In addition to the effects on neighbors, she was concerned from an economic point of view She was not sure that anybody would want these units and if the City would start opening our buildings up to units that may not turn out to be a great use of space, she'd like to give them a try first in other areas She believed that technically there was nothing to ensure that any live-work unit in any district was restricted to the ground floor level and would be particularly concerned if we had buildings where first floors were residential and then there were commercial uses above them She said if people had live-work units several units high there would be public pedestrian traffic in those private residential hallways and she wanted to see some limitation that the uses be on the first floor Mayor Pro-tem Latz noted that one of the requirements would be that there be a separate business owned type entrance to the work portion of the live-work unit for patrons He inquired as to whether that requirement would limit live-work to the ground floor only or whether you could end up with a stairway Janet Jeremiah stated that the accessibility requirements would generally limit it to the first floor or there would need to be a separate elevator if it was really a very public type of business She stated that she would look into this and confirm this before second reading Councilmember Sanger's concern was there was nothing in the definition to prevent an apartment type unit in a residential building from simply adding a second entrance way to the unit and designate that one unit as being for the public Councilmember Brimeyer asked Councilmember Sanger to clarify her concern City Council Mmutes -4- July 6, 1999 Councilmember Sanger stated that she thought it was one thing if you have a business use that was very quiet and non-obtrusive, but was more concerned if someone has a business use that has a lot of foot traffic in and out that was noisy or disturbing to residents or that was a noisy use Councilmember Brimeyer didn't believe that the live-work units would be conducive to businesses that produced excessive problem and stated that that the live-work unit would be someone's living environment and they would generally want to accommodate the neighborhood Councilmember Sanger stated that one of the problems was that we are not defining this sort of business in a way that it was tight enough to limit out some of those things Councilmember Brimeyer stated that the type of businesses people will engage in in the future are not known, but he couldn't come up with any business that would alarm him Janet Jeremiah stated that there were several different controls that were built into the definition at this point If a use was initially approved, and then found to be disruptive, the City could enforce under the language with regard to the health and safety of the residents and substantially altering the character of neighborhood Councilmember Nelson concurred with Councilmember Sanger He believed that given the existing limits, people would meet or exceed the limits and the City may be fighting battles over these uses. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that the City would be trying to legislate against potential bad behavior and he didn't think the City could do that Councilmember Nelson stated that he could support this legislation in the"M-X" District as an experiment, but not in the"R-C" District because there was a lot riding on Park Commons He did not want to potentially handicap the residential portion of that district by allowing businesses to disturb the residents, character of the neighborhood and value of the neighborhood with signage, traffic, hours of operation With regard to the ability of staff to deny something at its discretion based on whether something conforms, he asked the City Attorney whether or not the City was setting up themselves for some sort of fight as to what discretion staff should have verses what the City really delegates to the staff Torn Scott, City Attorney stated that typically if there was going to review delegated to staff, it was best that there were fairly specific objective standards for staff to look at to determine whether the proposal met them He indicated that if they were fairly general standards, staff could potentially build in some sort of review by the Council Mayor Pro-tern Latz asked if any decision by staff would necessarily be subject to review by Council Tom Scott, City Attorney stated that as a general rule, if Council disagreed with staff the issue would be presented to Council and applicants could use the Board of Appeals Mayor Pro-tem Latz asked staff to explain where this use could be located in the Park Commons area City Council Minutes -5- July 6, 1999 Janet Jeremiah stated that in regard to the objective standards, staff has tried to work a number of very objective standards into the ordinance that would limit the size of the business, the access to the business, the type of business and hours of operation The more general language with regard to the health, safety and welfare would be for those things that would be unanticipated There would be some sort of use that under normal circumstances would not be detrimental to the neighborhood, but under the specific characteristics that were proposed or the operation of the use it obviously has become a nuisance There are noise ordinances that would also provide objective standards With regard to where the use could be located in Park Commons, the"M-X" District would be most of the Phase I area and the area immediately West of Wolfe Park With regard to apartments and condominiums they would be subject to their own internal review Staff would envision the live-work unit more for the row townhomes types of uses She also indicated that staff would be interested in limiting the business use to the ground level and could make that more specific in the ordinance Mayor Pro-tem Latz asked if the ordinance allowed for a common entrance to be used for live and work uses of that particular unit Ms Jeremiah stated that the particular unit that was housing both a business and the business owner could use a common entrance, however any business customer could not use an entrance that was shared with other residents of either that building or that general area She stated that until staff started getting some requests, it was going to be hard to anticipate, so if it was over regulated at this point, it could probably be loosened up later or the variance process could be used to adjust it Councilmember Sanger asked what the process was for limiting disruptions if a use was granted and then turned out to be a nuisance She questioned what kind of assurance there would be that the City had the ability to limit uses after the fact Mr Scott, City Attorney stated that if a particular use was allowed and problems occurred, unless there was some special provisions that came into play in the context of a redevelopment contract, Council would be looking at the City's general ordinances to whether or not they violate a particular ordinance like the noise ordinance Councilmember Sanger stated that this concerned her since the noise ordinance was set so high that it was currently difficult to manage Mayor Pro-tem Latz stated that it was important that the provisions provide some flexibility Councilmember Young was concerned about having live-work units and for sale townhouses in Park Commons and was not in favor of the proposal because he believed that the live-work units would lower the value of the property and did not fit with the residential setting Councilmember Brimeyer asked if the Planning Commission had debated this ordinance Ms Jeremiah stated that the Planning Commission did"tweak" the ordinance and some of the language, but did not debate it as long and as hard as the Council The Planning Commission was in favor of promoting greater opportunity in the City for various types of living and working opportunities ^' City Council Minutes -6- July 6, 1999 Councilmember Brimeyer believed that there was a market for this, but it needed to be regulated so it didn't impinge on the neighborhoods He does not want it considered on the basis of the fears of people who have bad behavior Mayor Pro-tem Latz believed that there should be some kind of flexibility in our residential areas to accommodate where the economy was going and believed there are sufficient protections in the proposed ordinances to prevent disruption to neighborhoods He used Newberry Street in Boston as an example of success He indicated that if it would make the Council more comfortable to restrict the business use to ground floor he would be in favor of that Councilmember Young stated that this ordinance was saying that it was all right for someone to put a sign out in your window and have some type of activity in your home and he was not quite sure he was ready to give that seal of approval in advance on something in a residential area He did not believe this would prevent the growing areas of the future from happening and that this can still happen in the existing residential environment Councilmember Nelson stated that the City is on the cutting edge by experimenting with the live- work unit in the"M-X" District, but was not favor of allowing live-work units in the"R-C" District since it would be hard to enforce the restrictions based on nuisance criteria He would like to encourage the private residential development of Park Commons and not throw potential road blocks or impediments to the value of that district Mayor Pro-tem Latz asked if it were to be enacted in the"R-C" District and then determined later that the regulations needed to be tightened up a bit because staff didn't feel that there was 11 sufficient guidance to deal with unanticipated and less desirable uses, could the Council go back and tighten the ordinance and enforce it against the existing use Mr Scott, City Attorney stated that that additional regulations could be imposed, but Council could run into a problem if they were trying to regulate business out of existence Mayor Pro-tern Latz was concerned that at the time the Council becomes comfortable with the concept of live-work units in the"R-C" District, there may be no practical way to do it because most of the space would be developed Councilmember Santa believed that the character of the neighborhood which does not exist yet was being discussed and that Council may be anticipating things that were not going to happen She believed that similar types of businesses would cluster and not compete with each other and the market would prevail in determining what was going to happen She was reluctant at this point to predict what the City should do when she does not know what the market was going to want Councilmember Nelson stated that planning was anticipating needs and problems and trying to deal with them pro-actively instead of retroactively He indicated that if the Council would decide to have live-work units in the"R-C" District later, they would be able to convert existing townhouses to allow them Mayor Pro-tem Latz indicated in regards to Mayor Jacob's viewpoint on this issue that the Study Session Minutes of May 24, 1999 contain the following reference"Mayor Jacobs, Councilmember Brimeyer, Councilmember Latz all agreed that St Louis Park needs to be friendly to the 21st Century worker in new ways of doing business" City Council Mmutes -7- July 6, 1999 It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve First Reading of an ordinance amending the"M-X" District and associated sections of the Zoning Code and set Second Reading for July 19, 1999 The motion passed 5-1 Councilmember Sanger opposed It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve First Reading of an ordinance amending the"R-C" District and Zoning Table to allow live-work units as a use permitted with conditions in the"R-C" District and set Second Reading for July 19, 1999 The motion failed 1-5 Councilmember Brimeyer in favor 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. Resolution of Commendation to the Park Commons West Task Force Resolution #99-80 Mayor Pro-tem read a resolution commending all the individuals on the Park Commons West Task Force for their dedicated service Councilmember Nelson echoed the commendation to the Park Commons West Task Force It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt a resolution in recognition of the dedicated service of the Park Commons West Task Force members The motion passed 6-0 • Sb. Second Reading of an ordinance to change the zoning designation from "C- 2" Commercial to "R-C", High Density Residential for property owned by Silvercrest Properties Case No. 99-11-Z 3601 Park Center Boulevard Ordinance# 2139-99 Janet Jeremiah, Planning Manager presented a staff report and recommended approval It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve second reading of an ordinance to rezone the property from"C-2" to "R-C", adopt the ordinance and authorize publication The motion passed 6-0 8c. Demolition of Certain Structures, Removal of Streets and Utilities, Grading Work and other Related Activities Associated with the Park Commons Redevelopment Project Resolution #99-81 It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Young, to adopt the attached resolution establishing Project 99-11, ordering Project No 99-11, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing Receipt of Bids The motion passed 6-0 City Council Minutes -8- July 6, 1999 8d. Resolution for specially assessing the cost of installation for a fire suppression sprinkler system for a commercial building at 5605 West 36th Street Resolution #99-82 By consent, Council adopted a resolution authorizing installation and special assessment of a fire sprinkler system at 5605 West 36th Street and directing the Mayor and City Manager to execute a special assessment agreement with the property owner 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees a. Vendor Claims Report By consent, Council accepted report for filing. b. Police Civil Service Commission Minutes of April 5, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing. 10. Unfinished Business 10a. Board and Commission Appointment(s)—None 11. New Business lla. Bid Tabulation: Two (2) City Entrance Signs and Site Landscaping City Project No. 98-15 By consent, Council designated Nadeau Utility, Inc the lowest responsible bidder for two (2) entry signs and site landscaping and to authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of$158,096 35 12. Miscellaneous—None 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments a. Contract Payments—Resolution #99-83 Final Lead Con, Inc $ 112,020 35 W. 42nd Street/Zarthan Avenue Reservoir Repairs Contract No 51-98 Partial Hardrives, Inc $ 124,540 78 Construction Phase 2 Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Avenue to France Avenue Contract No 14-98 Valley Paving $ 116,882 11 Pavement mill & overlay, and watermain replacement Ford Road from Ford Lane to I0394 North Service Drive City Council Minutes -9- July 6, 1999 It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to accept reports for filing The motion passed 6-0 10. Communications—None 11. Adjournment It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adjourn the meeting at 8 48 p m The motion passed 6-0 . - Ci Clerk • �,�y �!-