Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/11/15 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular CITY OF OFFICIAL MINUTES ST. LOUIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING PARK ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA November 15, 2004 1. Call to Order Councilmember Sanger called the meeting to order at 7:44 pm. Council members present: John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger and Sue Santa. Council members absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Sally Velick Staff present City Manager(Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Community Development Director(Mr Locke), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Environmental Health Official (Mr. Camilon), Human Resources Director(Ms. Gohman), Planning Coordinator (Ms Enckson) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson) 2. Presentations - None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of November 1, 2004 Councilmember Sanger noted on page three, Mr. Hoffman replied to a question from Ms Burton about the number of rental units. The number should be 780 and not 7,780 It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Basill, to approve the minutes as corrected. 3b. Study Session Minutes of October 25, 2004 Councilmember Basill indicated on page three, in the third paragraph, ", if we are not willing to continue the lease at the same cost He would be fine with extension at the same cost " should be inserted at the end after, "...are managed". It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the minutes as corrected. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion Consent items are acted upon by one motion If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience,that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion 4a Approve 2nd reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2283-04 amending Chapter 30 of the St Louis Park Municipal Code Regarding Parking Distance from Dnveways and Alleys and Self-propelled Wheeled Devices, approve summary ordinance and authonze publication. Council Meeting Minutes -2- November 15, 2004 4b Adopt Resolution No. 04-135 approving continued participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) for Workers Compensation Coverage effective December 1, 2004 4c Accept for filing the Planning Commission Minutes of September 1, 2004 4d Adopt Resolution No. 04-136 authorizing final payment to BCG Construction, Inc. for completion of Park Commons Sidewalk and Street Lighting Work 4e Adopt Resolution No. 04-137 accepting this report, establishing and ordenng Water Treatment Plant Improvement Project No. 20041300A, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids. 4f Motion to accept Vendor Claims for filing (Supplement) 4g Approve Resolution No. 04-138 for a Minor Amendment to the existing Special Permit for property located at 5775 Wayzata Blvd to amend the approved site plan by adding a paved drive lane for parking a mobile diagnostic trailer. Case Nos. 04-58-CUP 4h Adopt Resolution No. 04-139 affirming Council's plan to move forward in partnership with the City of Golden Valley for delivery of public safety dispatch services for the Cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley Mr. Harmening requested item 8d be moved to the first item of discussion under item eight It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 5-0. 6. Public Hearings - None 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public—None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances,Motions 8d. Establishing employer contribution for city sponsored benefits program for 2005. Resolution No. 04-140 Ms. Gohman presented the report. Councilmember Basill asked if it was an HAS and not an HRA? Ms. Gohman replied the product they were putting into place would not be taxable under the Minnesota State Tax Code presently. It was a VEBA under the specific IRS and State codes. Councilmember Omodt asked what this did for the budget for 2005/2006? Mr. Harmening replied the dollars necessary to fund the program had been accounted for in the budget. Councilmember Omodt asked what the percent increase was? Ms. Gohman responded that the full budgeted amount was $210,000 for increases With this plan design, they would use $155,000 out of$210,000. Council Meeting Minutes -3- November,15, 2004 It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 04-140 setting benefit levels effective January 1, 2005. Councilmember Sanger complimented staff on negotiating health insurance rates that were not going up The motion passed 5-0. 8a. Request of Foundation Land LLC and Master Development LLC (St. Louis Park School District) for Preliminary and Final PUD approval for Brookside School Lofts and Preliminary and Final Plat approval for "Brookside". Case Nos. 04-52-PUD and 04-57-S. Resolution No. 04-133 Ms. Enckson presented the staff report. Councilmember Basill indicated the report stated that Master Development was planning on selling the five single-family homes for development. What kind of controls would they have when that came through concerning the design and make-up of the homes? They had made a decision to rezone it and include the five homes with the desire to have move-up single-family homes with three and four bedrooms. He wanted to be sure that was what they ended up with? Ms. Enckson replied that a development agreement was required for this development. As part of the development agreement, they were requesting covenants that would be placed on the property before it was sold that would include those minimum requirements Councilmember Basill added that they should be designed consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Enckson noted that provision would also be included. Councilmember Sanger expressed concern whether they had enough off-street parking to meet the needs of the condominium residents and the five new homes. Ms. Enckson responded that this met the parking requirements and staff believed there would be adequate parking for the residents and their guests. Charlie Ness, Master Development, thanked the staff, Council and neighborhood for their help on this development. Regarding the architectural covenants, they provided a rough draft of a document they had gotten from a homeowners association that had houses that fit into the category of move-up housing and met the architectural covenants They were working in conjunction with staff to finalize that. Councilmember Basill indicated in the staff report, page five, there was talk about traffic in the neighborhood and that was something brought up at the neighborhood meetings. The decision was made to address those issues separately going forward after the development was built and to look at where traffic was flowing and if additional stop signs or sidewalks were needed He wanted to be sure that they didn't lose sight of that. It was an expectation of the neighborhood that someone would be in touch with them when this project was complete to see if changes needed to be made. Ms. Enckson responded that staff had conversations with the President of the neighborhood association that if some sort of basket weave design for stop signs was desired by the neighborhood, that the Public Works Department would work with them toward accomplishing that. Council Meeting Minutes -4- November 15, 2004 It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve Resolution No. 04-133 approving Preliminary and Final Plat for "Brookside". The motion passed 5-0. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve Resolution No. 04-134 approving Preliminary and Final PUD for Brookside School Lofts. The motion passed 5-0. 8b. Second Reading: Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 8,Article VIII - Rental Housing Licensing. Ordinance No. 2282-04 Mr. Hoffman presented the staff report. He noted one of the questions that came up was about owner-occupied duplexes. There are 102 duplex buildings with about 19% issued written correspondence to resolve code issues. Staff recommended they be included in the rental licensing program. This program would also apply to group homes. William Putnam, 3172 Hillsboro Av S, stated that it had been mentioned that they were running rental properties as a business. He suggested they give them some options if it is considered a business, such as allowing them to contract their own garbage company or allow them to have only one large garage can instead of two little ones. He believed this wasn't about keeping up a property, it was about hiring more people in the City. Tom Powers, 2241 Hampshire Av. S, indicated he was a renter. His comments were based on a discussion with Councilmember Velick who raised concerns about beautifying the city and a desire to protect high value property. He was concerned that his home be treated with respect and be free of government agents and unfair taxation and fees He believed, through his rent, he was paying higher taxes and did not understand why he should be paying more. He wondered how this program addressed what he presumed were her concerns about businesses buying property and turning them into rental units Wouldn't that provide affordable housing for people who couldn't buy homes? There was also mention of social and economic issues, which he thought would be better addressed in a more community oriented venue than licensing. A landlord would be sued if he did substandard repair that caused any damage to the occupants. He suggested requiring people to have the utility companies do inspections. He had a problem with Fourth Amendment violations regarding this He didn't know what threatened people about renters. It was his opinion if this ordinance was passed, that St. Louis Park had become a slum and was very arrogant He asked that they consider other ways of handling these issues and involve renters in the community Gary Berscheid, 1604 Blackstone, stated that his tenant had lived in his property for 14 years and would have been inspected seven times at probably a cost of$1,000 and he didn't think she would see much benefit. A statement was made that one reason why they needed this was that they were not going to have any reoccurrence of the fire at the University of Minnesota that killed three students. This inspections program would not stop that fire which was started after a night of drinking and smoking on a couch on the front porch Regarding deductibility of the $75 on their taxes It only became tax Council Meeting Minutes -5- November 15, 2004 deductible when he lost money. There was a statement about rental properties paying very little taxes, he had his tax statements and for an estimated market value of$145,000, he paid $1700/year in taxes. On $166,000, he paid $1951/year. There was an exception for family-occupied properties that was dropped. His daughter lived in one of his units, yet her house had to be inspected. He would like that to be included as an exception. He was concerned if this program was implemented, that the inspection criteria be clearly defined. One of the past problems with the point of sales of houses was that different inspectors had different criteria and it was not clearly defined It would become very subjective. He would like to see total cost control. If there were multiple problems on one work order, it could add up. He asked for a policy to handle those situations. The purpose is to keep up the property, not to bankrupt the owners. If they sold, there would not be affordable housing or alternative places to rent. Councilmember Sanger clarified when he spoke about the taxes, the point that was made at the last meeting wasn't to say that rental properties had no taxes. It was to say that was a smaller differential between homestead and non-homestead taxes compared with several years ago when rental properties were taxed at a much higher premium. Mr. Berscheid believed there was quite a savings for homestead properties. Councilmember Sanger asked staff to comment on the issue raised regarding the clarity of what the points upon any property would be inspected. Mr. Hoffman responded that the inspection that would be done would be the same inspection done at the time a house was sold, or on an apartment building. They inspect to the International Property Maintenance Code, as the City had adopted and amended The code says if something had broken or deteriorated, it had to be fixed. If the'roof was old, it didn't mean it had to be replaced. At the time where it was leaking or if all of the granular materials had worn off and you can see the tar paper, then it was a deteriorated roof that had to be replaced. It would be the same uniform inspection that was currently done for all other properties under the Property Maintenance Program. Mr Berscheid stated he had experienced inspections in the 1980's and it was totally different depending on who they had do the inspection. He would like to see it clarified in writing and possibly a checklist sent out, so he could go through the property and be on the "same page" as the inspector. Mr. Hoffman responded that was part of the education component and something they would want to include. If this were implemented, a list would be sent out with the application. Concilmember Finkelstein wanted to be clear that this was primarily a post World War H suburb with tender homes that took a lot of maintenance and care. In the past there was a rule that there was supposed to be an inspection any time a rental home had a tenant change, which was the ruling until 2001. Regrettably that wasn't always observed. Now when nothing was being done, there were a greater number of rental homes and a situation where there were twice as many inspection reports on non-owner occupied homes as were on owner-occupied homes. That was why he supported this as good stewardship. It was good for tenants and would make them safer. It was good for the neighborhoods because it would be keeping these homes clean and repaired. It was good for the community and the landlord by maintaining these properties and maintaining the real estate values for everyone. He didn't have anything against people that were renters or landlords, but he thought this was a problem that needed to be "nipped in the bud" Council Meeting Minutes -6- November 15, 2004 Councilmember Basill stated that there were comments made about protecting $400,000 homes. The majority of the homes were not $400,000 homes and this was to protect people that were in one and half story homes as well. He wanted to be sure people were clear that this was not just to protect certain wards or certain parts of the city, it was to protect homes throughout the city no matter what their values were. There was a comment that they were concerned about businesses buying homes and that they wanted to protect from those businesses. There was some truth that businesses had bought homes. They wanted to make sure they didn't come in and buy property and not maintain it for the renters. They wanted the renters to have a good place to live, a safe place to live and a place that was well maintained. He didn't look at this ordinance as being anything against renters, it was there to have good housing for them. The majority of rental units, three or more units, were licensed already. This was the unique group that was not licensed. He was in support of this ordinance. The only thing he was torn on was the owner-occupied duplexes. It was easier to reach these landlords and they didn't have the opportunity to "opt out" and sell to someone else who would possibly buy it and rent it, they lived in the home. However, the statistics were that they had more complaints and more letters issued to those particular duplexes. Councilmember Santa stated that she received several comments from members of the community. One voice mail was from an individual that believed that all residents and homeowners in St. Louis Park would be charged for the inspections of rental properties. It was her understanding that only rental properties, single-family and two-family, were being charged for their properties Single-family homeowners were not going to be charged a fee. Mr Hoffman replied that only the units that were being rented and non- owner occupied would be licensed and inspected and the only ones subject to the fee Councilmember Santa stated that the second point that was raised was that this was not something new in the city. The majority of renters in St Louis Park have their homes inspected. This was just expanding it slightly to include all rental properties. Mr. Hoffman replied that was correct. 7,000 rental units were currently licensed in 300 buildings or three units and more. This would be the same program, expanded to include the rented one and two-family units Councilmember Santa indicated the issue that she received the most feedback on was from renters wanting to know when this would happen so they didn't have to worry about retaliation from landlords. When would this go into effect? Mr. Hoffman replied the ordinance would require the owner of any non-owner occupied property to have a license by January 1, 2005. If this passed, they would send out correspondence and applications to the property owners in the next couple of weeks. At that time, they would need to return the application and the annual fee by January 1st. They would then begin inspections in early 2005. With the number of units, it may take up to two years to do the initial inspection on some of the properties. They had not determined a schedule of how that would happen. If there was a problem with a unit, a tenant could call Inspections to inform them of any problems. Councilmember Sanger commented based on the fact that there were twice as many inspection notices and correspondence that had to go out to those units, compared to single-family owner-occupied buildings, she was supportive of including that in the ordinance. In a couple of years, after they had some data regarding how this ordinance Council Meeting Minutes -7- November 15, 2004 was working they could review the statistics and see how well it was working and see whether all aspects of it made sense. She would be supporting this. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to approve second reading of Ordinance No. 2282-04 amending Chapter 8, Article VIII for Rental Housing Licensing and set annual license fees to be effective January 1, 2005, approve the ordinance summary and authorize summary publication. The motion passed 5-0. A member of the audience asked if the Councilmembers had seen a list showing the nature of the complaints on these properties? Councilmember Finkelstein responded that they had seen a slide show of properties with issues. Councilmember Sanger added that they were given information that suggested that the types of infractions ranged from very serious health and safety violations to minor issues and everything in between. The same audience member expressed amazement that the Council was making a decision with such a large impact without knowing the nature of the complaints that they were dealing with. Mr. Camilon indicated that there was a fair share of on-going complaints that had to do with trash left at the curb. These were the issues that neighbors complained about regularly to the Council While to some people they seemed trivial, if you lived next door to that and had animals getting into the trash because they were not covered, it was an issue. The same audience member thought the Council was stepping over their bounds without looking at the seriousness of the information. Councilmember Omodt stated that they didn't want to put in additional government regulation where it was not needed. He called the staff and asked about the nature of the complaints, but didn't need a list to make a determination. The majority of calls that he received were property complaints. It was not snow shoveling, it was complaints from renters and non-renters about the appearance of housing and the inside of houses. To characterize this Council as not doing work and not doing their homework was wrong. They put a lot of time into this. They have had an inspection program in place for a long time, but these properties were not included. Councilmember Basill added that he views houses when he receives complaints. He has had properties that parked cars in the back yard and created noise issues When neighbors complain to the owner, the problems can become worse. They also get smaller complaints as well Mr. Putnam's concern about if there should be two smaller cans instead of one big one was a valid concern that they should discuss later. He also shared Mr. Berscheid's concern that they have standards so people knew what they were dealing with. They were familiar with what was out there and he had visited many sites It needed to be addressed. 8c. Amendment to St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) to eliminate a requirement prohibiting the City from accepting an application for a PUD (Planned Unit Development), variance or conditional use permit (CUP) where the application is not in conformance with the existing Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Case Nos. 04-56-ZA 4a u�a,t.F" ', .Sj4aq+kra, Council Meeting Minutes -8- November 15, 2004 Ms. Enckson presented the staff report. Councilmember Santa recalled recently several instances where because the Comp Plan had to be changed first, but no one wanted to look at the Comp Plan before they knew what was going to go there. The neighbors believed that what they were seeing was a "done deal" and that there was no option for them to have an impact or to be heard. At the time it was an unfortunate way to do that and gave the wrong message to the neighborhood when they were asking for input. She was supporting this amendment. She had her"druthers" about changing the Comp Plan for a specific site plan when it could change, but believed in the interest of encouraging neighborhood understanding of the process and making it more user friendly for everyone, the developer and the neighbors, that this was a good amendment. Councilmember Finkelstein stated when they looked at projects like Aquila, Brookside and Quadion, didn't those go beyond the 120 days? The extra time was useful in getting more neighborhood involvement and refining the plan. He was worried that they might lose some flexibility to get more neighborhood involvement. Mr. Locke responded that several of those projects did go for quite an extended period of time, but typically those extensions were going on while the Zoning or Comp Plan amendments were being considered. Frequently the applicant applied for the more general change of the Comp Plan or the Zoning and as soon as they went to the neighborhood, the neighbors wanted to know what they really wanted to do. Then things would stop while the developer went back to show them what they wanted to do. The process got extended and took longer, but not necessarily became more enlightening or friendly for the neighbors. If they could have brought the plan in at the very beginning for those projects, the process would have gone quicker, but the neighborhoods would have gotten better and timelier information. They could indicate to the developer that projects were not going to be approved unless they had more time to deal with the neighborhoods. Councilmember Basill asked if they wanted to use the "old" route and apply for the Comp Plan change first, then brought forward the plan, could they do that with this change? Ms. Erickson replied that this would not mandate that they bring it all together, but would allow them to do so. Currently, people want to know the traffic impact on a development. In the PUD process they request a traffic study, but it was not required for a Comp Plan change. They can't answer the question about the traffic impacts when they were at the Comp Plan change unless they requested the PUD at the same time. In terms of giving good information to the neighborhood so they could understand the impacts of the project, the way it was presently done, they couldn't. The longer a developer had to hold onto a property, if they had extensions to a purchase agreement, etc , it cost money A developer would rather do it in as short a time period as they could because land has holding costs associated with it. One of the things a developer may want to do is find out what the Planning Commission thought about a project before they made full application. They were putting a process in place where they would talk about having a neighborhood meeting before someone came in with an application so that some of the time was in front of the application process. Council Meeting Minutes -9- November 15, 2004 Councilmember Finkelstein indicated they had talked about having a brochure about how projects work, what the process was and how much time was involved, but he was womed that this would move things along a lot quicker. It would put pressure on both the Planning Commission and City Council and he thought in some cases that the delay had led to a better project because it led to more involvement. Councilmember Basill asked if someone brought forward a Comp Plan and PUD and they thought they were OK with the Comp Plan, but the PUD still needed some work, could they be split at that point and one be approved and the other be delayed? Mr. Locke replied. If they had both the PUD and a rezoning, there was nothing requiring them to approve them both. They had to work within the 120 day and 60 day rules. He didn't want this portrayed as something to make the life of developers easier, it may, but that wasn't why staff had put this forward. A pnvate entity can apply to rezone a property or to change the Comprehensive Plan. What drives them to make that kind of request is if they have a specific project in mind. They are required to ask for the general change which made a certain amount of logical sense, but what happened was the neighborhood knew there was a specific project coming and the City and staff got caught in a credibility gap They were telling them to talk about the general stuff first, but they were interested in the detail and thought we were trying to hide something from them. Councilmember Sanger stated she had mixed feelings on this and thought the intent of what they were trying to accomplish made sense, to be able to consider all of the relevant pieces of information at once. She had a concern about the 60 day and 120 day limitations. Proposing that all of these run concurrently, it potentially compressed the time frame and put them into a position of voting before the process was fully played out and they had the best possible suggestions for the project. She asked if this could be modified and design the process to see everything at once if they wanted to show it that way, but the time frames for the different processes would still run sequentially rather than concurrently? Mr. Locke replied if they made a valid application, the 60 day clock began to tick. They didn't have the ability to line those up. Mr. Scott stated that they controlled the timing when there was a Comp Plan or zoning amendment involved. If there was a concurrent application and they were at 110 days and didn't feel they had enough detail on the PUD, they could indicate to the developer that they had to extend the time or they would deny the Comp Plan amendment In the area of Comp Plan or rezoning, they had virtually total discretion and there were very few situations, because it was a legislative decision making process, where they could not simply say that was "nice" but they chose not the change their Comp Plan or rezone property. If they got into a situation where they needed more time, unless the developer wanted to run the nsk of having the Comp Plan or rezoning denied, they would extend the time. They should never find themselves in a situation where they would be forced to act, other than to deny a Comp Plan or rezoning. Councilmember Sanger thought there had been situations when they had been told they had to vote on a certain date, even though they didn't want to because they were at the deadline. The option of voting "no" on them wasn't particularly fair either because it meant if they wanted to reapply, they would have to start the whole process and pay more fees, and the ordinance said if they had been turned down for some of these, they had to wait a certain penod of time before they could reapply. She wasn't sure that suited anyone's purposes to do it that way. Council Meeting Minutes -10- November 15, 2004 Mr. Scott stated that he thought the reapplying may just apply to a variance, not a Comp Plan or rezoning. Secondly, he agreed if the developer decided they wanted an answer and wouldn't extend the time frame, then they would have to act. In the context of a Comp Plan or rezoning, they could decide to deny the application because they didn't have sufficient information to address it. Councilmember Finkelstein suggested if they were going to have a "fast track" option, they should have more requirements, such as having the concept plan ready, making sure the neighborhood had met already and had an opportunity to consider it and be involved. He thought this should possibly be discussed further at a study session. Councilmember Basil] clarified this was coming forward because some of the neighborhood leaders and associations got very nervous when they saw the Council making a Comp Plan change without a plan. He thought that had value and merit, but he also understood where Councilmember Finkelstein was coming from and he didn't know how they struck a balance. Mr. Scott commented that the typical way this was done was to run the applications through concurrently From the standpoint of the legal aspect, once they approve the Comp Plan and the rezoning, they have given up where they had virtually all of the discretion. From his standpoint, he preferred the City to retain as much discretion as it could. When they saw the final product, if it fit the criteria generally, but they just didn't like what they were seeing or the direction the project was going, if they had already approved the Comp Plan amendment and the rezoning, they had vastly limited their ability to control the project. If a developer was not willing to extend the time to review the project because the Council felt that they didn't have enough detail, that raised red flags and shouldn't happen. They had the ultimate control to deny. It was moved by Counctlmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Bastll, to consider the item at the next study session. Councilmember Finkelstein believed there were differing viewpoints and this merited more discussion. Councilmember Omodt added without the Mayor and Councilmember Velick present, it would be better for the full Council to discuss The motion passed 5-0. 9. Communications Councilmember Finkelstein stated that there was a temporary exhibit at the Minnesota History Center from the Smithsonian on our American Presidents. They could see everything from the survey equipment of George Washington to the pajamas of George Harding. He encouraged people to see this, it would be here until May. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9.22 p.m. 54-4-.4 -?:2 l/lQ-A-4-4-j----1--- ijA 9 Ce 6 66 City Clerk Mayo