Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/08/16 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular CITY OF OFFICIAL MINUTES ST. LOUIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING PARK ST. LOUIS PARK,MINNESOTA August 16, 2004 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Council members present Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Sally Velick Staff present City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Engineer(Ms. Hagen), Community Development Director(Mr. Locke), Director of Park and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Engineer Development Manager(Mr. Olson), Human Resources Director(Ms. Gohman), Planning/Zoning Supervisor(Ms McGonigal), Public Works Director(Mr. Rardin), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson) 2. Presentations a. Amphitheater Award Donna Tilsner, Chair of the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association Awards Committee presented the Award of Excellence to the City of St. Louis Park for the Veterans Memorial Amphitheater. Mayor Jacobs thanked the Park and Rec Department for their work on the Amphitheater. b. Junior Leaders Recognition John Barthalow, Junior Leader Coordinator for the Park &Rec Department described the Junior Leader program. Mayor Jacobs presented certificates to the Junior Leaders He thanked the junior leaders and their families for their work. 3. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of August 2,2004 Councilmember Santa indicated in the third paragraph on page six, "Bell" should be "Mehl " On page 15 the motion vote should be "6-1." Councilmember Basill noted on page ten, third paragraph, he did not recall saying "because he thought he had heard from neighbors that they wanted some redevelopment there" and asked it be omitted. Councilmember Sanger noted on the first page under the Junior Naturalist appreciation, after it said 988 and she believed the next word should be "hours." b. City Council Study Session Minutes of July 26, 2004 1 City Council Minutes - 2 - August 16, 2004 Councilmember Basill indicated on page three, paragraph five, it said "Councilmembers Basill and Sanger brought up the possibility..." that was Councilmember Sanger. He did not bring up that possibility. c. City Council Study Session Minutes of July 12, 2004 Councilmember Sanger indicated on page two, she had said some things that were not covered in the minutes regarding the section about Louisiana Court. She had indicated that she was particularly concerned with the very high tenant turn-over rate in the three- bedroom apartments because when Project for Pride in Living (PPL) had first asked the City for financial assistance, they were led to believe there was a very strong demand for three-bedroom units and the City had paid to convert some of the one-bedroom units into three-bedroom units. She had expressed her strong concern about that at the meeting Mayor Jacobs noted that it should be inserted at the end of the middle paragraph beginning with "Councilmember Sanger" Councilmember Finkelstein stated on page three, he recalled that they were going to have them reporting back within a time frame about getting the consultant report about the issues at PPL project at Louisiana Court. It was either September or November. He didn't want to leave it open. Councilmember Finkelstein would like copies of all exit interviews from persons moving away from Louisiana Court. Mayor Jacobs thought the sooner the better and indicated he would have Ms. Reichert make the revision to insert a deadline of September and asked that the minutes be brought back for formal approval when the date was added. d. City Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 12,2004 Councilmember Finkelstein noted that his name was misspelled. The minutes were approved 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 (Alternatively. Motion to add or remove items from the agenda,motion to move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar) 4a Approve a 6 month extension of Shelard Homes (Lurie Apartments) Conditional Use Permit until February 16, 2005. 4b Enter into a Clean Water Partnership Agreement for Vegetative Maintenance at Twin Lakes Park with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 4c Adopt Resolution 04-101 appointing election judges for the Primary and General Elections to be held September 14 and November 2, 2004. City Council,Minutes - 3 - August 16, 2004 4d Adopt Resolution No. 04-102 rescinding Resolution No. 03-134 and authorizing the installation of one-hour parking restrictions from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the east side of Xenwood Avenue from Excelsior Boulevard to a point 150 feet north of Excelsior Boulevard. 4e Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2276-04 amending St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) to amend the regulations pertaining to variances in the Floodplain Distncts and regulations pertaining to the Floodplain Districts by adding clarifications required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); approve summary ordinance and authorize publication. 4f Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2277-04 vacating West 37th Street between Alabama Avenue and Wooddale Avenue and alley north of Oxford Street and east of Alabama Avenue, adopt ordinance, approve summary and authorize its publication. 4g Item moved to Action Agenda—Please see Item #8d 4h Approve Resolution No. 04-103 authorizing final payment to Hulegaard Construction for Runnymead Lane (Area#1) and Dahl Property (Area#9) storm sewer improvement project 4i Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License—Holy Family Catholic Church, 5900 & 5925 W. Lake St., St. Louis Park for September 18 & 19, 2004 4j Accept for filing the Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes of May 6, 2004 4k Accept Vendor Claims (Supplement) 41 Accept for filing the Housing Authority Minutes of June 9, 2004 It was motioned by Councilmember Velack, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and Commissions Mayor Jacobs noted that they had completed interviewing Planning Commission applicants and that would be upcoming. 6. Public Hearings - None 7. Requests,Petitions,and Communications from the Public—None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances,Motions 8a. Request by Stonebridge Development and Acquisition, LLC. for an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Civic to High Density Residential and adopt a Redevelopment Plan for the property for a residential senior housing cooperative known as Aquila Commons. Case Nos. 04-23-CUP 8200 33rd Street West. Resolution No. 04-096 Mr. Locke reported a brief history of the project City Council Minutes -4 - August 16, 2004 Ms. McGonigal presented the staff report. Gary Tushie, Tushie Montgomery Architects, reviewed the previous plan presented to the neighborhood group at a meeting held last Wednesday. They met with the single-family residents to the East and then with the other surrounding neighbors The neighbors primary concern was future residents looking into their back yards. The other concern was the close proximity of the building to the East property line. They moved one leg of the building back and shifted the "U" shape so there would be no balconies facing the East side of the property. The parking lot was moved. An additional concern was maintenance of a security fence near the homes and the distance between the fence and the back of the garages. They were proposing a serpentine wall that would allow some pockets of additional landscaping on the single-family side as well as the other side. They still had the garden area for residents and a more formal gathenng place outside of the front entrance They were showing parking spaces inside the courtyard, but would use that area as landscaping if they were not required to put the parking spaces. They were now 77 feet away from the property line and had reduced the amount of units to 114. Tom Racette, 3341 Texas Av. S, asked Mr. Mehl if they were working on a 96-unit, 3-story building? Mr. Mehl, Stonebndge Development replied that they did a drawing showing that. Mr. Racette asked if the drawing was similar? Mr. Mehl replied yes. Mr. Racette asked if that was something they were working on with the City? Mr. Mehl replied he sent a copy to the City, but this meeting was regarding the Comprehensive Plan and the number of units and TIF amounts were not part of this discussion. Mr. Racette wanted the Council to be aware that they discussed the density issue and were trying to lower the density. The developer reduced the plan by eight units, but they were doing numbers on a 96-unit building, which would be more palatable for neighbors. He looked at the cost for an elderly person to move into this project. If someone had a$200,000 house in St. Louis Park, over the next five years they would have approximately 10% appreciation per year. His mother for example, would have an asset worth $303-322,000. If she sold her house and bought one of these units, she would pay$40,000 at a 2% rate of increase and could maybe get 4 ' % on a CD someplace for the remaining portion. At the end of five years, assuming she didn't touch the principal of that money or any interest, she would have an asset of$242,000. It would cost her about$61,000 over and above what she paid for the monthly cost to live there, over what she would have had, had she kept her house. If she had to go into the principal to make payments, then she had a$40,000 unit earning 2% and a declining balance in her savings account. It would cost$62-81,000 to live there for five years, above what she had paid. He had a concern about the model being used, because it was creating something dense in the neighborhood and he wasn't sure it was good for the senior citizens of St. Louis Park. It would cost them more money than the City Council thought. His mother could lose almost$80,000 of her assets dust by living there for five years. While they were evaluating the size, density and the traffic impact, he thought the City Council ought to look at what it would cost an elderly person to live there. They were making some progress and he would like to continue to work with the developers. Mr. Mehl had worked very hard on this and he wanted to give him credit. Mayor Jacobs indicated that there would be further discussions about those issues. This discussion was regarding the land use designation. City Council Minutes - 5 - August 16, 2004 Bernice Cowle-Gordon, Windemere Condominiums, stated that she faced Virginia Avenue and wanted to address the traffic issue. At the last meeting they had a traffic Engineer who surveyed the situation, but as a resident she saw the traffic coming and going. At the nursing home there were frequent "rush" visits of police cars, fire engines, ambulances and long trailers delivenng medical supplies and grocenes. They were concerned about the underground garages, which would enter and exit onto Virginia Avenue. This would cause congestion. The height of the new building was also a concern. There needed to be more meetings and work done to address those issues. Mayor Jacobs replied there would be more meetings and they would be notified. Shepherd Hams, representing the Jewish Community Relations Council, urged the Council's support of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. There were various reasons why they were supportive of this, first was the sentimental value. It had been in the Jewish community many years and they wouldn't hand it over to just anyone. They were happy to see how hard Stonebridge had worked with the City, the Council, staff and the neighbors to work out issues that had been raised. The Jewish community wanted to be a good community partner with the City and supported this for a variety of reasons. Traffic had been an issue that had been raised and they understood that this reduced traffic, which was a concern when school was in session at the previous site. In their eyes it was affordable housing. They were very concerned about senior citizens. The Jewish Community had an above average percentage of senior citizens. Finally, they saw this as a potential to bring in additional taxes, whereas the site before didn't. They had some concerns if the City didn't approve this amendment. First, it was a deterrent to future developers and it could take a few more years to find a potential buyer for the site. They had other schools interested in the site, which would not make neighbors happy because of traffic issues. Lastly, potential tax dollars lost to the City. They wanted to see the City thrive, not just survive Gene Storman, Windemere Condominium Assn., stated that their association was not opposed to the approval of the amendment. They agreed, in concept, to the development and thought it was a great one. He didn't feel that any changes that had taken place affected them. Nothing had changed from the West side of Virginia Avenue. The roof had been lowered to a flat roof, but there were still four-stones. Many people signed petitions opposed to this. He and the board would be willing to sit down with their Councilmember to have this project reduced beyond the 114 units. Their goal would be a three-story building and they would continue to work for that. They didn't feel that a four-story building was nght for the neighborhood. It was out of scale and he requested that the entire Council work toward trying to reduce the overall height of the project to three-stones. Dan Sundem, 3256 Texas Av. S, indicated that his property immediately abutted this project. They met with the developers and City who were quite helpful. The main concern was that their privacy might be invaded if people were able to look into their backyards. They came up with a new plan and they were happy with it. They still had a few concerns, namely a sidewalk being proposed along 33rd, which would be fairly close to his home. They had been very accommodating and willing to work with them. He could not speak for the other property owners, but at the meeting they all seemed to be pretty happy with the new building and they were the ones that were closest to it. They felt it was a good design. City Council Minutes - 6 - August 16, 2004 Mayor Jacobs reiterated that this discussion was limited to the land use designation and there would be more discussion on the planned unit development where they would try to resolve as many issues as they could. Councilmember Velick felt it was a great plan and thanked the architect for making the changes. One of the items people were expressing concern about was the backyard of the homes on Texas and this plan met that concern. It was a step in the nght direction. Councilmember Omodt echoed Councilmember Velick's comments. The developer was not happy when this was continued, but it was worth it. They were getting closer to where they all wanted to be. They fixed the main concern of his regarding the residents on Texas Avenue and he was glad they switched the "U" around. He encouraged them to keep talking and they would come up with something even better. Councilmember Finkelstein was impressed with the work the neighborhood, the architects and developers did on this project. They took the time to listen to the concerns. He hoped when this was done, it was something they could all be proud of. He thought this would be a project that would serve the needs of the City and of the seniors for years to come. Councilmember Santa echoed previous Councilmembers. There was still a ways to go and issues that needed to be hammered out. Now that the neighborhood, the architect and developers were talking and educating each other about what their needs were and where they were coming from, she thought they had already seen that they were getting to a much better project all around. It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt Resolution No. 04-096 approving a Comprehensive Plan map amendment changing land use designation for property at 8200 33rd St W.from Civic to High Density Residential and text amendments to Chapter P of Comprehensive Plan 2000—2020 contingent upon Metropolitan Council review. Councilmember Sanger stated that she thought that housing on this site was a good idea. Changing the Comprehensive Plan to housing was something she would like to be able to support if she thought this was a project that she would be supporting. There were a couple of reasons why she would not support it. The first was the request for TIF funding. In her mind, the requirements for TIF funding had not been met and that the City, by going ahead with this, would be spending around$1 million for a project that did not meet the legal standards. The developers were telling them that they could build this as a senior condominium project with no TIF assistance. They could make good use of this site without spending City dollars. She could not say that they should support $1 million TIF or anything close to make it a co-op rather than a condominium. Secondly, were her concerns with the concept of the limited equity co-op. She didn't have a problem with the concept of a senior co-op, her concerns went to the limited equity feature and were similar with those mentioned by Mr. Racette. The costs of living there were not cheap and it was being marketed as if it were affordable housing. When you considered all of the monthly fees, it was not that inexpensive and she was particularly concerned with the 6% a year cap on the appreciation of the investment. Real estate values had been going approximately 10%, and anyone who invested money in one of these co-ops was artificially limiting their own rate of return. That didn't seem like a good investment. This wasn't something she could financially recommend to her parents and she was having trouble with the City investing TIF money for something City Council Minutes - 7 - August 16, 2004 that they didn't think may be the best investment, when they could invest no money at all and have senior condominiums and no artificial cap on the rate of return. She compared this further to the senior condominiums being proposed for construction in the Quadhon site recently approved where the amounts of TIF for a much larger project were smaller than what was being requested here for a smaller project That included senior condominiums in the same pnce range as these and there was no cap on the rate of return. Between her concerns about not satisfying the TIF standards and her concerns about the finances associated with buying one of these limited equity condos, she could not support this project, but would be happy to support a different kind of senior housing or other housing and at that time would be in support of changing the Comp Plan designation to a housing designation. Councilmember Finkelstein believed that this clearly met the but/for test. It was less intensive than another major type of project and this could be up to a six-story building. In regards to the limited equity nature of this type of project, that was what he found to be so attractive This was offering another option to the seniors in this community who had moderate incomes. It allowed them to sell their homes, put a significant amount of money down, and then they would not be required to do the maintenance and repairs. They would have added amenities and it allowed them to live in dignity and safety with other people. The limited equity portion of it was required by the Federal Mortgage that allowed the co-op feature to get a 40 year mortgage. The purpose of making it a limited equity and increase the amount was to allow seniors now and in the future to be able to buy into this type of program This was an option that was offered in many first ring suburbs and something they did not have in St. Louis Park. He felt it was needed and that they would see that by the number of people who signed up to participate in this program. The motion passed 6-1, with Councilmember Sanger opposed. Councilmember Santa indicated neighbors had received a letter last week about the Planning Commission meeting initially scheduled for August 18`h, which had been rescheduled for September 1st. She wanted to be sure people were aware of that and didn't go to a meeting on August 18th where it would not be discussed. 8b. City Engineer's Report: Lamplighter Pond Storm Water Improvement Project—Lift Station Replacement—Project No. 00-18A Resolution No. 04-097 Ms. Gohman wanted to clarify that the Council focused solely on the lift station and the Public Works Director and staff would focus only on that item. Mr. Rardin reported the history of the Lamplighter Pond situation. Mayor Jacobs asked if there was a lift station there presently and it was just old? Mr. Rardin replied correct. Mayor Jacobs asked if this lift station would do anything significantly different if they approved this or were they just replacing an old machine with a new machine? Mr. Rardin replied correct, it was just a new machine. City Council Minutes - 8 - August 16, 2004 Mayor Jacobs asked if they decided not to do the Lamplighter ponding project, would they still need to replace the lift station that was there because of the age of the machine? Mr. Rardin replied correct. Ms. Hagen presented the staff report. Nathan Busch, 1600 Pennsylvania Av, stated that his comments were also in the form of a letter and he would be sending copies, but he wanted to be on record. According to the plans for the Lamplighter pond project, the level of the water in the pond was to be lowered to 875 feet of elevation. With the design specifications for the current lift station, this goal was attainable and the pond should be able to be lowered to 875 feet. In his May 3`d letter to Ms. Hagen, he requested information as to why the current lift station was unable to lower the pond level. To date, he had yet to receive an answer to that question and would like Ms. Hagen or the consulting engineer to go on record to explain why the current lift station was not able to perform according to specifications. What were the assurances that the proposed lift station would accomplish the desired result? The project design for this pond required that the pond level be lowered to 875 feet. Why didn't the current lift station accomplish that? Was there something wrong with the inlet to the pond or something in the pond prohibiting them from gaining their objective? What was the source of the funding for the lift station? Who gave the grant and how much was it for? Will the Environmental Assessment worksheet (EAW) have to be modified to reflect these changes? To his recollection, the original EAW did not include the proposed lift station. According to documents in the possession of the City Clerk, the consulting engineer for the project had recommended an extended measurement of the ground water level dunng the draw-down test. They also recommended that measurements be taken over a penod of three to six months if the North pond area was excavated first and over a penod of a year if the Lamplighter area proper was excavated. In the letter from Ms. Hagen dated August 2, 2004, the term of the measurement was currently uncertain, but not expected to extend past two months. Why were the recommendations of the consulting engineers being ignored to accelerate the pace of the Lamplighter pond project? A geological hydrological study had indicated a separated local ground water flow system to the South of Lamplighter pond. The study said, "Lamplighter pond is hydrologically connected to the saturated matenals above and below the peat layer at the intersection of Quebec and 22n1." That means, lowenng the pond level directly impacted the water level in the surrounding ground. Last September Pete Willenbring said that the draw-down test in 2000 showed no interaction, while he knew that the study performed in 1997 showed a direct connection between the pond level and the surrounding ground water. If the pond were pumped down to 875, which was the desired goal and had never been done, they would be pumping ground water, which was illegal. A different consulting engineer had indicated that the potential subsidence in the area surrounding Lamplighter pond could range between .8 inches to 1.5 inches once the water level was lowered below 877 feet. If the pond level were below 877, it meant that the surrounding area would sink between .8 inches and 1.5 inches within a year. Depending upon the location, the subsidence could range "up to approximately two to three inches." It was not hard to imagine what would happen to the inside of the house. Given the connection between the level of the water in Lamplighter pond and the surrounding water table, was it responsible to conduct a current draw-down test to identify the connection between the water in the Lamplighter pond and the surrounding water table? This information had apparently been withheld from the proper regulatory agencies as well, because this had never been revealed through the City Council Minutes - 9 - August 16, 2004 environmental assessment worksheet to the DNR, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District or the Army Corp of Engineers. This was important information for those agencies to determine whether this project should or could go forward. The project had been sold as a flood mitigation project for flooding in the area of 22"d and Quebec. He had never believed that. Documents in the possession of the City Engineer and the City Clerk, indicated that at least three projects would ultimately impact the Lamplighter pond area: the building of an expansion at the church of 15,000 square feet; proposed modifications of the field at the junior high school, which would cause a considerable amount of run-off and would need the pond project for that; and, an expansion of the nursing home to the North. The project initially said that there was going to be a basin. The nursing home had refused to give permission because they wanted to expand. The City needed to do an investigation and be forthcoming with what was true about this project You heard that the original plans for the pond did not exist, he got a copy from the City Clerk. He suggested what he would like to see happen. One, as the recommendation and the liability mitigation program submitted by WSB Peter Willenbnng to the City Attorney, leave the North area as it was and don't dredge it. Leave the pathway alone. Dredge the current pond, reshape the banks to stabilize them and because the pond level had already been down to 877 feet of elevation, maintain it there and see how they did with the new pumping station. If the project was fixed up a little the way it was, they wouldn't need to take it down to 875 and suffer the potential liabilities from the damages, especially since they knew that there was a unique ground water flow there that hadn't been properly brought forth to the regulatory agencies. Mayor Jacobs stated that there were two questions brought up, one was what was the funding source for the new pump? Ms. Hagen replied that the total amount was $459,000 and that amount was factored into the total cost of the project. They had envisioned one contract for the lift station and all of the grading work. Mayor Jacobs asked if that was a result of a grant or what was the funding source? Ms. Hagen replied correct, as part of the Minnesota DNR grant that was received by the City in 2002, it was a one to one match. For every dollar that the City spent, the grant would match one. Half of the amount would come from the DNR grant or approximately $229,000 and the storm sewer utility bond proceeds would pay for the other$229,000. Mayor Jacobs asked in terms of the pumps capacity, was it going to be a different capacity of pump in terms of the ability to draw down? Ms. Hagen replied it would be exactly the same size. The capacity down-stream was limited. There were already flooding problems down the line. One of the options that they originally looked at was increasing the capacity of the pump station to get more water out quicker. They couldn't do that because of the down-stream conditions, so the pumps would remain the exact same size and pump the same amount out. The difference was, which related to Mr. Busch's question of why couldn't the existing lift station take it down to 875, the way the screen is. There is a lot of junk such as plastics bags, etc, that got into the pumps and clogged them and they weren't able to take it down that far. It was part of the on-going maintenance problems and why they were looking at replacing this. The new lift station would be placed one and a half feet lower and the invert of the pipe would be one and a half feet lower. Currently it was 874, you would think they could get it down to 875, but they couldn't because of the amount of mud that was being sucked into the pumps. Mayor Jacobs stated what they were talking about now was a limited issue of whether or not to replace a lift station and they were not talking about whether they draw it down to City Council Minutes - 10 - August 16, 2004 875 or 877. If they replaced the lift station,could they then have a further discussion with the neighborhood about how far they took it down? Ms. Hagen replied absolutely, that was what the draw-down test was studying, exactly how far they could take it down Mayor Jacobs assumed they would have more discussion with the neighborhood about that before they did it. Ms. Hagen replied yes. Mayor Jacobs asked if it was being drawn down now? Ms. Hagen replied before they took further action, they would bnng the results to the neighborhood once they did the draw-down test. Councilmember Sanger stated as she interpreted Mr. Busch's comments, it seemed that most of them were going to the larger project and not the specifics of replacing the lift station. He did raise one question that related to the lift station that they hadn't addressed, that would be whether there was any requirement to do an EAW or EIS or amend the existing EAW solely in order to replace the lift station? Mr. Scott replied no. Councilmember Omodt asked Mr. Busch if his questions had been answered? Before they went to questions for Ms. Hagen, there were some allegations in a letter from Mr. Davis which he thought were unfounded. He knew from time to time there had been disjointed communications on this project. He wanted to say up front that he didn't believe Ms. Hagen was a deceptive person and didn't think she had tned to mislead anyone. Mr. Busch had also talked about three expansion projects and that the pond was being done for those, he hadn't heard of these projects. Mr. Busch replied that the first question he had from Ms Hagen was somewhat answered. He would be sending a letter containing that information and give an opportunity for more dialogue. Regarding the truthfulness of the current EAW, he thought there was substantial evidence to indicate that it was not. On the third issue, the plans for the church and the school were on record in the Clerk's office and had also been before the City Council. Pete Willenbnng spoke about the possible basin at the intersection of Franklin and Pennsylvania and said they couldn't do it because the nursing home wanted to expand there. Councilmember Omodt recalled Mr. Willenbnng saying that, but didn't believe they were active plans or that they had seen plans for the expansion of a nursing home. He also didn't recall seeing plans from the junior high or the church. Mr. Busch responded that he would be happy to provide those plans. When this came back in the fall, Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they could be provided the minutes and information from September 2003, in addition he requested the 1997 study and a one page summary of what an EAW versus an EIS, and what was required for each. Debra Cohen, 1600 Pennsylvania Av, commented that this project had been sold to the residents of the City as a flood mitigation project for the homes in the area. The City's own engineers, Braun Intertec, said that there was no guarantee that this project would help the flooding of the homes. So what was the purpose of the project? Ms. Gohman reiterated that the project was down the road further, the item now was the lift station and they needed to focus on that. There would be additional time for more information. City Council Minutes - 11 - August 16, 2004 Leslie Davis stated often people like to take little pieces off of a project and say that it was limited and they were only talking about the small piece. The public and decision makers depend on EAW's and environmental reviews to be accurate, honest and truthful and this was not This had been signed by the City Engineer that it was accurate and complete to the best of their knowledge It wasn't. It didn't tell where the money was coming from It didn't tell them whether they were making way for additional capacity to the pond Are they going to pave over a parking lot at the school? Was the flood mitigation project a lie to the people to increase the capacity of the pond to accommodate additional development? They couldn't do that because they were already in a wetland and were sinking. He spoke to an engineer about the sinking, flooding homes and he said that there were many alternatives like installing piers and tiling to accommodate the flooding problem. They didn't want to buy out the houses, but there were alternatives they needed to look at. Environmental review called for feasible, prudent alternatives to projects that people opposed. That was part of the MN Environmental Rights Act, Environmental Policy Act and that you would discover in an EIS. If this expansion of the pond was to accommodate additional capacity, they couldn't do it because they were already flooding. Would you generate more storm water runoff? They were told at the beginning of the meeting that this was just an old machine for a new machine. Then they were taking down a building and building a new one, landscaping and building a driveway. They wouldn't let them go forward with this. This was in a wetland, and they needed to deal with the flooding problem, give them compensation or install piers. If they moved on from this little step, they would destroy the habitat of the animals and vegetation living around this pond They would be taking away a beautiful path. You could only move it forward with a fraudulent environmental assessment worksheet. He would stand on that and stake his reputation of 22 years working as the founder and president of the Earth Protector Environmental group that this was a fraud. The EAW had to be truthful and accurate and it wasn't He contacted Mr. Downing at the Environmental Quality Board and they were examining what to do because this had already been approved. There were alternatives. He thought this was a connected action and when they do environmental reviews they can't say that they looked at the pond on Franklin and fit it into this particular project. That was a separate action. If it's a fact that you are going to do this project to increase the capacity for storm water runoff from newer projects, they needed to be forthcoming with the public about that. Councilmember Velick referenced a letter wntten to Mr. Davis dated June 29th, by Ms. Hagen, that answered the questions raised. Mr. Davis asked where in the letter it answered his question from May 21st, if there were new projects or developments being planned or proposed in the area of Lamplighter pond that would require newly generated storm water runoff to be directed to Lamplighter pond? Councilmember Velick noted in the letter, Ms. Hagen said, "The Lamplighter pond sub-watershed is a fully developed area." In her understanding, that meant nothing else was coming. She had not seen any other plans, it was a fully developed area without any plans coming forward. Mr. Davis stated that Mr. Busch just told them that he had seen plans in the offices of St. Louis Park about a parking lot for a church expansion and the hard topping of a ball field. Were they aware of those? Councilmember Velick replied no, they hadn't come before the City Council. They may have been planned at one time and dropped. She was on the Planning Commission six years pnor to the Council, and she never saw anything like that. City Council Minutes - 12 - August 16, 2004 Mayor Jacobs asked if City staff were aware of these plans? The Council had not seen them, but many plans were generated at a level other than the City Council. Mr. Rardin replied that staff had been having discussions for approximately four years with the School Distnct. They would like to redo the Junior High and the fields, but when they did that, they would need to be in compliance with their storm water management plan. They wouldn't need to enlarge the pond to take care of their water. As far as the church, they had talked about possible expansion. There was nothing current and no proposal. It was possible what they had seen was something they were talking about, there had been a lot of communication. He specifically remembered a conversation last September with a nursing home or condo association on the SE where they had talked about having a small pond. He did not believe they said they were looking at a development, they wanted to reserve that property in case they wanted to do something in the future. They did not want to give it up as a storm water pond at the time. Mr. Davis asked if the City acquired the North portion or who owned the property that they wanted to excavate? Ms. Hagen replied that the Park Assembly of God Church owned that property. Mr. Davis asked if they were giving it to the City to dig a hole and put water in? Ms. Hagen responded no, they were going to retain an easement over it. Mr. Davis asked why the church would give them an easement over their wetland and have them dig it out? Ms. Hagen responded that they didn't see a need for it in the future for their development expansion. Mr. Davis stated no, because they were going to dump their water into the Lamplighter pond when they expanded their church and their parking lot. Councilmember Velick commented that the path that Mr. Davis said would be removed, would be replaced and would be lovelier than it presently was because it was falling apart. She believed this would improve the habitat because of the fact that they were going to stop mowing to the edge and would plant native plants. She was very embarrassed that someone would stand there and say that their staff had done something fraudulent. She disagreed wholeheartedly and thought they had worked very hard. It was motioned by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution No. 04-097 accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 00-18A, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids. Councilmember Basill echoed Councilmember Velick's comments. With all due respect to Mr. Davis, reading his letter of August 11, 2004, he defined fraud as, "generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of matenal or existing facts made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act." Mr. Davis' letter went on to say, "The St. Louis Park City Engineer signed the fraudulent EAW which aided in circumventing the proper and legitimate environmental review and should be called to answer for the indiscretions." He could assure him that she signed that with the best of her knowledge, believing it was accurate and they were continuing to look at that. The defamatory statement that she would intentionally misrepresent was wrong. He asked for a point of order because they were City Council Minutes - 13 - August 16, 2004 talking about the lift station and they had listened to Mr. Davis and Mr. Busch go on about the staff on an issue that was not on the agenda. They needed to get back to that issue. Councilmember Sanger supported the motion and understood that it was dust dealing with the lift station and that they needed to do it regardless of the meats, or lack of merits, of the larger planned proposal, regardless of whether they went forward with a plan to redo the pond, or whether they did it in a way that was currently proposed or in some other fashion. In her judgment, it was totally inappropriate to make the kind of inflammatory statements that had been made about staff. It was fine to have a difference of opinion, but to put that into terminology that was so accusatory with no apparent basis, she found to be very disrespectful and not helpful in addressing these issues constructively. Mayor Jacobs agreed with Councilmember Sanger. Councilmember Finkelstein agreed with the rest of the Council He placed a lot of trust in the staff and they had never proven him wrong. Mayor Jacobs stated he had never had a staff person lie to them, or say anything he felt was intentionally incorrect or fraudulent. To suggest that was contrary to the way this City and the staff operated. That was way out of line. A lot of the questions that were raised needed to be answered because there were neighbors who wanted storm water mitigation to alleviate flooding they were experiencing. They may have a very different view on how to accomplish that. The last thing the City wanted to do was to draw down the pond to the detriment of other houses. They needed answers from Engineers who would work with staff. The answers would be truthful to the best of their knowledge, but to accuse them of fraud was wrong Ms. Cohen stated that she asked a question before and didn't get an answer. The Council said that the reason for this project was to mitigate flooding in houses, but the consulting engineers said that the project wouldn't do that, so what was the purpose of the Lamplighter pond project? Mayor Jacobs responded that was not the present discussion and would be one that would happen later on. He had a question about that too and they wanted to get answers before they spent the money and took the actions that had been proposed. He wanted to be sure they weren't going to end up wasting the money or doing more harm than good. If it turned out that the main project wouldn't accomplish its designed purpose, he wanted to take a hard look if they should do it. The motion passed 7-0. Sc. City Engineer's Report: 2004 Trail Improvement Project, City Project No. 04-03 Mr. Olson presented the staff report. Councilmember Sanger asked if they unsure they could finish the construction this fall, what was the point of starting and having something half constructed sit over the winter and then go back to it in the spnng? Mr. Olson replied they would be able to construct three segments, the Flag Avenue, the Gorham Avenue and 36th Street. The resident saw some urgency in constructing those. On the remaining three, which were regional trail connections, they needed to finish final approval of the grant. It was uncertain whether City Council Minutes - 14 - August 16, 2004 that would be completed in a timely fashion. They would start what they could finish this fall and not begin others until the sprang. Ms. Hagen stated that they wouldn't open them up and then leave them partially done. They would try to get the three done. Councilmember Santa stated she was glad to see these projects. She didn't see on the list anything that would give her an idea of when to tell residents to expect notice about when construction was starting. As welcome as this was, it would cause disruption to traffic and people needed to know. Mr. Olson replied they would notify those being impacted by the construction and traffic impacts. None of these abutted personal property. Councilmember Santa indicated that even though there were no houses along these areas, there would be major exits from a neighborhood being affected and any construction would impact the people living there. She wanted to be sure that they could tell people when they could expect construction. Councilmember Basill noted that he was very happy to see the West 36th Street around Jorvig Park. It was a dangerous corner and to complete that trail segment was an exceptional improvement and he welcomed it this fall. It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 04-098 accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 04-03, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids. The motion passed 7-0 It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt the Resolution No. 04-099 accepting a grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource (DNR)for partial funding of regional trail connections. The motion passed 7-0. 8d. Adjustment to the City Manager's Salary. Resolution No. 04-100 Mayor Jacobs indicated an evaluation was done of the City Manager who is doing an outstanding job and pursuant to contract they were required to discuss after a six-month penod of time an adjustment to his salary. Ms. Gohman stated that they had to operate under the salary cap. In the resolution, although the Council approved an annual salary of$120,000, which was discussed at the study session, they must comply with the salary cap, so the compensation limit would be $116,600 and therefore part of the resolution would put 53 hours into a paid time off bank. They had a policy that had set that up. It was motioned by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt Resolution No. 04-100 confirming a salary increase for the City Manager and paid time off effective August 1, 2004. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications City Council Minutes - 15 - August 16, 2004 Mayor Jacobs stated that National Night Out was a huge success. There were 116 parties. He attended five or six and it was a fun event. He thanked the Police, Fire and Public Works Departments for their work and those in the communities who helped to organize events. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9.34 p.m. • it_a—i—g—a---)---i— a hi II C ty Clerk Maytr