HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/08/02 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular CITY OF OFFICIAL MINUTES
ST. LOUIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PARK ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
August 2, 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 Manager(Mr. Harmening), Director of Community
Development (Mr. Locke), Economic Development Coordinator(Mr. Hunt), Fire Chief(Chief
Stemmer), Human Resources Director(Ms. Gohman), Planning Coordinator(Ms. Enckson), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson).
2. Presentations
2a. Junior Naturalist Appreciation
Michelle Franken, Activity Specialist at the Westwood Nature Center, was present at the
meeting and together with Mayor Jacobs presented certificates to the Junior Naturalists in
appreciation of their volunteer service. The Jr. Naturalists had volunteered a total of 988
hours to date this year helping with kids camps, ponds, wild flowers, Monarch
monitoring and, animal care. Mayor Jacobs also thanked the families for their support of
the program.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of July 19, 2004
Councilmember Basill commented that the minutes were very thorough and very accurate
The minutes were approved as presented.
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
i
4a Designate Parsons Technologies the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution
of a contract with the firm in the amount of$496,543.00 for construction of a fiber
optic network to connect certain City and School District buildings
4b Accept vendor claims for filing (Supplement)
4c Accept for filing the BOZA minutes of May 27, 2004
4d Accept for filing the Human Rights Commission Minutes of June 16, 2004
Mr. Harmenin recommended that item 8c be removed from the agenda and be rescheduled for
the August 16i , 2004 meeting
Council Meeting Minutes -2- August 2, 2004
It was motioned by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the
Agenda with the deletion of item 8c, and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions
It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
appoint Marjorie Douville to the Fire Civil Service Commission
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing- Elmwood Village Tax Increment Finance District
Resolution No.'s 04-090 and 04-091
Mr. Hunt indicated he had no further comments beyond those submitted at the EDA meeting,
however Hennepin County had submitted testimony that they requested be included in the
record. He summarized their comments regarding the Elmwood Village Renewal and
renovation TIF District, they found the TIF Plan does not identify the type of housing, whether
it would be rental or ownership, or the age range or income level of the targeted market for the
units; however, since the TIF would be used as a funding mechanism of last resort to
maximize the density of housing units, it appeared the TIF District satisfied the preference of
the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners for use of tax increment financing.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing and with no one present to speak the public
hearing was closed.
Councilmember Basill indicated that one of the changes was the decision to sell the office
building. He had some concerns about the outside and asked the developer if they were
going to refurbish it before it was sold, or if that would be up to the seller
Michael Noonan, Rottlund Homes, replied that their intention had always been to sell the
office building. When they were before the Council previously, there was the intention to
sell it to Sherman and Associates and that transaction had not transpired and their intention
was to take the office building to the market. They planned to refurbish the outside and as
well as additional work to make it ready for sale. They anticipated that the work would
take place later this month or early September.
Councilmember Basill noted that he saw a couple of the Elmwood neighborhood leaders
present and it was nice to see them sitting next to the developer.
Mayor Jacobs indicated the reason no one spoke was because they had been speaking
before which was good.
It was motioned by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein to adopt
Resolution No. 04-090 approving the elimination of parcels from the Trunk Highway 7
Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District (Hennepin County TIF District No 1302),
within Redevelopment Project No. 1 in the City of St Louis Park, and, to adopt Resolution
No. 04-091 modifying Redevelopment Project No. 1, establishing the Elmwood Village Tax
Increment Financing District, and adopting a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor.
The motion passed 7-0.
Council Meeting Minutes -3- August 2, 2004
6b. Public Hearing - Aquila Commons Tax Increment Finance District
Resolution No. 04-092
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report. Hennepin County had sent a letter regarding the
proposed Aquila Commons Housing TIF Distnct, since the TIF would be used as a funding
mechanism of last resort for development of ownership housing for moderate income
seniors, the TIE district satisfied the preference of the Hennepin County Board of
Commissioners for the use of tax increment financing.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Tom Racette, 3341 Texas Av. S, had lived in the area for 28 years and was very familiar
with the area and the proposed TIF District He had attended neighborhood meetings and
was concerned about the size of the project and traffic impacts in the neighborhood He
stated that a petition in opposition to the project had been signed by over 100 people also
concerned with the size and scope of the project, traffic and the impact a project of that size
would have on the neighborhood. He stated that the concept was good and the
neighborhood wanted to see good development, but the proposal was too big He had
talked with a number of neighbors and the consensus was if Stonebridge could bring the
structure to two-stories, he believed it would be welcomed with open arms and be a win/win
for everyone. He had asked if that would be possible and the response had been that it
depended on whether TIE financing was available from the City. He suggested explonng
that possibility, but was concerned that Councilmember Sanger was not in favor of TIF
financing for this project.
Councilmember Sanger responded she was not conceptually opposed to all TIE financing
in all circumstances, it was just this particular proposal.
Tracy Burns, 3301 Virginia, Aquila Neighborhood Assn, indicated they had been
spending a lot of time talking about this and the neighbors were alarmed and womed
about the size and scope of the project. She would like to see a smaller building She
had spoken to people that supported the project as proposed, one family that wanted to
move in, one man that had a moving business and thought he could make money from it
and a third person that was womed about other larger projects that might be proposed
should this one fail She was not opposed to redevelopment of the site and knew the site
could not remain vacant forever. She would like to see something smaller that they could
be happy with and good neighbors with.
Mayor Jacobs indicated that Council's proposed actions for the TIF District and the Comp
Plan amendment (8a), wasn't constraining the City from having these discussions. He
wanted to be clear that what was on the table now was the establishment of the TIF
District and then a Comp Plan amendment. He acknowledged the concerns expressed
about the project, and stated that many of the details needed to be discussed Mr Locke
replied that the action now was creating the TIF district and did not commit the City to the
specific project that had been designed to illustrate how this might work It also did not
preclude the City from ending up approving a project that was two or four-stones or a
specific number of units.
Mayor Jacobs asked if it locked them into any particular TIF number. Mr. Locke replied
no, it set a maximum, but it didn't lock them in
Council Meeting Minutes -4- August 2, 2004
Ms. Burns stated that they had heard a lot from the developer and City staff that there was
a minimum economic level at which they could produce this building and this
development. She had heard over and over that they couldn't seem to do it for anything
less. That was very consistent and they were trying to see if there was a scenano where
they could do something less, if it were doing something with the TIF or making a
different layout of the building with larger units, she didn't know what the magic
scenario would be.
Mr. Harmening explained that they had generally agreed that $1 million in tax increment
assistance would be something at this point in time the City was comfortable with. That
was based on 122 units If the number of units went down, perhaps by eliminating a floor
or two, the amount the developer could afford to pay for the land would go down too.
Even though the number of units would be less many of the development costs would
remain the same. One of the largest costs is the land acquisition cost. Presumably if the
cost of the land stayed the same, and the price the developer could afford to pay dropped,
then the funding gap for the project would increase and therefore the request for tax
increment assistance would go up. The current request for assistance, based on a 122 unit
building is $1 million. A smaller building would require more tax increment help. The
amount of additional help needed, he couldn't guess at. It was a function of the size of
the project, if there were more units on the project, the tax increment assistance would be
less, if there were fewer units in the project, the TIF assistance would be more.
Ms. Burns thought perhaps instead of$40,000 to get into the building, a prospective
buyer could be required to pay $50,000; it was still not a huge difference. This could be a
way to cover the funding gap created by building a smaller building.
Mayor Jacobs felt those were legitimate questions that needed to be discussed after they
passed on the issue of the establishment of the TIF district. A concern he had was the
fact that it set a maximum because of what the City Manager just said and if the unit
count went down, the TIF assistance may need to go up and he was not sure by how
much. The amount of assistance would depend on the number of units Mr. Locke
replied that the tax increment consultant could address that issue.
Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers and Associates, indicated essentially what Mr. Locke was stating,
that the TIF budget set the maximum, so they were looking at 122 units. The maximum tax
increment that would be generated for that district would be much more than $1 million.
They had just reduced the term of the district for the purposes of creating the development
agreement. If in fact there were more units, they could look at accommodating a larger tax
increment amount if that was the way they chose to move forward in the future.
Mayor Jacobs clarified if there were less units, they would need more TIF. He wanted to
make sure that the Council had the maximum flexibility to continue this discussion, so if
the number of units changed, they could accommodate that in a tax increment financing
number. Ms. Kvilvang replied that the present value on the tax increment was in excess
of$3 million, so they had a couple million of"wiggle" room To the extent that they
would need more than that, they would need to look at redoing the distnct.
Councilmember Santa asked if it were correct to say if they went with 122 units, they
could anticipate a pay back in nine years, however if they lowered the number of units,
,
Council Meeting Minutes -5- August 2, 2004
they could anticipate an extended penod, perhaps 13-15 years for a payback? So the
number could stay the same, but the payback period could be extended? Mr. Locke
replied the amount of increment that was generated depended upon how much '
development was put on the site. If they reduced the number of units on the site, they
would likely reduce the total amount of tax increment generated, but would increase the
need for tax increment assistance for the developer to be able to afford to do the project.
For this project to move forward there are a couple of pieces to the puzzle. One was
creating the TIF District which made it possible for the City to collect tax increment
dollars which the City could spend how the City saw fit, including assisting this project.
There was a second piece, that was more generic, which was entering into a contract with
the developer that spelled out how much development they were going to create, what the
value was and how much assistance they would be provided. That would be the piece
that would vary depending on how many units and how much assistance they needed.
Mr. Racette expressed concern that the development agreement would be before the
Council on August 16th, which was not enough time to hold neighborhood meetings. He
suggested deferring until alternate proposals could be presented to the neighborhood.
Mr. Locke stated there was a certain amount of"chicken and egg" aspect to these
situations in that they don't go through all of the work to create a TIF district unless there
was a viable proposal that showed the TIF numbers would work. What had been
proposed would work. There was nothing saying that they would have to put the
development agreement on the August 16th meeting if the Council wanted to change the
nature of the project.
Mr Locke indicated that once the City created the TIF district, the City still had to figure
out the terms of a deal. If the Council wanted to do a different project than had been
proposed, the district could be created and it may take more time to come up with a
different project.
Councilmember Sanger commented that when they talked about whether the perceived
need for TIF financing might be increased, to bear in mind that they were thinking about
it only in terms of the current proposed governance structure of this building, the
• structure of a limited equity co-op. If they were willing to consider other forms of
building governance, they may very well find that they could still build senior housing
with far less need, or perhaps not any need for TIF financing. She urged that the
developer consider other alternatives and not let themselves have a very narrow
perspective on the alternative The second comment went to the issue of flexibility, if a
Comp Plan amendment were passed, the City would lose a lot of flexibility because once
that was changed, the developer had far more leverage to build what he wanted. It
seemed to her that particular decision ought to be deferred until there was a clear
consensus on what kind of building and how much money was involved.
Gene Storman, Board President of Windemere Condominiums, felt that the city shouldn't
let the developer go two more weeks and put in more time if there was a possibility of
reducing the scope of the project. He pointed out the level of opposition referring to the
signatures on the petition The comments he was hearing from persons opposed were "too
big," "too high," and "too much traffic being generated onto Virginia " He was aware of
what the traffic study showed, but was still concerned about entrance onto Texas from 32"d
Council Meeting Minutes -6- August 2, 2004
He did not believe the developer had interest in reducing the scope of the project. The
developer had said that they made significant changes in the project based on the neighbors
input, yet the only change was to reconfigure the four-story element because of the zoning
setback and height requirements He asked the city to consider the possibility of
participating to a greater degree with TIF.
Ron Mehl, Stonebndge Development, stated that they had two neighborhood meetings
At the first meeting, some of the things that were brought up were building height, traffic,
perceived property values and reduction, shadow casts, neighbors wanted to see what the
building would look like from various perspectives and models, they wanted to see other
examples of similar developments where there were three and four-story buildings near
single family homes, additional enhancements to create more green space were requested
and that the density was too high. As far as the building mass and heights, they listened
to the neighbors and tried to do everything they could, keeping in mind the economics of
the property and the cost of the land.
A major concern had been the six single-family homes along Texas where they had the
four-stones They reconfigured the building, moving that four-story piece closer to a
park where there were no single-family homes Traffic was also a concern and the City
hired SRF Engineers (at the developer's expense) who were present to talk about the
traffic study. They had hired Maxfield Research to study surrounding property values
and the impact of senior co-ops on surrounding neighborhoods. Their study showed that
at four other Sr. Co-ops the property values next to the co-op increased about 8% in the
year following the year that the co-op was built. The shadow cast by the proposed
development met city requirements, but a summertime shadow study was requested and
the developer provided that, as well. They had provided building elevations and
examples of similar developments Additional enhancements were another concern and
the developer had asked to have 14 surface parking spaces be shown as proof of parking.
The current high density housing zoning that was on the property would allow for 137
units of mixed market rate housing on the site, which would create a lot more traffic and
be a bigger building than what they were proposing. They had chosen to do 122 units of
senior housing.
Based on the eight concerns expressed by the neighborhood, the developers felt that they
had worked very hard and spent a considerable amount of money to get studies done.
They had held two neighborhood meetings and had tried to address as many concerns as
possible.
Wally Johnson, Stonebndge Development Company, stated that this was their first venture
at a cooperative. Their reason for pursuing a cooperative on this site was the market value
of the homes in the existing neighborhood, the price points the market would support and
the senior population of this area. The need for a 122 unit building was simply a product
of the acquisition price of this property which is $1.9 million (there was an appraisal that
supported that) and other development costs. They also had about $360,000 of asbestos
and other abatement costs that needed to covered.
He expressed his belief that a limited equity cooperative would work in this location.
They had made a number of modifications to the project as a result of neighborhood input.
He noted that developments of this kind were not affecting the value of nearby single-
family homes. Their decision to do a limited equity co-op and how the economics worked
Council Meeting Minutes -7- August 2, 2004
had been explained at many meetings of Planning Commission and City Council. This
model was what they believed was best for this neighborhood and offered a housing option
not available elsewhere in the city. There were other proposed condominium buildings at
much higher price-points, $350,000 and up, but this was not the neighborhood for that type
of building. TIF assistance provided maintenance of a long-term parking lot, the street
light and was covering and writing down the cost of the building that affected the sales
prices. The limited equity was going to be for the citizens of St Louis Park for a long time
and allowed people to get into this building at an affordable cost for a number of years.
They had tried to share numbers with everyone in terms of construction estimates,
financing costs, etc.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Santa asked to hear about the traffic study. There were several questions
that came up at the neighborhood meeting that she did not see specifically addressed in
the study, specifically traffic on Utah between 33`d and 34`h. Another concern and point
of interest was what peak hour was? How did that work and what did it mean when they
said that there were 13 cars during the peak period?
Carla Stueve, SRF replied that the cut-through issues on Utah between 33rd and 34th were
considered. Cut-through traffic occurred for a couple of reasons, the first reason it would
occur was if the main route was congested and someone was trying to avoid it. The
intersection of 33`d Street and Texas Avenue was operating at level of service "A" which
was not found very much in the Metro area and was the best level of operation. There was
also a traffic signal, so it was very easy to access Texas. There was plenty of capacity at
33`d and Texas, so trying to avoid the congested route was not an issue The other reason
that cut-through would occur was if there was a very direct route or an easier route to take
Utah South of 33rd was very circuitous down to Knollwood Mall The majority of traffic
would either go down Texas or go to the West on 33`d and go South on Aquila. If there was
some cut-through in the neighborhood, it would be very minimal. The driveway on 33r1
would be mainly used by visitors. The main resident access was off Virginia so the number
of trips that would be during the PM peak hour by visitors would be very low.
Councilmember Santa stated that they heard a comment about how difficult it was to get
from 32nd onto Texas. Ms. Stueve replied they looked at that in detail, which was
something that they didn't normally do. But they had someone sit at that intersection
during the AM and PM peak periods, from 7-8:00 AM and then from 4:30-5:30 PM, and
count the delay for vehicles on 321th trying to access Texas. The average delay during the
AM peak period was two seconds and the average delay during the PM peak hour was
seven seconds. The perception may be that they were waiting longer than they really
were, but the average delay was pretty low. That intersection was also operating at a level
of service "A" and was consistent with what the traffic model was telling them. The tnps
that were projected to be generated by this development were based on the ITE Trip
Generation Reports, which are based on hundreds of studies over many years of different
land use types. During the AM peak hour the number of trips projected for this
development was ten trips. That meant ten total trips, five in, five out, for example during
the AM peak period. During the PM peak period 13 trips were projected, during a one-
hour period.
Council Meeting Minutes -8- August 2, 2004
Mayor Jacobs clarified that they were dust dealing with the establishment of the tax
increment finance district, although comments and discussion had gone beyond that
topic.
Councilmember Omodt stated he had some concerns. He had no doubt about the
integrity of Stonebndge, he had met with them and visited properties with them and
thought their reputation was solid. He agreed with Mr. Racette who talked about making
this a win/win and was afraid that they would set an expectation by approving this which
meant one thing to one group and another thing to the other group and that the "chicken
and egg" question was not going to be answered the way they wanted. He struggled
because some people were saying that the height of the nursing home was three-stones,
when he was there he only counted two. If they couldn't even count the same stones,
they were all in a different spot. He had not been in a third story in that building, as far
as he could tell there were only two above-ground stories.
Mr. Mehl indicated that there were three stones on the side where it dropped off along 32" on
the West.
Councilmember Omodt thought depending on where you stood it was two or three. They
were moving a little too fast and that there were too many questions. Even though they
said there would be some "wiggle" room, he would rather have them come back. There
were other developers that had spent a lot of time meeting and usually they came up with
pretty good results (Elmwood and Methodist Hospital for example). He didn't think this
was ready. He didn't have a problem with TIF on this property; he just thought this
building didn't fit with the character of the neighborhood, and that they needed to do
more work. If they needed to adjust the scale and scope of the project to meet the
character of the neighborhood, they would all be ahead. He asked the City Manager if
this could be deferred to another time. Mr Harmening responded with regard to the tax
increment creation, they could do that They had several options available, they could
approve the creation of the tax increment district or deny it, or continue this matter to a
later date if they wished and take action at that time. There were no time constraints
associated with it. Where they did run into some time constraints was on the Comp Plan
amendments. They had to take some kind of action within the 60/120-day rule, either
approve or deny or get an extension from the developer.
Councilmember Omodt asked if they knew what that date was specifically? Mr. Locke
replied that he believed they had the ability to continue for another month, until
September 2"d or 3rd, which would be the end of the 120-day cycle.
Councilmember Velick indicated that they were doing two things on this project, one was to
establish a TIF District and the second was to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Both of those items would make no difference whether or not this project specifically, was
approved. Later on in the process, this would become a PUD and then they would have far
more leverage to discuss the height, and traffic studies, in additional to any other
neighborhood concerns. She believed these items should go ahead at this meeting
Mr. Harmening added if the Council were to approve the creation of the tax increment
district and the Comp Plan amendment, there were a minimum of two other approvals
needed. One would be that the EDA would have to approve a development agreement that
laid out the amount of assistance and the terms of the deal, not unlike what was approved
for the Rottlund project. The other was approval of a PUD and perhaps a plat that went into
Council Meeting Minutes -9- August 2, 2004
the specifics of the building height, materials, traffic, landscaping, etc Having said that, he
didn't want to diminish the importance of what they were doing. They would be expressing
an interest in the project by creating the tax increment district and amending the Comp Plan,
but they were not committing to this project if they approved those items.
Councilmember Omodt asked if they took off the Civic Designation from this parcel of
land, what stopped the developer from selling the land to someone who could put in a
six-story building or something with higher density? Mr. Harmening replied given case
law and other determinations made by land use attorneys, even if they did not change the
land use designation or Comp Plan, a developer could propose a project within the realm
of the zoning and ultimately build it with a Civic designation on the site.
Mr. Scott added that when they had a conflict between the Comp Plan and the Zoning
ordinance, the Zoning ordinance did control. The law was that they were not supposed to
have those conflicts and that they were supposed to take steps to eliminate them, but from
the standpoint of someone applying, if they had a conflict, which they did have, there was
a strong argument that the Zoning ordinance controlled.
Councilmember Finkelstein spoke in favor of the concept of a limited equity senior co-
op. He thought it clearly passed the "but/for" test. This was an asbestos infested building
that sat vacant for two years and was looking worse every month. Prior to that time it
was utilized as the Talmud Torah School which had a fair amount of traffic. In regard to
the limited equity cooperative, he believed that was the most attractive portion of this
concept in the sense that they were keeping it affordable for the seniors of St. Louis Park
now and in the future and he thought it met the needs of the City and the neighborhood.
He thought they should do this and vote in favor of a tax increment finance district. In
regard to the second issue, he asked if they could approve the tax increment financing,
but hold off on the decision of the Comp Plan? Mr. Harmening replied they had the time
to do that within the realm of their time restrictions
Councilmember Finkelstein wanted to see a limited equity senior co-op and thought even
the neighborhood agreed that it was a good concept.
Councilmember Santa stated she was torn on this She liked the concept of a limited
equity senior co-op. She thought Stonebndge had come up with a proposal that had some
very attractive elements, but felt that there had not been nearly enough neighborhood
meetings They had talked about two neighborhood meetings and knew that similar
projects had two meetings a week. There were a lot of issues that had been raised by the
neighborhood and they had not had an opportunity to discuss them thoroughly with the
developer or City staff. There were still a lot of issues that needed to be discussed about
this project, which was not to say that it didn't have some really good elements. She was
in favor of setting up a tax increment finance district because she thought it was necessary
to get a project on this property. She would like to do that and would also like to see a lot
more neighborhood meetings with the developer and staff to discuss some of these issues
so that they could come to a resolution. It was her firm belief that a project could only
benefit from neighborhood input She pointed out the fine work that was done at Excelsior
and Grand as a foremost example of what a developer, City staff and neighbors working
together could come up with that was far better than the vision of anyone person
Council Meeting Minutes -10- August 2, 2004
It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein to
adopt Resolution No. 04-092 modifying Redevelopment Project No. 1 and establishing
the Aquila Commons Tax Increment Financing District and adopting a Tax Increment
Financing Plan therefor subject to City Council approval of the pending amendment to
the City's Comprehensive Plan changing the land use designation of the subject property.
Councilmember Basil! wanted the neighbors to understand that he wasn't approving any
kind of density on the site. They had jumped ahead a little by talking about that, which
was OK because it was coming, but he wasn't looking at how many units per acre or the
height of this building that should be allowed. They were not approving the number of
units or the building height now, and he wanted residents to understand that they were
only approving the TIF district. What the TIF district would allow was something that
they were all on the same page about, which was some redevelopment for the site,
eventually. By approving the TIF district, it did not mean that they were going to end up
with a certain amount of units, or a certain height. They would have to determine that
down the road and that was why he was OK moving ahead with the T1F district.
Councilmember Omodt stated he would be voting against the TIF because he thought it
was too much, too soon. He would rather see a more defined plan before them instead of
saying that they were just going to do something later. To Councilmember Finkelstein's
comments, he disagreed because the developer bought the building knowing that it had
asbestos It had been sitting vacant for two years. It was not asbestos "infested" and the
kids that went to Talmud Torah were not running around in an asbestos infected school,
and then the next day they bought it. He thought it was a scary word to put out there for
kids that might have gone there to think that they might have been at risk. Frankly, it was
the property owner's duty to keep the property up to code and they could not let it sit and
deteriorate, they needed to comply with zoning and property maintenance. He didn't
want people believing they could let their property deteriorate and then get tax increment
dollars, because that was not the way it worked. They needed to look at tax increment as
a "but/for" test, and if the project had a community benefit. The City also had to make
sure property owners kept up their property. He disagreed that the building was infested
and that those kids were at risk.
Councilmember Finkelstein replied with regard to the asbestos, it was clear that it made
reuse of the building in its present condition difficult.
The motion passed 5-2, with Councilmembers Omodt and Sanger opposed
6c. Public hearing for petition of Rottlund Homes to vacate West 37th Street
between Alabama Avenue and Wooddale Avenue and alley north of Oxford
Street and east of Alabama Avenue. Request of Rottlund Homes for a final
PUD and plat for property located at 3630 Wooddale Ave, 5951 and 5957 W
37th Street,5912 Oxford Street, 5916 Oxford Street, 5920 Oxford Street, 5926
Oxford Street to construct 78 townhouse units, 66 condominium units,and
80 senior condo units and with a variance from the subdivision ordinance for
private street width and a PUD modification for building height.
Case Nos. 03-75-VAC,03-73-PUD, 03-74-S.
Resolution No. 04-093
Ms. Erickson presented the staff report.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Council Meeting Minutes -11- August 2, 2004
Kirk Hawkinson, 6008 Goodrich Av., indicated on the other project they had done a
study of traffic in the area, which wasn't done on this The stoplight on 36th and
Wooddale was not very residentially friendly It was set up for people to cut-through on
36th and go onto Highway 7. Were they going to make two left turn lanes?
Ms. Erickson replied as part of the Elmwood study that was done prior to this project,
they looked at Wooddale Av. and a two-lane street in each direction with a landscaped
median between 36th St. and Oxford St. was being proposed It would allow for a left
turn from Wooddale going onto 36th St. and also allow someone to continue going
straight Oxford would remain a one-way
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Basill asked if the timing with the median on Wooddale was different
than this project? Ms. Erickson replied that was correct. There had not been a date set
for that. As part of the development proposal, they were dedicating additional right-of-
way on the West side of Wooddale Av. and giving an easement for additional right-of-
way on the East side so there would be right-of-way in place to do that project.
Councilmember Basill agreed with Mr Hawkinson's comments that the intersection was
not that friendly and he wanted to make sure that there were other concerns with that road
being widened and that it was a long-term project and there would be a public process.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the developer could provide an idea of the price ranges in the
buildings? Will there be three separate condominium associations, or just one? If they were
separate how would there be governance or oversight on the common areas and outdoor space?
Michael Noonan, Rottlund Homes, replied that they were proposing three housing types,
the senior condominium, the loft condominium in the middle and the townhouses. The
loft condominiums would be the most affordable beginning with base prices in the
$180's, which would match with the Met Council's affordable housing targets that had
been established, in fact below their numbers. The next affordable would be the senior
condo which would be in the range of$225,000, and the townhouse would be $275-
280,000 The square footages ranged at 950 sq. ft. in the lofts, the senior condos about
1250 sq. ft. and the townhouse about 1800 sq. ft.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked what the range of prices would be? Mr. Noonan
responded the starting prices would be buying the base model, and the individual would
have the ability to purchase additional options for cabinetry, flooring etc.
Councilmember Finkelstein understood that, but asked if it would range from $225-
250,000? Mr. Noonan believed on average, the purchasers were probably putting
somewhere between $0 to $25-30,000 in terms of extras and upgrades. In terms of the
governance structure, they were going to have a master association to cover the ground of
the entire site which would be responsible for the maintenance of the roads and the
underlying utilities as well as the common areas and the storm water management pond.
The individual buildings would have their own sub-associations, which would be
responsible for the structures themselves, the underground parking, as well as the exterior
shell and the roof That way they had individual housing units responsible for their own
Council Meeting Minutes -12- August 2, 2004
upkeep and maintenance while the collective were responsible for the common areas and
grounds that they all enjoyed.
Councilmember Basill stated that they talked earlier about the office building and that it
would get a face left which was positive. To compliment that, he knew this was an issue
brought up by staff and at some of the neighborhood meetings, for the neighbors that
were not in attendance, he wanted them to be aware that any garage levels that were
exposed would be done with class one matenal which was important for residents who
had asked that question and were not aware of that That was a positive development
It was motioned by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to approve
first reading of ordinance to vacate West 37th Street between Alabama Avenue and
Wooddale Avenue and alley north of Oxford Street and east of Alabama Avenue and set
second reading for August 16, 2004; to approve Resolution No. 04-093 for Final PUD with
conditions; and, to approve Resolution No. 04-094 for Final plat with conditions.
The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Harmening wanted to take a moment to recognize the hard work that had gone into this
project to get them to this point. It started with the Elmwood study, which was undertaken
in cooperation with Hennepin County and it was gratifying to see the results of that study
for part of the Elmwood neighborhood area. He thanked the neighborhood for their
perseverance and patience, along with the developer and staff. Working together they were
able to come up with a product that everyone felt would be an asset to the community
Councilmember Basill was at countless meetings. It took a while and they were not sure
they would get to this point, but through a lot of hard work they were able to accomplish it.
Mayor Jacobs echoed Mr. Harmening's comments. This was a story he liked telling
because in most communities you didn't have the developer sitting alongside the
neighborhood in which they were going to do the development. That was a testament to
both the developer's willingness to talk to the neighborhood and the neighborhoods
willingness to talk to the developer. It was an attainable vision and a testament to staff
facilitating meetings with the neighborhoods and developers.
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 their
property for a residential senior housing cooperative development. Case Nos. 04-23-
CUP 8200 33`d Street West.
Mr. Locke presented the staff report
Councilmember Finkelstein thought it made sense if they were going to be talking about
having more neighborhood meetings, delaying action at this point to give the parties more
time to talk, although he really wanted to see a limited equity co-op.
Council Meeting Minutes -13- August 2, 2004
Mayor Jacobs though that was what he had heard from the neighborhood, but the
question was not whether they had a limited equity senior co-op, the question was
dimension and scale and the details.
Councilmember Santa indicated she would hate to see this drag on and didn't think it was
fair to the developer or the neighborhood. She understood they had another 30 days?
Mr Locke responded that the 120 days would expire September 2nd
or 3rd and there was
only one more Council meeting before that on August 16th
Councilmember Santa stated she was hearing on the Council that there was a desire to
defer. She would not want to defer more than two weeks. She wished to see more
neighborhood meetings, one for the six homes most impacted on the East who had very
specific issues significant to them and no one else, and then a more generalized meeting
with other neighbors who had expressed some concerns.
It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
continue the discussion to the August 16, 2004 Council Meeting.
Councilmember Velick stated that she would have approved this at this meeting and was
unsure that they would gain anything in two weeks, that they wouldn't have gained even
if they approved the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Jacobs agreed, but didn't see any harm in waiting two weeks, other than a little delay
He didn't know how many meetings they would be able to have. They would have a much
more detailed discussion dunng the PUD discussions about the actual details of the project.
Councilmember Basill stated if they were going to delay it for two weeks, he would like
to know what they were talking about for the proposed density and the number of units
per acre. He knew they were just approving a change, but that had been the substance of
the conversation and if they should approve that when they didn't know the density He
didn't have any of those facts and knew normally they didn't do that, but it this process
had gotten ahead of itself and he would like to know that because if it became a part of
the conversation he would like to have that information to make compansons to other
projects done in the city and look at the density. When they talked about the number of
stones, he asked what that meant in feet. He would like to have that information.
Councilmember Sanger indicated that her concern was what they thought would be
accomplished by delaying this two weeks? She didn't want to raise the expectation of
neighbors that something significant would actually change in two weeks. They ought to
be clear about the expectations
Mayor Jacobs thought that it would allow for more mutual education. What they saw with
the Quadion development was the classic example of mutual education that the developer
needed to be sensitive to what the neighborhood was concerned about and why. And,
conversely, the neighborhood needed to understand the economics, maybe they hadn't had
an opportunity to explore it and what impact taking off a story of this building would have
on a project. His guess was that taking off a full story might end up "killing" it and was
that really what the neighborhood wanted? They needed to have that discussion and have
some communication and relationship building and education back and forth.
Councilmember Sanger asked if in two weeks there were any realistic expectations that
even if there was some agreement, that maybe this project ought to be changed in some
Council Meeting Minutes -14- August 2, 2004
way, that it actually would be changed and there would be revised plans and revised
financial numbers in two weeks9
Mr. Harmening replied that was a good point. To expect that they would have issues
worked out with the neighborhood, the developer and the City in less than two weeks was
probably unlikely, but it allowed them to explore further with the neighborhood and
organize a meeting. A central issue, which had become apparent to him, was building
height and massing. From a traffic perspective, not to dismiss those concerns, that was
probably not an area where staff had a major concern. Given what had been on that site
before as a school and what was being proposed, the traffic impacts were even less with
the proposed senior project than what was experienced on the site before as a school
They needed to spend time on building height and massing and understanding what the
neighborhoods concerns. Typically it related to density, which transferred to traffic
That was not necessarily the situation here. Then you look at issues of shading and view
sheds and massing and how it felt and what it might require was more graphic work by
the developer or visiting another project. By spending a lot of time working on that, he
thought people began to understand how it would feel. That didn't mean a three or four-
story building was right for this site, but they needed to spend more time talking which
would require more effort by the developer and staff They wouldn't have the answers in
two weeks, but they might feel more comfortable that it was something they could
continue to move on, understanding they still needed development agreement approval
and PUD approval.
The motion passed 6-1, Councilmember Sanger opposed.
8b. Resolution approving contract with International Association of Fire
Fighters (IAFF)#993—Firefighters for 1/1/2004 - 12/31/2005
Resolution No. 04-095
Ms. Gohman reported that they were pleased to have their fifth of five contracts and the
settlement with the Firefighters This was consistent with the other agreements and with a
lot of time, patience, and much conversation they had an agreement. She thanked Chief
Stemmer and the Battalion Chief Lindstrom on this contract along with the negotiating team
members from the Fire Division, Lieutenant Antinson and Firefighters Ryan and Dobish.
It was motioned by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
adopt a resolution approving a Labor Agreement between the City and International
Association of Firefighters (IAFF)#993, establishing terms and conditions of
employment for two years: 1/1/04— 12/31/05
Councilmember Finkelstein complimented Ms Gohman and Chief Stemmer and was
pleased to see the health savings account.
Mayor Jacobs echoed Councilmember Finkelstein's comments and indicated it was a•
testament to the relationship that existed between the City of St. Louis Park and the
various labor unions that they were able to get the labor agreements done with a
minimum of disruption. It was a lot of work, but there were no arbitrations or
disharmony. He congratulated both sides.
The motion passed 6-0-1, Councilmember Omodt was absent.
Council Meeting Minutes -15- August 2, 2004
8c. City Engineer's Report: Lamplighter Pond Storm Water Improvement
Project—Lift Station Replacement— Project No. 00-18A
Deleted from agenda. Rescheduled to August 16, 2004.
8d. Proposed Amendments to Section 36-33(d) and Sections 36-291, 292, 293,
294, 295, 296, 297, 298 and 299 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
relating to Zoning to amend the regulations pertaining to variances in the
Floodplain Districts and regulations pertaining to the Floodplain Districts by
adding clarifications required by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). Case Nos. 04-35-ZA
Ms. Erickson presented the staff report.
Councilmember Sanger asked regarding the section on recreational vehicles in floodplains,
assuming they passed these changes, could they still apply and enforce the existing ordinance
that had limitations on parking recreational vehicles? Secondly, if they passed this
ordinance, would it permit someone to operate a parking lot for recreational vehicles in the
floodplain? Ms. Erickson replied yes, whenever there were conflicting laws, the more
stringent would apply. Parking lots were permitted to be in the floodplain, so if there was a
storage yard someplace for recreational vehicles, it could also be in the floodplain.
• Councilmember Sanger asked if it would still be subject to the Zoning code? Ms.
Erickson replied that was correct
It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to
approve 1" reading of the ordinance amending Section 36-33(d)and Sections 36-291,
292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298 and 299 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code relating
to Zoning to amend the regulations pertaining to variances in the Floodplain Districts
and regulations pertaining to the Floodplain Districts by adding clarifications required
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and set second reading for the
August 16th City Council meeting.
The motion passed 7-0
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs indicated that National Night out would be tomorrow and St. Louis Park would be
holding 100 parties.
Mayor Jacobs noted as the contract with the City Manager required, an evaluation was
performed of the City Manager and facilitated by the Organizational Development Director,
Bridget Gothberg Council Members were given the opportunity to give feedback and evaluate
the manager on a number of different areas, both communication with the Council, with the
public and with staff, as well as management and communication styles and general leadership
abilities In general the evaluation was excellent. Mr. Harmening was doing a wonderful job
and they were proud of him. The consensus of the Council was that the new City manager had
not only met, but far and away exceeded their expectations and done a very good job.
Council Meeting Minutes -16- August 2, 2004
Mayor Jacobs indicated that the dog park was now open by Bass Lake. It was a temporary
intenm use until they found a more permanent location.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
,j,
J �—
/): a /U/
C y Clerk Mayo ii