Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/09/20 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular 7CTY OFFICIAL MINUTES sT!LoffsCITY COUNCIL MEETING RK ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA September 20,2004 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:33 pm. Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basil], Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa and Sally Velick Staff present: City Manager (Mr Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr Hunt), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McGonigal) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson) 2. Presentations a. EDAM Award Presentation Mayor Jacobs accepted The Presidents Award from the President of the Economic Development Association of Minnesota given to Mr. Paul Hyde of Real Estate Recycling and the Staff of St. Louis Park as partners in the project. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of September 7, 2004 The minutes were approved as presented. 3b. City Council Special Meeting Minutes of August 30, 2004 Councilmember Basil] indicated on page two, paragraph three, in the second sentence insert before the period, "if appropriate". In the following sentence after St Louis Park, instead of"or" insert "and include". 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 4a Adopt Resolution 04-116 imposing a civil penalty of$2000 on DT Management, Inc. DBA Doubletree Park Place Hotel, 1500 Park Place Blvd , St Louis Park, for liquor license violation as recommended by the City Manager. City Council Minutes -2- September 20, 2004 4b Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and CSM Investors, Inc. for the purpose of obtaining a trail easement over a portion of CSM Investors' property located at 4200 Park Glen Road. 4c Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance 2288-04 amending the St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance to allow group day care/nursery schools as a conditional use in the Industrial Park and General Industrial Zoning Districts; approve summary ordinance and authorize publication. 4d Approve a contract with Three Rivers Park Distnct, formerly Hennepin Parks, to clear and remove snow from the LRT and Cedar Lake Extension Trails through the City of St. Louis Park for 2004-2005 winter season 4e Adopt Resolution 04-117 approving final payment to Ron Kassa Construction for Random Curb & Gutter Replacement 4f Designate Hardnves, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of$105,623 55 for the 2004 Trails Improvement Project–City Project No. 04-03 4g Accept Housing Authority Minutes of August 11, 2004 4h Accept Vendor Claims for filing (Supplement) It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 7-0. 6. Public Hearings - None 7. Requests,Petitions,and Communications from the Public–None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Request of Foundation Land Development and Master Development Group (St. Louis Park School District) for a Comprehensive Plan Map change from Civic to Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential, a text amendment to the Plan By Neighborhood chapter to eliminate Brookside School as a public building/amenity, and a zoning map change from R2–Single Family Residential to R4—Multi Family Residential for a portion of property located at 4100 Vernon Avenue South and 4135 Webster Avenue South. Case Nos. 04-31-CP and 04-30-Z Resolution No. 04-111 Ms Erickson presented the staff report. Nancy Coleman, 5701 42nd St. W, stated that residents on 42°d Street were not included in the traffic study and had concerns such as the large break in the railroad track by Jackway Park. She requested that the Council take the traffic problems on 42°' Street into - consideration. Linda Sandbo, 4205 Webster Av. S, President of the neighborhood association, indicated that the neighborhood supported the five single-family home concept She was part of . r City Council Minutes -3- September 20, 2004 the neighborhood advisory committee and they had listed a number of concerns. She requested the Council speak to how those issues would be resolved within this process. Mr. Harmening replied that the concerns were related to parking on Webster Av., the narrowness of the street and how guest parking would be handled for the new properties and that the development would result in an increase in traffic. He suggested that Staff and the Developer meet with the neighborhood to address these items as they got into detailed plan review. Ms. Sandbo stated that neighbors were concerned about 41st and Yosemite, and also also about 42nd and Vernon. Mr. Harmening replied that the developer would work with them on ensuring that both areas would be looked at in the traffic study. Ms Sandbo asked what traffic level would trigger a change in the development proposal. Mr. Harmening responded that typically traffic volumes on the street are compared levels seen on comparable residential streets. They also look at level of service, which relates to how well an intersection performs and how long people have to wait to move through a stop sign or stop light. Carol Coffey, 4140 Xenwood Av. S, indicated she thought the traffic study was misleading and inaccurate. She was concerned with visitors to the residential units, STEP program and daycare In a letter she provided earlier, she strongly recommended that the Council and staff make changes regarding the redevelopment neighborhood process so it was more democratic. She commended the way the Council looked at projects and also how they considered the five single-family homes, however she urged them to slow the process and take a better look at the traffic study and she urged them to do something regarding the process. Carla Stevie, SRF Consulting Group, stated that they did the traffic study for Brookside to determine the impact it would have on the neighborhood. He explained how he had come to conclusions in the report. Tom Ross, 4124 Webster Av. S, stated he had lived across from Brookside for about eight years. When he first heard about the school being sold he was upset for the fear of the unknown and when he first heard the number of units in the plan he was not happy with the high density across the street. He had since been impressed by the City's choice to decrease the density and place single-family homes in the development. He believed increased traffic was a major concern of most people in the neighborhood, but pointed out that the new development would be much less traffic than when people were using the building as a school. He asked that the Council approve the single-family homes. Kathe Wecker, 4141 Webster, stated that she lived right next door to this development and they would be neighbors. She prefered the new development to living next to the school building in its present state She had no doubt the property would be redeveloped and is pleased with this development proposal. She thought the developers and the city had gone over and above what the neighborhood wanted and had taken all concerns into consideration. Phyllis McQuaid, 4130 Yosemite Av., stated that she didn't think there had been a meeting about the Brookside property that she had ever missed. In St. Louis Park they had strong attachments to their neighborhoods and to the landmarks in the neighborhoods. City Council Minutes -4- September 20, 2004 The Brookside school had been their landmark and their identity. She had originally been womed about the developer's first plans, but was pleased with the developer's willingness to work with the City and neighborhood and she supported the current proposal. She asked that as traffic was considered that they look at a right turn only sign at the intersection of Yosemite and Excelsior Boulevard stating, "Right turn only, 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM." She thought the neighborhood would agree that would do a big favor to them because if people wanted to go West, they would have to go up to Brookside. That would be a big asset to Yosemite Avenue. She appreciated what the developer was willing to do by reducing the number of units. They would like to see new families. Mayor Jacobs thought that was something they could have the traffic study company address He thanked the developer because they had put in an enormous amount of time on this proposal. He also thanked the City staff and the residents for their involvement in the process. Councilmember Basill thanked the residents for the comments and expressing their concerns. He wanted to be sure in the PUD that they addressed some of the traffic concerns and didn't approve this without considering a right turn only or adding a stop sign. Could they work on issues that were not specifically tied to the property? He wanted to know what they could expect. Was it possible to require some improvements or stop signs? Mr. Locke replied yes. Councilmember Basill stated as they moved through the process there would be neighborhood meetings for input and they needed that because they wanted to be sure the neighborhood was in concert with what made sense for the entire neighborhood. They needed to be sure to have more neighborhood meetings to address those concerns and get consensus from the neighborhood where a stop sign should or shouldn't go or where a right turn should or should not go. Councilmember Sanger supported this plan and wanted to commend the developers for fining a way to reuse an old building. Leaving the building there,added much more character to the development than just tearing it down. This was a much better plan and switching to the single-family houses made it an even better plan and much more in concert with the City's Housing Summit plan that they had been going through to get larger homes that could accommodate families with children. Her support for this project should not be interpreted to mean that she would support the City providing financial aid for this project. She had concerns about the way the City was brought into the financing questions on this project at such a late date. She still thought this was a good project, she just did not want to be misunderstood as supporting City financial assistance, at least in the amount that some people might be thinking the City would agree to. Councilmember Basill agreed with Councilmember Sanger about the move-up housing goals. A study was done that showed in the last ten months, 57% of the people that moved out of our City moved to larger homes. Of the 82% that moved outside the City, 44% had children They were continuing to talk about being a children first community and they needed move-up single- family homes. They had supported other developers when they had changed the plan and they needed to support this developer as well to make sure that they promoted their goals. If they had goals and were not willing to stand behind them financially, it was going to be very tough to meet those goals. That would be something on the table as they moved forward with the PUD. Councilmember Sanger mentioned that Ms. Coffey made some comments that they needed to pay attention to. The comments about ways that they could improve the process of neighborhood involvement in land use planning processes in terms of giving people more City Council Minutes -5- September 20, 2004 advance notice of meetings and more information further in advance in writing so that people could digest it. She thought those were good points they should bear in mind as they went forward with other projects Mr. Harmening clarified in front of the Council was a revised copy of the ordinance that did not change the substance of the action, it just clarified a few things. Ms. Erickson stated what had been added, was highlighted. The other thing that was added was to state specifically that they were not adopting a change in zoning for the West 90 feet of those lots that abutted Webster Avenue. There were no substantive differences. Mr. Harmening noted in the staff report motion under the Comp Plan, it spoke to the property at 4100 Vernon Avenue and under the Zoning motion it spoke to the property at, 4100 Vernon Avenue and 4135 Webster. He asked Ms. Erickson to clarify. Ms. Enckson clarified that the Brookside School was on the property at 4100 Vernon. That was the property that under the Comprehensive Plan was guided for Civic. The School District also owned another single-family lot along Webster Avenue, South of the 4100 lot It was currently part of the parking lot That was not guided for Civic, but was zoned single- family and as they looked at this plan, that would be included in the Zoning motion. Councilmember Finkelstein commented that they had talked in study sessions about increasing single-family homes and they were all in favor of that, in addition to the great work by the developer. But he did not want the developer or anyone else to be confused because there was a limit as to how much aid the City could provide and he hoped they wouldn't come back for a much larger request for aid than what had already been discussed. Councilmember Basill thanked that developer. They had been very patient, there had been many changes. If they did not go with this developer, there were many other developers that came forward and he was very concerned with some of the other plans and the density. This developer had been willing to work with them and understood the community in St. Louis Park and this neighborhood. He believed they would truly do a nice project for the City He also thanked the Council for agreeing to delay this to allow for neighborhood meetings Staff had been outstanding responding to some of the changes in the Housing Summit and some of the goals that the community had told them about and that the Council was embracing. He also wanted to defend the Planning Commission because they never saw the plans for single-family homes He didn't want the residents of Brookside to wonder why the Planning Commission recommended approval of a plan with higher density and no single-family homes, because they never had the opportunity to consider that. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve Resolution 04-111 for a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to change the land use designation from Civic to Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential for property located at 4100 Vernon Avenue South, amend text in the Plan By Neighborhood chapter subject to approval by the Metropolitan Council, approve summary and authorize publication. The motion passed 7-0. , City Council Minutes -6- September 20, 2004 It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve first reading of ordinance amending zoning map to change the zoning designation from R2—Single Family Residential to R4—Multi Family Residential for a portion of property located at 4100 Vernon Avenue South and 4135 Webster Avenue South subject to approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendments by the City Council and Metropolitan Council, and set second reading for October 4, 2004. The motion passed 7-0. 8b. Request of TOLD Development Company for Final Plat approval for Park Commons East 3rd Addition and a Major Amendment to the Park Commons East Planned Unit Development granting Final PUD approval for Phase E (Park Commons East 3rd Addition formerly Outlots F and G, Park Commons East) (northwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive). Case Nos. 04-36-PUD and 04-37-S Resolution No.'s 04-112 & 04-113 Ms. Erickson presented the staff report. She noted an issue related to trash and its pickup had come up. They had been working to resolve this issue and believed there was a resolution, which was included in the conditions of approval. Councilmember Velick commented that she was disappointed when she read the staff report about the garbage removal with all of the people that worked on the process, that something like this was overlooked. Bob Cunningham,TOLD Development Company, responded that their initial plan was to construct Excelsior and Grand with four front yards, leaving them with some difficult choices on how to handle trash. In each side of the first phase, they handled trash by putting it inside a truck dock and it would then need to be brought up to the street. They established loading zones to do that a long time ago and that was the method they had been using since completion of the first phase. There had been some notable objections to the methodology, despite the fact that was what they had agreed to. They were always looking to do a better job at Excelsior and Grand. They were working to fix that. In Phase NE all of the trash would be handled off-street. They had that handled in Phase E. They were working to incorporate a screen in the truck dock so people wouldn't see the dumpsters as they were stored. Indoor dumpster storage already occurred and they were doing a trial run of picking up trash in an off-street location. They were continuing to work with staff to make sure that their concerns were heard and they responded to them in a timely, economical and mutually acceptable fashion and they would continue to do that Mr. Harming requested that the developer show elevations of the project and describe materials that were being proposed. Mr. Cunningham showed a digital photograph of the model of the building and discussed the materials for the building and parking lot Councilmember Omodt asked if the monument sign on the corner of Monterey and Excelsior was the same as the staircase or was it incorporated into the staircase feature? Mr. Cunningham replied that it was, there was a Park Commons monument there. The idea was to create the same design in terms of the letters and letter heights as found elsewhere in Park commons, but they were trying to give it a little more urban feel. City Council Minutes -7- September 20, 2004 There would be two identities, the Park Common identity on-grade and directly above that, the Excelsior and Grand script logo built into the building. Councilmember Sanger asked about the 200 parking spaces that were necessary for the amphitheater and parks. Were they saying that they had determined they no longer needed those 200 spaces for evening events or were they saying they would be somewhere else on the site? Mr. Cunningham replied that the park usage was never intended to be in one place. It was intended to be extra parking that could be used for park patrons primarily for amphitheater events and other events occurring adjacent to the project. When they commissioned Walker parking, they wanted to be sure those 200 stalls with this building and use would exist elsewhere during the times as called out in the development agreement. Those were identified as being surplus stalls in the analysis during the times where there were 75 called for and where there were 200 called for. Councilmember Sanger understood that, but if they were not going to be able to use the spaces here because it was primarily a residential building, and there was only one site left to be developed after this for Park Commons that was also going to be residential, where were the 200 spaces going to be? Mr Cunningham replied they would be on the street, in the parking ramp and in the location adjacent to the building under construction now. Mr. Harmening helped clarify that the development contract says that TOLD needs to prove that there would be 200 or more parking stalls available within the project area to the public after all of their needs were met. If they were not, they would need to provide stalls. They could be on-street or in the above-ground ramps. When they got to Phase 4, they would study it again. Mr. Cunningham stated that Phase NW would be approx. 112-114 units and the parking that would go along with that. Councilmember Finkelstein asked when they were anticipating the NW Phase and about the row houses on Pnnceton Avenue? Mr. Cunningham replied with respect to Phase NW, he thought it would be about a year. They would be starting design sometime in spring, then go through work sessions and neighborhood groups through the summer and be back before the Council next fall for the final phase. At one time their development agreement included a portion of land known as Phase W, but it had a date certain under which they needed to perform and they did not meet with the City expectations of what would happen and that time had lapsed. They did not have any control over that block or the strip of land adjacent on Princeton Avenue Councilmember Basill asked if it were fully developed and then ran into parking concerns, where would they add the parking? It was important for people to understand that there were areas. Mr. Cunningham'replied that they had one remaining Phase NW, the parking adjacent to Wolf Park was rather substantial. There is a through street and a lot of parking adjacent to Wolf Park At the West side of Wolf Parkway, there were about nine parking stalls and they were all parallel. They had done preliminary sketches for NW and hadn't gone further, but he thought it would be a simple and cheap fix to replicate what they had seen adjacent to the park on Phase NE in an area along Wolf Parkway on Phase NW. It would be on Wolf Parkway and adjacent to the park. He believed there were options to add between 40 and 60 additional parking stalls on that side. City Council Minutes -8- September 20, 2004 Councilmember Basil] indicated that a comment was made earlier about the office space and about this being five stones compared to four stones He thought that was an important clarification to make because it was office space, what was the difference in the height? Mr. Cunningham replied they were ending up with a five-story residential building of approximately 62 feet versus if they were to build a four-story office building in the same kind of access along Excelsior Boulevard which was the original plan. Ceiling heights in residential floors were much less than what they were in an office building. They were ending up with a building that was roughly the same height, that was five stones tall in a residential building, but four stones tall in an office building. Councilmember Santa asked if he could tell her how tall the neighboring buildings were at Excelsior and Grand? Mr. Cunningham replied that the neighboring buildings, comparing the corner height of this building to the corner height at Phase E, this building was approximately 50 feet from the sidewalk to the top of the parapet, the other was approximately 12 feet taller. Councilmember Basill stated that they mentioned the materials and he understood that construction was more expensive than it was twelve months ago, but this was their landmark project and he wanted to be careful to keep high standards. He knew they wouldn't do anything to jeopardize that, but he thought it needed to be said. Mr. Cunningham replied that they would still be before the Council for one more phase and planned on owning the buildings that were non-owner-occupied for a long time and didn't plan on doing anything to jeopardize quality either. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve Resolution 04-112 granting approval of the Final Plat for Park Commons East 3rd Addition. The motion passed 6-0-1, with Councilmember Finkelstein abstaining. Councilmember Finkelstein stated he was abstaining because he had purchased one of the units. Although the City Attorney had advised him that he could vote on this, he felt more comfortable abstaining. It was motioned by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve Resolution 04-113 granting a Major Amendment to the Park Commons East PUD that includes Final PUD approval for Phase E(Excelsior & Grand Phase E) with stated conditions. The motion passed 6-0-1, with Councilmember Finkelstein abstaining. 8c. Major amendment to an existing CUP to allow increased building height, revised site and building layout and a change from rental to owner occupied units for the residential portion of the proposed mixed use/residential-office development. Case No. 04-40-CUP. 1155 Ford Road. Resolution No. 04-114 Ms. McGonigal presented the staff report. Jay Nelson, ESG Architects described the details of the building and changes to the designs. Extenor activity space had been added. The building would be four to five feet higher. The exterior stucco was changed to brick, but they would not be changing the City Council Minutes -9- September 20, 2004 color palettes. The top band would be heritage blue and there would be a metal cornice that would be a patina green. Flipping the building allowed the commercial area to be along Wayzata boulevard which would be seen more by the traffic and the residential would be on the residential side of the neighborhood. Councilmember Velick commented that she was pleased to see the old athletic club go and this would be a wonderful addition to that area. Had this gone through Planning Commission and had they approved the blue and green colors? Mr. Nelson replied they were trying to stay with the heritage versions of the colors. The copper color was a traditional cornice color. He wasn't trying to be extravagant on the color scheme of the building, they were trying to be modest yet attractive. Councilmember Velick asked what would happen with the billboard? Ron Mehl, Stonebndge Development, replied that the billboard was on the adjacent property, but there was a walkway that overhung onto their property. One of the conditions was that should no longer interfere onto their property. Clear Channel had resolved that by removing one foot from the catwalk, but that was the best they could do. Councilmember Sanger stated she was glad to see this turn into owner-occupied housing. When did they intend to begin construction and what were the price ranges of the units Mr. Mehl replied based on their market studies, they had some smaller units that were 715 square feet that would be about $160,000. They also had some units approaching 2000 square feet that would be around $350,000. They would like to start clearing the site this fall or put up a sales trailer and try to get pre-sales and start construction in the spring They would anticipate a twelve-month construction period. It was moved by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution 04-114 approving a major amendment to 02-40-CUP to allow increased building height, revised site and building layout and a change from rental to owner occupied for the residential portion of the proposed mixed use/residential-office development subject to conditions in the resolution. The motion passed 7-0. 8d. Snow Removal Enforcement Policy Resolution No. 04-115 Mr Harmening presented the staff report. What they were asking the Council to adopt via resolution was a directive to the Police Department that they could begin issuing citations for vehicles illegally parked on-street when three or more inches of snow have fallen and that those citations could be issued whether or not the vehicle had been plowed in The Police Department should coordinate the towing of vehicles with their private contractors for vehicles that had been issued a citation and that had not been moving. Towing should begin within 24 hours from when a citation had been issued Thirdly, that the Police Department should use discretion in the issuance of citations due to unusual or extenuating circumstances related to a snow event. Extenuating circumstances can be a variety of things including other calls for service like accidents or medical calls. They should keep overtime costs within limits and be in alignment with budget considerations. City Council Minutes -10- September 20, 2004 Councilmember Santa indicated that residents needed to know what the policy was, how they were going to enforce it and that it made for much less confusion if people were told up front what to expect on the enforcement of the parking and snow removal rules. Councilmember Sanger agreed with Councilmember Santa and in addition that by adopting this policy approach it was her hope that cars would be off the street sooner during a snow event and therefore the snow plow crews would be more efficient in getting a whole street plowed curb to curb the first time through. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, adopt Resolution 04-115 which outlines the approach to be used by City staff to enforce the City's ordinance relative to snow and ice removal on streets in the City of St. Louis Park. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications Mr. Harmening stated that the Citizens involvement guide was before the Council for review. There was also a memo and handout from Reg Dunlap, the Civic TV Coordinator, regarding a Charter Commission seventh grade geography and history presentation. There was an opportunity for Councilmembers to participate. Mayor Jacobs thanked the election judges and the City Clerk and her staff for running the primary election. Councilmember Velick indicated she had received a letter from a resident who had heard about the inspections of rental properties. Councilmember Velick wanted to support that program. The resident brought up a very important point on why they should have residential inspections of rental property because of parking issues. That was related to the snow removal. She brought up a very important area of problem for the Police that where she lived it was a cul-de-sac and there were three homes that were rental properties with multiple people in the homes. She didn't know how they would park in the winter or how the street would be cleaned. The resident wanted to say that she supported the program. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p m. i I ( d64. Cif)/ Clerk Mayo 1 �'