Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/10/10 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular CITY OF OFFICIAL MINUTES ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK,MINNESOTA October 10, 2005 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Jim Brimeyer, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger and Sue Santa Staff present: Assistant City Clerk(Ms. Stroth), Associate Planner(Mr. Fulton), City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney(Mr. Jamnik), Community Development Director(Mr. Locke), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Director of Parks &Rec. (Ms. Walsh), Director of Technology and Support Services (Mr. Pires), Finance Director(Ms. McGann), Human Resources Director(Ms. Gohman), Fire Chief(Mr. Stemmer), Public Works Coordinator(Mr. Merkley), Public Works Director(Mr. Rardin), Planning/Zoning Supervisor(Ms. McMonigal), and Recording Secretary(Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations 2a. Resolution Recognizing Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Task Force Members Mayor Jacobs presented a resolution recognizing members of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Task Force and thanked them for their work. Councilmember Santa commented on the amount of time the task force spent on the task force and believes they have done a great job. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of September 19, 2005 Councilmember Sanger indicated on page ten, "Dey" should be"Day". Councilmember Basill stated on page eight (item 8d), the final paragraph before the motion should be"clarified what the Council was..." The minutes were approved as corrected. 3b. Study Session Minutes of August 8, 2005 Councilmember Basill indicated on page one(item 1), paragraph five, should read"above grade crossing". Councilmember Sanger stated on page three (item 4), after the fourth paragraph insert, "Councilmember's also expressed concerns and disagreements with US Bank's request that the City promise not to foreclose prior to 2015." The minutes were approved as corrected. Council Meeting Minutes -2- October 10, 2005 3c. Study Session Minutes of August 22, 2005 The minutes were approved as presented. 3d. Study Session Minutes of September 12, 2005 Councilmember Basil indicated on page one,paragraph four, "if' should be replaced with "can". On page three (item 3),paragraph four, insert"be" after"...site would"in the first sentence. Councilmember Sanger indicated on page two, at the end of the sentence in the second paragraph, "especially for recreational usage" should be inserted. On page five, in the first paragraph, insert"and"after"if they had bigger units". In the 12`''paragraph delete, "believed smaller units may attract seniors." She didn't believe she said that. Mayor Jacobs indicated on page five, paragraph nine, replace"cultural"with"age". Councilmember Finkelstein indicated on page three, third paragraph of item 3, insert "been" after"had not". The minutes were approved as corrected. 3e. Study Session Minutes of September 19, 2005 Councilmember Sanger indicated on page one, paragraph four, insert"temporary"before "dog park". On page two, third paragraph from the bottom, replace "decide"with"review". Mayor Jacobs noted on page two, fourth paragraph from the end,replace"Major"with"Mayor". The minutes were approved as corrected. 3f. Study Session Minutes of September 26, 2005 Councilmember Sanger indicated on page two, insert at the end of item one, "Commissioner Carpenter suggested that staff research and identify the lots that could be impacted by this proposal and bring back that information for further review. Staff agreed." On page three, insert at the end of paragraph two, "They were not planning to install barriers." After the sixth paragraph, insert"They didn't want to put money into improvements." Insert after the eighth paragraph, "Several Councilmember's also expressed concern that if temporary improvements were made, MnDot might not return to do the final plan." After the eleventh paragraph, insert", but not in the interim plan." Councilmember Finkelstein added in the discussion with MnDot, "Council authorized staff and the Mayor to meet with MnDot to discuss what they could do to alleviate the concerns." On page five, paragraph five, it should be"Council" instead of"staff'. In the same discussion insert, "They talked about the fact that they had conducted a study as to how much industrial property was left in the City." The minutes were approved as corrected. Council Meeting Minutes -3- October 10, 2005 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE. The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routme 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 No. 05-138 accepting the Vision for Minnehaha Creek. 4b Bid Tabulation: Purchase of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Supply Contract. Authorize execution of a contract with Calgon Carbon Corporation for the purchase of GAC in the amount of$69,568.00 4c Designate Frattalone Paving as the lowest responsible bidder and to authorize execution of a contract for the reconstruction of the parking lot at Cedar Knoll Park/Carlson Field in an amount not to exceed $87,518.00. 4d Adopt Resolution No. 05-139 that accepts this report and authorizes the purchase of equipment scheduled and budgeted for 2006. 4e Moved to item 8g 4f Approve purchase of up to thirty four 800 MHz portable radios for Emergency Management purposes 4g Resolution No. 05-140 of the St. Louis Park City Council in recognition of dedicated service toward planning the future of the City of St. Louis Park as members of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Task Force 4h Accept Vendor Claim report for filing (supplement) 4i Accept PRAC minutes of 5/18/05 for filing. 4j Accept Planning Commission minutes of 9/21/05 for filing. Mr. Harmening indicated information for items 6e and 8a had been distributed and the public agenda had been amended to reflect those changes. Item 4e was being moved from the consent agenda to item 8g on the regular agenda. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and Commissions- None 6. Public Hearings 6a. 2006 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 1 Mr. Merkley presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed. It was moved by Councilmember Basil!, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve Resolution No. 05-128 setting the 2006 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 1 and directing staff to certify the annual service charge to Hennepin County. The motion passed 7-0. Council Meeting Minutes -4- October 10, 2005 6b. 2006 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 2 Mr. Merkley presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. David Payne commended the Council and staff for a job well done. The City should be proud to have one of the nicest streets in the Upper Midwest. Mayor Jacobs thanked business owners for helping make the Special Service District work. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Omodt asked if the Best Western on Excelsior had shut down, he didn't see them on the list in the staff report. Mr. Merkley replied they were shut down,but had been working with the City to make payments. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve Resolution No. 05-129 setting the 2006 Operating Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 2 and directing staff to certify the annual service charge to Hennepin County. The motion passed 7-0. 6c. 2006 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 3 Mr. Merkley presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed. Councilmember Basill stated they were excited to have this come to the West side of Hwy 100 on Excelsior Blvd. It was moved by Councilmember Basil!, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve Resolution No. 05-130 setting the 2006 Operating Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 3 and directing staff to certify the annual service charge to Hennepin County. The motion passed 7-0. Council Meeting Minutes -5- October 10, 2005 6d. Public Hearing to Consider Ordinance modifying Compensation of the Mayor and City Councilmembers and Resolution No. 05-131 revising salaries for the Economic Development Authority President and Commissioners Ms. Gohman presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve the first reading of the ordinance modifying Mayor and City Councilmember compensation, and set second reading for October 17, 2005. Councilmember Finkelstein stated he wasn't comfortable with this, but felt the Mayor spent many hours and was underpaid and preferred to address each position separately. Councilmember Sanger indicated she was not in support of the motion. Their salaries were consistent with salaries of Councilmember's in other similarly sized suburbs. She didn't do this for the money,but for the value she placed on serving the community. Councilmember Basill realized they put in a lot of time for the community and agreed with Councilmember Sanger and does it because he wanted to do it,not because of the pay. He also heard the other side of the argument with the amount of time they put in. People in the community may want to serve on the Council and may need those dollars because of no paydays at work and time off. He understood why some Councilmembers would support this,but he could not support the increase. He agreed with Councilmember Finkelstein about the Mayor's salary. Councilmember Brimeyer stated they could have tabled this at the study session instead of putting it on the agenda. Councilmember Omodt indicated this was a cost of living increase for people who work really hard and take a lot of time away from their family to serve the community. People who may want to run for office may need the money. For the amount of time most of them put in including driving across town(and gas going up), he didn't believe a 3% increase was bad. Councilmember Santa agreed if they did this for the money, they wouldn't be doing it. They do it because they love it and want to be involved in the community. While for one person finances may not be an issue, it may prevent someone from even considering running for office. They do it for future Councils. It made sense and she supported it. Councilmember Finkelstein respected the opinions of other Councilmembers. They put in many hours responding to calls and Emails, going to neighborhood meetings, etc. He would be more comfortable if they did the Mayor's salary separately. Mayor Jacobs thanked Councilmember Finkelstein for the commentary, but they needed to separate the salaries from the individuals who held the jobs. They represent the office, but they aren't the office. It was for the future Council. He would hate to think someone thinking about running for an office would decide against it because the cost was prohibitively high. They do it for many reasons. Council Meeting Minutes -6- October 10, 2005 Councilmember Brimeyer stated he served on the Council prior to now and it cost him money because he was not hired in his consulting role to do searches by Metro cities and he was told that because of his position on the Council. It can be expensive. Councilmember Finkelstein added that the other Councils weren't meeting as often or for as many hours,but looking at where this raise fit, it didn't fit for him. Councilmember Basill also added for his ward, he spent many hours meeting with developers. The arguments had validity. He would like to separate the positions in the motion. The motion passed 4-3, with Councilmember's Basil!, Finkelstein and Sanger opposed. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 05-131 to modify Economic Development Authority Commissioner compensation. The motion passed 4-3, with Councilmember's Basil!, Finkelstein and Sanger opposed. 6e. Public Hearing to Consider 2006 Fees Ms. McGann presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed. Councilmember Sanger clarified that fees were set to reflect the actual cost of providing a service, not to make a profit. Ms. McGann replied that was correct. By State Statute, they were not allowed to collect more dollars than what it costs to provide the service. Councilmember Sanger asked how variance fees were calculated for those with more than one variance? Ms. McGonigal replied a single fee is charged because the staff analysis doesn't take more time. The fee essentially had gone down. Councilmember Omodt asked about the snowfall parking permit fee? Mr. Rardin responded it was for residents to park on-street. They can purchase up to two permits. Councilmember Omodt asked about the fee for caregiver's permits? Mr. Rardin replied that was for a caregiver where off-street parking was unavailable, which was added by the Council a few years ago. Prior to that they were paying the $125 permit fee. Councilmember Basill asked if the restaurant smoking area surcharge needed to be included? Mr. Hoffman replied the ordinance was still on the books. The fee did not apply because the restaurants were smoke free. That ordinance provision could eventually be removed. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to approve 1st reading of an ordinance adopting fees for 2006 and set second reading for October 17, 2005. The motion passed 6-1, with Councilmember Omodt opposed. Council Meeting Minutes -7- October 10, 2005 6f. Time Warner Franchise Renewal Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed. - Mr. Pires indicated they were waiting to hear from Time Warner headquarters on the counter offer. The state of negotiations was getting the City and Time Warner closer to what they were aiming for in terms of local origination programming. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the Council could do anything to make the process simpler? Mr. Pires replied this was not unusual and asked for the Council's patience. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa to continue the public hearing and extend the term of the franchise agreement to November 7, 2005 The motion passed 7-0. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public—None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Comcast Transfer Mr. Pires stated the two key items were the fee review analysis recently submitted to Time Warner who owes the City$60-73,000 in franchise fees which is under review, and the technical and financial capability report that the City has yet to receive on Comcast and their ability to run the cable system. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to extend the date to consider transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance and cable system from Time Warner Cable, Inc. to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC to the November 7, 2005 Council meeting. The motion passed 7-0. 8b. Resolution No. 05-132 confirming appointment of Nancy J. Stroth to the position of City Clerk. Ms. Gohman presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs indicated that Cindy Reichert did a wonderful job and put into place the process and people to make the transition seamless and Ms. Stroth will be an excellent replacement. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt Resolution No. 05-132 confirming the appointment of Nancy J. Stroth to the position of City Clerk, effective October 10, 2005. Councilmember Basill recalled meeting Ms. Stroth and stated it was good to have staff that cared about the residents and community. Ms. Stroth thanked the Council for their consideration and she was honored to serve as City Clerk. The motion passed 7-0. Council Meeting Minutes -8- October 10, 2005 8c. lst Reading of an ordinance authorizing payment of claims by the Finance Director and adoption of Resolution No. 05-133 allowing the use of facsimile signatures on orders for payment. Ms. McGann presented the staff report. It was moved by Counctlmember Brtmeyer, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt first reading of an ordinance adding Article V to Chapter 2 of the City Code delegating authority to the Finance Director to pay all proper obligations of the city without prior council approval, and to set second reading for October 17,2005; and, to adopt Resolution No. 05-133 allowing the use of facsimile signatures on orders for payment. The motion passed 7-0. 8d. Resolution No. 05-134 approving the updated City Emergency Preparedness Plan Chief Stemmer presented the staff report. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt Resolution No. 05-134 approving the revised Emergency Preparedness Plan. Councilmember Omodt asked if they learned from recent hurricanes about interacting with FEMA, Federal, State and County agencies? Chief Stemmer replied emergency preparedness ultimately starts with the idea of local autonomy. A local community is asked to use its resources to take care of itself. The Federal government can't come in to help until they are asked to. He went on to add that they coordinate with State and County emergency management officials on a weekly or monthly basis and he didn't believe that happened in Louisiana would happen in St. Louis Park. Councilmember Finkelstein believed they could learn and include in a future emergency plan an evacuation plan. They should consider basic ground rules for units of over 100. Chief Stemmer replied that was an area they planned to look at. The motion passed 7-0. 8e. Request by SilverCrest Properties for a Major Amendment to a Planned Unit Development. Location: 3601 Park Center Boulevard Case No: Case No. 05-33-PUD Ms. McGonigal presented the staff report and noted the enhancements to the campus since this was last discussed. Councilmember Finkelstein stated if this project was approved, they would be adding 1,000 more units. It was their role in a major amendment to determine what affect this development would have and whether it met their goals. He didn't believe this plan did. This was a different project from what was approved over two years ago. Traffic had only gotten worse. He didn't think they were under obligation to approve this plan. This was approved as part of a senior project. He encouraged the Council to vote no. Council Meeting Minutes -9- October 10, 2005 Councilmember Omodt understood traffic concerns, but if they were killing this project, they might as well say no to all new development, including Hoigaard's. He didn't think this change of use would change the traffic. The change of 55+would not change what was initially approved that much. The developer has come back with a comprehensive plan including: improving safety, sidewalks, and the parking situation, helping with the bus shelter and public art. The Council was saying no to an opportunity for people who live in the Park to move up into a different area and housing style. A high proportion of the people moving into these projects come from the Park from single-family houses, which frees up the housing stock for families. A project like this tied into the campus whether 50+or 55+really added to the community. He was in favor of this. The developer did a nice job and he was proud to have him in the community. Councilmember Basill stated he initially voted against the project because of height and struggled with concerns about a 14-story building and shadowing. He had a tough time picturing a 14-story building with market rate condos and how it would fit the character of the community. When this was initially approved with senior housing, they had a need. They need diversity of housing stock and this was more of what they were getting in that area. The consultant said not to give too much density of any one type to any one developer and to keep it spread out geographically. They hadn't done that. They also made the recommendation to spread developments out over time and they weren't doing that. He preferred senior housing and was not supporting this. Councilmember Sanger was OK with a 14-story building because it was an age-restricted building and would generate less traffic. There is already a major traffic problem. She would not support changing the age-restriction. It made more sense to have it as part of a senior campus. She had heard many comments from residents who wanted this to be an age restricted building, which provided them an alternative. Councilmember Brimeyer asked about the increase in traffic for age-restricted versus non age- restricted? Ms. McGonigal replied the difference was 15 trips versus a high-rise condo with 57 trips (peak). Daily trips went from 522 for senior condos to 627 for high-rise condos. Councilmember Brimeyer stated the Council asked them to solve the parking problem and they did. They had already agreed on 14-stories. The numbers were not that significant. He was against this originally, but the last time the developer met with them, they asked him to make additional changes and said if he solved the problems, he might have a chance. He had solved the problems and they were saying it still didn't have a chance. The percentage of buyers who came from St. Louis Park was significant. They had created a climate where people wanted to stay here and were the victims of their own well-planned success and now they were saying the door was shut. Councilmember Basill responded he thought they told the developer to show them that seniors would not work there and to consider doing a percentage. He would feel better with 14-stories if it were 50% age-restricted and they hadn't done that. His objection to the height was the number of market rate condominiums they put in. On second reading of the 14-story senior building, he supported it because it was senior housing. Council Meeting Minutes -10- October 10, 2005 Councilmember Brimeyer stated they shouldn't tie density to height, they could tie it to traffic. You could have 14-stories and have 20 units. Councilmember Finkelstein indicated it was never marketed as a senior building. He might feel differently if they had tried and the market wasn't buying. Mayor Jacobs noted this took five votes because it was a major amendment. If this were voted down, what would happen? Ms. McGonigal replied the previous PUD was still in tact. Mayor Jacobs asked if there would be an opportunity to amend this at some point? Ms. McGonigal replied they could ask for a modification from a PUD for something else. Councilmember Brimeyer stated they needed to separate the density issue from the height. The issue was the number of units and the traffic they thought was caused. If the developer says they can do less units with 14-stories, is that fine? Councilmember Basill noted he hadn't seen any adjustments in the units or square footage, it was simply a change from senior housing to market rate condominium. An extra floor meant more units. Councilmember Santa clarified it had been approved as a 14-story building, the issue was not the height or the density, it was whether it was senior or not senior. They were talking about and how it affected traffic and parking. They addressed those issues and pedestrian transit improvements. Those were the questions they discussed at study session. She felt they had made an effort to address those issues and the concerns she had. She was prepared to support this. Mike Gould, SilverCrest Properties, stated that their market is seniors and those are the people they would see in this building. They cannot finance it as an age restricted building. They were not going to be generating more traffic than what they were as an office building. It was a little more than if it were an age restricted building. If density was an issue,was there something they could support in terms of fewer units and fewer stories? They needed to determine if it made economic sense to do that. Mayor Jacobs indicated based upon the last study session, he was not concerned about the height, he was a little concerned about traffic,but compared the numbers for what was proposed to what was currently there and didn't see much of an increase. He thought the developer made a good faith effort to address concerns the Council raised. It needed five votes and they didn't have them. The concern was density, which translated to traffic. Mr. Harmening asked where they fell for the 60/120 day requirement? Ms. McGonigal replied the 120`h day was October 18`h. The developer could agree to extend it. Mr. Harmening suggested if the developer agreed to extend the 120-day period, to continue the matter to November 7th and allow staff to work further with the developer. Council Meeting Minutes -11- October 10, 2005 Councilmember Omodt asked what the goal Council was trying to achieve? The developer wanted to invest $50 million into the community. Excelsior and Grand was supposed to be an economic engine to build condos and they gave it a lot of TIF and it was supporting things like this and Hoigaard's, etc. There were no tax dollars involved. If they lowered the restriction, they would probably get the same result. The message they were sending to the development community was, "go away". This was not good for their reputation with the development community. If they want this community to redevelop they need to work with developer and not send them away to come back with public art, etc, and then argue about the height, etc. Sixty percent of people buying would be St. Louis Park residents. This is within walking distance to Excelsior on Grand, shopping, Target, Byerly's the Post Office, the Rec. Center. If they send him away, they should put the brakes on all development. They need to determine the end result they were looking for. Councilmember Sanger stated that the underlying premise of Councilmember Omodt's statements did not reflect her perspective. He was saying if they didn't approve this as requested, all development was going to stop. The goal she was looking for was a diversity of housing stock in the community serving different populations. They have plenty of market-rate, non age-restricted condos. Some of the approvals they had given in the past reflect the fact they thought this proposal was going to be age-restricted. She would like to see the original approved proposal developed. Councilmember Finkelstein agreed they needed to sit down and do soul searching because they had approved almost 1,000 units, the vast majority of which were in a two- mile area. They needed to decide if they were growing too fast. Secondly, in regard to the traffic, West 36th St. is a disaster and they were only going to make it worse. Councilmember Basill commented in Ward Two there was no shortage of developers. They need to make sure developers bring in something that fits the character of the community and the housing needs they were looking for. He was not going to rubberstamp anything a developer brought forward. They would live with the project and had to ask tough questions, be cautious and be good stewards. Mayor Jacobs agreed he didn't think the development community would go away, but was disappointed in the message they were sending this one. It was 150 unit building,but they might be OK with a fewer units, they were nitpicking. He heard the same concern expressed about the number of condominium units,but he was not sure that was their call. The private market wouldn't be building it unless they had a market for it. Mr. Gould stated they had been in the community for almost 20 years and had been good stewards. Park Shores' reputation is Twin City wide and because of that, diversity of housing comes into play. People would know where the Park Shore location is and they would get a disproportionate amount of seniors moving in. Seniors would be the target market. That was their business. They could not finance this as age restricted. He agreed to write a letter to extend the time another 30 days. Council Meeting Minutes -12- October 10, 2005 Mr. Harmening asked the Council what area they should focus on? Councilmember Sanger responded her question was if they could reconfigure a senior project? Her concern was losing the senior designation, not changing the number of units. Mr. Gould replied short of going to rental, they couldn't. It will be a feeder for Park Shores and Parkwood Shores. The vast majority of buyers will probably be over 55. Mayor Jacobs clarified that the private financial market will not finance a senior designated building. Councilmember Sanger asked how Rottlund could build a senior building(the Bernard project)? Mr. Gould replied that was a much smaller scale project and dollar figure. When you get into the $40-50 million range, the lenders won't do it. Mayor Jacobs asked what result they were looking for? Councilmember Brimeyer stated they tried to create the success and succeeded,now they were not prepared to deal with it. The bank says that they won't allow age restricted, it was an economic fact. The issues are the number of units, height and traffic. They need to look at traffic issues. Too many units produced too much traffic,but the counter was they were not creating any more traffic based on uses there today. This has been zoned high density residential since 1992. They were not changing the zoning or the comprehensive plan. He came in with age restricted and they thought it was a good idea. When he sells it, it will end up that way. Councilmember Finkelstein stated at some point they will have to start saying where they want to be as a community, how many units they want and what it does do to traffic? Councilmember Brimeyer replied they had as a part of the Housing Summit study, they said 2,500 units. Councilmember Omodt stated that West 36th St. backed up, but if they look at traffic, they need to tell Hoigaard's to go away. Traffic is always an issue and can be worked on. MnDOT came forward with Hwy 100 changes, which would relieve traffic over time. Look at what's there now and what it would be. The change was incremental. This developer would not be the problem on West 36th St. What diversity did they want? The campus idea made sense. People would go from the high-rise to the other buildings. No one has rubber stamped any project that has come through. They have no clear goals, it was getting to the point of just saying no. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to continue the discussion to the November 7, 2005 Council meeting. Councilmember Basill stated Councilmember Brimeyer's comment was fair that he was concerned about 14-stories and about it fitting the character of the community. He also agreed with Councilmember Sanger about diversity. He would like the guarantee that it would be a senior building. That was the diversity they were looking for. Can the motion have a contingency that all marketing material will be geared toward senior housing? That may end up with the results they were looking for. He requested a letter stating that it cannot be financed with an age-restriction. The motion passed 7-0. Council Meeting Minutes -13- October 10, 2005 Councilmember Brimeyer noted that some businesses were leaving Excelsior and Grand because there was not enough traffic. Part of having success was creating critical mass and one of the results was some traffic congestion. If you create a desirable product, people will come, in spite of the traffic. If they don't create a little more chaos at Excelsior and Grand, they will have more business turn over than they care to live with. They should think about that. 8f. Holiday Station - Conditional Use Permit for Rebuilding Convenience Store and a Variance for Off-Street Parking. Case Nos. 05-41-CUP and 05-42-VAR Mr. Fulton presented the staff report. Councilmember Sanger stated this building would be an improvement. How did they give a reduction for transit? Her biggest concern was closing the most Southwest driveway. When they get the Hwy 100 project and lose the Eastern most access on Minnetonka Blvd, it left one access point. She was concerned with traffic going in and out of one driveway and potential confusion and traffic not flowing properly on the site. Her other concern was people coming off of the Hwy 100 ramp and going the wrong way on Vernon Avenue to access the gas station. They should think about no access on Vernon Avenue to preclude potential crashes. Mr. Fulton responded that the applicant indicated customers use transit. There is transit on Minnetonka Blvd and therefore they qualify. There is room at the access on Minnetonka Blvd to change it by moving it and they could make it a right in, right out. As to the entrance on Vernon Avenue, by narrowing it, they hoped to improve the traffic circumstances. With the site improvements, they could also provide additional signage to alleviate concerns. Councilmember Sanger didn't believe signage would resolve that issue. Why do they need to have any access on Vernon? Mr. Fulton responded that the applicant has indicated it is an important access to the business. Ms. McGonigal added for the overall site circulation, they needed that access point. Councilmember Finkelstein noted if they close it, traffic might back up on Minnetonka. Councilmember Santa stated she goes past this site every day on transit and sees people getting off and going into the store. She had a concern with landscaping at the corner and pedestrian visibility. Mr. Fulton replied there is an extensive landscaping ordinance and to meet that, applicants are required to put in a lot of vegetation. Ms. McGonigal indicated they would make sure that the plants were low enough to allow visibility. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution No. 05-136 of approval for a parking space variance, reducing the required number of parking spaces by 10 spaces,for a total of 16 available parking spaces. The motion passed 7-0. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution No. 05-137 of approval of the Conditional Use permit to reconstruct the convenience store at the Holiday Station located at 5430 Minnetonka Boulevard, subject to conditions. The motion passed 7-0. Council Meeting Minutes -14- October 10, 2005 8g. 2"d Reading of Ordinance No. 2300-05 Amending the Local Tax on Lawful Gambling, approve the summary and authorize summary publication It was moved by Councilmember Basil!, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Local Tax on Lawful Gambling, approve the summary and authorize summary publication. The motion passed 6-0-1, with Councilmember Omodt abstaining. 9. Communications Councilmember Santa reported on the kickoff event for Bookmark in the Park and reading of Tale of Despereawc. It was a great event. The next event is October 17`h Mayor Jacobs encouraged people to read the book and for more information to go to, www.bookmark-in-the-park.org. Councilmember Santa indicated that the Westwood Hills Nature Center Halloween Party was the upcoming weekend. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m. —)1(1-41t-0 pei City Clerk ayo