Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/12/05 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular CITY OF OFFICIAL MINUTES ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA December 5, 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: Associate Planner(Mr. Fulton), City Assessor(Mr. Stepnik), City Clerk (Ms. Stroth), City Engineer(Mr. Brink), City Manager(Mr. Harmening), City Attorney(Mr. Scott), Community Development Director(Mr. Locke), Engineering Development Manager(Mr. Olson), Finance Director(Ms. McGann), Planning/Zoning Supervisor(Ms. McMonigal), Housing Program Coordinator(Kathy Larsen) and Recording Secretary(Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations- None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Study Session Minutes of October 24,2005 Councilmember Finkelstein indicated on page four, second paragraph, insert"to the extent reasonably practical" after"was the ... sensitivity,". Councilmember Basill noted on page four, fourth paragraph from the bottom,"He was concerned with a public/partner model." should read, "He was concerned with a public model. If they did prefer to do it, it should be a private/public partnership." The minutes were approved as corrected. 3b. Study Session Minutes of November 14, 2005 Councilmember Basill stated on page three, paragraph three, insert, "to be taken separately" after"Councilmember Basill felt they should keep it on the list of properties". Councilmember Finkelstein indicated on page seven, regarding if a look back provision, insert, "If an arrangement for tax increment financing is worked out with the developer, that there is a look back. The developer was willing to do that." The minutes were approved as corrected. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE The Consent Calendar lists those items of busmess 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. Council Meeting Minutes -2- December 5, 2005 4a Approve Municipal Consent Request for Trunk Highway 100 Temporary Lane Addition Project. Schedule a Public Hearing for January 17, 2006 at which Mn/DOT shall present the final layout for State Project 2734-43. 4b Adopt Resolution No. 05-173 for Support for Trunk Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange Improvements. 4c Authonze advertisement for bids to acquire the physical equipment necessary to establish a pilot wireless network and to issue a Request for Proposals as a means to select a lead private sector partner(and possible supporting partners) to deliver and manage wireless high speed internet services to subscribers. 4d Adopt Resolution No. 05-174 Authorizing Special Assessment of Dutch Elm Diseased Trees 4e Approve Resolution No. 05-175 establishing a special assessment for the installation of a fire suppression sprinkler system at 6425 Cambridge Street 4f Approve Second Reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2304-05 setting 2006 rates charged for Water, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, and Storm Water Utility, approve summary, and authorize publication. 4g Approve the Second Reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2305-05 amending the Official Zoning Map for property at 5616 36th St. W., 3550 State Hwy. 100 S., 3501 Xenwood Ave. S. and 5626 36th St. W., Hoigaard's Village, approve summary, and authorize publication. 4h Approve the Second Reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2306-05 vacating portion of alley lying between 36th Street W. and 35 '/z St. W., Hoigaard's Village approve summary and authorize publication. 4i Approve the Second Reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2307-05 Sam's Club— vacating a utility easement across portion of 3745 Louisiana Ave. S., approve summary, and authorize publication. 4j Approve Second Reading of Zoning Ordinance No. 2308-05 Amendment to change the zoning on the property at 5330 Cedar Lake Road from IP, Industrial Park to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication. Case Nos. 05-35-ZA 4k Accept vendor claims for filing (supplement) Mr. Harmening indicated the applicant for item 8d requested it be rescheduled for December 19, 2005. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the Agenda, rescheduling item 8d for December 19, 2005, and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and Commissions - None 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing to consider granting an On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Malt Liquor License with Sunday sales for Best of India, Inc. located at Texa Tonka Shopping Center, 8120 Minnetonka Blvd. in St. Louis Park. Ms. Stroth presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public heanng was closed. Council Meeting Minutes -3- December 5, 2005 Councilmember Santa asked the hours they were open? Ms. Stroth replied 11:30 a.m. - 2:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and until 10.00 pm Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve on-sale wine and 3 2 malt liquor license with Sunday sales. The motion passed 7-0 6b. Assessment Hearing: Alley Paving—2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue - Project No. 2005-1800 Resolution No. 05-166 Mr. Olsen presented the staff report Mayor Jacobs opened the public heanng. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed. Councilmember Sanger asked if staff if this was consistent with practices for alley assessments with irregularly shaped alleys? Mr. Stepmk replied he was comfortable and believed it was a fair assessment. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt Resolution No. 05-166 establishing the assessment for Project No. 2005-1800. The motion passed 7-0 6c. Public Hearing on the 2006 Budget and Property Tax Levy Ms. McGann presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. Stan Jurgensen, 2309 Westridge Ln, stated his concern regarding who determined the priorities. He said money comes from individuals, whose income had gone up at the most 3-4%. Spending in St. Louis Park had gone up 13%,plus an additional 3-4% for street repairs and infrastructure. He asked the Council to take that into consideration and to prioritize. Josh Gruber, 4608 39th St W, stated over the last five years, the City's portion of his total tax bill had gone up from about 1/6 to between 1/4 and 1/3. This is no thanks to Governor Pawlenty's "no new taxes"pledge. His total tax bill was up by 24%. The increase in the limited market value had an automatic accelerator to 15% and their incomes were not going up as fast as the increases in the tax bills. Because of the way the City develops with tax increment financing and that non-profits do not contribute toward paying property tax bills, the proportion paid by residential property tax owners is an onerous burden. Mayor Jacobs asked staff to discuss a shift in state law from commercial and industrial property more to residential. Ms. McGann replied they changed the class rates on commercial and industrial properties, so they pay less than they used to. Mayor Jacobs asked if that was State law? Ms. McGann replied yes. Council Meeting Minutes -4- December 5, 2005 Councilmember Finkelstein stated they were now receiving approximately$800,000/year in State Aid. Four years ago it was about $2.2 million. They were still expected to provide the same services, if not more. In addition, there was a concern about non-profits carrying their fair share. They can't get real estate taxes, however for pavement management system, half of that is being funded by real estate taxes, the other half is being paid for by franchise fees on gas and electric, which non profits have to pay. Ms. McGann added that residential customers pay$1.25/month on each of the gas and electric bill and businesses were charged at a different rate. Councilmember Sanger asked staff to explain changes in the limited market value and how it impacted the valuation of people's homes? Ms. McGann replied if they looked at residential properties for the valuation year of 2006, the overall market valuation went up approximately 10%. However, because there is a limited market value regulation, many of the homes were still playing "catch-up" to even the market value. Taxable value and market value are separate items. Bob Burgett, 2100 Parklands Rd, indicated he was a new resident. His taxes were going up 51% (only the St. Louis Park portion) and he realized part of that was because he paid more than what it had been taxed at before and did some remodeling. He wanted to find out what his options were. His lot was subdivided and he wanted to be sure he was only being taxed on the half he lived on Part of the attraction for moving there was reasonable taxes. Mayor Jacobs suggested he speak with Mr. Stepnik after the meeting. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing and noted it would be on the December 19`h agenda. 6d. Time Warner Cable TV Franchise Renewal Mr. Harmening stated they were asking to defer this item because they wanted to be able to devote sufficient time to another item on the agenda. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa to continue the public hearing and extend the term of the current franchise to December 19, 2005. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if they had a deal,but not in writing? Mr. Harmening replied they were very close to having a deal and the attorney's were working through the details in the franchise document. The motion passed 7-0. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public—None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Comcast Transfer It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to continue transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance and cable system from Time Warner Cable, Inc. to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC to December 19, 2005 Council meeting. The motion passed 7-0 Council Meeting Minutes -5- December 5, 2005 8b. Request by SilverCrest Properties for a Major Amendment to a Planned Unit Development, Location: 3601 Park Center Boulevard, Applicant: SilverCrest Properties, Case No: Case No. 05-33-PUD Resolution No. 05-167 Ms. McMonigal reviewed the staff report. She noted the resolution should be revised for a minimum of 232 parking spaces. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 05-167, authorizing a Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the elimination of age restrictions at the Park Summit Condominiums, with conditions and requiring a minimum of 232 parking spaces Councilmember Sanger stated she continued to oppose this because they had a goal of having a variety of housing options and she was hearing a demand for a senior only condominium building. While she appreciated the work to change the proposal, they hadn't changed the elimination of age restriction and there was no restriction on whom they sold it to. Councilmember Santa believed it was a marketing issue and that people who will end up living there would fall in the age range considered senior, but did not want to be labeled as such. Councilmember Finkelstein believed with the delay in the project and the revisions made (making it shorter by two stories, having fewer units, taking the office out of the building, marketing it to seniors together with the earlier addition of public art and the public transit center) that this was an acceptable project, although he preferred to see more variety in terms of a senior rental building. He realized there had been a significant delay, but thought it was a better project and thanked Councilmember Basill for his work. The motion passed 6-1, with Councilmember Sanger opposed 8c. Disposition and Retention of Excess Public Land for Building Single Family Homes Resolution No.s 05-168, 05-169, 05-170, 05-171 and 05-172 Mr. Locke discussed the staff report and resolutions. Ms. Larsen reported on the resolutions. Ron Datches, Fern Hill neighborhood, stated he was interested in purchasing the 2600 Nachez property. If he were not able to purchase, he recommended the property be sold to a prospective homeowner. There had been opposition to this from a small vocal minority consisting primarily of people who lived adjacent and would be unhappy to see their views changed. Their arguments were primarily about environment which implied if they wanted to build a home there they must hate grass and trees,which was not the case. This lot is not woodland or a nature preserve or impacting the wetland. It was merely adjacent to the wetland. It is a platted parcel obtained through tax forfeiture and zoned and designated for a single-family home. It was just like the other homes there. No one was proposing anything but a home that fit with the neighborhood. The Council encourages move-up housing and he thought this would be an ideal spot to build a home. A minimal amount of trees would be impacted. Proceeds from the sale could be used to • Council Meeting Minutes -6- December 5, 2005 purchase trees to place around the city. They asked the task force to develop objective criteria when evaluating the sale of these parcels and this parcel met the cnteria. He urged the Council to go ahead with the sale of this property. David Jenkins, 1841 Pennsylvania Av S, indicated he owned Eclipse Electric, 6512 Walker Street. Sometime between 1963 and 1968 Eclipse was assessed $5,000 to buy a parcel of property at 6534 Walker. According to Hennepin County, 6534 was now owned by 19th Century Enterprises a limited liability corporation, which is the parking lot they were trying to sell. He believed they paid for it. Mr. Reese from Reese's Restaurant had also been assessed, and had to buy a parcel of property and build a parking lot for his off-street parking. If the plan was to sell this property, he thought they should take the assessment into consideration. Other surrounding businesses could not use the lot If they had to pay for this off-street parking, and now they were going to sell it to local businesses to use for off-street parking, that didn't seem right. Ms. Larsen stated that the ownership of the properties was confusing. The City owns the parcel. When they reviewed this with the attorney's, this parcel and two others showed up in the Hennepin County database as a different owner. That hadn't been cleared up because they were going through this process. The City has rights to that property, it just hadn't been certified as such. Something happened in 1968 where the recording didn't occur like it should have. Councilmember Finkelstein stated if they didn't own it, they couldn't sell it. They would only sell it if they own it. Mr. Jenkins noted Hennepin County records say that market value for the property and the total tax is zero. Ms. Larsen responded that was because the City owned it, so there is no tax. They hadn't taken the legal step of clearing that up because they wanted to get through this process and determine which lots were going to be sold. Mr. Jenkins indicated he had spoken with other businesses that would not use the parking lot. Mayor Jacobs stated that the recommendation was to authorize the sale and before a closing could occur, they would need to get formal title work done to make certain that the City owned the lot and they had clear title to sell it. Mr. Jenkins replied he would like to see some consideration when they sell the property because he made a$5,000 investment. Councilmember Santa stated her understanding was in the early 1960's, there was an assessment to nearby property owners who were using these lots for their proof of parking and that the assessment went toward the paving and initial maintenance of the area. As time had gone by, that was all that happened. Ms. Larsen added that assessments were made in the 1960's when the City acquired the properties and developed them as municipal lots. Since then, there had been no added assessments or collections from any of the properties that use the parking lots. Councilmember Santa asked if those assessments were for maintenance. Ms. Larsen replied correct. That was why they included selling or leasing because the lease would cover maintenance costs of the parking lots used by certain businesses. Council Meeting Minutes -7- December 5, 2005 Mr. Harmening clanfied the correct property owners were assessed for the construction of the parking lot, but for the last 30-40 years, the City had been paying for maintaining it and plowing it. The Council had asked them to work with adjacent properties owners to see if they would be willing to help with the maintenance costs,rather than all taxpayers in the City paying. The idea was not to sell it for development, but to have it maintained for parking purposes. Mr. Jenkins believed no business ever used the parking lot. He had six employees and they wouldn't walk a block and a half to use the lot. The other businesses were not able to use the lot. No business that was assessed used the parking lot. Jennifer Wood, indicated she was a former resident and was actively watching for homes in the area and would like to move back to start a family. She was interested in one of the lots. She moved out because she didn't find a larger home and most of the homes she had seen in the area weren't big enough for a family. Kathy Wnght, 3860 Brunswick, stated she would like the Council to approve the sale of the three lots in resolution two She was an interested party and thought it would be in the best interest of the City to sell the lots, which would increase the tax base for the City. John Lawson, 4320 Browndale, indicated he was speaking about the parcel at 4525 Morningside Avenue,which the neighborhood had always considered as part of the park. The neighborhood put together a petition of over 200 people to keep it that way. There was a home for sale on Browndale and three other homes on Coolidge that had been for sale for months. When he at the City website and looked at the picture of this property, it looked like a huge vacant space which was inaccurate. Now there is a new Rec. Center there and they needed that green space to be part of the park. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve Resolution No. 05-168 related to disposition and/or retention of 17 public parcels. Councilmember Sanger indicated one of her concerns goes to the parking lots and making sure that whatever they did,they retained public access. She was particularly concerned about the parcel on Englewood Avenue because there are quite a few adjacent businesses whose employees and customers may need to use those spaces. It would be problematic if it were sold or leased for the exclusive use of one particular parcel. Ms. Larsen responded the resolution states, "ensure that parking remains available to the general public at these lots." Councilmember Basill stated he supported the motion,but made a friendly amendment that the one at 3515 Belt Line Boulevard there be a message, "if in the future it is developed, consideration will be given to single-family homes," so future Council's will know what they were thinking. Mayor Jacobs noted that was already in the resolution. The motion passed 7-0 It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution No. 05-169 authorizing sale of property located at 2600 Natchez Avenue South. Council Meeting Minutes -8- December 5, 2005 Councilmember Sanger stated she was opposed to the sale of the parcel for this purpose. A speaker pointed out that this parcel met the objective criteria that were established by the task force and that was correct. The concern she had was that the Council did not have input into the critena the task force used and in her view the criteria needed to be expanded, a number of other criteria needed to be considered in light of this parcel and perhaps the others. One was the environmental issues. This parcel is located immediately adjacent to a wetland and she had concerns if a house is built there, lawn chemicals may enter into the wetland. In the middle of this parcel there are two beautiful mature oak trees, which have to be taken down to build a house. There is a lot of flooding in this area and she was concerned, because this parcel was in a flood plain, that they would be setting themselves up for flooding problems if a house is built. The Council had authorized the expenditure of millions of dollars in flood control programs over the last several years and it didn't make sense to build in flood plains. Councilmember Finkelstein thanked staff for their work and doing what the Council had asked them to do. He also thanked the task force and the community for their comments. Initially he was in favor of selling all three of these lots in addition to the others. He was concerned if they removed one or two properties they would end up with nothing. Listening to the comments, he realized he might not be right. During the election Paul Carver believed they should find the highest use of the land, keeping in mind their role as public steward and these properties belonged to all of us. Wood Lane is by Minnehaha Creek and presents an opportunity to use the creek. He would give the Minnehaha Watershed District six months to buy the land, if they didn't, turn it into a rustic landing. 26th and Natchez was the toughest. He walked in the woods and realized finding the highest use of that land and keeping in mind having an environment trust fund or something to protect the nature. Why would they tear it down to put up a home? He was convinced that a home would not work with the oak trees. Some of the trees are close to 100 years old and couldn't be replaced. There are many species of wildlife. It was something they could protect. He suggested the neighborhood take a leading role to take care of the property. He would oppose the sale of 26th and Nachez. Regarding Browndale Park, it was a lot. Kids may have played there, but it was a lot. There is a house immediately next to it and across from it. He felt putting a home there so another family can enjoy St. Louis Park was the highest use. There is a beautiful park right behind it and the entire neighborhood can enjoy and he didn't think developing this into a lot would be taking that away. The motion passed 4-3, with Councilmember's Finkelstein, Omodt and Sanger opposed. Councilmember Brimeyer felt they should hang onto the property at 5609 Wood Lane because the Watershed District had indicated some interest in it. He was not sure how far they looked into the restrictions when they bought it in 1984. When you use Fed money, they have to be careful what they do with the land, although they've said they didn't have any restriction over that anymore. Ms. Larsen responded they purchased it in 1975 with open space money and HUD repealed the restrictive covenants in 1984. They have in writing from HUD that it had been repealed and there were no restnctions on the sale of that property. Councilmember Brimeyer felt they should give the Watershed District a chance to take a look at it. He urged the Council if after that time, they hadn't made a substantial deposit, there had to be a good reason for the Council not to sell the Wood Lane lot. Council Meeting Minutes -9- December 5, 2005 It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution No. 05-170 authorizing sale of property located at 5609 Wood Lane,pending Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Action within six months. Councilmember Santa added that neighbors needed to know what was going to happen with this property. She liked the idea of a landing and having a place where people could travel down the creek She could not see having the public drive on this narrow street and creating a place to park. Councilmember Santa made a friendly amendment if at the end of six months if the Watershed District has not bought the property or submitted a purchase agreement, it be sold for a single-family home. Councilmember Omodt asked for clarification on the action they were requiring of the Watershed District? Councilmember Brimeyer replied they would need to say they were very interested in buying the parcel and for what reasons and provide a deposit. They should have good reasons if they needed to extend the time penod. Mr. Harmening clarified that the resolution stated they needed to have a purchase agreement in place. Councilmember Sanger agreed with Councilmember Finkelstein's comments with respect to the potential use of this parcel. She had been one of the most frequent speakers on the need for move-up housing, but she also thought it was important to have balance. They will accomplish their move-up housing goals by selling most of these parcels, but retaining a few. This needed to be retained not only for a potential trail or canoe landing, but also for access to the Creek. She didn't see this as a canoe landing that would make a major impact, it was a narrow street. Her preference would be to retain this parcel,which wouldn't require a massive amount of infrastructure or redoing of the road. She would be opposed to the motion to sell this parcel. Councilmember Finkelstein suggested if they could save this as a rustic park and put something there, they could limit parking to just members of the neighborhood so they would not be inundated by parking. When they talk about putting a renewed emphasis on the creek and when they have an opportunity to do something about it, why not take it? If they sell it for a single-family home, then they've lost that opportunity. Councilmember Omodt asked for clarification when they were talking about terms of purchase? Councilmember Santa responded a purchase agreement and the intent is in writing. Councilmember Finkelstein believed as it was currently stated, it didn't require it to be a purchase agreement, rather that they fully explore their options for ownership. The motion stated a purchase agreement, but the resolution did not say that. Councilmember Brimeyer clanfied it be the terms of purchase, with deposit. Councilmember Basill stated he was concerned with a drop-dead date of six-months. They received the letter from the Watershed Distnct on August 15th and had given them no direction since then because they had been in this process. They would give them direction after this meeting, but he was worried if they would be able to do it in six-months. Council Meeting Minutes -10- December 5, 2005 He suggested an amendment that if at six months they can see their intention is to buy, and the Watershed District was making a good faith effort, the Council could grant an extension. Councilmember Brimeyer believed if they were 80% there, the Council at that time would have the wisdom to decide what to do. Mayor Jacobs indicated the motion could not bind a future Council. If they come back in June and they say they were very close, he would be amenable to giving them a short extension. They couldn't bind a future Council, but needed to have a general time frame Ms. Larsen clarified that the Watershed District was the one that gave the six-month time frame. They had been watching the process. Councilmember Basill stated if the Watershed District were not to buy it,based on the motion, it would be sold for a single-family home. Had they had any discussions recently with the Watershed District as far as their intent? Ms. Larsen replied they were waiting to see what the Council decided. Councilmember Basill asked for clarification that they entertaining buying it? Ms. Larsen replied they were still interested in buying it. Mr. Locke added their issue was that they didn't want to spend board time discussing it if the Council wasn't interested. Councilmember Basill stated if this property was going to be part of the Creek and the Watershed District, that is the way to protect it for the long term. Councilmember Sanger believed even if the Watershed District did not chose to buy it and protect it, they could accomplish it themselves. If the City had the proper zoning and description in the Comp Plan, they could provide the same kind of protection. Ms. Larsen indicated the resolution stated if the City were to sell it, the City would retain an easement to maintain control over the Creek shoreline property,protect the flood plain, protect the Creek and protect the potential for a trail so the City could have an easement. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if there was a way to have an opposing amendment to saying if the Watershed District didn't buy it, they create a rustic park? Mayor Jacobs indicated that would be contrary to the motion on the floor and would be a new motion. Councilmember Basill asked for further clarification about binding a future Council. Mr. Scott stated they could amend the motion, if they decided to change their mind after this meeting and amend the motion, a future Council was free to do that. Councilmember Basill asked if the Watershed District didn't buy it, could Council change what they wanted to do with the property? Mr. Scott replied that was correct. The motion passed 4-3, with Councilmember Finkelstein, Omodt and Sanger opposed. Council Meeting Minutes -11- December 5, 2005 It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution No 05-171 authorizing sale of property located at 4525 Morningside Avenue South, in accordance with the City's adopted Sale and Design Review Process and Design Guidelines. The site design shall retain as many trees as possible. Councilmember Basill stated as they had gone through this process he heard a lot through the community about a number of properties. He heard a lot about this property and tried to step back objectively and look at the cnteria of what differentiated one property from other properties. The Morningside property probably had the most criteria because it was adjacent to a park. He didn't think any other property was quite in the position this property was. Being next to a park provided additional space He would not support the sale of this property. Councilmember Sanger indicated she would not the support the sale either She had been amazed at the outpouring of affection for an empty parcel of land. They needed to respect that. It was not worth it to her for one home. Mayor Jacobs stated he loved Browndale Park and lived on the park and what was difficult about a discussion like this was that everyone was right. There are people that want to increase the single-family housing stock which is the core and backbone of the housing stock in St. Louis Park with all of the condos and multi-family they have built. On the other hand people argue equally passionately that they don't have a lot of open space and need to preserve what they have left. He represented the whole city and needed to be cognizant of that He was at the park last Saturday and there were 100+ kids sledding. One of the kids noted there was always room for a couple more kids on the hill. He was told by Leonard Thiel that what made St. Louis Park so special was the people. The houses that would get built on these lots would be very nice homes and fit within the character of the neighborhood and be aesthetically pleasing. The people that move into them would become their neighbors and friends and become a part of the community. They were relying on the goodness and welcoming nature of the people. He would be supporting the motion. The motion passed 4-3, with Councilmember's Basill, Omodt and Sanger opposed. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution No. 05-172 establishing the sale and design review process and design guidelines for excess land parcels Councilmember Basil!made a friendly amendment on paragraph 3(a) to insert after the first sentence, "at fair market value. " Also, that section 3 be moved ahead of section 2. Councilmember Santa believed it made sense to first determine the size of the property going to be offered to the public, which would be determined by whether the neighbor wished to purchase a portion of the lot. Inserting at fair market value also made sense. Councilmember Brimeyer accepted the friendly amendment. Councilmember Finkelstein stated he didn't want someone to buy a property and turn around and sell it for a quick buck. He encouraged the Council consider revising 2(c) to provide that some sort of"skin in the game"provision. Council Meeting Minutes -12- December 5, 2005 Mayor Jacobs had a concern about that because people buy homes and if they are move- up homes,presumably people use them like that. Jobs change and people get transferred, which cannot be predicted. They cannot be constrained. Councilmember Bnmeyer noted in item 8 they agree to do it within a reasonable penod of time. They cannot specify a time. Councilmember Finkelstein clarified what he was saying was if after they build it, they turn around and sell it in a short penod of time and essentially flip the property. He thought the City and community should benefit. They don't want to encourage people to buy properties just to be small time developers. Councilmember Santa disagreed because that was asking for a degree of certainty that the future didn't hold. People can buy property and have some event happen in their life To penalize a person for life's difficulties wasn't reasonable. Mayor Jacobs understood what he was trying to accomplish, but the main goal of this was to provide a housing stock that would enable families to move-in or to stay here. Councilmember Brimeyer believed the design guidelines were pretty tight. You would have a hard time getting around them. He wasn't sure they needed to be making changes after having this for six-months. Councilmember Sanger asked when people could start to get information about submitting bids? Once the successful bidder is identified for any particular parcel, the plans are adopted and approved, how much time do they have to start construction of the home? It concerned her if someone was approved and they sat on the parcel for a couple of years. Ms. Larsen responded they didn't put a specific time because if they purchase a property in January, they may not be able to begin construction until warmer weather. When a person purchases a property,much as they do with the Home Renewal program, in the development agreement there is a completion date that must be met. Depending on when the parcel goes up for sale, that reasonable time would be determined and it would be written into the development agreement. Generally they stay within one construction season. Councilmember Sanger asked when people could begin to submit bids if they are interested and learn more about the process. Ms. Larsen replied they were meeting with the attorney later this week to clarify what needed to be done with the properties to clear the title and get things in motion. The properties conveyed from the County and from the State would take longer than the properties the City already owned. They will keep residents informed through the Park Perspective, the web site and direct mailings for those who had expressed an interest. They still needed to conduct fair market appraisals and surveys on a few of the properties; some would require Comp Plan amendments. There were four sets of properties and the timelines would be different based on the required work to prepare them for sale. They would make the information available as soon as decisions were made. Councilmember Basill suggested in section 2 adding, "(e) A neighboring property could purchase the property at fair market value if they so choose if they are adjacent or touching the property for sale." Council Meeting Minutes -13- December 5, 2005 Councilmember Santa asked if he meant a neighbor could bid on the property or saying if the neighbor wanted to buy it they had priority? Councilmember Basill replied if the neighboring property could purchase the property. Councilmember Brimeyer asked to build a house on it? Councilmember Basill replied no, to leave it empty. Councilmember Bnmeyer would not accept that as a fnendly amendment. Mayor Jacobs had concerns as well and thought it defeated the purpose of what they were doing. He agreed that adjacent property owners can purchase a portion of it. The idea of doing this was not to just generate cash for the City, the idea was to build move-up single-family homes. Councilmember Finkelstein agreed with Mayor Jacobs. They would need to be aware of unintended circumstance and could end up with people purchasing the property and then subdividing. The motion passed, as amended by Councilmember Basil!, 7-0. Councilmember Bnmeyer suggested setting up a fund from the sale proceedings to be used for environmental issues, open space enhancements,beautification projects, public art, improvements at the Westwood Nature Center, etc. The Council should look at trust fund options so there is no mistake in ten or fifteen years that this money had been set aside for a variety of purposes and a trustee group is responsible for administenng it Mayor Jacobs stated they needed to have a public process to determine this. Proceeds from this should not get tossed into the General Fund Councilmember Sanger agreed finding ways to earmark the money for parks, environmental protection and similar things made sense. She was leery voting for a resolution without any details. This should be a study session item in the near future. Councilmember Brimeyer indicated the model was there for the public process, using the task force to look at these parcels was good and they could do the same for this. Councilmember Finkelstein indicated they talked about having more move-up housing. The revolving loan fund for homeowners had been extremely successful and he would like to have that included in the study session What they could do to encourage people to stay in St. Louis Park and maybe add on. Councilmember Santa recommended this go back to a study session. Between the various items brought up, a very small pie had been sliced so thin that they may not have the "bang for the buck". The public is given a sense of where the Council is looking at dedicating these funds to enhancing the quality of life in St. Louis Park through a variety of mechanisms that are environmental or housing and would continue to look at that. Mayor Jacobs stated they had no idea how much this would be. It depended on when they opened the bids. They may have a better sense of it then. He liked the idea of having a task force. He thanked all involved with this process. Council Meeting Minutes -14- December 5, 2005 8d. Request of Julie L. Murphy for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Industrial to Medium Density Residential; and a Zoning Map Amendment from General Industrial (IG) to Two Family Residential(R-3), Applicant: Julie L. Murphy, Location: 6300-6312 Cambridge Street, Case No.: 05-50-CP and 05-51-Z The applicant requested this item be rescheduled for the December 19, 2005 meeting. 8e. Summary and acceptance of the annual City Manager evaluation Mayor Jacobs stated the Council had been working with a consultant on the annual evaluation of the City Manager who had done a great job. The evaluation consisted of scores 1-5 and Mr. Harmening received an overall rating of 4.4. He was doing a great job, was technically competent, ethically professional at the highest level and anticipates the future needs of St. Louis Park well. They were pleased with Tom's performance as a Manager and looked forward to continued work with him. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt,for formal acceptance of the final City Manager annual evaluation The motion passed 7-0 9. Communications Councilmember Finkelstein appreciated the letter he received from Mayor Jacobs. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9.46 p.m "-- City Clerk Mayor(/ /