Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/02/07 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular CITY OF OFFICIAL MINUTES ST. LOUIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING PARK ST. LOUIS PARK,MINNESOTA February 7,2005 1. Call to Order • Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7 30 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 (Ms. Poehler), City Clerk (Ms. Reichert), Director of Park and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Environmental Coordinator (Mr. Vaughan), Finance Director(Ms. McGann), Planning/Zoning Supervisor(Ms McGonigal), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations - None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of January 18, 2005 Councilmember Sanger noted on page six (item 6b), paragraph six, after "..their contention that.." replace "they" with "the City" Councilmember Finkelstein noted on the same page, second paragraph, in the second sentence "His" should be "Mr Swintek's". 3b. Study Session Minutes of January 10, 2005 Councilmember Santa indicated on page two (item 1), in the second paragraph, ",Wooddale and Highway 7" should be inserted after W 36th St Councilmember Finkelstein stated on page two, in the fourth paragraph, should include "The Council talked about the possibility of tax increment financing being needed in that area. Tax increment financing serves a public good, but it often seems they ask the City to subsidize a deal that had been made between a developer and a seller In a sense, the City may be asked to be a silent partner." They had a specific discussion about that. In addition: "He had a concern that the sale pnce of the land was far too high and, as a result, they were asking for too much tax increment financing He further noted that under the earlier Elmwood study that had been conducted with the neighborhood and the City, it called for an office building to be built in that area. With or without tax increment financing, development could likely occur in that area. As a result, they encouraged and directed the developer and the seller of the land to take a look at a serious "hair cut" on the sale price of the land and in addition look at making two separate proposals for tax increment financing, one for the retail/mixed use process on W. 36th Street and second dealing with the Hoigaards site itself Other members of the Council also had a concern about the amount of sale price and the corresponding affect it would have on tax increment financing " The minutes were approved as corrected. Council Meeting Minutes -2- February 7, 2005 3c. Study Session Minutes of January 18, 2005 Councilmember Finkelstein indicated on page six (item 2), the fourth paragraph should read "Councilmember Finkelstein believed the developer would request tax increment financing and try to use the neighborhood to get it. He, along with other Councilmembers,had not studied the information from the previous planning and would like to review that information and he wanted the whole Council to study this earlier review so that they could have an idea of what the long-range planning was for that corner. Councilmember Velick noted on the same page, paragraph five, the following change should be made, " ..public art_ She was not sure..." Councilmember Omodt asked that he be listed as present at the meeting Councilmember Basill stated on page six, paragraph nine, "some in" should be inserted before "the small group. ." On page seven, paragraph seven, insert the word "for" before "seven months." 3d. OD Study Session Minutes of January 24, 2005 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. Approve Resolution No. 05-019 for year 2005 liquor license renewals for license year to run March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2006 4b. Adopt Ordinance No. 2284-05 amending Ordinance#2044-03 relating to franchise fees imposed on Centerpoint Energy Minnegasgo; and adopt Ordinance No. 2285-05 amending Ordinance#2045-03 relating to franchise fees imposed on Xcel Energy, and to authonze publication of the ordinances. 4c. Amend Professional Services Agreement with Campbell Knutson to increase rates paid from $130.00 to $135.00 per hour for attorney services 4d. Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2287-05 amending Section 26-158 of the Subdivision Ordinance removing park dedication cash-in-lieu of land fee amounts from the Subdivision Ordinance and including a cash-in-lieu of land contribution of park land dedication in the amount of$1,500 per residential unit to Appendix A of the City Code, approve summary and authorize publication. 4e. Approve Resolution No. 05-020 authorizing the First Supplement to Bond Indenture related to the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds (Park Nicollet Health Services), Senes 2003A 4f. Traffic Study No. 593: Adopt Resolution No. 05-021 authonzing installation of permit parking in front of 2847 Quentin Avenue South Council Meeting Minutes -3- February 7, 2005 4g. Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2288-05 amending Chapter 8 - 191 implementing an Investigative Fee, setting a fee of$300 in Appendix A, approve the ordinance summary and authorize summary publication 4h. Adopt Resolution No. 05-022 authorizing final payment for Hardrives Brunswick RR crossing 4i. Adopt Resolution No. 05-023 authorizing final payment for Thomas & Sons 36th St watermain 4j. Adopt Resolution No. 05-024 authorizing application for a Hennepin County grant to fund the City's curbside recycling program 4k. Adopt Resolution No. 05-025 authorizing installation and special assessment of a fire sprinkler system at 3424 Wooddale Avenue; and directing the Mayor and City Manager to execute a special assessment agreement with the property owner 41. Minutes of Fire Civil Service Commission Meeting of 8-3-04 4m. Minutes of Fire Civil Service Commission Meeting of 9-2-04 4n. Minutes of Fire Civil Service Commission Meeting of 10-26-04 4o. Minutes of Fire Civil Service Commission Meeting of 10-29-04 4p. Accept Vendor Claims for filing (Supplement) It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, 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. First reading of Tree Ordinance Revisions. Mr. Vaughan presented the staff report Councilmember Sanger asked why they were proposing to permit residents to leave a stump on their property after they cut down a tree? Mr. Vaughan replied that they had been doing that since inception of the program. If it was on private property, they could leave their stump, but needed to remove the bark to the ground so it would not foster breeding for the Dutch Elm Beetle to transmit disease They believed grinding stumps was unrealistic and that they couldn't make property owners do that on their own property. Councilmember Sanger believed that should be a requirement. Why couldn't this be required? Mr. Vaughan thought it could be required. It was a matter of policy. Councilmember Sanger felt there were two issues and they could deal with the first at this meeting and should discuss the stump removal further at a study session. Council Meeting Minutes -4- February 7, 2005 Mayor Jacobs believed as long as the stump was rendered no longer infectious, he had a tough time requiring someone to gnnd it out when on pnvate property. It was a policy question Mr. Harmening stated the initial intent of the ordinance was to deal with diseased trees and having them removed as quickly as possible. It wasn't an aesthetic issue. Based on that context, it was felt that the stump could remain provided the bark was removed because it wasn't a danger to any other trees. Councilmember Finkelstein thought they needed to consider that this could add additional financial hardships for senior citizens who were already required to pay for removal of the tree, when it was meeting the requirement of not spreading disease Mr. Vaughan noted on pnvate property they are required to pay 100% of the costs and they had many trees that were thousands of dollars to be removed Councilmember Basill was concerned about the financial hardship. On the proposed ordinance, he wondered if 40 days would be enough time? This past summer, it seemed the City was not able to do removal within 40 days and he wanted to be sure they weren't holding residents to a higher standard than what they could do. Mr. Vaughan replied it was their intention to try to get trees removed within 40 days. He believed that time was reasonable. Councilmember Santa asked for clanfication that this ordinance only dealt with diseased trees? Mr. Vaughan replied yes. It was motioned by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve first reading of an ordinance allowing residents 40 days after notification to remove a diseased tree and set second reading for February 22, 2005; and to return to study session for further discussion the portion regarding stump removal. The motion passed 4-3, with Mayor Jacobs and Councilmembers Finkelstein and Omodt voting no. 8b. Second Reading to Consider 2005 Utility Rates Ordinance No. 2286-05 Ms. McGann presented the staff report. It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt Ordinance No. 2286-05 amending rates charged for Water, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, and Storm Water Utility for 2005, approve the summary and authorize summary publication The motion passed 6-1, with Councilmember Omodt voting no 8c. Consideration of an application by Nathan and Marcy Schultz for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a Rezoning from R-2 to R-3 on the property at 4022 Yosemite Avenue South Ms. McGonigal presented the staff report Council Meeting Minutes -5- February 7, 2005 Nathan Schultz, applicant, stated that this would allow two affordable houses that would have three bedrooms and 2 3/4 baths. An issue that came up was that this could become rental property. From his understanding of zoning, any home could apply for a rental application. They originally believed they could split the lots, but that was not possible. One of the concerns the neighborhood brought up was that it might detract in land value. They had an appraisal done on the original set of blue prints and it appraised at $410,000 on an average of$205,000/unit The average sale price on this block and one block South was $201,300. Another concern brought up was how the property would be managed That would be up to the homeowner and whether they went with property management or an association. With families moving into St Louis Park and looking for larger homes with three and four bedrooms, the only way they would be able to fit more of those homes onto a 50' x 140' lot, was to build up. He thought this was an excellent solution to get more people and larger families into the city. Jim Schaefer, 4028 Xenwood Av S, indicated he was opposed to the zoning change for a number of reasons, primarily because of the likelihood that this would turn into rental property. There were other rental properties in the area that had not been maintained He agreed that there was no compelling need to do this. The applicant was doing this for their convenience. He requested that the City Council deny the amendment to the plan. Councilmember Basill agreed with staff's analysis and didn't see a compelling reason for this. When people buy property, they shouldn't assume that the zoning would be changed. This property is a good place for move-up single-family homes The Housing Renewal and Community Development looked at this property and tried to purchase it for that He agreed with staff if they put in another use, it would create two transitions. There wasn't a dramatic enough difference from a twin home to a single-family home to merit that argument He was also concerned about spot zoning If they started allowing spot zoning in single-family neighborhoods, he didn't believe it would be healthy for the community long-term Anyone in a single-family home could decide to rent out their home, however, they knew from statistics that non owner occupied homes had higher incidents of Inspections issues There was a greater chance of it being rental when they needed owner-occupied, move-up single-family homes. When they had a lot available, they needed to take advantage of it and keep the zoning the way it was for move-up single-family homes Councilmember Finkelstein agreed with Councilmember Basill that there wasn't a compelling reason to change the zoning. There are a number of small single-family homes and he thought they wanted to maintain the character of that neighborhood This is close to Brookside and would be one of the main entry points, so it would have more traffic. The idea of having more parked cars and adding even more traffic wasn't a good idea. With the increased development on Excelsior Avenue, they wanted to work toward maintaining the single-family home character of the neighborhood. He believed this would detract from that. Councilmember Sanger also agreed with Councilmember Basill's comments and the staff recommendation It was important to be consistent with the findings of the Housing Summit and promote opportunities for larger homes. That and maintaining the single- family home character of the neighborhood lead her to support denial of the application. Council Meeting Minutes -6- February 7, 2005 Councilmember Omodt echoed his colleagues. He had fears about spot zoning, which could be problematic. The character of the neighborhood was single family. He noted that they had duplexes on the North side of Excelsior, but felt that was a different neighborhood because of the character of the street. t, Councilmember Velick thanked the applicants for their thoughtfulness in preparing their information. It was unfortunate they were not given the nght information about coming to the City about rezoning before they purchased the land. She didn't believe rental property in that location was a good move for the City and supported the denial. Councilmember Santa stated that she could not go along with the spot zoning. She could not find a compelling reason for this application and did not believe that changing the character of the neighborhood by allowing twin homes would be to the advantage of anyone. Mayor Jacobs echoed the comments of his colleagues His concern was not only spot zoning, but also the potential land use. Once you change the Comp Plan and the zoning, anything could happen and then it would be a very different character in the neighborhood He did not see the compelling reasons to do it and saw the potential down side in doing it and would support motion for denial. This is a very good location, convenient to Excelsior Boulevard and to put a large single family home on that lot would be a benefit to the neighborhood and the city. It was motioned by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to direct Staff to prepare a resolution of denial of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, and a Rezoning from R-2 to R-3 for the property at 4022 Yosemite Avenue South The motion passed 7-0 8d. 1st Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 32: Utilities Ms. Reichert presented the staff report. It was motioned by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve first reading and set second reading for February 22, 2005. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs reported on the Home Remodeling Fair. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m. ...] h . , • ,,,...„_,_•„..6-- C ty Clerk Mayor L�