Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/08/01 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular CITY OF OFFICIAL MINUTES ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA August 1, 2005 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm. Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Jim Brimeyer, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger and Sue Santa Mayor Jacobs welcomed Interim City Councilmember Bnmeyer. Staff present: Associate Planner(Mr. Fulton), City Manager(Mr. Harmening), City Attorney(Mr. Scott), Community Development Director(Mr. Locke), Economic Development Coordinator(Mr. Hunt), Human Resources Director(Ms. Gohman), City Engineer(Ms. Brink), Planning/Zoning Supervisor(Ms. McMonigal) and Recording Secretary(Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations a. Presentation of Met Council TBRA Grant—Peggy Leppik—Moved to next meeting 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of July 18, 2005 The minutes were approved as presented. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE. The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion Consent items are acted upon by one motion If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience,that item may be moved to an appropnate section of the regular agenda for discussion 4a Bid Tabulation: Designate Michels Corporation the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of$95,152.00 for construction of a fiber optic link to connect Golden Valley City Hall to Hennepin County Sheriff Radio Tower at Highway 169 for the 800 MHz radio project communications network serving the cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley 4b Bid Tabulation: Designate Ettel &Franz Roofing Company the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $204,450.00 for the 2005 Police Department Reroof Project-Project No. 2005- 1700 4c Approve Resolution No. 05-097 adopting the National Incident Management System 4d Approve Resolution No. 05-098 to adopt the Military Leave Policy 4e Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License - Holy Family Fall Festival, 5900 & 5925 West Lake Street, St. Louis Park to be held September 23 & 24, 2005 4f Accept City/School Volunteer Office Annual Report for Filing 4g Accept Planning Commission Minutes of July 6, 2005 for Filing 4h Adopt Resolution No. 05-099 authonzing submittal of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants and Affidavit Concerning Real Property Contaminated with Hazardous Substances in Wolfe Park 4i Accept vendor claim report for filing(supplement) I Council Meeting Minutes -2- August 1, 2005 I It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the Agenda and items listed on I the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and Commissions- None 6. Public Hearings 1 6a. Consideration of the establishment of Special Service District#4 (along westerly Excelsior Boulevard between Highway 100 and Louisiana Avenue) and the imposition of a service charge within the District. Ordinance'No. 2298-05 Resolution No. 05-100 Mr. Hunt presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. Jerry Trestman, Trestman Music Center, 5600 Excelsior Blvd, objected to the special service district. They eliminated lights on City property and were putting new lights to light up their driveway. They did not need snow removal because they had their own. They would like toll have City approval to put a sign on the building stating they are open for business during road construction. They could not stand additional costs. I Mayor Jacobs asked staff to work with the applicant on signage. Mr. Harmening responded they would work with him. He clarified that snow removal was not a part of the special service district and they would not be charged for it. Mayor Jacobs clarified there was a petition from property owners along the corridor for this special service district. Mr. Hunt replied they saw the value in continuing the streetscape improvement project along Excelsior Blvd. I Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Basill stated businesses had come forward asking them to fix up the streetscape. Residents on the West side also expressed an interest. Businesses on the East side with a special service district expressed how good deal it was. Flowerpots are taken care of, sidewalks(kept up and it looked good. It's good for pedestrians and the community. They needed to address the sign issue,but the roadwork needed to be done. He supported this. It was moved by Councilmember Basalt, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein to approve 2nd reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 2298-05 to create Special Service District #4, approve summary, and authorize summary publication. Councilmember Finkelstein felt it was important to point out that things looked pretty bad now, but in several years it would look a lot better. They needed to take account of the increased traffic on Excelsior Avenue. Whatever they could do to create traffic calming would benefit businesses, the neighborhood and the entire city. The motion passed 7-0. Council Meeting Minutes -3- August 1, 2005 It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to approve Resolution No. 05-100 imposing a service charge for Special Service District #4 The motion passed 7-0. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public—None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Request by Park Tavern for a Major Amendment to a Special Permit to construct a building addition at 3401 Louisiana Avenue South. Case No. 05-15-CUP. Resolution No. 05-101 Mr. Fulton presented the staff report. Phil Webber, Park Tavern owner, noted he did fix and the parking lot, one of the conditions. To address the requirement for windows in the room, the new addition is lower than the level of the dining room. They would need shades drawn when the sun came through. He has a camera and would put a monitor to be viewed by the bartenders. Councilmember Brimeyer asked the purpose of the windows? Mr. Fulton replied to improve visibility between the dining area and the proposed addition for security. Mr. Webber noted that parking had always been an issue. He was fortunate to be in an industrial area and after hours there is a lot of parking in the area. He adamantly disagreed with taking away parking on the North side on Louisiana. Councilmember Santa indicated last time they talked about the liquor ordinance and how it would be administered. Did the proposal meet the liquor ordinance requirement with a camera or windows? Mr. Locke replied yes. After much discussion with the City Attorney and Hennepin County staff, they concluded it was appropriate for the City to focus on the zoning applications and building addition. There shouldn't be problems complying with the City's liquor ordinance. Windows improved the ability to monitor the space. The operation would be in compliance with the City and County's ordinances. Councilmember Santa asked Councilmember Omodt if his issues from the previous meeting had been addressed? Councilmember Omodt responded, based on his comments last time, he was under-whelmed by the County's response to a municipality's request for information on how to enforce this and that they would not provide something in writing. As a City, they needed to move forward in good faith. Mr. Webber was operating under the assumption what they were doing was legal and from a building code perspective, they should move forward. Councilmember Sanger had concerns with the policies that got them to this point and with risk management for the City. She was concerned about the legal position the City was being put into. Hennepin County declined their request for a legal opinion regarding this approach. Hennepin County Ordinance No. 24 does not allow any exemptions for indoor smoking in a bar or restaurant, yet County staff came up with a policy Mr. Webber was relying on, that it was legitimate to have smoking indoors. She had concerns about how Hennepin County got to that policy enforcement guideline. It was not their job to do the Council Meeting Minutes -4- August 1, 2005 legal analysis and to develop the policy for Hennepin County,but she was troubled when Mr. Webber indicated he had significant input into the guidelines when other members of the public did not have the same opportunity for input. There could be legal challenges and she didn't want St. Louis Park caught in the middle. If they granted the request she was concerned with issues of competition between Park Tavern and other bars and restaurants in the community. If this was approved, she expected other bars and restaurants to come forward requestingrexemptions, which would further undermine the smoking ban. Or, it would lead to charges that the City had done something special for Park Tavern. It was a lose/lose situation. It wasn't their job to give him a competitive edge. She had concerns about liquor license issues and enforcement, concerns about an ordinance and policy enforcement based on the idea that staff members of bars and restaurants should not be exposed to second hand smoke,but at the same time Hennepin County saying it was OK for the same staff to clean up trash after people had consumed food and beverages. She was disappointed they had not gotten clarity from the County and they were not willing to put their policy into writing. As a policy matter her concern was that second hand smoke kills people. By this request, they were asking the Council to be enablers of chemical dependency and she would not support that. Mr. Webber responded he was classified as a multi-use facility, which can have smoking. He must have misrepresented himself when he said that he had input on Hennepin County on their guidelines. He said he talked with Lynn Moore once the ban was enacted trying to see where he could fit within the ban. Everyone had input at the meetings. He asked Lynn Moore where he could go within this ordinance as a multi-use facility. Councilmember Sanger responded those comments were what she was referring to. Mr. Webber clarified that was after the ordinance was in place, he was trying to find out exactly what the ordinance stated. He just happened to be one of the first to talk to her. Everything he was;doing was in complete compliance with Hennepin County guidelines. Bowling alleys and pool halls are exempt from the smoking ban and all have employees. He was not trying to create an unsafe environment, but trying to come up with something within Hennepin County's guidelines to allow smoking. He didn't believe they were approving the death of innocent people. Hennepin County is revisiting this issue because there are economic consequences to the smoking ban. He was within his legal rights. They were not giving him a competitive edge, anyone with the ability to, should be able to come before the Council. He was offended they thought he was trying to pull something over on the Council or do something illegal and skirt around the law. He has been in the community for over 26 years and has never been cited for anything. He was in the customer service business and trying to stay economically viable. Councilmember Sanger stated she was not accusing him of trying to pull something over on anyone. Her concern was with the enforcement policy that Hennepin County had done, which appeared directly in conflict with its own ordinance banning smoking. He was within his rights to try this, she just didn't think it was the proper way to go about it. Councilmember Omodt agreed with Mr. Webber. The County Attorney should be giving them a legal opinion and has chosen not to. He didn't think Mr. Webber was doing anything illegal. If they were concerned about people dying from smoke or second hand smoke, they should go after primary smokers. The issue was the fact he had applied to modify his building and was meeting all of the guidelines. The fact that this may give him a competitive advantage, that was what he was supposed to do, he was in business. Council Meeting Minutes -5- August 1, 2005 He should take the opportunity because its there. If other bars and restaurant or multi use facilities wanted to take it, they should. He didn't think they should criticize a businessperson for seeking a competitive advantage. They wouldn't be in business unless they did that. He further didn't think Mr. Webber was asking for any exemptions,he believe he had complied with what the County or City had asked every step of the way. They needed to go from a building perspective and stop debating smoking. Councilmember Finkelstein thought Mr. Webber was an asset to the community and appreciated that. He was opposing the request because he thought it defeated the purpose of the Hennepin County ordinance. Hennepin County may be backing away because of the several page explanations of what they will let people do, but the purpose of the ordinance was to preserve health, and by taking actions like this, they were not meeting that. He was concerned about enforcement issues they would be placing on staff. He took Mr. Webber at his word that he would do his best to enforce it, but that Mr. Webber would not be there 24 hrs/day-7 days/week. He remained concerned about legality of this action. He learned in law school when you write an ordinance and then you write an explanation of the ordinance, they shouldn't contradict each other. These contradict each other and the County had not met their obligation to give them guidance. He had a concern about an equal playing field and other establishments in the community coming forward. They had a concern about going forward that they might go from one smoking lounge to five or six and ultimately all in the community paying the costs. Councilmember Santa requested the City Attorney to respond to legal issues raised by Councilmember Finkelstein and Sanger. Mr. Scott indicated their primary issue was the liquor license. The staff report accurately set forth what needed to happen to be in compliance with the liquor license. To maintain compliance, Park Tavern employees must have full access to the smoking room during all business hours. They could not have any restrictions on employees accessing that room. Whether or not that was in compliance with the Hennepin County's Smoking ordinance, or their interpretation of the smoking ordinance, was the question they had not gotten a specific answer in writing from the County. They have had conversations with County staff and they believed it would be consistent with their interpretation of the ordinance. With that understanding, that there is full access for staff to monitor what was going on, it would be in compliance with their liquor ordinance. Councilmember Basill read from the staff report, their discussion with Hennepin County, "so long as no smoke is not allowed to migrate between the different portions of the building, a multi-use facility is allowed to provide an indoor smoking area". It was allowed under their ordinance. They may not like that,but the fact was Mr. Webber was bringing forward something allowed. He could bring forward a request to add a 410 sq. ft. building with no explanation. When it was done,make sure it has negative airflow and they wouldn't have this discussion. They would be approving a building, and it would be up to the County for enforcement. He reminded the Council they were the ones that took that burden on. They shouldn't make an applicant pay for their decision to take on the enforcement policy. The addition met the code and met Hennepin County's ordinance. He didn't see how they should interpret the County's ordinance differently from how they were interpreting it. The applicant brought this forward in good faith. Planning Commission approved it overwhelming. There may be changes that the applicant and the I Council Meeting Minutes -6- August 1, 2005 Council need to deal with. With the facts before them, he didn't see how they could not approve this. They were complying with the ordinance. Councilmember Santa believed it was very difficult to be a trailblazer. They had gone through several steps and looked things over. She agreed with Councilmember Basill that Mr. Webber had done everything he had been told he needed to do. She saw no reason why they should not approve this. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 054101 amending and restating Resolution No. 6805, authorizing a Major Amendment to a Special Permit to allow the construction of a building addition, subject to conditions as recommended in the resolution. Mayor Jacobs was iconcerned about the potential inconsistency between the ordinance versus the way County staff was telling them it ought to be applied. What happened if somewhere along the way there is an interpretation saying they can't do this? Does the City face any liability having approved the building addition? Mr. Scott replied they were approving the building addition. Our issue is the liquor license and there has to be full access. The County has taken the position it was OK, under their interpretation of their ordinance. If the County decides to interpret their ordinance in a different way, and indicate it is not OK for employees to have full access to this addition, that was a risk Mr. Webber would run. If that happens, there would be an issue whether or not this room could be continued to be used for that purpose and still be in compliance with both ordinances. It was a nsk Mr. Webber took, and he didn't see any significant liability from the City's standpoint. Mayor Jacobs agreed with Councilmember's Omodt and Basill. The issue involved whether they should approve a building addition. He didn't see the county's smoking ordinance as their issue. He didn't like second hand smoke and thought the state should pass a statewide law. The issue was a request for a building addition, and he could see no reason to deny the application. Councilmember Finkelstein read from Hennepin County Ordinance No. 24, "smoking is prohibited in indoor areas of food establishments unless otherwise excluded." Mayor Jacobs responded that was nsk you have to run if there is an interpretation by at some point indicating this room can't be used for the purpose he intended it. They were all acting in goodfaith that this was OK. He did not see any grounds to deny the request, although he understood the concerns. I The motion passed 5-2, with Councilmember's Finkelstein and Sanger opposed. 8b. Traffic Study No. 597: Basketweave stop sign pattern in the Pennsylvania Park neighborhood. Resolution No.'s 05-102 and 05-103 Mr. Brink presented the staff report. Councilmember Brimeyer believed they had way too many stop signs in town already. Are there stops on Franklin Avenue? Mr. Brink replied yes, at Maryland and Oregon. 1 1 I Council Meeting Minutes -7- August 1, 2005 Councilmember Brimeyer believed it was inconvenient for people, but if the residents in his ward wanted it, he would support it. Mayor Jacobs noted as a former member of that ward years ago, he was uncomfortable with the uncontrolled intersections. There were topographical changes that made it difficult to see. This was a good idea and there was consensus from the neighborhood. It was moved by Councilmember Brameyer, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt Resolution No. 05-102 authorizing placement of stop and yield signs for traffic control and rescinding Resolution No. 4385; and to adopt Resolution No. 05-103 authorizing installation of basket weave stop sign pattern in the Pennsylvania Park Neighborhood and rescinding Resolution No 's 5053 and 84-132. Councilmember Sanger stated she would like to respect the resident's choice for the basketweave. They had always been told that this is better for traffic calming and in theory she believed it. This would be a good opportunity to test it. If it turned out not to be perfect, it was not that hard to make a change and move a stop sign. Councilmember Omodt indicated that it was difficult to take stop signs out and hard to get them back once they were taken out. It was a lot of signs and a lot of work to either put them in or take them out. Mayor Jacobs stated it may be an inconvenience and when installed it meant that people needed to stop. Some intersections really needed stop signs. Councilmember Basill indicated he was in favor of this because the neighborhood wanted it. It didn't mean he was always for basketweave. There are times it fits and times it doesn't. He didn't think they could go to every neighborhood with this as a solution. Councilmember Santa stated she went through this process in her own neighborhood and there was no consensus. She knew the work the residents put into this and respected that and would support it because it made sense to them and they lived there. The motion passed 7-0. 8c. Salary Cap Changes Effective August 1, 2005 Resolution No. 05-104 Mr. Gohman presented the staff report. Councilmember Santa asked who administers the health savings account? Ms. Gohman replied America's VEBA and ING. Councilmember Santa indicated she was an employee of ING and owned stock and would be abstaining. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Basill, to adopt Resolution No. 05-104 revising employee salaries affected by the change in the salary cap, removing PTO and revising a section of our personnel manual. Council Meeting Minutes' -8- August 1, 2005 The motion passed 6-0-1, with Councilmember Santa abstaining. 8d. Request of Mr. Parrish Hemmeke for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Commercial and Low Density Residential to High Density Residential; and a Zoning Map Amendment from C2—General Commercial and R2—Single Family Residential to RC—Multi-Family Residential. Case No.: 05-28-CP and 05-29-Z. Resolution No. 05-105 Mr. Fulton presented the staff report. 1 Parrish Hemmeke, applicant, stated the commercial property at 1324 was cut in half and made unbuildable and 1332 had been a rental property. The proposal would create a buffer zone between the commercial frontage and residential properties behind it. They would provide guest parking in addition to parking in the cul-de-sac. There was no entrance from the residential Southerly side. At a neighborhood meeting June 28i11 , neighbors three concerns were parking, construction staging, noise and the buffer to the South and East. MnDot owned property behind the St. Louis Park sign, where they felt they could access the site. They could put in prefabricated walls with span crete floors for the ceiling of the garage and would be able to use underground for parking construction vehicles. They were willing to work with the City to try to minimize impact in the neighborhood. This project would benefit the site and the design proposal aimed to develop a highly visible corner with high-end urban lofts. It is a gateway to the City and imperative surrounding properties were well maintained. He has had several problems with vehicles being abandoned in the lot. They would provide adequate landscaping as a part of the development to create appropriate buffers from the neighbors. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if he had done similar projects or worked in other cities? Mr. Parrish replied that he owned a mortgage company and was a general contractor of a construction company he also owned. He partnered with a friend and another general contractor who was more familiar with multi-family projects. Councilmember Finkelstein asked how large the units would be and what they anticipated they would sell for? Mr. Parrish replied they would be marketed as high-end lofts in the range of$300-$380,000. They would be between 1200-1700 square feet. Councilmember Omodt indicated that his biggest concern would be the buffer on the back end,which was brought up by the neighborhood. Would there be a fence or landscaping? Mr. Fulton replied it hadn't been determined at this time. There would typically be a higher buffer yard requirement, which could be met in a variety of ways. There was plenty of room to meet buffer yard requirements. Mayor Jacobs noted that hey were not reviewing a site plan at this point. Councilmember Sanger was glad the units would be larger size condominiums. Larger units may mean a potential for two adult drivers in each unit. The assumptions regarding traffic in the staff report seemed low. The theory was nice that they would take the bus, but she was unsure they could rely on that. Her concern went to traffic and parking implications. She was uncomfortable they did not have a traffic study. She goes through the frontage road and Louisiana on a daily basis and frequently has to wait two and three times through to make a left turn and was concerned about adding traffic to the intersection. Mr. Fulton indicated they used the traffic manual used by transportation Council Meeting Minutes -9- August 1, 2005 engineers to get their figures. It was not expected the numbers would vary dramatically. Twelve units require 24 parking spaces,which met City Code. The applicant hadn't requested the additional 15%reduction allowed in a PUD, only reductions for transit proximity and bicycles. Councilmember Sanger asked if they would be doing a traffic study? Mr. Fulton responded should the applicant go forward with a PUD they could require that. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they didn't have a project like this, because it was such an unusual shaped property, could they end up with a commercial property with more traffic? Mr. Fulton replied it was not anticipated that the Northern parcel could feasibly be developed for commercial use. It was awkward and small. Councilmember Finkelstein asked what else could they see there if they didn't have a project like this? Mr. Fulton responded without re-platting, it was not anticipated this parcel could be used for much, other than the parking lot. Councilmember Basill understood they were not approving a site plan, but it was good the applicant knew that there was an R2 area behind them and they wanted to protect single- family homes. The buffer yard would be very important to the residents. This project is on a visible corner and next to the City sign and needed to be a superior product when the PUD comes forward. Mayor Jacobs agreed the applicant should be sensitive to neighbors behind this. They should be sensitive to the traffic concerns and to the fact this is a very visible corner and should be a superior design, possibly incorporating public art. He hoped people would buy there because they could walk across the street to a major transit hub. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 05-105, approving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for 1324 and 1332 Kentucky Avenue South; and a motion to approve the publication of a summary of Resolution No. 000. The motion passed 7-0. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt the first reading of an ordinance amending the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code changing boundaries of zoning districts for 1324 and 1332 Kentucky Avenue South from C2 and R2 to RC, Multi-Family Residential. The motion passed 7-0. 8e. Request by AVIS Rent-A-Car for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an automobile rental facility together with a variance to allow 7 rental cars to be parked within 100 of a residentially zoned property. Case Nos. 05-30-CUP and 05-31-VAR. Resolution No.'s 05-106 and 05-107 Ms. McGonigal presented the staff report. Jenny Peterson, 4300 36th St, asked hours of operation? 1 Council Meeting Minutes -10- August 1, 2005 Jeff Higginbotham, Agency manager for Avis, replied they were open Monday-Friday, 8 AM—6 PM, 8 AM—4 PM Saturday and 10 AM—2 PM on Sunday. Ms. Peterson asked how much traffic they expected to come through the back entry? Mr. Higginbotham replied they would use the Excelsior Blvd entrance as much as possible. Councilmember Basill asked staff to show the location of the back entrance. Ms. McGonigal showed the entrances. Midas shares the parking lot. When going West, you can turn right easily. When going East, it was more difficult to exit. Mayor Jacobs stated it reminded him of the Norwest Bank building on Excelsior. There were similar concerns raised and it was his understanding that those had not materialized. Conrad Miller, 4309-4311 W 36th St, stated that he was not opposed to the business, but there was a lot of traffic on 36th St from Midas and the transmission shop. He suggested a cul-de-sac and W 36`h St be closed, so businesses could no longer use it. The transmission shop used the street to test vehicles when they were finished being repaired. Councilmember Omodt stated it would be a benefit to have a car rental business. Who would a typical customer be? Mr. Higginbotham replied they had eight stores in the Twin Cities, and trying to expand local market stores. A typical customer is a leisure customer that rents on weekends. They have corporate accounts and 5-15% is replacement business for people renting while their car is being repaired. Councilmember Omodt noticed in the staff report they asked that cars not be brought in on a flat bed truck. Would cars be driven from the airport here? Mr. Higginbotham replied they have part-time drivers on staff to bring vehicles to varying locations or to the airport. Councilmember Finkelstein asked when cars are dropped off? Mr. Higginbotham replied they only allow it during normal business hours. They open themselves to liability if they have after-hour drops. None of their locations allow after-hour drops. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if he would have any objection limiting no after-hour drops and hours of operation to the conditions of the CUP? Mr. Higginbotham replied no. 1 Councilmember,Omodt asked if the condition wouldn't be specific to the times, because they might change their hours of operation and would be no after-hours drop? Councilmember Finkelstein replied no, that there wouldn't be any expansion of the hours. He was concerned they didn't have a 24-hour, seven day a week operation and that there be no after-hour;drop-off of cars disturbing neighbors. Councilmember�Sanger indicated during the Planning Commission hearing people raised concerns about junker cars in the lot. She assumed Avis would be using new or newly new cars and would be taking steps to make sure junker cars were not parked there, would that be correct? Mr. Higginbotham replied yes. Avis only rents brand new cars and only keep them six to eight months. There is no repair or servicing on-site. They rent cars as needed and take!them back to the airport when they are not. i Councilmember,Santa stated there were seven spots for rental cars. Is there adequate parking for employees? Ms. McGonigal replied yes, there is additional parking on the site. I Council Meeting Minutes -11- August 1, 2005 Helen Miller, 4309-4311 W 36th St, asked how many spaces were available for employee parking and if they were also the spots used for Midas? Ms. McGomgal replied there were approximately 25 spaces, other than the seven and some handicapped stalls, it was mixed for employee and Midas customers. Ms. Miller stated 36th Street already had more cars parked on it than there was space and there was need for more parking. They couldn't afford any more cars on the street. Mayor Jacobs asked if that was enough parking on-site? Ms. McGonigal replied it met the parking requirements. Joe Stranek, Midas Owner, stated there were an additional five spaces in front of Midas. Avis could also park eight cars inside. When he visits the store, there is always ample parking in the back. If there is an overflow of parking on 36`h, he didn't believe it came from his business. Avis was replacing the transmission shop, so that problem would be alleviated. Ken Falkner, neighbor, stated he was the one that the vehicles would be annoying. He asked to clarify that the parking spaces would be accessed only during the day and that the request was for seven spaces to be dedicated to overnight parking? That was all that would be different. He disagreed about the fact that there was enough parking because it would be an issue in winter when snow is stored in the lot. Ms. McGonigal responded that the change in use resulted in a reduction of required parking spaces from 17 to 10, including the seven spaces. Mr. Falkner agreed that there were a lot of cars parked on 36th St, mostly because of the double-bungalows West. Someone mentioned blocking off the rear exit. That would make it difficult for people heading East on Excelsior Blvd. and not a good solution. He had no problem with cars parking there, although he was concerned about the business operating on Sunday. A last issue arose this morning when an employee trimmed the arborvitaes along the parking lot that screened his yard. The vegetation was trimmed five feet off the ground. Fortunately, he stopped him before they were done. They were not maintaining them, they ruined them. Mr. Stranek stated he didn't know about this issue,but would check with the operations manager. Councilmember Basill asked Mr. Stranek if they would stop trimming against the buffer yard? Mr. Stranek replied yes. Councilmember Basill stated they needed to give it time to see if there was an issue with the back exit onto 36`h. Most business would come from Excelsior. If there are problems, they can research it further. When he looked at this proposal, he had a lot of concerns, many that the residents brought up, but Planning Commission and staff came up with good conditions. If Avis doesn't use this property, there would be another tenant and they needed to look at the worst-case scenario. He didn't believe Avis would be the worst use. They provide a valuable service to the community. Adding the condition regarding hours of operation was important, because they didn't want late hours which would disturb neighbors. With all of the conditions, he thought this use would be OK. Council Meeting Minutes -12- August 1, 2005 It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt Resolution No. 05-106 approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow an automobile rental facility at 4150 Excelsior Blvd, with the added conditions: Hours of operation shall be limited to 8 AM— 6 PM Monday through Friday, 8 AM—4 PM Saturday, and 10 AM- 2 PM Sunday; and, Vehicle drop-off shall be limited to the hours that the business is in operation The motion passed 7-0. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution No. 05-107 approving a variance to allow 7 rental cars to be parked within 100 feet of a residentially zoned property. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs indicated August 2nd is National Night Out (NNO). Bookmark in the Park selected the book, Tale of Despero, which was nationally recognized. Councilmember's were provided with bookmarks to distribute at NNO. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m. Ci y Clerk Mayo