Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/08/15 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular CITY OF OFFICIAL MINUTES ST. LOUIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING PARK ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA August 15, 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, and Susan Sanger. Staff present: Associate Planner(Mr. Fulton), City Manager(Mr. Harmening), City Attorney(Mr. Scott), Civic TV Coordinator(Mr. Dunlap), Community Development Director(Mr. Locke), Community TV Coordinator(Mr. McHugh), Director of Technology and Support Services (Mr. Pires), Planning/Zoning Supervisor(Ms. McMonigal) and Recording Secretary(Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations 2a. Day One Celebration Alex Byers, Day One Committee, invited council and community members to welcome students back to school on Thursday, September 1St Mayor Jacobs commented this is a great event that people should attend and thanked organizers. 2b. Junior Leader Program John Bartholow, Park and Recreation Dept. Playground Leader,presented certificates to participants of the Junior Leader Program. Mayor Jacobs thanked Junior Leaders and their families. 2c. Presentation of Met Council TBRA Grant—Peggy Leppik Commissioner Leppik presented a Tax Based Revitalization Account for clean up of contaminated soils. The County and State had also approved matching grants. Mayor Jacobs thanked the Met Council and Hennepin County Representatives for the $4.75 million grant to assist in clean up of the National Lead site. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of August 1, 2005 Councilmember Finkelstein noted on page five, the second full paragraph should be "several page explanations of what they will let people do. Four lines down, it should Council Meeting Minutes -2 - August 15, 2005 read, "but that Mr. Webber would be there 24 hours..." and"they had a concern about going forward that they might go from one smoking lounge to five or six and ultimately all of us in the community paying the costs of this." In the last paragraph of page ten, instead of"adding", it should be"limiting"after hour drops. Councilmember Sanger noted in item 8d, 6th paragraph, insert "was concerned" after, "She goes through ... to make a left turn". The minutes were approved as corrected. 3b. Study Session Minutes of July 11, 2005 Councilmember Sanger indicated in the seventh paragraph of item one, insert "unless the resulting lots were in compliance with the current zoning requirements" after "Councilmember Sanger was opposed to any..." Mr. Harmening indicated on page three in the first sentence, it states, "partial projects need to be 1.5 miles long" and it should be".5 miles long". The minutes were approved as corrected. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar I 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 Adopt Resolution No. 05-108 appointing election judges for the Primary and General Elections to be held September 13 and November 8, 2005 4b Adopt Ordinance No. 2299-05 amending the zoning designation for property located at 1324 and 1332 Kentucky Avenue from C-2 General Commercial and R2—Single Family Residential to RC—Multi-Family Residential, approve second reading. approve summary, and authorize publication. Case No. 05-29-Z 4c Approve Resolution No. 05-109 calling for a public hearing regarding the issuance of multifamily housing revenue refunding bonds under Minnesota statutes, chapter 462c for the benefit of Knollwood Place Apartments Project 4d Adopt Resolution No. 05-110 support for Trunk Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange Improvements 4e Adopt Resolution No. 05-111 that declares the petition adequate for the purposes of preparing a formal City Engineer's Report on the feasibility and costs associated with a proposed alley paving project in the 2900 block of Princeton and Ottawa Avenue—Project No. 2005-1800. 4f Adopt Resolution No. 05-112 accepting construction of enclosed park building and open picnic shelter at oak hill park contract no. 50-04 4g Accept Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes of May 11, 2005 for filing 4h Accept Telecommunications Commission Minutes of May 5, 2005 for filing 4i Accept Planning Commission Minutes of July 5, 2005 for filing Council Meeting Minutes -3 - August 15, 2005 4j Adopt Resolution No. 05-113 authorizing the installation of stop signs on Cedar Lake Road at Quentin Avenue, Traffic Study No. 598 4k Accept vendor claims for filing(supplement) It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, 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. Proposed Transfer of Cable Television System Mr. Dunlap indicated there would be a report at the end of the month regarding Time Warner's franchise fee review and the legal, technical and financial ability of Comcast to operate the new cable system. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to continue the public hearing to September 19, 2005. The motion passed 7-0. 6b. Time Warner Cable TV Franchise Renewal Update Mr. Pires indicated the Council received a status report of the franchise renewal. Subsequent to the receipt of the report, a proposal was made by Time Warner and additional information provided that staff was reviewing. Based on preliminary review, they see significant progress on the various business points. Staff recommended the public hearing be continued to September 6th . Brian Grogan, Moss and Barnett, stated timing was fairly crucial. A concerns was that they cannot use the past performance issues of Time Warner against Comcast once they approve the transfer. If they don't get the renewal done and are unable to negotiate informally, the transfer deadline comes October 15`h. If they accept it, they would be served by Comcast and could not hold them responsible for Time Warner actions. They need to protect the City's rights. On September 6`h they will come forward with options and return on September 19th to reconsider the transfer. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. Phillip Hogland, 2716 Vernon Av. S, concerned that Time Warner was under obligation to offer multiple ISP choices and would like Comcast to offer multiple ISP choices. Council Meeting Minutes -4 - August 15, 2005 Mr. Pires noted the franchise agreement only applied to television and did not apply to other Information Services. Mr. Grogan indicated that an Information Service is also a broadband or high-speed data service. The Federal government classified that as an information service meaning it is only regulated at the federal level. Despite the fact that the Council may wish to impose requirements to have a greater numbers of ISPs or to otherwise affect how these companies deliver information services, the Federal government preempts that authority and they would have to take those arguments to them. Mr. Hogland indicated he was under the impression that a Supreme Court ruling said that the FCC could not require cable companies to carry more than one ISP and could be accomplished through contractual means. Mr. Grogan responded that the Brand X case was about whether or not the FCC had authority to impose this regulation which was a declaratory ruling classifying broadband services and information services. They said that the FCC had authority to regulate this type of service. You can do a lot by contract, if not preempted by State or Federal law. If they said the transfer is not effective unless Comcast provides a certain number of ISP choices, it would not be an enforceable obligation because it runs contrary to Federal law. They could voluntarily enter into such an agreement, or chose to provide the ISP's,but the City of St. Louis Park lacks the authority to impose that requirement. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Sanger asked if they have indication of Comcast's intention regarding multiple ISP's? Mr. Grogan responded in questions raised throughout the Country, the answer was, "you don't have a right to ask the question,because you don't have authority." They hadn't gotten a written answer because the position of the Companies has been that is outside the purview of their regulatory review and"off-limits." Councilmember Brimeyer asked if they only have some small negotiating points like local access and local studios? Mr. Pires responded laws have changed significantly in the last 20-30 years. The real question becomes what is negotiable and what have they had in St. Louis Park and what can they convince Time Warner to continue? Councilmember Brimeyer asked if they couldn't come to an agreement, does FCC say that they wouldn't have cable? Mr. Grogan replied no, the FCC has no authority to franchise a cable operator, that was done at a local level. Companies need written authorization from the Council to run a cable system,which expires August 27th. They need an extension if they chose to continue, otherwise the company would probably exercise legal rights to seek an injunction to continue to operate. If both parties say no, there are two ways to handle it. Informally,but if they both say no, that can't be done. The other is more formal, where they put down their written needs and interests and the past performance of the operator and the operator submits a written proposal. The company can challenge the decision. That was what staff was preparing them for. Council Meeting Minutes -5 - August 15, 2005 Councilmember Brimeyer asked if the Council says no and the company pulls out or they go to court, can the court order the City to allow them to operate? Is that the final recourse? Mr. Grogan replied yes, a court ultimately decides whether you were right or wrong to grant or deny the franchise. There were only three reported cases in the country in the last twenty years where a company has been denied renewal. In those cases, there is a fair amount of deference given to local elected officials to decide what is right for their community. The likelihood of any company walking away from a sizable investment and infrastructure and subscriber counts is slim and none. They just wanted to make sure that the local interests are properly protected. Councilmember Finkelstein stated they need the Councils permission to convert the ownership to Comcast at the same time they were trying to negotiate their agreement for cable TV watchers. An important part of the negotiation is retaining the right to local origination which is about 20 hours/week covering community events. They have also had a local studio allowing people to do independent programming. He didn't believe they wanted to have the fourth reported case in the County or set that precedent and they would come to a deal. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if they became the fourth case, was there another cable company for this market? Mr. Grogan replied it would be unprecedented that the parties wouldn't ultimately resolve the dispute. Even in cases where they have gone to court and a decision had gone down favorable to cities, cities have never lost in court as it relates to a franchise non-renewal. It is highly unlikely they would see a gap in service. If the City prevails, Time Warner or Comcast could walk away,but with a sizeable asset, he didn't think they would. Councilmember Brimeyer stated they needed to work to an agreement. Mr. Grogan indicated settlement was always the best alternative. The question that will be left to staff and ultimately the Council is whether the offer that the company puts forward is acceptable and how hard they want to fight to make sure the offer is acceptable. Councilmember Basill thanked staff for their continued work. Local origination is • important for this community and for the children. Keep negotiating for it. Mr. Pires replied they would keep working at it and that players on the other side of the table understand the importance of local origination as well. Mayor Jacobs agreed it was a big deal. A lot of people watch these channels and it is a very important issue and an integral part of who we are and the way we operate. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to continue the public hearing and extend the term of the franchise agreement to September 6, 2005 The motion passed 7-0. Council Meeting Minutes -6 - August 15, 2005 7. Requests,Petitions, and Communications from the Public—None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances,Motions 8a. Request by SilverCrest Properties for a Major Amendment to a Planned Unit Development 3601 Park Center Boulevard Case No. 05-33-PUD Mr. Fulton presented the staff report. Councilmember Santa recalled when this was initially discussed she had concerns about sufficient guest parking and about using some of the attached parking spaces. Would that continue to be an option with this proposal? Mr. Fulton replied there is more parking at the assisted living and at the apartment. One of the conditions of approval is for a connection in the parking areas to use some of those for guest parking. Councilmember Finkelstein stated this project came before the Planning Commission over two and a half years ago. It was approved at that time as a senior condominium project. That was what they used to get it approved. Instead, this is another condo adding more traffic and congestion to an area that is ill equipped to handle it. He thought it was ill advised. They were still giving them a 15%parking reduction when they would have an additional 100 trips a day. This isn't the deal they approved and he didn't think they were obligated to approve this. Councilmember Sanger asked Mr. Gould to explain why they wanted this change? Mike Gould, SilverCrest Properties, replied the market had changed. As they developed the market study and the site, an age restricted building versus non age restricted buildings, they came to the conclusion that even though their market would be empty nesters, the risk involved in trying to segment it out as an age restricted building is huge. They were told not to have the age restriction. Parking and traffic issues would still be met within the constraints they initially had. Additional parking could still be used in the same way they talked about before. They would probably make minor adjustments to units to make some more affordable. Councilmember Sanger stated if this is not targeted at seniors, one of the pushes they have in the community is to have bigger units to accommodate families. Do you plan to have larger units to accommodate families? Mr. Gould replied they had not finalized the unit mix. Given the constraints of the size of the building and the number of units, they would need to stay with much the same unit mix. Councilmember Sanger asked if they would consider having some larger units? Mr. Gould responded some of the units were approximately 2500 square feet. Councilmember Omodt recalled last time he and Councilmember Basill voted against this was primarily for height and traffic concerns. The tunnel between the two buildings was to ease parking. Was that something they were still thinking about? Mr. Gould replied Council Meeting Minutes -7 - August 15, 2005 when they were initially looking at the tunnel, they were looking at moving services back and forth between the assisted living and the senior condo. Councilmember Basill asked the price point? Mr. Gould replied $250,000 - $700,000. Councilmember Finkelstein asked the applicant if it had been over two years ago when they were here? Mr. Gould replied it had been a length of time. They never finished the development agreement. When they started this, it was not going to be a senior building. It was ongmally slated to be a market rate facility. Since that time the marketplace has changed and there aren't a lot of age restrictions for condominiums. They were still going to target seniors and felt empty nesters would be a big portion of the residents, they just couldn't have the restriction. Councilmember Finkelstein asked what their current plans were for finishing this? Mr. Gould replied they were prepared to move forward now. The development agreement needed to be finished with the City. Councilmember Basill believed this was a policy question. The Council had an outside agency perform study, which states in the conclusions: Don't allow any one site to overload the market with a lot of units at once; Try to spread out new projects over several years, ideally through the remainder of the decade; and, keep projects spread out geographically. Current proposals are fairly well distributed. There were parking issues with the tunnel not being there. Traffic was going from 396 to 627 daily trips. They needed to study this further with the condo study to see if it made sense to have market rate condominiums and an additional fourteen-story building. He was also concerned about Equity Marketing saying, "While a significant number of eventual buyers currently reside in St. Louis Park, the communities population size alone cannot sustain a successful sales program." They also talked about providing senior housing for residents of St. Louis Park. A building this size would take people from outside the community, which was OK, but they had to look at the balance of traffic and at the condo market globally and where they were positioned. They needed more time. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to continue the item to the soonest date feasible to allow further discussion at a study session Mayor Jacobs asked if there was a time frame? Ms. McGonigal responded it could be extended an additional 60 days. Councilmember Basill stated 60 days to study this would make sure they understood what this meant. Mr. Gould responded they had been in the community for a long time and they were willing to work with them. Ms. McGonigal requested the Council indicate what information they were looking for. Mayor Jacobs replied they had talked about how this fit with the condominium study and the impact traffic would have, and parking. There were also concerns raised about height the last time. Council Meeting Minutes -8 - August 15, 2005 Councilmember Sanger added there was also a discussion last time regarding the cross traffic between the three buildings. With the additional vehicles associated with a non- age restricted building, would they anticipate more cross traffic and would that clog the driveways for people making turns in and out? Councilmember Finkelstein stated when they were discussing this with the three separate buildings and the common campus, they also discussed Target and working in new drive- in and drive-outs. Mr. Harmening indicated they should also look at the overall PUD. To provide for the densities on this site, they created a PUD that involved all three parcels. That may have been done based on the assumption this would be a senior campus. Councilmember Brimeyer stated they could get past the height issue because they reluctantly agreed to that. Those that voted for this anticipated it would be senior housing. He would go along with the motion,but not without direction. The only factors for additional discussion were traffic and parking impacts, which can be looked at separately. They should demonstrate parking was handled. The marketplace does what it wants to and he didn't think government controlled that. If age restricted housing or non- age was good for the market restricted, he didn't care. They could take their chance. If they didn't occupy them, that was their problem. The other issue was in terms of a land use and as a policy issue if ten years from now they say this is a quality senior campus, which was what they started out with. Councilmember Basill indicated they should defer this for the reasons about the senior housing and if they wanted to change that concept. They were making significant changes and needed to look back at the PUD. They were eliminating the tunnel and needed to know the effect. They were increasing traffic. Where was that going to go? The policy question of condos was a larger issue. It was their issue if a building fails or if they didn't do a good job of where they put condos. There are a number of condo proposals and they needed look at the study and find a balance. What happens to the building that fails and the neighboring properties when those properties turn from good to blight? They needed to talk about this more. Councilmember Brimeyer disagreed. Whether this or any other building failed, if no public money is involved, he didn't think it was governments concern. They built office buildings in the 1990's and there is 17-20%vacancy rate. Were they concerned about that as a government? No. They shouldn't use that as an argument. Councilmember Finkelstein stated their bad investment is their decision,but after they are done with the development and condos have been sold, the community and the condominium project are still here. It is an appropriate role for government to look into the future and say, "What are we doing to be stewards of our community?" It was their job. Councilmember Sanger wanted to understand the larger market forces turning away from senior condos. In the housing summit process they talked about the need to have more senior housing to attract seniors and create more single-family homes for families. If that was not a viable concept, they needed to know for community planning purposes. Council Meeting Minutes -9 - August 15, 2005 Councilmember Finkelstein believed they had an obligation to get their own information and do their own analysis. Mr. Gould indicated Tom Malkyer does most of the studies in the Twin Cities for condominiums and other housing. Tom Malkyer, Larson, Allen, Wisher, stated it was his idea to drop the age restriction because the absorption rate for senior condos is slow. With al50-unit project it becomes a big deal. A prudent lender won't give them their money until 50 or 60% of the units are sold. Once the building is built and up and they can see it, sales accelerate. To wait for 75 units to be sold from seniors who want to see the product, could be very difficult. The other important issue is that most of the market is still going to be people over age 55. The project will be a high-end condominium building attracting mostly empty nesters. That was not to say there wouldn't be younger people, but the majority of residents would be over 55 and therefore would fulfill the idea of an older adult type campus. Councilmember Finkelstein noted in yesterday's newspaper, they were talking about everyone going after the $300-$500,000 condominium and studies are showing that sales are dramatically slowing. Mr. Malkyer replied from his work, he didn't see that sales were dramatically slowing. There is a slow down, it has gone from white hot to hot. This is an excellent location and very desirable for all ages. Having the senior campus already in place will be a marketing tool for older adults who would want to live there. The idea is to broaden the market to make the pre-sale requirement easier. Councilmember Brimeyer believed the community needed to dictate and drive what they wanted to see in ten years, no matter what the market says. There were other occasions where the Council wanted something different than the developer proposed and they had a right to say it. Mr. Malkyer said that they could market a market-rate, non-age restricted complex or development quicker than they could an age restricted, which told him that a senior age restricted development is saleable, although not as fast. One of the compromises could be that they agree that a certain percentage be age-restricted so that it is still seen as primarily a senior campus with options for other people. Mayor Jacobs felt the idea of deferring this to talk about it made sense given the changes in the project. It made sense to talk about traffic, parking and the land use. There were assumptions made about the senior part of this that lead to the height, the number of units, the amount of traffic, the amount of parking and now those assumptions have changed. He didn't disagree that they would probably market this largely to an over 50 crowd because of the nature of what was next to it. Can they do a date certain? Mr. Harmening responded they had a time period under which they had to make a decision. The City Attorney has indicated this could be continued without specifying a specific date, other than to say that staff should bring it back when they are ready and to the soonest date feasible. The motion passed 7-0. Council Meeting Minutes -10 - August 15, 2005 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs reported on the incident at Excelsior Boulevard and the fuel spill. Emergency response staff contained the spill quickly and he commended them. His understanding was that no one was hurt. Mr. Harmening added with the help of the PCA, they were able to contain all of the fuel that dumped into the storm sewer system before it got to Bass Lake. They were taking precautions and monitoring to be sure it hadn't gotten there. They were in the process of cleaning out the storm system. Mayor Jacobs thanked staff and the neighborhoods for another successful National Night Out. Councilmember Basill attended the Park and Rec Twilight Swim and Skate,which was a great event. He commended Park and Rec Commission. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m. /fiz---`-`—isjs- i 96(4- Ci Clerk M9