Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/11/14 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session SIST.ILOU°IFSOFFICIAL MINUTES RK CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION November 14, 2005 The meeting convened at 6:32 p.m. Councilmembers present: John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Councilmember Jim Brimeyer was absent. Staff present: City Manager(Mr. Harmening), Community Development Director(Mr. Locke), Economic Development Coordinator(Mr. Hunt), Housing Program Coordinator(Ms. Larsen), Planning/Zoning Supervisor(Ms. McMonigal) and Recording Secretary(Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 1. Children First Update The youth involved with Children First introduced themselves (Alana, Nick, Dana, Anna, Sonya and Ericka). Alana discussed Children First and the youth performed a skit based on the 40 assets. It was noted that they meet monthly and others can attend. Karen Atkinson indicated that the Youth Development committee held a retreat to train children to do interviews with their peers. Jeannie Bloomquist noted training was also done for the Student Advisory Council. Ms. Atkinson indicated that St. Louis Park had been named one of the 100 Best Communities for Children by America's Promise. She reported on the celebration held in Washington. Mayor Jacobs believed they needed to build assets, but they also needed to continue as children grow older. He noticed asset building in St. Louis Park kids. High school youth were connecting with younger kids and he was very proud. 2. Excess Land Ms. Larsen reported they reviewed input from the public meeting and will bring a final recommendation to the 12/5 Council meeting. They could group all actions together or separate some. Councilmember Sanger preferred to vote on them individually. They needed to discuss additional critena. The task force criteria that was a good start, but it wasn't complete. Councilmember Basill believed some parcels were not controversial and could be grouped. Others needed more discussion. Study Session Minutes -2- November 14, 2005 Councilmember Finkelstein agreed. There were four parcels that were in dispute. He asked what criteria Councilmember Sanger was looking for? Councilmember Sanger replied, in addition to the task force critena: 1) Environmental impacts (wetlands,potential tree and vegetation loss, concerns about wildlife and other natural resources); 2)Neighborhood perspective; and, 3) Potential flooding issues. Ms. Larsen indicated that the task force came up with cnteria to evaluate if the parcels should be used for single-family homes. The issue is the value judgment between the best use of the parcels, such as homes, open space or something else. Councilmember Basill indicated a valid concern was if the parcel was accessible to the public and character to the larger neighborhood. A parcel at a park provides more public use. Councilmember Santa asked for the definition of public? Councilmember Basill replied a parcel that the neighborhood used. Councilmember Santa asked who the public was? Councilmember Basill replied an example would be pocket parks. Not everyone uses them,but the entire neighborhood does. That was the public use he was refemng to. Councilmember Santa indicated one of the speakers at the public hearing that made an impression on her was the lady who talked about not having a park in her neighborhood and driving her kids to a park, those were the people she was thinking about. Councilmember Finkelstein stated this wasn't about the money, although one idea could be to use the money from the land sales to encourage people to add on to their homes. Councilmember Santa believed they had not done as much as they could have for wetlands and the creek and could put extra effort into looking at the highest use to enhance them. Councilmember Sanger stated people were asking questions about the use of the money and they needed to provide answers. Mayor Jacobs replied that would be another process later on such as a public task force. He was not comfortable saying where it would go at this time. Councilmember Sanger believed they needed to provide people with some kind of an answer. Government operations get more expensive, they needed a larger budget discussion to talk about what they were doing. Mayor Jacobs thought they could group the ones without controversy and do the others individually. Mr. Harmening clarified that the parcels that would be voted on individually were: 3 (2600 Natchez), 17 (5609 Wood Lane) and 18 (4525 Morningside). Councilmember Sanger believed the parcel being used as the dog park also needed to be included. Mayor Jacobs noted that might be deferred until it was more definitive. Study Session Minutes -3- November 14, 2005 Mr. Locke stated if not used as a dog park, they could sell it. They did not know the time frame for the dog park. Councilmember Sanger suggested a separate category for items that would be deferred, including the Wood Lane site because of the Watershed District. Councilmember Basill felt they should keep it on the list of properties to be taken separately. Mr. Harmening indicated they could provide one resolution including the parking lots and parcels that were acceptable for sale and do three separate resolutions for the sites that required more discussion. Councilmember Santa noted that the Watershed District didn't have the Wood Lane site scheduled for discussion at this time. Mayor Jacobs suggested that the resolution include a sunset provision allowing six months. Councilmember Finkelstein believed this was an opportunity to put something such as a landing on the creek. Councilmember Basill indicated they may not have an answer from the Watershed Distnct on Wood Lane, but the City had not proactively approached the Watershed District either. Mr. Harmening indicated they would use the task force recommendations. Councilmember Sanger believed if they used those, it would appear that they hadn't heard anything. They should present two or more options on the controversial parcels. Mayor Jacobs suggested they provide two drafts, one to sell and the other not to sell. Councilmember Sanger asked if they voted not to sell, what happens? Could a parcel be added to a park or protected? Future Councils should be aware of the decision. Mr. Harmening responded they would need to determine what they wanted to do with it. Councilmember Sanger commented on the Cedar Lake Rd parcel there was a concern about blocking views. Criteria could be to limit the size of the proposed homes to one story. Mayor Jacobs indicated they needed to have design standards and make sure homes would be in character with the neighborhood. Councilmember Finkelstein noted in the staff report a section regarding design. Councilmember Sanger indicated one parking lot appeared as though it would not have public access. They should all be accessible to the public. Study Session Minutes -4- November 14, 2005 Mr. Locke indicated that was the site of the former Treasure Island. There is a possibility of the City selling it to a developer, with a caveat that surrounding parcels have access to the parking lot. Councilmember Sanger had a concern about the way it was worded. Councilmember Basill stated the Belt Line parcel is on a lake. He was in favor of including a statement that some component be single-family homes. Mayor Jacobs believed it would depend on the developers financing. If they were senous about move-up housing, they should have a component of single-family homes. Councilmember Finkelstein stated that was a big policy question. They may want to defer the discussion. Councilmember Basill stated he wasn't looking for concrete language, but if a future Council referred back to this, he would want them to know they wanted consideration given to single- family homes. Councilmember Sanger agreed with a general direction for some form of single-family homes. Mr. Locke indicated people had inquired about that parcel. They could ask them to consider single-family homes. It is a substantial parcel. The purpose of this study was not to decide what to put there. Mayor Jacobs noted it wouldn't be a binding statement, although the City owned it and could tell them no. They would consider proposals on their own merits. 3. Hoigaard Village TIF Mr. Locke indicated the key issue was TIF. This would be a step toward implementing the Elmwood study. At the next Council meeting, they will present the preliminary PUD and plat. Mr. Frank Dunbar, Dunbar Development Co., discussed the site plan. Councilmember Sanger asked about a deadline? Mr. Dunbar replied it was an open issue with Hoigaard's because they didn't want to make a decision until they knew this was "real". Councilmember Sanger felt it was a"chicken and egg" situation regarding Hoigaard's. Councilmember Finkelstein believed it was either the right economics or not. Mayor Jacobs agreed TIF could not be dependent on a particular business, either the economics worked or not. Study Session Minutes -5- November 14, 2005 Mayor Jacob asked if the warehouse and dock would be included based on the business it was leased to? Mr. Dunbar replied that would only be there for Hoigaard's. Councilmember Santa asked if that would impact the amount of TIF needed? Mr. Dunbar replied it wouldn't be a significant impact. Councilmember Sanger stated all retail was not alike. Councilmember Sanger questioned if financial aid should be used for fast food restaurants versus higher quality retail and higher paying jobs. Mr. Dunbar stated discussed the site between 35 'A & 36th Streets. Councilmember Finkelstein asked the price points? Mr. Dunbar replied the overall range was $225,000-400,000 Mr. Dunbar discussed the proposed construction phasing and more of the site plan. Councilmember Sanger asked if there was an increase in units from the last plan? Mr. Dunbar replied an increase in apartments. Councilmember Sanger asked how they had added the units? Mr. Dunbar replied through the height, which didn't impact Designed Outdoor Recreation Areas (DORA). Councilmember Basill believed this needed to go back to the neighborhood for more discussion regarding the increase in height and density. Mr. Dunbar indicated that they had a 20' floor to ceiling on the retail and it would be a net increase now of 4'. Mr. Harmening asked how many units per floor on 36th St? Mr. Dunbar replied less than 20. The unit square footage ranged from 900-1460 sq. ft. Councilmember Basill was concerned about the setback on 36`h Street and that enough space be allowed for people to walk. The sidewalk should wrap around to Wooddale. Mayor Jacobs noted if the LRT comes to the area, sidewalks are important. Mr. Locke indicated they were encouraging sidewalks and were discussing the key pedestrian corridors in the area. Mr. Harmening clanfied on the east side of Wooddale between 36`h and Highway 7, they needed an interim pedestrian connection until permanent improvements were done. Councilmember Basill stated the two existing buildings were a concern. Study Session Minutes -6- November 14, 2005 Councilmember Sanger stated if the properties were not obtained, property values would go up and they would be harder to obtain. That could be green space or more parking. This may be an opportunity to suggest more involvement in the decision. The TIF is to be paid back in eleven years,but it could take longer. Councilmember Finkelstein noted it would be close to $2 million. Councilmember Finkelstein asked about eminent domain? Mr. Locke responded it was not a successful tool to get the price down. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they decided to sell, what was the plan? Mr. Dunbar replied they couldn't economically make anything work. It would be green space. Councilmember Finkelstein asked how much DORA was added? Mr. Dunbar replied 14,000 feet and they added the pond. Ms. McMomgal indicated 17%of the site was DORA. Councilmember Basill understood the complexities of those buildings but it would be a better project without them. This may be a consideration regarding TIF. Councilmember Finkelstein asked how much money was going to the remediation? Mr. Hunt replied regarding the TIF request, they found a gap of$5.75 million due to costs unique to development of the site. Remediation costs will be more substantial than anticipated. Councilmember Santa asked the TIF amount? Mr. Hunt responded they would request a range of$4.75 - 5.5 million Councilmember Basill asked if there was any county funding available? Mr. Hunt replied there was money,but they had just received funding for other projects and it was unlikely it would be done by spring. The total value of the project, as built, would be $77 million. Councilmember Sanger asked if they needed the larger storm water pond because of runoff from other businesses, could they allocate back to other property owners? Mr. Hunt responded that there were three zones. This site was the low point of the area. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the project didn't go forward, how would they deal with the storm water pond capacity? Mr. Hunt replied they would find another location in this area Mr. Hunt stated that staff was suggesting paying their portion up front and pay back from special assessments to other area properties. Councilmember Sanger asked if they could special assess now? Mr. Harmening stated they would need to discuss the legalities with the City Attorney. Councilmember Basill indicated the small businesses in the area wouldn't have the means for an assessment. Their storm water works. Study Session Minutes -7- November 14, 2005 Councilmember Sanger stated that all taxpayers would be subsidizing this. Mr. Hunt noted it would be easier to do with a redevelopment project. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if this would create a precedent for future projects on retention ponds and TIF money? Mr. Hunt responded that each plan was unique. This site had a unique feature with the deficiency of storm water in the area. Ms. McMonigal indicated this is the lowest area and the modifications were recommended by the Engineer. Mayor Jacobs asked about the next steps? Mr. Locke asked if the Council wanted to move forward with this level of assistance? Councilmember Finkelstein asked if this was a reasonable amount of appropriation? Mr. Mark Ruff, Ehlers & Associates, replied that the pond was a separate issue from TIF. This would be high end, but an acceptable range. Development costs associated with the site are extraordinary costs. Councilmember Finkelstein inquired about the"look back"provision. Mr. Ruff responded if an arrangement for tax increment financing is worked out with the developer, that is when there is a look back. The developer was willing to do that. Councilmember Sanger asked if they had ever gotten money back from a"look back" provision? Mr. Ruff replied not in St. Louis Park, but they had in other cities. Councilmember Sanger stated that the TIF payback was eleven years, would that change? Mr. Hunt replied yes, it would be 13 years. Mr. Harmening stated a potential use of excess TIF could be for transportation. Mr. Locke indicated the preliminary PUD and plat will be coming for the Council on Monday, 11/21. Then they can move forward to set up the TIF District or combine it. Councilmember Santa asked when they would meet with the neighborhood? Councilmember Basill replied he would make some phone calls so they were aware of the change in height. Mr. Dunbar stated density with the larger units hadn't increased. The market was changing to require larger units. The meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. t/ CityMay Clerk r