Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/11/20 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular ffCTY OFFICIAL MINUTES rILouqsCITY COUNCIL MEETING RK ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA November 20, 2006 1. Call to Order Mayor Pro Tem Sanger called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Council members present Mayor Pro-Tem, Susan Sanger, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran Paprocki Jeff Jacobs (amved at 7:55 p.m.) Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Inspections Administrative Supervisor (Ms Boettcher), Senior Planner(Mr. Walther) and Recording Secretary (Ms Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations - None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Study Session Minutes of October 16, 2006 It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Paprocki to approve the minutes as presented. The motion passed 6-0 3c. Study Session Minutes of November 6, 2006 It was moved by Councilmember Paprocki, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to approve the minutes as presented The motion passed 6-0 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. 06-180 to suspend collection of the Local Tax on Lawful Gambling through 2007 4b. Approve the Second Amendment to the Vehicle Towing and Impounding Agreement between the City and All Hours Towing and; Motion to approve the revised Lease Agreement between the City and All Hours Towing. 4c. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of October 18, 2006. 4d. Approve Vendor Claims for Filing It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar The motion passed 6-0 City Council Meeting -2- November 20, 2006 5. Boards and Commissions 5a. Appointment of Citizen Representative to Boards and Commissions It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to appoint Kelly Lund to the Police Advisory Commission The motion passed 6-0 6. Public Hearings 6a. Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider the 2007 Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4 Resolution No. 06-179 Ms. Boettcher presented the staff report. No speakers present. Mayor Pro Tern Sanger closed the public heanng. Councilmember Basill commented it was nice to have the special service distract West of Highway 100. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Carver approve Resolution No. 06-179 setting the 2007 Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No 4 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County The motion passed 6-0 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public—None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. First Reading Parks and Open Space Zoning Text and Map Amendment, Case No. 06-56-Z and 06-64-ZA Mr. Walther presented the staff report. It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to approve the first reading of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendments to create a Park and Open Space Zoning District The motion passed 6-0 City Council Meeting -3- November 20, 2006 8b. First Reading of an Ordinance Establishing Criteria and Procedural Requirements for Sale of City Park Land Mr. Locke presented the staff report. Councilmember Finkelstein complimented staff and the public for their work and asked about the five year lease. Mr. Locke replied staff tried to imagine this would be a lease similar to an actual sale of property. If Council felt another time frame was more appropriate, that could be addressed. Councilmember Finkelstein stated as currently drafted, for a lease of property for only four years, it wouldn't take a super majority, but rather a majority of a Council, which was why it would become critical and possibly should be revised. In study session they also talked about covering not only sales, but also joint ventures and he wondered if the term under definition (b) should include the term of sale. There could be a situation where the land is not being sold or leased, but they were combining with the City of Minneapolis or a similar situation. Under the exemptions, it says for public purposes, is that as defined by St. Louis Park? Mr. Locke replied yes. Councilmember Basill indicated he was agreeable to those additions Malcolm Chatfield, 4252 Toledo Av S, noted he was a part of the citizens group and supported this ordinance change. There is an unintentional loophole. If they agreed to rezone this land into park and open space, there was no provision, other than the current city ordinances, that describes how to un-zone this. Some future City Council could completely circumvent this ordinance by rezoning the land from park and open space to something else. When they talk about the sale and lease, they should also incorporate language preventing a future Council from avoiding this process by simply rezoning it. Mayor Pro Tern Sanger asked if he was suggesting it be written that the land could never be rezoned or suggesting a different process? Mr. Chatfield replied no, there should be a way to prevent this process from being circumvented rather than dust rezoning the land Mayor Pro Tern Sanger hoped they could count on the ethics of future Councils to prevent that from happening. Councilmember Basill indicated they could apply the sale guidelines to rezoning. Once something is designated parkland, it would have to go through this process. Councilmember Carver asked about the current process for rezoning property. Mr. Locke replied it required a simple majonty vote, unless they were rezoning residential property. The notification requirements are 350 feet of the property, ten days prior to the hearing. It requires a heanng at the Planning Commission and two readings at City Council Typically, if they were going to rezone, they would also have to change the Comp Plan, which requires a super majority vote by the Council and notification of 500 feet. It is not inconsequential to rezone a property, but not as stnngent as the requirements they were setting for the sale process. City Council Meeting -4- November 20, 2006 Councilmember Paprocki commented if it were easier to rezone, they might never use this route. Mr. Locke replied if they have an ordinance saying they have to go through a more stringent requirement to sell parkland, and the Council simply takes actions to go around using this ordinance, his guess was it would not be well received in the community. Councilmember Finkelstein asked what would happen if they changed the definition to account for that? Mr. Locke replied they could consider introducing different language. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they could include, "the sale of park property shall include the rezoning" in addition to the other language. Mr. Scott stated they would apply the same procedure to rezoning or Comp Plan amendments. Councilmember Finkelstein added it also had different notice requirements. Mr. Scott indicated as long as they don't change the vote requirement for Comp Plan, they could also apply this to amending the Comp Plan and rezoning park property and go through the same procedure in the sale ordinance. They could have a look back period if they re-guide or rezone park property. If it was sold within "x" number of years after that, they would have to go through this procedure. There could be some circumstances where the City may be rezoning the property for another City use, which would require them to go through the additional notice process when there was not intent for sale. Mr. Harmening stated staff could take the time between first and second reading and draft the most appropnate language regarding the changes brought up and bring it back for second reading. John Madou, 5617 Wood Ln, appreciated the work of the staff and Council. He encouraged they pass as strong an ordinance as possible. There is a loophole, but there may continue to be a loophole because an ordinance can be amended at any time. He viewed it as a first step, getting to some bigger things including open space. There is a need for a coalition to do more in this area. David Enckson, 4044 Utica Av S, asked which came first, a rezoning or Comp Plan change? Mayor Jacobs replied the Comp Plan. Mr. Erickson asked if there was a required timeline between the Comp Plan change and rezoning. Mr. Scott replied responded they shouldn't create a situation where there is a conflict between the Comp Plan and the zoning ordinance, so once they re-guide, it should be followed fairly promptly with a rezoning Mr. Erickson stated they were making progress and was pleased. Councilmember Omodt noted the point Councilmember Finkelstein was refernng to in Section 1 (b) under definition, where the five-year is referenced, they decided on longer lease terms so it wouldn't come before the Council every year for a lease renewal at their Study Session. City Council Meeting -5- November 20, 2006 Mr. Harmening added the idea of including the lease language in the ordinance was Councilmember Finkelstein's. This would circumvent a future City Council leasing a significant piece of park property for a private purpose. There may be some circumstances where a short-term lease doesn't change the nature of the park versus cell towers were one example, which were usually five year leases with five-year options for renewal. They would be subject to this ordinance. Councilmember Finkelstein replied it was correct that the purpose of adding the lease was to prevent a long-term lease that would be used to avoid the spirit of the proposal. Mr. Harmening stated if there is a short-term lease for a temporary use, even if it didn't have to go through the process, they could deny the lease. Mayor Pro Tern Sanger asked if a five year lease was the right amount of time. Councilmember Carver commented in terms of the amount of time, he thought the points the City Manager made held true. They don't want to do something unreasonable and unnecessarily. One of the issues they needed to talk about was trust. They needed to trust one another and if something fell apart, they could fix it. Rather than changing other ordinances that concern the Comp Plan and zoning for a specific type of zoning, he encouraged Council to create one ordinance to address those situations. The so-called "loophole" focused on changing park and open space zoning to sell the property. In definition, they could determine that park property shall mean any city land owned that is zoned park and open space or has been in any of the past five years This would have the affect of needing to pass a five year period after a City Council had changed the zoning designation in order to "escape" having to use this provision for selling that land. That keeps within one ordinance every tool they need to keep the land in the way they intended it to be and not have the unintended consequences. He encouraged that be the guiding principal as opposed to amending other ordinances. Mayor Pro Tern Sanger added this should also apply to lease extensions. Mr. Harmening indicated Councilmember Finkelstein originally suggested the lease provision would prohibit leased property for a use that is not permitted in the park zoning district and that they get around the notification requirement through a long term lease versus a sale. They could require they go through the process of notification for the lease of all or a part of a piece of park property for a use not allowed in the park zoning ordinance If it is an allowed use they still have the ability to deny the lease If it is permitted the city wouldn't have to go through the more extensive process and can still protect the situation where the City leases a piece of property for 99 years to avoid a sale but still changes the use. Mayor Pro Tern Sanger stated they had a number of suggestions on how to tighten up or modify this ordinance. She asked if the Council wanted to vote on it with the understanding that staff would bring it back to a study session before corning back for second reading, or did they want to defer it. Councilmember Carver proposed they defer this discussion. There were potentially significant changes. He would like to have the opportunity for everyone to see the language. City Council Meeting -6- November 20, 2006 Councilmember Finkelstein felt each issue had a cascading affect and was worthy of more review. Councilmember Basill stated he would like to provide specific information from staff about changed. They wanted to protect parks and needed to make sure all issues were addressed Mr. Harmening clarified the issues discussed: a joint venture; having a provision for lease extensions; the term of lease (five year); the ordinance being circumvented by rezoning or re-guiding and getting around having to go through this ordinance; and, having a look back provision Staff could provide options at the next meeting Mayor Pro Tem Sanger believed it would be better to go before a study session. Mr. Harmening noted the next study session was full and therefore it would need to go into December. Councilmember Basill asked where Councilmember Finkelstein was regarding the five- year lease? Staff and residents had worked very hard on this and he didn't want this delayed longer than the next Council Meeting. Councilmember Finkelstein stated he hadn't considered the towers as part of the issue and wanted to also consider what the City Manager had said. Mr Scott stated it would be helpful to know if the look back concept was acceptable to the Council as opposed to getting into the Comp Plan and re-guiding Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked if, to change the park designation, would they need to have the same process of notice and the super majority. Mr. Scott replied not in order to sell it. It could be rezoned and re-guided, but if they wanted to sell it within a certain time frame, they would need to go through the sale procedure as if it were currently zoned park. That would mean it would be contained within this ordinance and they would not put additional requirements to go through the rezoning process and Comp Plan Councilmember Paprocki questioned even with the look back, they still have former parkland that is now rezoned, had they really done anything? There were too many questions and he appreciated they wanted to get this done in a quick manner, but he wanted to take the time to be sure this was done right. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger didn't believe delaying it a couple of weeks would be harmful and wanted to have the right result at the end. Councilmember Carver stated to Councilmember Basill's point, he would vote on this now, as it was. He had the trust that this would not be exploited and he trusts people he would elect to take over his seat. He felt the five-year lease period was fine, but wouldn't go less than four years because of the administrative issues. The proposal he made was a concession that to the extent there were concerns about the way this was wntten, he believed they should address it within the context of one statute. Although he appreciated there could be a Council that could rezone a plot, it could not be sold under his proposal except for following this procedure for another five years. That Council would probably not be here once the five years had passed. City Council Meeting -7- November 20, 2006 Councilmember Omodt agreed and would support this as is. There was nothing they couldn't clean up between first and second reading. The reason they had the five years was because of the towers. It would become an administrative cost. If anything, it could be done before the next meeting Councilmember Finkelstein asked if there would be any objection to adding joint ventures now? Councilmember Carver replied no. Councilmember Finkelstein asked with the current language for tower usage and reducing the lease to one year, would it be approved. Mr Harmening replied the way it was written, any lease that is five years or more, regardless of what it is for, would be subject to this ordinance Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the only way they could protect the land, was a five year lease. Mr Harmening replied cell tower leases are usually multi-year with options for renewal. He suggested the lease provision would not be for uses permitted in the park and open space zoning district. Councilmember Finkelstein found that acceptable if they added the comments on the lease extension too. Councilmember Basill agreed with much of what Councilmember Carver stated regarding future Councils and trust. This is a roadmap to protect the parks. Previous Councils have done excellent work, but it would have been nice to have had this map in the past. They were laying out a map to tell future Councils their intent for parkland. They were down to determining if they are OK with the suggestion to keep it under one ordinance and to close the loophole by having the look back provision. He was OK with that as long as the look back provision extended four or more years. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated she was getting the consensus that they should vote on this and make the amendments discussed between the first and second reading and bring it back in two weeks. Mr. Harmemng stated he was heanng agreement on the joint venture piece and on the look back approach. The only other question related to the lease provision. They could leave it as it was and work with that, or staff could make an exemption for any leases for permitted uses or uses permitted with conditions in that zoning district. Councilmember Finkelstein preferred the approach the City Manager suggested. It dealt with the issue Councilmember Omodt brought up in terms of the tower issue. Mayor Pro Tern Sanger added they should include the lease extension as part of the definition. Mr. Harmening stated staff would bring it back for second reading with those changes. They would also provide the neighborhood residents and representatives a draft of the ordinance with the new language. City Council Meeting -8- November 20, 2006 Mayor Jacobs indicated the look back provision made a lot of sense and was comfortable voting on this. It demonstrated that the Council was senous about doing this and giving some affect to the process and effort people put into this. If they needed to change it between now and second reading, he was comfortable staff could do that. This sends the nght message and road map to future Councils not to change parkland. It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt first reading of the Ordinance establishing criteria and procedures for the sale of City owned park and open space and setting the second reading for December 4, 2006, staff shall make amendments regarding. a joint venture; look back provisions; lease for permitted uses; and including lease extensions. Mayor Jacobs added he would be supporting this and also would have supported item 8a. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated this was a great day for the Park system and for the residents who enjoyed it. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs thanked Councilmember Sanger for running the meeting 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p m --) ?a /24,1i 0 )72b3Prec I\ i , Air City Clerk M.,or OF