HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/03/06 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular liCTY OFFICIAL MINUTES
sriLoffs CITY COUNCIL MEETING
RK ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
March 6, 2006
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7.30 pm.
Council members present. Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt, Loran Paprocki and Susan Sanger
Staff present: Associate Planner(Mr Fulton), Assistant Zoning Administrator(Mr. Morrison),
City Manager(Mr. Harmening), City Attorney(Mr. Scott), Engineenng Project Manager(Mr.
Olson), Housing Program Coordinator(Ms. Larsen), Public Works Director(Mr. Rardin),
Planning/Zoning Supervisor(Ms. McMonigal), Senior Planner(Mr Walther) and Recording
Secretary(Ms. Stegora-Peterson).
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes—removed from agenda
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. Approve ownership transfer of current liquor license for Yangtze River Restaurant,
5625 Wayzata Blvd.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 06-056 approving Preliminary and Final Plat of Louisiana
Alignment
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 06-057 authonzing the execution of an Agreement between
the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Soo Line Railroad Company and
the City of St. Louis Park for the installation of new signals and crossing gates at
the Dakota Avenue railroad crossing.
4d. Accept vendor claims for Filing. (supplement)
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to approve the
Agenda, removing the February 6 and February 13`h minutes, and to approve items listed on the
Consent Calendar
The motion passed 7-0.
City Council Minutes -2- March 6, 2006
5. Boards and Commissions
5a. Appointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to appoint
the following citizen representatives•
Commission Appointed Member Term Expires
PAC - Police Advisory Commission Hans Widmer December 31, 2007
PAC - Police Advisory Commission James Smith December 31, 2007 ,
HRC - Human Rights Commission Joe Polach December 31, 2008
HRC - Human Rights Commission Craig Aizman December 31, 2008
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if there was only one opening on the Human Rights
Commission9 Mayor Jacobs replied there were three.
Councilmember Carver noted a number of vacancies still existed to be appointed by the
School Board and Council. He encouraged them to get the Commissions running at full
capacity. It serves the community better to do that.
Mayor Jacobs thanked the applicants and those who serve on the Boards and Commissions
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Public Hearings
6a. Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Reallocation of$57,500
of 2004 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds
Resolution No. 06-058
Ms. Larsen presented the staff report.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Sharon Johnson, Executive Director of Wayside House, stated they contracted Welsh
Management Companies for facility management assessment and were implementing
routine maintenance The Department of Health had written them up about the carpet and
the report from Welsh indicated the water heater needed to be replaced. She contacted
City staff and realized she had missed the request for reallocation, but informed them of
their urgent issues and deferred maintenance. They had deferred maintenance because they
were in "limbo" with possible redevelopment of a new road. They hoped the City might
consider funding the urgent issues. They would continue to work with staff on a long-term
solution about redevelopment or relocation.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Omodt stated that the city takes pude on using a set and fair process.
Staffs initial recommendation was to put the reallocation toward neighborhoods. He was
surprised to see they had zeroed out the loans to the neighborhood and given it all to
Wayside without any documentation or process. It did not seem fair to other non-profits.
City Council Minutes -3- March 6, 2006
Carpet replacement was a problem they should see coming. Non-profits should know
more about building maintenance and management. It was not their role as a City to come
in and "save the day" when they couldn't mange their assets and appreciation of their
assets.
It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Basall to adopt
Resolution No. 06-058 approving reallocation of 2004 funds, and authorizing execution of
Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any related Third Party Agreements,
specifically to allocate $7,500 for the water heater and the remaining portion to the single
family loan program
Councilmember Sanger stated she would be abstaining from discussion and voting as a
board member for Wayside House.
Councilmember Basill asked to clarify that the motion was to provide $7,500 for the water
heater and the remaining $50,000 would go where it was originally intended as noted in
Council report of February 27. Councilmember Omodt replied correct.
Councilmember Paprocki appreciated the concern from Councilmember Omodt and was
also concerned about the late request. They didn't expect to have the $57,500 and the loan
program was doing fine Ms. Larsen indicated it was funded and continued to be funded
through repayments. In the event they got to the point where there was no money, they
could consider another reallocation from the 2005 funds or 2006 funds. It was funded to
repair eight houses and also had additional program income.
Councilmember Paprocki stated they knew Wayside needed these repairs and this would
be the best use of the money. He wished they knew about it earlier, but he would be in
favor of the full amount.
Councilmember Carver agreed with the spint of the motion. After the study they had done
and understanding that the loan program has no current request for funds? Ms. Larsen
replied the requests are currently being met with the funds they have.
Councilmember Carver asked when loans are repaid, does that go back into the fund and is
it made available for new loans? Ms Larsen replied correct. The loans are forgiven if a
resident lives in their house for a period of time(30-years). Before the deferred period is
expired, if residents move, the money goes back to the program.
Councilmember Carver agreed with the spint of the motion and thought there is a call for
division of the funds so some goes into the community through the single family deferred
loan program. The carpeting was an issue because there was a health code violation. He
would suggest including the carpet as well as the water heater.
Councilmember Finkelstein felt the public needed to understand that CDBG was a
program in which the City received money and used it for"Sticks and Bncks"
programming. It was a use it or lose it program. After the end of the funding year,
sometimes they have to reallocate. In the past they had used this money for Vail Place,
PPL, and others If they didn't reallocate the $57,500, it would be lost and they wanted to
make use of it in the community. Based on the understanding the loan program was
currently funded and meeting its needs, he would support Councilmember's Paprocki
City Council Minutes -4- March 6, 2006
and Carver The carpet and water heater were appropnate uses of the money.
Councilmember Finkelstein strongly encouraged Wayside House to get their application in
on time in the future and not wait for the City regarding the new road and to continue
discussions with Park Nicollet. It seems like there is an opportunity to make future
development plans and he would take advantage of those opportunities and of the Welsh
Companies while they could.
Mayor Jacobs asked if they were to give part of the funds to Wayside House and the
balance to the deferred loan program for neighborhoods, would the money be in jeopardy
of being lost if they weren't able to use it? Ms. Larsen replied no, it wouldn't be lost if it
were allocated to the County. The County has the flexibility to use the 2004 funds before
they use a program income.
Mayor Jacobs indicated they were suggesting alternative number two (in the staff report)
and $31,000 would go to the single family deferred loan
Councilmember Paprocki made a friendly amendment to approve staff alternative number
two (reallocate $25,500 of the 2004 CDBG Funds for Wayside House improvements to use
for carpet and water heater replacement, $1,000 City Admin and$31,000, to the Single-
Family Deferred loan program).
The friendly amendment was accepted by Councilmember's Omodt and Basill
Councilmember Omodt stated he believed there was a certain level of unfairness that other
non-profits might not have gotten a chance at this. Some of the things in the Welsh report
troubled him, such as bathrooms that were not ADA compliant, blocked entryways,
electrical components that were inaccessible in case fire crews needed to go in there. They
had heard from Wayside House that the City might take over, which he didn't know to be
true or that they had the funding to buy the Bass Lake site. They hear different things as to
the future. He hoped they fixed the items in the Welsh Company report that seemed more
glaring as opposed to the carpet, which was cosmetic.
Ms. Johnson responded they had a handyman in the past,but they do not have the full set
of skills that a company like Welsh was able to bnng They had done most of the fixes.
The bathroom was now ADA compliant, and they had always thought it was They did not
have any excess dollars with which to purchase any property now and had been in ongoing
discussions with the City and Park Nicollet. She thanked the Council for the time and
thoughtfulness
The motion passed 6-0-1 (Councilmember Sanger abstained)
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public—None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Ms. McMonigal, Mr. Walther and Mr Mornson presented the staff report.
Councilmember Sanger stated on ordinances one and two, there were parts of each that
made a lot of sense, but parts that she didn't think made sense.
City Council Minutes -5- March 6, 2006
Mayor Jacobs stated they would begin discussing the residential setback ordinance.
Councilmember Sanger indicated regarding residential setbacks, the one that concerned her
was la. A lot of people would like to expand their houses and they needed to change their
ordinances for people to do that. The current approach was unworkable and hard for people
to understand. 1 d went to the opposite extreme by having the same setback requirement
for all R1, R2 and R3's when some streets were very different in terms of how houses are
configured. They talked about protecting the vistas and pretty streets when people like the
openness. She was afraid this approach was a"one size fits all." People need to add onto
their houses, but in many cases adding onto the front changes the architectural character of
the house.
Mayor Jacobs asked what Councilmember Sanger suggested they do? Councilmember
Sanger suggested she was least uncomfortable with option b, even that goes too far, but it
was less intrusive on the front yards. She understood why people needed to build a front
entry way if they didn't have one, but beyond that she didn't see the necessity for having
additions on the front of the house. She preferred they modify the ordinances to make it
easier for people to do additions in the rear of the property.
Councilmember Paprocki clarified option b was taking five feet less than the average front
yard setback of houses on either side of the property? Councilmember Sanger replied yes,
as opposed to option d, you can go much closer if a house down the block is closer and it
could cause zigzagging and they would not have a vista anymore.
Mr. Walther stated that the option staff presented was not a"one size fits all" It provided
some tailoring for blocks that have houses further back than the required setback they were
proposing. In the R1 district, if the required setback is 30 feet for the district and every house
is further back than 30 feet, they would use the closest house to determine the setback for that
block. In the sense of vistas from the street, if there is already a house or two that are closer
than the rest, there would not be a pure vista through that street. Some of the advantages they
identified for this strategy were that it was less complicated and more intuitive for residents.
It requires surveying fewer properties.
Councilmember Sanger believed lb was much more tailored than what Mr. Walther
described because the resident would only need to look to the houses on either side of
them. As long as they didn't build closer to the street than the houses next to them, they
wouldn't have to do any surveying.
Mayor Jacobs liked option d, because with option b there could be "leapfrogging"toward
the street over time, which may be more problematic. Option d was easier for staff to
explain and was intuitive. One of the concerns he had heard was that it is difficult for staff
to explain to people what they can and can't do, which was one of the problems they were
trying to alleviate.
Councilmember Basill asked to clarify on 1 f, in the R3 residential district, does the side
yard requirement for duplexes stay at nine feet? Mr Morrison replied correct.
Councilmember Basill stated on lb he wanted to make sure the effect it could have on
corner lots. Mr. Morrison replied under today's regulations, if a lot is less than 40 feet
wide, it is required to have a 15 foot side yard abutting the street. Lots that are between
City Council Minutes -6- March 6, 2006
40 and 60, get a 9-foot setback. Once you get greater than 60 feet in width, the setback
goes back to 15 feet. They were trying to create some uniformity and get rid of a hardship
because smaller lots should have a 9-foot setback, not fifteen.
Councilmember Basill stated Council approved some corner lots that were trying to be
split and he wanted to be sure they weren't jeopardizing that Mr. Momson replied they
were not changing the width requirements,just the setback for the house.
Councilmember Basill agreed with the Mayor. The staff had done a nice job of laying out
the minuses for option b. Residents have to figure out within 150 feet of their property
what the average setback is. Option b was still complicated, it was a moving target and
could shrink over time. Existing houses built closer to the street, five feet less than the
average setback are non conforming if they go with option b. The pluses of option d were:
the setback was tailored for each block, less complicated, fixed setback, won't shift, must
survey only one additional lot (that was a reasonable burden to put on their neighbors if
they wanted to do an addition, but not to survey 150 feet), creates no non conformities, and
there is no need for the City to establish a comprehensive list. The minus were if someone
on the block had moved up, it can't set a base less than what the minimum setback was,
but it could still allow people to move out further. He believed staff looked at this and
come up with the nght answer and he felt option d worked best.
Councilmember Omodt concurred with Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Basill on
option d. From the end user perspective of a homeowner trying to do an addition, this was
probably easiest for them to understand. It had some nice pluses and the minus, was
something that existed under the old ordinance This was much better and easier way for
people to understand the code.
Councilmember Finkelstein disagreed. He complimented staff on their work and meeting
the needs of the community as well as those who wanted to do additions. He was concerned
when he heard that even City staff couldn't explain the current ordinance. As an outcome of
the Housing Summit, they wanted to make these changes and assist people to remain in St
Louis Park. He compared options b and d and thought d was too much of a"cleaver" and
hardheaded approach Option b was somewhat more complicated, but not so much more
than d and it was a lot simpler than what they currently had. It may add a concern about
people having forward creep toward the street. Whatever they could do to protect that, they
should. Option d was still complicated and they would still have issues.
Councilmember Carver indicated the Housing Summit came up with the idea of encouraging
single-family homes in St. Louis Park. To make that happen, they needed to clarify, simplify
and provide more ease to citizens in remodeling and expanding homes. He supported option d
for all of the reasons mentioned, but mainly because this option best met the goal of
simplifying the process completely. It also met the goal of having some uniformity.
Councilmember Paprocki stated he was favonng option b. What happens if someone is on
the corner? Mr. Walther replied people on corner lots will sometimes front a different
street than the rest of the block. The front yard is the narrowest side of the lot. If they
didn't have anything else on either side, the setback would be what they currently had and
they would be allowed to add on five feet in either option. The block is defined as street to
street. Mr. Morrison added they would not go across the street they would look at the
neighbonng home to determine the average setback.
City Council Minutes -7- March 6, 2006
Councilmember Paprocki favored option b and thought it would protect some of the
forward creep. It was a little more common sense because people could look at the
properties on either side of them.
Councilmember Carver stated he heard forward creep a couple of times and believed it was
staff's position that forward creep was more likely to happen under option b than option d
and he asked for clarification. Ms. McMonigal replied yes, that was what would happen.
It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to approve
First Reading of the proposed ordinance related to residential setbacks—Sections 36-73, 36-
163, 36-164, 36-165 as stated in Option D of the staff report.
Councilmember Sanger disagreed with staff analysis about forward creep. Under option d,
if there is any one property on the block that is quite a ways forward, then the rest of the
houses on that block can creep forward. Under option b, you only get to creep as far as the
average of the house on either side of you and don't get to consider any other house on the
block. She thought their analysis didn't hold up.
Councilmember Basill clarified the district wide setback would make sure there wasn't too
much creep. If a house was in front of the district wide setback, they could not move their
house up or add on if they would move into the minimum setback. That was protection for
forward creep. Option B didn't provide that. The minimum district wide setback needed
to be honored.
Councilmember Sanger stated even with option b, there were minimum district wide
setbacks that were elsewhere in the zoning code that offered that protection. Under option
d, while they are correct it wouldn't creep forward of the district wide line She believed
there would be a lot more creep.
Mr. Morrison clarified when staff talked about creeping, they referred to the required
setback and not the houses actually moving forward. Under option d, they look at the
house on the block that is already closest to the street, which establishes a setback. That
does not change over time Under option b or any other averaging example, that required
setback does change depending on what your neighbors do. If a neighbor adds on, the
required setback changes. Over time, the required setback is always changing.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated if there is a house far out ahead of every other house on
the block under option d, this would allow everyone else to add onto their house and "catch
up" to it? Mr. Morrison replied yes.
Councilmember Carver stated the point of this process was for people to expand their
single-family homes. You need to have space to do an expansion. If you have a 45-foot
yard now, but there is one house at 30 feet, they have the potential for expansion on all of
the other homes. That is the reason he supported option d, because it allowed people to do
what they said they should be doing at the Housing Summit.
Councilmember Paprocki stated with one house further up and the others further back, it
could be a"saw toothed" development where every other house potentially could build up,
whereas with option b, there is buffering. They would have the possibility of creep, but it
was all buffered by what was happening on either side of them. He believed staff had done
good work on this.
City Council Minutes -8- March 6, 2006
Councilmember Sanger asked in option b, were they saying they were also proposing to
eliminate the current minimum setback for the front if option b was permitted? Mr.
Walther replied their intent was not to do that They would still provide a minimum
setback in the distnct.
Councilmember Sanger commented in response to Councilmember Carver, it was true that
one of the goals was to help people expand their houses and she was fully in support of
that. But another part of the goals was to preserve the neighborhoods integnty and
character, and one of the things that go toward the character was the architecture and
spacing of the homes and they needed to protect that.
Councilmember Omodt called the question.
The motion passed 4-3. (Councilmember's Finkelstein, Paprocki and Sanger oppose)
Councilmember Basill indicated 2f stated the proposed amendments would remove the
minimum allowed roof pitch to allow flat roofs to be constructed with a second story
window that looks either at the right of way or the back yard. He asked staff for
clarification. Mr. Morrison replied he thought there was an error in that paragraph The
intent was that no sidewall would exceed nine feet in height, which was a one-story garage.
The second level would be a half story, there would be a pitch so they could not have a flat
roof on a two-story garage.
Councilmember Basill stated they could have a second-story, but it would be pitched as
paragraph e descnbed. There was good staff work on this. This was a question he was
asked the most. They were restricting large garages, but we are saying it was OK in St.
Louis Park to have a two-car garage. They heard that at the Housing Summit and if they
wanted to keep residents here it was very important. With the existing ordinance, they were
forcing people into a low pitch and cheaper type of garage. If you look at the pitch and
matching it to the house, with matenals that match the house, this is a good change.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
approve First Reading of the proposed ordinance related to garages and accessory
buildings Section 36-162
Councilmember Finkelstein agreed with Councilmember Basill. This encouraged better
design and for people to remain in the City and get the second stall they need.
Councilmember Sanger stated there were parts of this section she thought were wonderful
and parts that were problematic. Doing something to make it easier for someone to be able to
build a two-car garage without having to get a variance made sense and she supported that
The part she was not in support of had to do with allowing the garages up to 24' tall. She and
Mayor Jacobs lived through at least two years of debate trying to figure out the correct way to
regulate the height of garages. She would like to stay where they finally ended up. When you
have a tall garage close to other people's property, there had been a lot of complaints because
it blocked the sun. Another issue was windows facing people's yards. By both moving it
closer to the property line and allowing them to be taller, they were going to be contributing
to more neighbors on neighbor complaints. She was OK moving it closer to the property
line, but would like to leave the height requirements as they were. People can still have
storage in their garage on the rafters without it being 24' tall
City Council Minutes -9- March 6, 2006
Councilmember Basill indicated they were talking about going to 24' to the peak, if the
building matenals match the house and designed in a fashion that is aesthetically pleasing
and an upgrade from a standard garage that protects the architectural design of the
community and neighborhood. Garages with these pitches look better, fit the homes and are
upgrading the community. If they continue to make the low, flat-topped roofs on garages, it
wasn't good for property values and degrades the block versus an improvement that could be
made because the outside of the garage does not match the home.
Councilmember Finkelstein agreed and thought this would encourage better design. It
would be more elegant design instead of more flat topped garages with pitches that didn't
match. This would enhance the neighborhoods and community
Mayor Jacobs stated he had also struggled with this and remembered the debates from a
few years ago. He agreed with what had been stated about the design and matenals and
lower quality looking garages and was coming down in favor of the recommendation. The
main complaint of the issue years ago with a tall garage had to do with the windows
overlooking the neighbor's house. The piece that swayed him was the recommendation
that they not have windows facing neighbor's homes. He hated to think people felt
constrained to put in a cheaper garage to meet the ordinance when they could have
matched the extenor treatment of the house for a little more money.
Councilmember Sanger stated she was still struggling with this because there were good
and bad points. She was glad people were concerned about the architectural design of the
garages. If that was their concern, maybe they should have an ordinance that addressed the
need for any garage, no matter how tall, to be architecturally compatible with the home it
was part of.
Mayor Jacobs didn't mind the height as long as it met the architectural features of the
house although he was not willing to have an architectural review board.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve
First Reading of the proposed ordinance related to deleting Table 115a, a summary of
land uses by zoning district
The motion passed 7-0
It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve
First Reading of the proposed ordinance related to adding "Studio"as a use in the IP
district—Section 36-361.
The motion passed 7-0
Mayor Jacobs thanked staff for their work. This was important because they were talking
about implementing what they had heard through the Housing Summit and through
informal feedback to the Council and staff.
City Council Minutes -10- March 6, 2006
8b. City Engineer's Report: Local Street Rehabilitation Project—Area 2, Project
No. 2005-1000
Resolution No. 06-053
Mr. Olson presented the staff report.
Councilmember Omodt asked why the costs were up more than the estimate? Mr. Olson
replied when they originally programmed this project, they looked at different maintenance
strategies. At the time they programmed, they took a less aggressive approach. Based on
their results from last year of removing all the pavement and replacing it with 3 inches,
they felt that was the best route. They looked at lesser treatments such as only milling the
outer six feet of the road and paving over the center portion of the road and the outside.
This resulted in lower estimates in the planning process. They had chosen to remove all of
the pavement because it would last longer.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt
Resolution No. 06-053 accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement
Project No 2005-1000, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement
for bids.
Councilmember Finkelstein felt this was a great program, very proactive and good stewardship.
The motion passed 7-0.
8c. Westmarke Condominiums—Major Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit,
Case No. 06-09-CUP, Stonebridge Development and Acquisition, LLC., 1155
Ford Road.
Resolution No. 06-054
Mr. Fulton presented the staff report.
Ron Mehl, Stonebridge Development and Acquisition, LLC, stated the only area they were
asking for height increases was on the parapets to add some architectural differences.
When he first presented this, they had bump-outs for the living room areas that were
entirely bnck. The reason they were cantilevers was because it was a 1.3-acre site and they
were trying to maximize green space To do brick, they would have had to do a very
expensive engineenng angle to hold the weight Hardy board provides a lighter product
that was still a cement fiber that will be long lasting. The other option would be stucco.
Presently they were seeing a lot of problems with stucco with mold and water penetration
and were not excited about looking at it as an option.
Councilmember Carver asked on the South face, is the area with bicycle racks going to be
retail or office? Mr. Mehl replied office, which was part of the original development
agreement with the City. It is a mixed-use zoning.
Councilmember Omodt asked about the color scheme Mr. Mehl replied they did a dark
brown or tan that matched the bnck and a lighter tan that corresponded with the same
colors. They would not have blue, yellow or white
Councilmemeber Basill asked the total number of colors? Mr. Mehl replied four.
City Council Minutes -11- March 6, 2006
Councilmember Sanger asked if this were approved, when would they begin construction?
Mr. Mehl replied when they hit their presales They were planning on moving forward
with demolition in the next month.
Councilmember Sanger indicated they had expenences with colors on other projects and she
wondered if they could soften this? Mr. Mehl showed what had been approved. It had yellow
and blue and they changed it to be more neutral with the tans and brick colors. Phil Duran,
BKV Architects, added at Planning Commission they had another color scheme, which was a
form of architecture geared to a younger group. The Planning Commission asked them to
take another look and the design presented was what they had come up with. It was earth
tones.
Councilmember Carver stated this property is addressed 1155 Ford Road. If you go across
394 further South on Ford Road, it is 1015 and then goes to 1300. There is something off
in the numbers. Mr. Fulton replied that was something staff could address. Mr. Mehl
noted that Wayzata Blvd would be the main entrance into the property and they would like
to chcange the address to be off of Wayzata Blvd.
It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Paprocki, to adopt
Resolution No. 06-054 approving a Major Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit,
subject to conditions found in the resolution
Councilmember Basill indicated he was in favor of the project. When this project was
done, it would be worthwhile for the Council to look at this and other projects that used
hardy board. He and the Mayor received correspondence about a recent building, feeling
stucco would have looked better. The Council should review this to see if they believe it is
up to class one matenals. If they didn't think it was, they could make the appropnate long-
term decision for the community. _.
Councilmember Finkelstein suggested as part of that they look at other class one and class
two materials.
Councilmember Carver stated they had done a number of projects with hardy board. Not all
hardy board was created equal, and a term that applied to many products. He had been in favor
for some time of dispensing with the discussion on every project and recognized that hardy board
and hardy plank was a superior product that fits the definition of class one matenal. He stressed
the importance of the sidewalks for this project and that they were necessary to tie together what
was happening further north. It would enhance the entire location.
Councilmember Basill agreed with the comment about the durability of hardy board. He
wanted to look at it aesthetically. A few comments they had received related to the seaming.
Mayor Jacobs added the feedback they had gotten from staff was that it wasn't so much the
inherent charactenstics of hardy board itself, but rather the way it was being installed.
Mr. Duran indicated there are different manufacturers, they were refernng to hardy panels,
which would create more of a stucco appearance. It depends on the application and
installation of the product.
The motion passed 7-0
City Council Minutes -12- March 6, 2006
8d. Request of St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association to conduct lawful
charitable gambling at Bunny's Bar & Grill located at 5916 Excelsior Blvd. in
St. Louis Park. Resolution No. 06-055
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Basil!, to adopt
Resolution No. 06-055 authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for St. Louis
Park Hockey Boosters Association operating at Bunny's Bar and Grill, 5916 Excelsior
Boulevard
The motion passed 6-0-1. (Councilmember Omodt abstained).
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reported:
• Highway 100 Interim project approval is scheduled for Council discussion and a potential
vote at the March 20`h Council meeting. A public hearing was held in January
• Bookmark in the Park will be meeting on March 16th at 3.00 PM in City Hall
• Empty Bowls Project will be meeting March 9th from 4-7:00 PM at the Rec. Center
• St. Louis Park Youth Summit is March 30`h at 6:30 PM at the High School
• Precinct Caucuses are March 7th
.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
-na/Plrel
City Clerk ayor