HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/06/19 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular CITY OF OFFICIAL MINUTES
ST. LOUIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PARK ST. LOUIS PARK,MINNESOTA
June 19,2006
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm
Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran
Paprocki and Susan Sanger
Councilmember C. Paul Carver was absent.
Staff present: Associate Planner (Mr. Fulton), City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney
(Mr. Jamnik), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Public Works Director (Mr.
Rardin), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-
Peterson). ,
2. Presentations
2a. 394 MnPass Lanes Update
John Doan, MnPass Program Director updated Council on 394 MnPass and noted it was
working safely, reliably and as intended.
Councilmember Paprocki asked about the average increase in speeds. Mr. Doan replied it
depended on which point in the corridor.
Councilmember Paprocki asked about the cost benefit of MnPass. Mr. Doan replied at its
current rate, they were self funding and able to cover operating costs
Councilmember Basill stated he hoped if they were planning changes in the future, it
would be prioritized after the Highway 100 full-build project.
Councilmember Finkelstein expressed concerns and thought toll roads alone would not
solve the transportation needs. The Legislature needed to discuss what was needed and
how they would pay for it
3. Approval of Minutes - None
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. 2006 Street Sealcoat Project: Designate Pearson Brothers, Inc the lowest
responsible bidder and authonze execution of a contract with the firm in the
amount of$178,857.45 for the 2006 Street Sealcoat Project,No 2006-0001
City Council Minutes -2- June 19, 2006
4b. Bid Tabulation: Designate Hardrives, Inc the lowest responsible bidder and
authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of$312,860.60 for
the Quentin Avenue, Municipal State Aid Street Rehabilitation Project — Project
No. 2005-1100
4c. Approve contract with URS for Environmental Review for Duke Realty Property,
authorize Mayor and City Manager to sign contract.
4d. Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Preliminary Development
Agreement with the EDA and United Properties for a portion of 3515 Belt Line
Boulevard (the Bass Lake property).
4e. Approve Resolution No. 06-103 establishing a special assessment for the repair
of the sewer service line at 2515 Pennsylvania Avenue.
4f. Approve Resolution No. 06-104 establishing a special assessment for the repair
of the water service line at 3377 Library Lane
4g. Approve Resolution No. 06-105 establishing a special assessment for the repair of
the sewer service line at 4053 Quentin Avenue
4h. Adjust the CIP schedule to contribute $40,000 in 2007 towards a joint project
with the School Distnct to improve the fields at the Junior High School.
4i. Approve Resolution No. 06-106 to set Public Hearing for Private Activity
Refunding Bonds - 3610 Phillips Parkway
4j. Appoint Vision Action Group Chairs Knstin Berns, Brad Bakken, George
Hagemann, Steve George, Sue Santa, Nancy Lapakko, Bill Kenzie, Tsehai Wodajo
and Neil Anderson to their respective St. Louis Park Vision Action Groups.
4k. Adopt Resolution No. 06-107 ordering an Alternative Urban Areawide Review
(AUAR) for the Duke Realty property located in the southwest corner of
Highways 394 and 100.
41. Accept Planning Commission Minutes of May 17, 2006
4m. Accept Vendor Claims for filing(supplement)
It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Paprocki, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 6-0.
5. Boards and Commissions
5a. Housing Authority Commissioner Reappointment
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to
reappoint a citizen representative, Catherine Courtney, to serve on the St Louis Park
Housing Authority until June 30, 2011.
6. Public Hearings - None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public—None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. 2221 Hill Lane Plat and CUP for Excavation
Mr. Fulton presented the staff report.
City Council Minutes -3- June 19, 2006
Norm Bjorness, counsel for James Johnson, stated when Mr. Johnson bought the
property, it was possible to subdivide the lots. He went through the process and wanted
to build two move-up homes that would fit with the neighborhood. They complied with
the subdivision requirements and believed they had addressed the CUP. Neighbors
concerns regarding the site conditions would be addressed through contractor liability
coverage.
Vern Swedborg, project architect, reviewed the design objectives and features of the
proposed homes. The proposal was to build move-up housing. He showed designs of
what homes built at the maximums could look like.
Ellen McGrattan, 4636 Cedarwood, stated allowing the proposed subdivision would take
away from neighbors' property value. An alternate lot subdivision with one house in the
middle of the lot would be a better alternative
Mary Kay Stranik, 4711 Cedarwood Rd, indicated concern about the excavation, the
vibrations from the railroad tracks, the flow of water into the neighboring properties,
safety at the driveways, the character of the neighborhood, and retaining larger lot sizes.
Nathan Curland, 4707 Cedarwood Rd, was concerned about the proposed lots sizes and
drainage.
Sandra Stanley, 2205 S. Hill Ln , agreed with Ms Stranik's points and was concerned
with the soil removal, retaining walls and the effect it would have when trains cause
vibrations.
Bette Globus Goodman, 2211 S. Hill Ln., stated she was concerned with the proposal
because her property abutted Mr. Johnson's. Two surveyors told her they would need to
put in retaining walls to keep the land secure. She was concerned about loss of
vegetation, land values and safety. If lot sizes were increased it would impact her
directly. She felt two homes were not appropnate for the size of lot.
Councilmember Sanger asked how close the home would be to her house? Ms Globus
Goodman replied the house would be 12 feet from the property line
Sharon Abelson, 4340 Cedarwood Rd, President of the Lake Forest Neighborhood Assn,
indicated the average lot size in the neighborhood was over 18,600 sq ft. and some over
60,000 sq. ft. Many are wooded and undeveloped areas, which made the neighborhood
special and added to property values. Residents were concerned about crowded housing,
about the CUP, the uncertainty of the final plans and about excavation.
Joy Peterson, 2301 Westridge Ln., stated she shared the concerns that had been
expressed, including drainage issues. She was concerned about construction techniques,
soil removal, vibrations and if the damage happened at a later date or over time, who
would be responsible for the damages
Cindy Baumann, 2300 Parkwoods Rd, indicated many of the lots could be subdivided in
this area and there could ultimately be many houses in a neighborhood not set up for it.
She suggested the developer put in place restrictive covenants on how the lots be built
upon the future. She wanted to see changes in the ordinance.
Sharon Segal, 2211 Parklands Rd, indicated she lived in one of the new homes built in
the last few years and was attracted to the neighborhood because of the open space.
Move up housing wasn't about how much money someone can pour into a house in the
smallest amount of space, it'was about having space.
City Council Minutes -4- June 19, 2006
Mark Globus, 2211 S. Hill Rd, stated he was concerned the developer was squeezing into
the minimum lot size. His mother's land abutted the proposed development and he
requested a bond be posted dunng the development process to assure the retaining walls
were built to quality standards. The damage would likely happen down the road. If there
was an issue, the bond could be utilized. He suggested only one house be built.
Ward Johnson, 2200 S Hill Ln., distributed a packet of information with photos of
neighboring homes built in the last ten years and property tax information. Two homes
could generate $10,000/year each in taxes, which would benefit the City and the schools.
Of the 197 lots in the neighborhood, 23 would qualify for a potential lot division. Only
11% of the lots could be subdivided. Of the eight newer homes in the neighborhood, the
landscaping had grown and made the homes fit with the neighborhood. Three
consecutive Park Perspectives contained articles about the need for housing.
Bob Andrews, 2324 Parkwoods Rd, stated that 23 lots being subdivided would be quite a
bit. Residents could also combine side lots to form a new lot. A lot of money is being
put into this neighborhood and if the neighborhood loses faith, people won't keep putting
money into their homes.
Dr. Lorraine Boyle, 4007 Cedarwood Rd, commented she was not in favor of the
subdivision and did not think it was in the best interest of the neighborhood to subdivide.
She was concerned about her neighbor's loss in value.
Councilmember Sanger stated she received an outpouring of information from the
neighborhood, the biggest concerns was the character of the neighborhood. It wasn't just
an issue of square footage, it was how close the homes were City Council had been
talking about the need for move up housing, but they wanted houses to fit within the
neighborhood. Other concerns was the land being excavated, parcels being steep and
impact on the stability of the soil. Third, were safety issues and the blind curve. The
homes would start at ten feet above the road and would tower over homes across the
street and make it out of character with the neighborhood. She would not be opposed to a
subdivision that would permit one new home. Subdivision Ordinance 26-160, permits
the Council to consider other factors in a subdivision proposal, and they could require
larger lot sizes. That would accomplish one new move up house and permit the property
owner to sell a portion and still retain the character of the neighborhood.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger to direct staff to prepare a resolution making
findings of fact and denying the proposed three lot plat and alternatively approving a two
lot subdivision involving the combination of the proposed two new lots into one lot
Councilmember Sanger expressed a concern that the alternative subdivision into two lots
rather than three was not considered when it first came before the Planning Commission
who recommended approval because they were told they had no option.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked about the amount of discretion Council had. Mr.
Jamnik replied the Council had limited discretion in this area of land use. Courts have
generally indicated in open area subdivisions if an applicant met the minimum standards,
approval must be granted There are slightly different facts here with infill and a replat
where the character of the community is established by an existing plat. Splitting
existing lots calls into it the Ordinance provision 26-160
Councilmember Finkelstein asked about the city's nght to place restrictive covenants on
where the houses are located. Mr Jamnik replied they were not restricted covenants,
they would be terms and conditions of the approval and within the City's discretion.
City Council Minutes -5- , June 19, 2006
Councilmember Finkelstein asked about posting bonds to ensure the retaining wall
doesn't cause problems. Mr. Jamnik replied the secunty features are standard elements
of the subdivision ordinance, they don't last past the warranty penod (2 years) and
eventually become released. Infrastructure elements would be limited and only
potentially be a special term and condition on the retaining walls if the Council wanted
that and would be part of the final plans.
Councilmember Omodt asked Mr. Jamnik to talk about the applicant's nghts. Mr.
Jamnik replied the City Council establishes rules and regulations in the subdivision
regulations and if a person meets the specified standards, they can do certain things.
There is some discretion in the unique circumstances to consider other elements present
and why there was a variance provision to deal with hardships.
Councilmember Omodt asked if they have the right to appeal. Mr. Jamnik replied the
Courts generally apply a limited discretion standard to the local unit of government,
particularly in this situation.
Councilmember Omodt asked about tennis courts or a large structure to park cars. Mr.
Jamnik replied the discretion would be even more limited on the part of the City.
Councilmember Omodt indicated he had seen remodeling projects that changed the
character of the neighborhood. The applicant could remodel, put in tennis courts, etc. and
remove trees, which would have the same effect. The applicant had met the checklist for
this subdivision. Mr Jamnik replied that was correct, the one that had not been met was
provision 26-160, the minimum design features, and the Council could contemplate
unique circumstances of the neighborhood and character of the development.
Councilmember Sanger believed the lot was unique because of the very steep slope. The
situation Councilmember Omodt was talking about was not the same because there was
no subdivision. Councilmember Omodt responded the point he was arguing was that
they might remove trees and have the same effect, but with a different structure. If a
person wanted to put in a large tennis court and take out the hill and put in a retaining
wall, there would be nothing they could do about it
Councilmember Finkelstein seconded the motion
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the Council had more discretion because they were
replatting an existing area. Mr. Jamnik replied that was one of the elements they would
argue applied in this situation. It was not an open tract, they were trying to infill and
create two additional lots out of an existing lot and fit within the character of the
community.
Councilmember Basill stated the legalities of this were unclear. When splitting Jots, the
character of the housing in the neighborhood should be maintained and lot sizes
comparable. The Council had a fiscal responsibility and this should be something they
had discretion over If these were separate, they couldn't prevent the conditional use
permit Mr. Fulton replied the conditional use permit required excavation of at least 400
cubic yards of soil because the applicant was requesting it for two lots. The reason it may
not be required if the subdivision was approved was that each lot may be less than 400
cubic yards.
Councilmember Basill believed they needed to take alook at this from a legal perspective
and have staff provide more information on case law
City Council Minutes -6- June 19, 2006
Councilmember Paprocki felt the conditional use permit wasn't ready and he didn't
support it. The Council had supported subdivisions that had not met the minimums and
had approved them. This proposal met the minimums and the Council was considering
not approving it. He felt they needed to live by their own ordinances. The pnmary reason
they were looking to deny this was the character of the neighborhood and he felt it would
be heavy handed to deny this based pnmanly on that, if it met all of the other
requirements.
Councilmember Omodt stated he had legal concerns and because the applicant had met
the requirements, denying this put them in jeopardy of going to court. It was his right as
a property owner to do this. This may change the look of the neighborhood, but the
applicant had done diligent work to make sure the homes maintained the flavor of the
neighborhood with the trees and topography. Denying this was out of their purview
Councilmember Finkelstein believed they did have the discretion to deny this and
approve only one additional lot. It wasn't the same situation as 26th and France where the
land had been previously platted for four lots. The Council had discretion not to approve
this because of the topography and character of the neighborhood. They had no
guarantees what would be done or on the type of retaining system and how it would be
done.
Mayor Jacobs asked if the Council needed to make a decision tonight. Mr. Jamnik
replied they had until July 17th for final action
Councilmember Finkelstein asked what effect a moratorium would have if they continued
this issue. Mr. Jamnik replied none.
Councilmember Sanger asked if this were continued to the next meeting and the motion
was approved, would it go to the following Council meeting for staff to come back with
findings and beyond 120 days? Mayor Jacobs indicated there was also Council meeting
on July 17th.
Councilmember Basill indicated they could have both motions prepared for July 10th and
wouldn't need to delay it to July 17th. If they approved this, what design guidelines could
they apply and what could be protected regarding the retaining walls. The character of
housing and the lot sizes were important
Councilmember Omodt noted they had a recent delayed vote on a property issue and in
the intervening time there was more disharmony Delaying wasn't always the best course
of action.
Mayor Jacobs stated he would like to think about this more. He didn't realize they had
any discretion until now. They could also discuss this at the next study session. He
asked Councilmember Sanger if they could table the motion to July 10th?
Councilmember Sanger agreed.
The motion was tabled to the July 10, 2006 City Council meeting
Mr. Harmening clarified the Council would like background information from the City
Attorney on the discretion they had within the Code and on July 10th they would look for
direction from the Council
Councilmember Sanger added she would like additional information if a bonding
requirement were added and asked to what extent the Council has to add a bond
City Council Minutes -7- - June 19, 2006
requirement greater than the standard of a two-year warranty. The second was the issue
of height limitations and height measured from the street, rather than on the hill.
The motion to table passed 5-1 with Councilmember Omodt opposed.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to
table the Resolution denying the Conditional Use Permit until the July 10`h, 2006 City
Council meeting
The motion passed 6-0.
8b. Junior High Addition — Preliminary Hat with Variances to Lot Size, Lot
Width and Maximum Driveway and Parking Area in Front Yard, Location:
1650 Texas Avenue South, Applicant: Parkway Development, LLC, Case Nos.:
06-15-S and 06-16-VAR
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report.
Joshua Aaron, Parkway Development President and owner, indicated the City was
promoting larger homes by relaxing zoning regulations. He described the current home,
the lot and the proposed plan to build two homes. There was a hardship because lot lines
were established pnor to the realignment of the street. The new homes would fit with the
character of the neighborhood. No vanances were requested for building height, setback
or green space
Jerry Steiner, Attorney representing Parkway Development, stated that the proposal was
in keeping with the neighborhood. The new homes would be an improvement The
variance standards were met with this application and Mr. Aaron was entitled to approval
of the variance. The lots would have in excess of 80 feet of frontage from the front lot
line. The Minnesota Supreme Court found that the owner needed to demonstrate they had
a property with unique attnbutes and what was being proposed was a reasonable use of
the property under the zoning ordinance. Vanances were approved for other lots in this
area. The Planning Commission found grounds to approve the vanance for the setback at
the front lot line. There was the same hardship for both vanances.
Stan Maisel, 8015 W 18th St, stated this property had been a home for a family for many
years By proposing to divide this into two lots, there would not be sufficient room. He
submitted a petition signed by immediate neighbors opposing development for more than
a single home. This would not conform to the character of the neighborhood. He
expressed concerns about the circular dnveway.
Chris Clonts, 1821 Texas Av. S, indicated 3,000 sq. ft. was far from a technicality. There
were some uncommon things, one being the common dnveway. It was creating a twin
home or duplex that was separated, which didn't fit with the neighborhood When you
put two homes where one used to be, you can destroy the rhythm of the neighborhood.
Brian Sobol, Attorney representing his father, felt an oak tree would be disturbed. The
request was for almost 25% vanance from the 9,000 sq. ft. lot size. The applicant was a
real estate developer who should have known what the zoning requirements were. It was
disingenuous to argue a hardship. Only one of seven cntena for a variance had been met.
He didn't believe there would be a 29' buffer on either side of the homes
Councilmember Paprocki commented his main concern was the lot size variance. The
petition submitted was not signed by anyone who immediately abutted the property and
he wondered what those neighbors thought.
City Council Minutes -8- June 19, 2006
Philip Carter, 1801 Texas Av. S, expressed concerns about additional use of water from
two homes, polluted soil in the yard, traffic and safety of the driveway in the winter
They had not shown a supenor development and he felt it would be similar to a cluster
development. He didn't believe the property was unique and had no hardships to have a
variance approved.
Mr. Sobol clarified his father was next to this property.
Mr. Aaron stated they could build a 60' wide home with at 6' setback on a 75' lot. The
homes would be proportionate to the neighborhood. His intentions were to put an addition
on when he purchased it, but the addition would be jogged and look out of place. They
had put in a new curb cut for safety of the driveway and planned to preserve the oak tree.
Councilmember Finkelstein indicated granting a vanance was an extraordinary power
and discretion given to the Council and he found it was not met because the lot size
would be 23% less than what is required in a R1 unit. The applicant was asking for two
other variances. If the Council were to grant a vanance, they would need all seven
conditions to be met. There was no undue hardship, it did not meet critena number three
and was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right.
It also did not meet cntena number seven because it was not necessary to enjoy the use of
the property.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Bascll, to
adopt Resolution No. 06-108 denying the application for preliminary plat with variances
to lot size, lot width, and maximum driveway and parking area in the front yard for
property located at 1650 Texas Avenue South
Councilmember Basill agreed with Councilmember Finkelstein and did not see the
hardship.
Councilmember Sanger agreed reasonable use could be made of this land without
granting any vanances and did not support the vanance request She felt that Mr.
Steiner's argument did not hold up and was saying because it was irregularly shaped that
was grounds for the Council to grant a variance. The issue was not the irregular shape,
the issue was not enough square footage by a significant amount.
Councilmember Omodt indicated the vanance asked for was too much change. He
appreciated the work Mr. Aaron put into this, but the variance was too large.
Councilmember Paprocki stated he was a proponent for building move up housing, but he
had a problem with the size vanance and felt the attitude of the neighbors showed that
they did not want this
The motion passed 6-0.
8c. Interim Ordinance—First Reading of an Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting
the Subdivision of Property Located in the R-1 Single-Family Residence
District
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report.
Ellen McGrattan, 4636 Cedarwood, felt a study of lot size was worthwhile and she
moved to her neighborhood because of move up housing and move up lots.
Mark Kay Stranik, 4711 Cedarwood Rd, agreed with Ms. McGrattan.
City Council Minutes -9- June 19, 2006
Sharon Abelson, 4340 Cedarwood Rd, stated there were 200 lots in the Lake Forest
neighborhood and 198 houses, with average lot sizes over 18,000 sq. ft. Some lots could
potentially be divided a number of times. She would like to see a higher square footage
minimum for lots in this neighborhood.
Bette Globus Goodman, 2211 S. Hill Ln, indicated this ordinance would affect her
financially because she had 15-20,000 sq. ft. of property she would like to sell at some
point. She applied for a lot subdivision to preserve part of her estate
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if she had already applied for a subdivisions Ms
Globus Goodman replied yes. She had been told if she divided her property it would be
buildable She and her husband purchased an additional lot with their home, but did not
want to develop it. If lot size was increased substantially, she would not be able to
develop the property, which would make the investment worthless.
Mark Globus, 2211 S. Hill Ln, stated his stepfather purchased the property specifically
because there was a developable plat. There was an application to divide the property at
that time. This would be a substantial taking. His mother had no plans to develop this,
his stepfather left it as part of the estate. They were trying to preserve their future rights.
A precedent had been set with the 9,000 sq. ft. requirement.
Dede Karr, 2231 S. Hill Ln, indicated she was opposed to the change in lot size because
she had additional land that could be subdivided and would be part of her retirement
planning. They presently fulfilled all of the requirements and had almost 10,000 sq. feet.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if she had applied for subdivision? Ms. Karr replied
yes, it was being held while the moratorium was being pursued. Ms. McMonigal added
the two speakers had both submitted subdivision applications and they were on either
side of the Hill subdivision that Mr Johnson proposed.
Mayor Jacobs asked if they passed this moratorium, what effect it would have on them?
Ms McMonigal replied the City had the ability to deny the application until the
moratonum was lifted.
Councilmember Sanger stated if a moratorium passed, it would have no impact on Mr.
Johnson's proposal, but would impact any other subdivision requests, including the two
they just heard. Ms. McMonigal stated they had 120 days to act on the subdivision
applications and if they came up before the moratorium was lifted, the City should act to
deny or approve the applications.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked what would happen if they had a moratorium for all
subdivisions that had not already been filed, Mr. Jamnik referred to page three, section
four of the draft ordinance, the ordinance would not apply to the final plat approval of a
subdivision that had been given preliminary plat approval pnor to the effective date of the
ordinance That was consistent with State Statute. No interim ordinance may halt, delay
or impede a subdivision that has been given preliminary approval.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked for the status of the three proposals. Ms. McMonigal
replied the Hill Lane subdivision had not received preliminary approval, however the
120-day period would run out before this ordinance could take effect. The other two had
submitted applications within the last week. If this ordinance becomes effective on
August 4, the City would not have to act by that time on the other two requests.
Cindy Baumann, 2300 Parkwoods Rd., believed the fact that two more subdivision
applications had been submitted illustrated why this moratonum was appropriate. The
City Council Minutes -10- June 19, 2006
moratorium was to allow the City to react to what the neighborhood was saying and they
wanted the neighborhood to stay the way it was into the future. She urged the Council to
put the moratorium into effect before many lot subdivision requests come in.
Bob Andrews, 2324 Parklands, agreed with Ms. Baumann that there was evidence that
people were going to subdivide lots, which would create damage. They did not know
what would come out of the moratonum and study The ordinance was needed.
Councilmember Omodt spoke against the moratonum because it would be the whole city,
not just one neighborhood. This was saying the City's current official controls didn't
adequately address issues related to lot size, lot configuration, design standards and other
quality controls. Those processes were in place and they exercised that earlier by not
granting a variance. The Council had a lot of discretion in some instances, not in others.
He could see the same standard being applied to someone who didn't like height in a
commercial building or affordable housing in one part of the City, so they do a
moratonum.
Councilmember Sanger stated she brought this up and it was not intended to change the
standards for R1 housing throughout the City. The moratorium was to look at whether
they should make changes, what kinds of changes in R1 areas and potentially create a
new distract with larger lot size standards A couple of areas needed a different zoning
district with larger lots to maintain the character, integrity and overall value of the
neighborhood. It didn't need to be done in the whole city. The purpose of a moratorium
was to look at the issues, decide what changes are needed and create new zoning
standards. The Council had done so well talking about move up housing, it was now
being used to justify putting houses in places where they might not be appropnate. This
was a way to mitigate some of the excesses being created out of the good spent of
creating move up housing.
Councilmember Finkelstein felt the moratorium made sense and this needed to be
studied. If they didn't do this now, there may be a rush of further developments and
subdivisions. They weren't taking away anyone's property right at this point, they just
wanted to determine if it made sense
Councilmember Omodt believed this did affect the whole City. They were specifically
talking about two neighborhoods. This was brought up as a reaction to something in one
neighborhood and he felt it was an overreaction The Council talking about move up
affordable housing was reflective of what citizens were talking about. They had to look
out for the whole city. He disagreed with the moratorium and called the question.
Councilmember Sanger stated she did not make the suggestion in response to a particular
subdivision. She had been trying to protect neighborhoods, which was part of the reason
for a moratorium, figuring out where it made sense.
Councilmember Finkelstein added this was something they had talked about during the
26th and France debate when they discussed the need to protect vistas. Even if the
,,,moratonum passed, it was not the first time it had been utilized in this City or in other
cities There is a tension between the need for infill development versus people wanting
to protect the character of their neighborhoods. It didn't hurt to study it.
Councilmember Omodt stated this had been talked about at only one study session and it
came up after Mr. Johnson's subdivision.
City Council Minutes -11- June 19, 2006
Councilmember Basil! asked for clarification that this would apply to all R1 properties in
the City Ms. McMonigal replied yes.
Councilmember Basill indicated he was unsure about this and thought there was an
outpounng of support and unanimity from the neighborhood. He heard a different conflict
now and was not sure this was in the best interest of all residents and may adversely affect
some long-term residents that had done this as part of their estate planning. There needed
to be more discussion about the moratorium and how it would affect people.
Councilmember Paprocki stated this was people who had property with value and wanted
to get value out of that property. He suggested they didn't draw this out if those residents
wanted to do something, they had clear direction on what was available.
Mayor Jacobs stated he generally didn't like moratoriums and hadn't made any decisions
on what changes should be implemented in the subdivision ordinance or to the minimum
lot size and asked what other information was needed. Councilmember Basil! replied
initially they were concerned with developers purchasing lots. Now there were people
doing estate planning, who had intended to do projects after many years. It made this a
much greater decision. There may also be some areas zoned R3 that should be
considered. He would like to see how many lots there were in the area that could
possibly subdivide, look at the effect on people and the neighborhoods.
Councilmember Finkelstein believed it made sense to have a moratorium, but agreed they
should delay this and get more information He would also like to have more information
on the pending applications.
Councilmember Sanger indicated any time they make changes in a zoning law it could
have impacts, positive or negative on property owners She believed it was appropnate
and made sense to have a moratorium to consider some neighborhoods where different
zoning ordinance was protective of larger lots would be appropriate There may be lots
in the R3 zoning, but she didn't think that took away from the value of this moratonum.
Councilmember Omodt asked why they were doing a moratorium for the whole City
when they were talking about specific neighborhoods? It seemed they were talking about
only one neighborhood.
Councilmember Sanger believed the reason they were doing a moratorium citywide
would be to give them enough time to figure out which neighborhoods were appropriate.
That was the process outlined at study session.
Councilmember Basil! added he would also like to know which neighborhoods and
pending applicants would be affected by a moratorium
Councilmember Finkelstein added he would like information if there had been "semi
formal" applications in the past, and more information on when they had the previous
moratorium.
Councilmember Basill requested historic data in the past 24 months and how many
people had done this in the R1 district.
It was moved by Councilmember Basil!, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to continue
discussion on the ordinance to the June 26, 2006 Study Session, or the first study session
in July.
The motion passed 6-0.
City Council Minutes -12- June 19, 2006
8d. Consider Regional Trail Crossing Improvements
Mr. Harmening stated the Council came to some conclusion on the direction they wanted
staff to take. There were some changes regarding the Wooddale crossing. The
recommendations were not different from what they discussed previously. There is a
memorandum from Three Rivers Park Distnct questioning whether 36th Street is the best
signal light to use for the crossing of Wooddale versus Highway 7.
Mr. Rardin noted the e-mail from Three Rivers Park District contained staff comments
for consideration. The official stance of the Park Distnct was that the City was the road
authonty and it would support where it crossed Wooddale. They point out that the
Council was specifically interested in realigning the trail through that area and it didn't
come up to Wooddale. It would require a new crossing over the railroad. The Park
Distnct believed that would take a long time.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Basill, to
approve the staff recommended regional trail crossing improvements described in the
report.
Councilmember Basall made a friendly amendment that staff explore curb cuts in the area
of Wooddale Avenue at 36th Street.
Councilmember Basill stated if they went up to 36`h, people need to get off their bike to go
down the curb, which was a concern for small children. Mr. Rardin replied the
intersection at W 36th Street now was not appropnate and the City had to make
improvements. There are no pedestnan crossing indicators. The City will make
improvements, including a crosswalk, curb cuts and pedestrian indicators, which were easy
to do. The Park Distnct had concerns about the angle of the intersection and other things.
Councilmember Sanger stated they had a safety problem with trail crossings at both
Belthne and Wooddale, but she was unsure if the proposals would resolve the issue. They
had spent years trying to teach drivers to stop at the crosswalk To go to a system where
they are supposed to stop at crosswalks, but not at trail crossings added confusion and the
potential of making it less safe It made sense to put up correct signage, put medians in
for safe refuge and have a system of lights to provide advance warning to drivers. They
would then have a system where bicyclists and pedestnans have a safe way to cross trails
and be in keeping with city policies. She would not support this because they hadn't
struck the nght balance between the users of the trails versus the users of the roadways.
Councilmember Omodt indicated there had been two incidents of bicyclists interacting
with a car. They need to defer to safety and it was much easier to educate people through
signage and physical means on a trail because there were less of them. This was a good
way to get started The optimal solution would be to have separated grade crossings or
signalized crossings and because that was not possible, this was the way they should go.
The City should provide education through all avenues possible to make sure people
using the trails were aware
Councilmember Paprocki stated they needed to do due diligence. He wasn't happy with
all of the recommendations, but would be in favor of this
Councilmember Basill believed some people would question why they had to go to 36th
Street. It wasn't the optimal solution and he agreed there were better solutions, but short
term this would be safer and worth the inconvenience. Doing nothing was not being a
good steward for the residents.
City Council Minutes -13- June 19, 2006
Councilmember Finkelstein agreed this would make it safer.
Councilmember Sanger clarified she was not suggesting they do nothing and agreed there
was a safety problem that needed to be addressed. She was suggesting a different
approach, which took into account the users of the trail and the policies they were trying
to promote. They needed to take action and also have enforcement of dnvers at trail
crossings.
Mayor Jacobs stated he was not completely in favor of some of the recommendations but
he was for most and would support this
The motion passed 5-1 with Councilmember Sanger opposed
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs thanked all those who made Parktacular a success. Councilmember stated the new
St. Louis Park Float was spectacular.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11 43 p m
ar-,---y ,....,,,72:a.0 ,
City Clerk M or 2/ f°1--6/4