Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/09/08 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session I/I St. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION September 08, 2008 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran Paprocki and Sue Sanger. Council members absent: C. Paul Carver Staff present: City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Finance Director (Mr. DeJong), Deputy Chief (Mr. DiLorenzo), City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Police Chief (Mr. Luse), Planning/ Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), City Attorney (Mr. Scott) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Larrea). Guest: Paul Hyde, Real Estate Recycling. 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning Mr. Harmening presented the staff report. During the study session of September 22, 2008, staff would like to have a representative from Twin Cities and Western Railroad present to Council existing and future rail operations, including a plan for the Glencoe Railroad Mitigation. Another item of discussion staff would like to include in the agenda for September 22, 2008 is a discussion on the SW Transit Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement scoping meetings. Mr. Harmening added that Councilmember Sanger sits on the committee and she has suggested a position that the City may want to take it regards to this issue. Mr. Harmening suggested adding an item to the agenda. Taste of India is changing ownership and needs to renew its liquor license. They would like to be seen in front of the Council. It was agreed by the Council that this would be added to one of the upcoming agendas. Mayor Jacobs will be absent September 15, 2008 and September 22, 2008. Councilmember Finkelstein will be absent October 13, 2008. 2. Communication Towers Mr. Locke and Ms. McMonigal followed up with the Council on the items that were discussed at the August 18, 2008 study session. They presented to the Council alternative height options based on the current ordinance and two alternate options. Councilmember Carver communicated via email that he preferred Alternate A. Councilmember Sanger questioned why it would matter if the location was zoned commercial, industrial or office. She noted that the real issue is the residents that live near these towers. The resident isn't going to care what zone it is,just that it is next to their home. Study Session Minutes -2- September 08, 2008 Mr. Locke responded that he didn't have a good answer for why the numbers are so different in the different zones. This is simply the way it is in the ordinance. The taller towers would need to go through a CUP process. The idea between the different zones is that commercial properties are more integrated into the neighborhood and industrial areas are fairly large and further away from neighborhoods. Councilmember Basill agreed that the City has zoning for a purpose and he understands the difference in industrial, commercial and office. He thinks that it makes sense to look at them independently. Councilmember Paprocki stated that the multi-family being permitted at 112' seemed too high to him. He is in agreement with the CUP process taking place. He would like to have most issues with height go through a CUP process because he thought that this process would be able to filter the different requests. Councilmember Finkelstein also agrees with having a CUP process. He questioned why the height would be higher in an industrial than office, etc. He questioned if the towers would be placed on top of buildings. Mr. Locke responded that the difference in heights between office and industrial was because of what is in the ordinance now. He would like to have the height requirement in office mirror that in industrial. This is what the staff has done in Alternate B. Councilmember Sanger noted that she would like to leave the heights as they are. She questioned why change the heights. Councilmember Paprocki added that if the tower doesn't harm someone else and someone wants to do it, why stop them. He doesn't want to restrict someone if he doesn't have to. Councilmember Sanger noted that the Council should remember the reaction of the community to the solar tower. She doesn't want to open that kind of a debate. She questioned what is gained by having a tower. Councilmember Paprocki added that the Council should withhold judgment until it is necessary. Councilmember Omodt noted that he felt that it seemed like the Council had different interpretations of the same item. He noted that he is not afraid of the height allowed as long as there is a CUP. He is in agreement with the CUP process. He noted that technology is always changing and in ten years there could be something bigger and better. and towers would not even be an issue. Councilmember Finkelstein added that this is why you need the CUP process. Councilmember Paprocki questioned if they need a variance if they go above the CUP. Mr. Locke responded that if you are going to have a relatively high tower then you need to go through a CUP process, and above the limit would require a variance. Councilmember Basill questioned Mr. Locke what the staff would like to see for the Office zone. Mr. Locke responded that any height between the 360' (Current and Alternate A) and 200' (Alternate B) for the office zone would work. Ms. McMonigal added that an antenna on office buildings is more likely to be desired. Study Session Minutes -3- September 08, 2008 Councilmember Finkelstein added that they had a few restrictions on communication towers and no restrictions on lighting. Mr. Omodt noted that just because the tower got taller doesn't mean that it would be more visible. He thought that the lights would be pointing up so you wouldn't be able to see them from the ground. Councilmember Basill noted that it seemed that the Council was in agreement that there was a need for a CUP process. The issue that needs to be worked out is if you want to have a height limit and if yes do they need to change the wording and what would the height limit be. Councilmember Sanger noted that she absolutely thought that there needed to be a height limit and language added to prohibit people from applying for a variance. Mr. Scott noted that he didn't think that the City could prohibit someone from applying for a variance. He felt that there had to be another way to restrict this. He is going to look into it further. Mr. Harmening noted that he has heard 50% requirements. He questioned if they still want to retain that. He also noted that under Alternate A and B they would not refer to the 50%. Councilmember Basill questioned how "Mixed Use" falls into this. Mr. Locke responded that they don't allow towers in mixed use areas and there is very little mixed use property in the City. Councilmember Basill noted that the direction staff should look at is what height do they want for each category and that is what the Council needs to answer. He noted that he does not like Alternate A and he is also curious about the logic behind the numbers for the Commercial zone. He thinks that the Industrial zone should be higher because that it where the towers belong. He likes the height for the Industrial zone under Alternate B. He would also like to see the Office zone changed to something that makes sense. Councilmember Paprocki noted that he would not like to have hard caps on the height that a tower could be. He also felt that 112' being permitted under Multi-family zone seemed high. He would like to take it down to 75' as the permitted height without going through a CUP process. He sees anything over this as needing a CUP. Mr. Harmening questioned whether or not the Council wanted to have a cap on the numbers. Councilmember Basill, Councilmember Omodt and Councilmember Carver were all leaning towards Alternate A. Mayor Jacobs asked if the Council would like caps on the height. He noted that he would like to have a fair amount of discretion and would like it to be flexible. He also said that he doesn't know much about radio towers and he is fine with absolute caps as long as the staff is fine with it. He doesn't know how they come to these numbers so he is going to rely on staff to say where it is the towers need to go. Study Session Minutes -4- September 08, 2008 Mr. Locke noted that the easiest zones to deal with are Single family and Multi-family. The reason for setting limits is to make it easier for people. If they understand at least in a broad sense what the limits are. If it was a matter of 5 feet it would be possible to give someone a variance. Councilmember Sanger noted that if they don't set a height limit they might turn St. Louis Park into a destination to put towers in. Councilmember Omodt noted that he would like people to know the rules before they get to the City. Councilmember Finkelstein would like to go with Alternate A but would like to change the height permitted for Multi-family from 112' to 75'. He would like height requirements in the Office and Industrial zones to be permitted at 200' and CUP at 400'. Councilmember Sanger objected to these numbers. She would like the staff to research further once they have parameters. She would like to include a pumped up standard relating to aesthetics. She would also like to look into the set back for the Residential zones. Today the setback requirement is twice the height of the tower. Mr. Locke asked that if the Council would be okay with the staff looking into the collapse and set back requirements. He thought that they may remain the same and they may need to be tweaked. He would like to bring back a proposed ordinance with more details. Mayor Jacobs asked if the staff felt they had enough feedback to move forward. Mr. Locke asked if the Council would like staff to bring an ordinance back for a first reading. Council noted that they would like the ordinance back for a first reading. Councilmember Finkelstein requested that they bring back mathematical examples because the collapse radius is not always one and a half times the height of the tower. 3. Proposed Ordinance- Dangerous Dogs Mr. Harmening presented to the Council regarding the changes made to the ordinance for dangerous dogs. At the last discussion it was suggested to change the ordinance to dangerous dog and potential dangerous dog. He would like to get feedback from the Council on requiring dogs to be on the leash or allowing them to be off of the leash. He provided examples of the language used in other cities. Mayor Jacobs noted that he believed that dogs always need to be on a leash. He didn't feel that the potential harm was worth the disadvantage of putting a dog on a leash. Councilmember Finkelstein, Councilmember Paprocki and Councilmember Omodt agreed. Councilmember Sanger noted that the proposed language near section 484 in theory makes sense to her, but in the real world it would be a lot easier to have a dog on a leash. Study Session Minutes -5- September 08, 2008 Mr. Harmening noted that the ordinance made exceptions for service dogs. Councilmember Sanger questioned why any owner would be exempt from cleaning up after their dogs. Councilmember Sanger wanted to bring up another dog issue. She questioned why they wouldn't require that all dogs have microchips. Police Chief Luse stated that microchips are required if the dog is found to be a danger. In most cases the chip wouldn't make a difference. The dogs that don't get picked up generally are dogs that people don't want. He also noted that the microchip will be explored with this new ordinance. Mr. Harmening stated that the ordinance would be brought back to Council for a first reading. 4. Vision Strategic Directions Update -- Evaluating and Investigating Additional North/South Transportation Options Mr. Brink and Mr. Rardin presented a report to Council regarding the evaluating and investigating of North- South transportation options. The traffic study was primarily related to Highway 100, but expanded upon nearby traffic corridors as well. Mr. Rardin noted that in the current plan they are planning on keeping the Highway 100 frontage road. He continued that if they do not have a frontage road they will be dealing with traffic further into the neighborhoods. Mr. Brink continued that the City contracted with Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH) to evaluate what would happen if they went with certain future construction options, such as breakdowns, improvements and increased traffic. They found that the north/south connections would lighten traffic on Minnetonka Boulevard. Councilmember Finkelstein commented that the last chart that was given to the Council was hard to understand. Mr. Rardin responded that the chart was a look at the City over the next 20 years. Councilmember Paprocki noted that on the Westside of Highway 100 it is difficult to travel in a north/south direction. Councilmember Basill would eventually like a copy of the numbers in the report. He stated that he is interested in opening up some north/south connections to the heart of the city. Councilmember Paprocki would like to look at where people live in relation to the proposed plans. He commented that if the City was to widen or improve Louisiana Avenue, they may be knocking down people's homes. Councilmember Sanger questioned what it was the staff wanted to get from Council at this meeting. Mr. Harmening responded that they would like to know if Council would like staff to continue exploring possible north/south routes. Study Session Minutes -6- September 08, 2008 Councilmember Sanger commented that she does think that the City has a transportation problem. She commented on the Dakota plan and thought that it looked expensive but also looks like the most important. She questioned if they were going to extend a road to the west end since they are putting so much money into it and people have no way to get there. She felt a couple of the ideas were non-starters such as extending Ottawa Avenue. She would like to keep traffic out of residential neighborhoods. Also, if 28th Street were extended, it would not relieve anything. Councilmember Paprocki noted that if he had to pick a number one plan it would be the Dakota plan over the tracks. He felt that it would take a lot of pressure off of Louisiana Avenue. Mr. Rardin felt that staff had not given the Council enough information in order to make an informed decision. He noted that whatever decision is made, it is going to have long term ramifications. It is important to look into the future and understand what the different plans would do to the City's traffic. What staff would like to do is to put the statistics on a map and see what happens with these different options. He would like to color code the maps in regards to the volumes of the traffic, if it gets better or if it gets worse. He would like Council to be able to look at the long term crafting of the City. Councilmember Finkelstein questioned how long it would be until Toledo properties would know the status on their homes. Mr. Rardin answered that he did not know. Councilmember Sanger commented that the west end question is one that can not wait. The City is putting millions in and people can't get there. Councilmember Omodt questioned if the model took into account light rail going east/west. Mr. Rardin said that they had but that it will not have a large effect because there are not a lot of park and ride lots. Councilmember Paprocki noted that he is looking for where the City would get the biggest bang for their buck. He felt that they should do a study to try and narrow down the options so the Council can give staff more direction. Mayor Jacobs commented that the route that came to his mind was Texas. Mr. Harmening stated that staff will narrow down the plans but with more data, so if Council does or doesn't want to study a certain area, they will understand the ripple effects. Councilmember Sanger asked if staff would look at more bike and pedestrian routes. She felt the City needs to have more connections. Staff responded that the sidewalk and trail portion of the Comprehensive Plan would be coming to Council soon for review and further comment. Mayor Jacobs stated that they would look at this again in the next month or two. Study Session Minutes -7- September 08, 2008 5. Highway 7 Corporate Center Project- Request for Additional TIF Assistance Mr. Hyde from Real Estate Recycling presented himself to the Council and requested up to $280,000 in additional tax increment assistance to finance greater than anticipated environmental, legal, and redevelopment costs associated with Highway 7 Corporate Center project. Mr. Hyde stated they had a lot more relocation costs than they thought that they would have. The real number for everything is $230,000-$250,000. It is a cushion to have $280,000; in case the towing company is owed more. Councilmember Sanger questioned why relocation costs are not predictable. Mr. Hyde responded that they sit down with a relocation consultant and they say you pay X per business and then they budget the statutory amount. The businesses that created issues with the relocation budget were the photography studio and All Hours Towing. Councilmember Finkelstein had several concerns. He did not feel that it was the City's responsibility to bail out a developer. He did not feel that the City should be responsible for the $46,000 in legal fees listed. He does not see supporting another $280,000 in TIF. He does not want developers to think that the City will just take care of issues that arise. He felt that the builder has done a great job and that the site will be a success, but he also feels that the City has done its job. Councilmember Basill commented that you have to remember the environmental cleanup at this site. He does not feel many people would have taken on this task. It was one nasty site. He would like to pay back all the relocation costs for All Hours Towing. Councilmember Omodt noted that the City asks the developers to be fortune tellers. He wants to hold people accountable, but agrees with Councilmember Basill that you can't punish the developer for something that they couldn't foresee. He does not want to scare away future developers. Councilmember Sanger understands why you couldn't predict the environmental costs. She does not agree with the legal fees. She feels that the most difficult to decide on is the relocation fees. She is fine with paying a portion of the relocation fees. She is willing to go up to the portion that the TIF district could support. Councilmember Basill questioned how much this would be. Mr. Hunt responded it would be approximately$115,000. Councilmember Paprocki felt that they completed what they wanted with this project. He doesn't feel the City has the obligation to make sure that the project stays within the budget. He feels that the City should help with the $72,000 in environmental costs. He does not want to agree to relocation costs especially when they are still in negotiations. Mr. Hunt commented that the relocation costs are the hardest to estimate as there invariably are unknowns. The original budget numbers were recommended by the EDA's relocation consultant. Mr. Locke continued that relocation is governed by federal regulations. It is a very complicated area and it is hard to know what you are going to be faced with. It is hard to project because these are businesses that did not want to move. It is hard to estimate the precise cost to relocate each Study Session Minutes -8- September 08, 2008 business. It is also hard to calculate how much it is going to cost to relocate a towing business and impound lot. First off, it was hard to find somewhere for them to go. Secondly, they had to move twice. He feels the City had been in a partnership with Real Estate Recycling and that Real Estate Recycling has taken the majority of the hit. He wants other businesses to know that they can work with the City and that they don't have to foresee every worse case scenario. Councilmember Basill commented that from what he hears the relocation consultant works for the developer, the city, and the company. The consultant works for the best interest of all parties. Councilmember Paprocki doesn't want contractors to think that the City is going to sign a check each time they go over budget. He feels that there is some give and take in this. Mr. Hyde commented that the lion's share of the legal bills were for the dealing with Methodist Hospital. None of it was for personal legal bills. He continued that if they could have applied for more grants they would have. It was really hard to accurately estimate these costs and the biggest problem was the relocation. Councilmember Basill stated that he would feel differently if it was a development without all of this contamination. He stated that with a site this complicated he couldn't see not supporting them. Councilmember Omodt felt that Real Estate Recycling is an extension of the City's staff in terms of redeveloping property. Councilmember Sanger responded that Real Estate Recycling is not a part of City staff. She asked why they wouldn't want to share the burdens and why the City should take on all of the risks. She said to pay out even one dime more then what the City would get in the TIF, she didn't know how you can do that. Mr. Locke responded that what they are saying is that the City would only pay to the extent the tax increment is there. The City would not pay more than the TIF district could generate. He felt that it is was reasonable to reimburse Real Estate Recycling for some of the costs. Councilmember Finkelstein stated that he believes that there are policy issues. He does not feel Mr. Hyde is an extension of staff and the City doesn't have the same responsibility and liability. Councilmember Basill responded that the developer is looking for up to $280,000 in additional TIF, which they may not get if it is not there by the end of the TIF district. If the building appreciates and the tax base is there, they will be reimbursed for their additional costs. Mr. Harmening proposed that they make a compromise to pay the relocation and environmental fees, but not the legal fees. Councilmember Finkelstein commented that the TIF would go from 21 to 26 years under this compromise. Councilmember Sanger responded that it is the City policy to try and keep the term of the TIF district under 20 years. Councilmember Basill commented that he would agree with this 98% of the time but not on projects with this much contamination. He remembered that Real Estate Recycling agreed to take a profit cut of about 1 million dollars. He felt that what Mr. Harmening suggested was fair. Study Session Minutes -9- September 08, 2008 Mayor Jacobs questioned what happens if the City says no. Mr. Hyde responded nothing because they have already spent the money. Councilmember Omodt commented that the City is putting unreasonable demands on developers. He felt that it is telling developers not to deal with the City again. The City could have left the towing lot there but the City wanted it moved so the project could move forward. He felt that the City needed to be reasonable or they weren't going to see redevelopment in the future. Councilmember Basill questioned if you have $280,000 after TIF, how much goes to the City? Mr. Locke responded that if the TIF district ended, the City would get about a third. Councilmember Basill asked what the City would really be losing if Mr. Hyde can pay it by the end of the term. Mr. Locke responded that if they went with Mr. Harmening's proposal it would be about $70,000. Councilmember Finkelstein noted that the issue is the precedence that the City is setting and what the next developer is going to do. Mr. Harmening responded that one point of clarification is that the City does turn down people that come in and want more money. Councilmember Finkelstein questioned what if the City just paid the environmental fees. Mr. Harmening responded that this would be about $70,000. Mr. Locke commented that in most situations most developers won't take on the relocation fees. Mayor Jacobs commented that he felt the Council was split. He would like to look at paying the developer some of the money. The relocation cost bothered him. He felt that they needed Councilmember Carver to be involved in this discussion. He felt that the Council should revisit the issue. Councilmember Basill commented that it looked like they were between $72,000 and $234,000. Councilmember Finkelstein stated he didn't want to pay anything at all but if the Council could make a deal tonight he would agree to $72,000. Councilmember Paprocki stated that he would go for $72,000. Councilmember Sanger would support the $72,000. She also stated that she would be fine with going a little over $72,000. Councilmember Omodt would support letting the TIF district run out. He stated that he would like the City to be reasonable with partners. He asked that other Councilmembers to remember that the Police Chief came to the Council and stated that he wanted the developer to cooperate with the towing company. Councilmember Basill stated that he doesn't think $72,000 passes the fairness test. He understands the concerns on the legal fess. Study Session Minutes -10- September 08, 2008 Mayor Jacobs stated that he would be fine with the $72,000, but he could be talked into a little more. He didn't feel they were going to get much further tonight. Councilmember Paprocki felt that they had a split decision and was fine with seeing what Councilmember Carver's take is on this issue. Mayor Jacobs stated that he was fine with paying half of the relocation costs. He stated that this was because relocation is not an exact science and if you are a partner you are a 50/50 partner and he would like to encourage people to come back to the City for development. Councilmember Basill noted that if they did half the relocation fees and the environmental fees it would total $153,000. Councilmember Finkelstein commented that the TIF district doesn't generate more then $115,000. Councilmember Sanger suggested going with $115,000. She stated that if that is all that the district would allow then she is okay with that. Councilmember Finkelstein commented that the Council would then be extending the TIF to 26 years. Councilmember Finkelstein questioned Mr. Hyde if he would be okay with $115,000. Mr. Hyde responded that he would be fine with $115,000 if he did not have to pay more relocation costs. He is not okay with it if he has to write more checks to the towing company. Councilmember Basill would like to come to an amount that would make Mr. Hyde feel okay. Councilmember Finkelstein commented that at $115,000 he was over his limit. Mayor Jacobs stated it appeared that there was general support for providing$115,000. Councilmember Sanger questioned when this would be on the agenda for approval. Mr. Harmening stated that this issue would likely be on the agenda in October. 6. Japs Olson Printing Expansion Mr. Locke and Mr. Hunt presented to the Council regarding Japs Olson's expansion plans and possible City actions to make the expansion possible. The company is interested in expanding about 150,000-160,000 square feet into its parking lot on the west side of the building. Most of the 9+ acres that they are hoping to acquire from Kunz Oil Company for the expansion is in Hopkins, not St. Louis Park, which means Japs Olson will need Hopkins' approval as well to proceed with the expansion. Mr. Harmening questioned if from a policy perspective Council wished for staff to continue working on the Japs Olson expansion. Councilmember Finkelstein noted that he would like to see some sort of an option where if the City stopped using it as a parking lot that they can take it back. He knows that Hopkins would be giving up some development options, but the City needs to look into the future. Study Session Minutes -11- September 08, 2008 Councilmember Sanger did not agree that Hopkins should be entitled to 2/3rds of the property taxes. She thinks that staff should continue to work with Japs Olson. Mr. Harmening commented that Hopkins has argued that without the parking lot expansion, the project would not happen. Mr. Locke stated it sounded reasonable and staff would look into it. Councilmember Paprocki asked that staff get an estimate of how much 2/3rds of the property taxes would be for Hopkins. Mr. Locke responded that it would be around $400 a square foot. It would be about half a million a year in property taxes. Hopkins would get the tax capacity, which would be about $120,000 this tax year. Councilmember Basill doesn't want to penalize this business just because they are on the border between the cities. He asked how one could change the boundary. Mr. Locke answered that the two cities have to agree to a change in the borders. Mr. Harmening noted that he thought that it sounded like Council would like to see more on Japs Olson's expansion regarding the property tax share and if it seems profitable. Councilmember Finkelstein commented that he felt that staff was doing a great job. 7. Communications (Verbal) Mr. Harmening stated that the commission status issues did not need to go the Council. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 1. Planning Commission Mid-Year Update 2. Board of Zoning Appeals Mid-Year Update 3. I-394 MnPASS Phase II Planning Study • Nancy Stroth, 6ty Clerk Jeff Jaco►s, May.r