Loading...
04-432Council File # `f - �f3 a" Presented Referred To a, Committee Date VJIIEREAS, the Legislative Hearing Officer recommends that the license application (ID # 20030002404) for a Pazking Ramp License by Katie Childs, Properiy Manager, dba 2145 LLP, 2145 Ford Pazkway, be approved; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby approves this license application, with the followine conditions: � The owner(sl a�ree that thev will not nush the snow off of the ramn as the falling snow has caused dama2e to the trees below. Instead the owner(s agree to either haul the snow awav or roile the snow for melting: and ^ � The owner(s1 aeree to install a stop sian at the exit of the ram bp v Mav 1 st in order to increase the safety associated with traffic enterine the intersection. Yeas Na s Absent Benanav � Bostrom � Aarris � Helgen � Lantry � Montgomery ` Thune � s Adopted by Council: Date �j/ j o ?/ �� Adoption By: Approved � RESOLUTION PAUL, MINNESOTA Green Sheet # 3005134 2� Requested by Department oE � Form Approved by City Attomey � Annroved bv Mavor for Submission to Council a�i-N3 �- � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet. � DepartrneM/offiee/couneil: Date initiafed: co ���il 09SEP-03 Green Sheet t�0: 3005134 Contad Person 8 Phone• Denariment Sent To Person InitiaVDate Marda Moertnond � 0 uncil 2668560 Assign 1 Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 2 17SEP-03 For Routing 3 Order 4 5 Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Loeations for Signature) Action Requested: Approving the Pazking Ramp License perthe I,egislative Hearing Officer by Kafle Childs, Property Manager, DBA 2145 LLP, located at 2145 Ford Pazkway. � Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this persoNfirtn ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Sesvice Commission 2. Has this perso�[m ever been a ciiy employee? Yes No 3. Does this personffirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No � Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating P�oblem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, Whay When, Where, Why): , Advantages If Approved: - � - - . � - Disadvantapes If Approved: Disadvantaqes If Not Approved: ° p �n,^Q,, � Total Amoun of CostlRevenue Budgeted: � rygg Transac6on: 1�� � � LUO� Fundinsl Source: ActiviN Number: � Financial Information: � (Explain) i . ON'- N3� MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING 2145 LLP - 2145 Foxd Pazkway (ramp) Monday, August 11, 2003 Room 330 Courthouse Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 10:16 a.m_ STAFF PRESENT: Tom Beach, LIEP (License, Inspections, Environmentai Protection); Jean Birkholz, City Councii O�ces; Racquei Naylor, City Council Offices; Kristine Schweinler, LIEP OTHERS PRESENT: Timothy Peters, Esq., Murnane, Conlin, White and Brandt Professional Association; Robert Spangenberg, 2130 Pinehurst Avenue; Henry Waldenberger, 2115 Pinehurst Avenue Mazcia Moermond explained that she will come up with a recommendation for the City Council at the end of this heazing. It will be one of three recommendations: 1) grant the license, 2) grant the license with conditions, which have to be agreed upon by-the owner, or 3) send the matter to an Administrative Law Judge. Denying the license is not on this list. Instead, her recommendation would be to send this to an Administrative Law Judge. That will involve about three months and attorney fees. Mediating concerns at this level is the sunplest way to handle this matter. Kristine Schweinler reported that her office is recommending approval with possible conditions as determined per the outcome of this heazing. There aze some historical things in the file that may determine conditions to be placed on this license due to a Special Condition Use Permit (SCUP). LIEP's recommendation is approval with possible conditions. Ms. Moermond asked would they be recommending the conditions already existing on the SCUP. Ms. Schweinler responded it is possible there were agreements made. Tom Beach reported the parking ramp was approved back in 1986. The City Council added conditions, including free parking and loading should be off Ford Parkway. It appears there was an agreement reached since then between the neighbors and the property owner to amend some of those conditions. He has a copy of the agreement. He does not lrnow how much the City involvement was during that time, and he does not know if the City Council "stamped off' on it. He is not sure of the status of the most recent agreement. Timothy Peters, Esq., Murnane, Conlin, White and Brandt Professional Association, representing Brad Hoyt (owner) and Katie Childs (Property Manager), appeazed and stated he would like to refresh and update everyone on the history of this property. Back in the 1980's, there was a Carson Pirie Scott building that looked rough. The whole area was unsightly between Cleveland Avenue and Cretin. A developer built the pazking ramp that is in dispute right now. The construction was stopped before the building was completed because the developer ran out of cash. It went through banla�uptcy, the Resolution Trust Corporation picked it up, and the oy- y3a MINUTES OF TI-IE LEGISLATIVE HEARING - 2145 LLP - 2145 Ford Parkway Page 2 building sat idle and incomplete for several yeazs. In 1993, Mr. Hoyt started to negotiate the purchase of the building and the pazking ramp. He discovered there were over $12 million in liens on the property. There were 24 months between the time Mr. Hoyt decided to buy the proper[y and when he closed on the properry. When he closed on it, there were restricted covenants. The main one was the charge for pazking. Mr. Hoyt realized he needed to generate cash from the pazking ramp to get that building built. This summer has been the first time this property has broken even since Mr. Hoyt purchased the property in 1995. Mr. Hoyt went to the neighbors to get the restricted covenant removed, stated Mr. Peters. There were several conditions requested by the neighbors, such as cleaning the alley, plowing the alley, security, making the alley a one-way, installing speed bumps, painting the back of the building. There was a City Council meeting on the issue. Resolution 94-653 of May 18, 1994, authorized the removal of the free parking restriction. Mr. Hoyt had agreed to do several things. Ms. Moermond asked did he have a copy of that resolution. Mr. Peters responded he did not; he found it in an old file last night. (Ms. Moermond requested that Jean Birkholz find a copy of that resolution. Ms. Birkholz left the meeting and returned later with the document.) In negotiations with the neighbors, said Mr. Peters, Mr. Hoyt agreed to do several things, all of which he has done: 1) He repaved the alley; prior to this Finn Street did not dead end at the a11ey. Mr. Hoyt redid that whole intersection and created a nice landscaped boulevard. From the noxth to the south, it ends at Pinehurst. 2) He maintains the a11ey with snow removal and cleans it. 3) He installed lighting at the northside of the building. 4) He installed the security system throughout the building. 5) He painted the back of the building. 6) It is secure 24 hours a day: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. it is secured by Imperial Parking, and 7:00 pm. to 7:00 a.m. it is secured by Burns Security. In addition, Mr. Peters stated, he has not seen the entire agreement. He just sees what Mr. Hoyt agreed to. Mr. Hoyt put forth every one of these things, except paying for permit parking for neighbors. He has not seen what the neighbors agreed to. It is his understanding, the neighbors in the Highland Area Community Council reneged on portions they agreed to. He did not do that because the group did not fulfill their agreement to release a11 the restricted covenants. Permit parking has been in place in the neighborhood at issue here. There is a two hour limitation on permit pazking. As a backdrop, Mr. Peters stated, there is a history of litigation between Mr. Spangenberg and Mr. Hoyt. It is a case from the 1990's that went through the trial court all the way to the appellate court. Mr. Peters submitted photographs to Ms. Moermond that were taken Monday, August 4, during the lunch how. He took photographs for 45 minutes to an hour. During that time, only one �f- �3�- MII�IUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING - 2145 LLP - 2145 Ford Pazkway Page 3 vehicle came through the alley. He explained the photographs as follows: 1. Pazking ramp from Ford Parkway. 2. Parking ramp and building from Finn and Ford Parkway. 3. Back alley looking east, clean and well painted. 4. Back alley looking east showing three gazages of the neighbors. The garages aze dilapidated, shrubbery, overgrown weeds, and dumpsters overturned, trash thrown around. 5. Back a11ey looking west and a close up of the trash. 6. Close-up of Mr. Spangenberg's garage, unxnaintained, openings in the wood panels due to deterioration and obviously not from vandalism. It is very visible from the alley when looking through the openings that the garage is full of stuff. It is not intended to be used as a parking garage right now. 7. East end of ramp showing the entrance and the exit, well kept, well landscaped. 8. East end of the ramp, looking west. 7. Boulevard Mr. Hoyt put in place to appease the bordering neighbors and to stop traffic coming from the north onto Fard Parkway to Finn. Mr. Peters stated that Ms. Moermond previously referenced Chapter 310.06(c) of the Saint Paul City Ordinances. It appears there can be an imposition of reasonable conditions and restrictions on parking ramps. There aze six specific conditions and restrictions cited in the ordinance. (The ordinance language is in bold. Mr. Peters' comments are not.) (1) Limitation on the hours of operation on the hours of operation of the licensed business or establishment, or on particutar types of activities conducted in or on said business or establishment; Mr. Peters stated this parking ramp is open 24 hours and secured 24 hours. There is not a ramp attended in the evening until the early morning hours. The ramp arm goes up and people can pazk for free during those periods without being caught, although it would be a trespass unless they have a parking pass already. To limit the hours of the parking ramp would hurt the security of the neighborhood. As long as there are people in and out, there is some acfivity; without that, there would be a greater chance of vandalism in that azea. (2) A limitation or restriction as to the location within the licensed business or establishment where particular type of activities may be conducted; This does not apply to this building because there is onty one exit and one entrance. The only conduct is to park a vehicle, get in and out. (3) A limitation as to the means of ingress and egress from the licensed estabtishment or its parking lot or immediately adjacent area; This does not apply because there is only egress and ingress, said Mr. Peters. Cars can only go one way to get out. (4) A requirement to provide off-street parking in excess of other requirements of law; This parking lot is not full. Mr. Hoyt has agreed to provide parking for all the tenants and employees. (5) A limitation on the manner and means of advertising the operation or merchandise of the licensed establishment; - There is no dispute that the sigung on the building is appropriate and witlun Saint Paul ordinances and standards. (6) Any other reasonable condition or restriction limiting the operation of the licensed business or establishment to ensure that the business or establishment will harmonize 0�- y3� MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING - 2145 LLP - 2145 Ford Pazkway Page 4 with the character of the area in which it is located, or to prevent the development or continuation of a nuisance. This is a catch-all, stated Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters said that Mr. Hoyt has gone beyond the ca11 of duty to talce a dilapidated building, turn it around, fill it up, clean it up, and do what he has done to the back alley and building. No conditions in the statute aze appropriate or applicable. Mr. Peters said he would like to go through Mr. Spangenberg's letter. (Mr. Spangenberg's language is in bold. Mr. Peters' comments are not.) 1. The property owner has not lived up to agreements that he made to gain the elimination of the "Free Parking" covenant attached to the property. See Page 3. Mr. Peters stated that the reference to Page 3 is a partial letter from the Highland Area Community Council which was unsigned and still a point of negotiation. That was an issue that would be subject to a side agreement if any. Mr. Hoyt has done what he said he would do. 2. The owner has increased the parking fee 1600% from the agreed change from "Free" to 25¢ per hour to $2.00 per'/z hour with a max of $17.00 per day. It is Mr. Peters understanding that in the last ten yeazs, the pazking rates have gone up. That is driven by mazket forces. Mr. Spangenberg's objections aze contradictory: he does not want peopie pazking in the ramp because it causes tr�c, yet he does not want the parking chazged more. When it was 25¢ per hour, folks from the Saint Paul azea who commuted to downtown Minneapolis would park in the ramp and take the bus to Minneapolis. That created problems for the tenants and invitees of the tenants. Mr. Hoyt needed to get the parking rate up to market. June and July of this yeaz is the first time he has broken even. When the weather gets darker eazlier on, he has to run lights 24 hours a day and will not break even again. Right now, he charges $2.00 per hour with a maximum of $16.00 a day. That is reasonable. 3. The parking ramp is closed on Sundays. They have created a need for parking everyday with the ramp closed on Sunday. People again seek parking on residential streets. - The parking ramp is not open to the public per se. It is open to the tenants and the invitees of the tenants. The parking ramp is not closed on Sunday. 4. There is no security as promised. Vandalism is an ongoing problem. People throw rocks, firecrackers, trash, etc. from the top of the ramp at my garage, house and yard. All of the alley garage windows have been broken. My house has dents in the aluminum siding from people throwing rocks. People use the top of the ramp as an observation deck for smoking and lunch breaks affecting neighbor privacy. Mr. Peters stated he did not see any broken windows in the back alley. It is unlikely that someone could throw rocks from the a11ey and reach aluminum siding of his house. The ramp bumps up against a neighborhood area. The building is laid out to provide the most privacy for the neighbors. Mr. Hoyt attempted to get the restriction to having windows on the back side of that building removed because Fairview, when they merged with the University of Minnesota, wanted to move their administrative offices over to that building, and they wanted windows on the back side. Mr. Hoyt was not allowed to get windows on the back side because of neighborhood privacy issues and he lost the contract. As faz as vandalism, rocks, firecrackers, that is an issue for the Saint Paul Police Department and Traffic Control. Mr. �l- y3� MINtJTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING - 2145 LLP - 2145 Ford Pazkway Page 5 Hoyt has done what they can to limit it, provide security, provide lighting, etc. He is as much a victim of vandalism as anyone. 5. I do not have full access to my property. I can only park in front of my house. Because of the closeness of the building, the large amount of speeding and wrong way driving , traffic, and my hearing disability. It is too dangerous to try to park in the garage and use the alley. Again, Mr. Peters was in the alley for close to an hour and he saw a Volvo coming through with two kids in a caz seat doing about five miles an hour. There is ample room to back a caz out of there. The photographs show Mr. Spangenberg does not intend to use that garage to pazk his vehicles. Mr. Peters went on to say that the issues Mr. Spangenberg has should be taken up with the police departrnent or the City to enforce greater pernut pazking restrictions on his block. The two hour parking permit is not working well. A car can park there, an enforcement officer will chalk a tire, and then the owner has a grace period for a couple of hours. As for vandalism, the owner has done everything they can do to curtail it. It is not helpful for them either. It has been getting better is what he was toid. It is a reality of urban life. Ms. Moermond asked were there any conditions on the license in 1986. Ms. Schweinler responded no. Mr. Beach added there were conditions on the site plan that was approved by the City Council, but they never got transferred to the license. The site plan originally said parking on all levels shall be free to members of the general public from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. and unrestricted loading activities offthe alley. Robert Spangenberg, 2130 Pinehurst Avenue, appeared and stated he sent the letter objecting to the license application. The neighbors do want people to park in the ramp. The ramp was built to accommodate people who use the building. The big issue is that they do not want them parking on the residential street. He has a petition that was signed by 57 people from Pinehurst, Finn Sireet, and Highland Pazkway who were concerned about the elimination of the free parking. They were concerned that it would bring parking to the neighborhood residential streets. Mr. Spangenberg has photographs that document some of the concerns. (Mr. Spangenberg showed Ms. Moermond the photographs and explained each one.) Mr. Spangenberg stated one photo shows the sign with fees for the parking lot. The sign says the rate is $2.00 per %2 hour, with a maximum of $16. Mr. Peters previously said the fee is $2.00 per hour, which is incorrect. The other signs reflect some of the pazking problems on the neighborhood streets. There were documentation of trucks in the ailey severai times in the year. (Copies of the photographs were made, and the original given back to Mr. Spangenberg.) Mr. Spangenberg stated Finn is shortened by one block. There is a berm. That street was already blocked off: There was a barricade there. It is his understanding that Mr. Hoyt is responsible for the snow removal and the lawn caze. He agreed to those to eliminate that free parking restriction 0�-'�3� MINiJTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING - 2145 LLP - 2145 Ford Parkway Page 6 in the covenant. That was the only thing that was to be removed from the covenant. Also, the employees of the building would be required to park there by lease provisions. Also, IZAM security was to be provided. Mr. Spangenberg lives right behind the pazking lot, and there is no security, and kids are skateboazding there several times a week. It is not hard to throw a rock from the top of tUat building and hit his house. It is only 23 feet away from his gazage. Ms. Moermond asked has he called the police on the rocks. Mr. Spangenberg responded he has called the police on many occasions because people pazk in front and in the alley and because of the rocks and firecrackers. Item 8 of the Highland Area Community Council agreement reads that "The owner will pay for a minimum of 2 permits per affected household not to exceed $2,000 in total per yeaz, if Residential Pernut Parking becomes necessary." Mr. Spangenberg is asking for help to hold the owner accountable for these items. Mr. Hoyt has acted in a less than ethical matter. As faz as the lawsuit, Mr. Hoyt hit him with a slap lawsuit (strategic lawsuit against public participation) to shut him up. Ms. Moermond asked what conditions Mr. Spangenberg is recommending. Mr. Spangenberg responded the City should look at what the owner is chazging. Mr. Spangenberg would like the "closed on Sunday" sign removed. Sunday is a big family day. There has to be permits for people to park on their street, but it would be nice to have room for people to pazk. Ms. Moermond asked does anyone have a copy of the restricted covenant. Mr. Spangenberg responded he does not. Jean Birkholz stated the City Clerk mentioned there were over 20 pages in the entire file, and we could let her know if we need it all. Ms. Moermond stated there are a number of issues in play. Council File 94-653 references that covenant and the SCUP Council File 85-326, which would include the conditions placed on it for zoning purposes. She would like to continue tlus hearing. She will send everyone the documents. Then, she will make her decision based on what she is looking at on paper as well. Mr. Spangenberg stated he has a copy of a petition. Ms. Moermond requested a copy of it. Mr. Spangenberg turned in a copy of a petition. Ms. Moermond looked at the document and said they are not originals and they are dated 1994. It is technically not a petition as described in the City's charter on ordinances. Instead, it is what people were concerned about. (A copy was made of Mr. Spangenberg's document and his copy was returned to him.) Henry Waldenberger, 2115 Pinehurst Avenue, appeazed and stated he is not familiar with Mr. Hoyt paying for the berm. Half a street was taken out. Ms. Moermond responded the City can establish who paid for that. It would not be unusual that the City would do that work and assess it to the property taxes. Mr. Waldenberger could find out at the Real Estate Office. oN- �f3a MINiJTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEAI2ING - 2145 LLP - 2145 Ford Parkway Page 7 Mr. Waldenberger stated that one issue that concems him is the employee pazking. With the advent of the two hour pazking restriction, employees have moved from Pinehurst Street to Highland Parkway. It is easy to identify the health club empioyees because they wear the black uniforms. Also, there were additional lights added to the pazking ramp, and they are annoying. They aze about 400 to 500 watts. He lives half a block away, and he can read the newspaper at night with the light coming in lus window. He would like to see those lights shuttered somehow. Mr. Waldenberger went on to say that they want people to pazk in that ramp. It was built as a compromise over many issues. The neighbors were concerned about parking. They need to somehow get people to use that ramp. The health club members aze constantly pazking in the neighborhoods. In the last year, three homes have been sold. In one case, a woman was assaulted by a health club member. Mr. Peters stated Mr. Spangenberg seems to have an issue with the supposed agreement for paying for pazking permits for residents. That was a point that was negotiated and it was never ag�eed to. If that is his issue, his remedy is to file a lawsuit in court for contract damages. Secondly, the lawsuit previously was based upon defamatory correspondence sent by Mr. Spangenberg to Mr. HoyPs tenants across the entire Twin Cities. The pazking ramp rates are driven by mazket forces. Mr. Peters flies in and out of Twin Cities International Airport on a weekly basis and it is much more cost effective to park in the ramp at issue than at the airport. If public streets are open to public parking, the public is allowed and permitted to park on those streets. That is not an issue for this parking ramp facility. That is an issue for the residents to take up with the City Council. As for lights, he is 100% sure the lights are up to code. Without them, the security and vandalism issues would be worse. As for Life6me employees parking on the streets, he does not know why they would do that because they have access to the ramp. All the tenants and their employees aze allowed to park in the ramp for free. He has been looking for houses in that neighborhood. If the neighborhood has been affected, it has been affected posifively from a real estate value standpoint because the house prices have gone up. Mr. Spangenberg stated there is a house rivo houses away from his that has been on the market for about nine months, and it has not sold. Part of the reason is the pazking issues on their street. Mr. Peters responded that the house has $50,000 worth of liens on the property, has water problems, and is going through foreclosure. He looked at buying that house. Mr. Spangenberg stated the neighborhood has become less attractive. He would like to see some documentation to verify the opportunity for free parking for empioyees that work in that building. There is a space availabie for them, but they have to pay. Mr. Peters walked in the alley and only saw one car, but cazs vary throughout the day, stated Mr. Spangenberg. During rush hour and at night, there are lots of vehicles going through. A few yeazs ago, he called Lifetime's Highland Office and asked how many members they had. They said they had 5,500 members. They come about three times a week. That gives a little idea of some of the traffic generated. Lifetime also stated they would require two hours of free parking to get their license. They have not ethically stood behind that because if people go one minute over, they haue to pay for the full amount. vt/• y3� MINiJTES OF THE LEGISLATNE HEARING - 2145 LLP - 2145 Ford Pazkway Page 8 Ms. Moermond responded that is an issue that they cannot engage here. The health club has a license separately. She does not know what, if any, conditions aze on that license. Ms. Moermond stated she will look at the SCUP, the reslricted covenants, and the testimony today. She wiil put together a recommendation for the City Council and copy everyone on that recommendation. She will also send everyone a copy of that paperwork. Any conditions would need to be agreed upon by the applicant. The O�ce of LIEP would contact the applicant to come up with those conditions. Everyone has had a chance to say what they wanted to say. If people definitely want to talk about this more, this can be laid over to another meeting. Mr. Peters responded there is no need. If there is a SCUP, they would be legally obligated to abide by it. When the City enables a pazking ramp to be built, asked Mr. Spangenberg, they have a responsibility to the adjacent neighborhood to keep people from pazking there. Mr. Waldenberger asked can she also look at the site plan in her review. Ms. Moermond responded she can look at it, but it would not cany any weight at this point. What makes those carry weight is when they become conditions attached to a license or listed as a part of the SCUP. Mr. Waldenberger stated a number of inexpensive things could help, such as glare guard on the lights. There aze wires coming out of the walls since it was built. Ms. Moermond stated she will get a letter out to everyone within three weeks. The hearing was adjourned at 11:22 a.m. �