Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015/01/20 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular
AGENDA JANUARY 20, 2015 (Mayor Jacobs Out) 6:45 p.m. SOUTHWEST LRT BUSINESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE INTERVIEWS – Westwood Room 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. Recognition of Donations 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2015 3b. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2015 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. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.) 5. Boards and Commissions 5a. Appointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions Recommended Action: Motion to appoint the Citizen Representatives to the commissions and terms listed below: Name Commission Term Expiration Stuart Williams Fire Civil Service Commission 12/31/2015 Jay Arneson Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2017 Tiffany Hoffmann Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2015 Maren Anderson Telecommunications Advisory Commission 12/31/2017 5b. Appointment of Citizen Representatives to the Southwest LRT Community Advisory Committee Recommended Action: Motion to appoint Bill James, Sara Maaske and Janet Weivoda as Citizen Representatives to the Southwest LRT Community Advisory Committee for 2 year terms. 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing - MGM liquor License (New Owner) Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for IAW Management, LLC, dba MGM Wine and Spirits, located at 8100 Highway 7, for the license term through March 1, 2015. Meeting of January 20, 2015 City Council Agenda Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue Redevelopment Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from COM – Commercial and RM - Medium Density Residential to MX – Mixed Use for properties: 3907, 3915 Hwy 7; 3031 Glenhurst Ave; and 3914, 3918 31st St W. and authorize summary publication. 8b. Major Amendment to Homewood Suites Planned Unit Development (PUD) Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Major Amendment to the Homewood Suites Final PUD to allow an 18 foot side setback for an existing trash room, subject to conditions. 8c. Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution limiting the number of Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses issued in St. Louis Park. 8d. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance Recommended Action: Motion to approve amendments to Chapter 36 of the City Code pertaining to Planned Unit Developments. 8e. Resolution Approving Annual City Manager Evaluation Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution for formal acceptance of the final City Manager annual evaluation. 9. Communications -- None Meeting of January 20, 2015 City Council Agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4a. Approve the attached Memorandum of Understanding for the City of St. Louis Park to participate in the Partners in Energy Program sponsored by Xcel Energy. 4b. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a $150 donation from the Sherburne- Crouse family for the purchase and installation of a Bicolor Oak tree, dedicated in the name of the Sherburne-Crouse Family, in Westwood Hills Nature Center. 4c. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from the St. Louis Park Hockey Association in the amount of $100,000 to be used for capital improvements at the Rec Center or other hockey related improvements within the city that are agreeable to both the City of St. Louis Park and the St Louis Park Hockey Association. 4d. Approve for Filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of July 30, 2014 4e. Approve for Filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of September 17, 2014 4f. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 19, 2014 4g. Approve for Filing Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of December 3, 2014 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website. Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Presentation: 2a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Recognition of Donations RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to announce and give thanks and appreciation for the following donation being accepted at the meeting and listed on the Consent Agenda: From Amount For Sherburne-Crouse Family $150 Purchase and installation of a Bicolor Oak tree at Westwood Hills Nature Center St. Louis Park Hockey Association $100,000 Capital improvements at the Rec Center, or other hockey related improvements within the city Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Minutes: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JANUARY 5, 2015 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). Guest: John Basill (President, Discover St. Louis Park). 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. Recognition of Donations Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks and appreciation to the McManus Family for the $2,200 donation in honor of Evan and Damian McManus for a park bench at Louisiana Oaks Park. He explained that Damian and his son Evan died last spring in the mountains of Colorado but they have left behind a tremendous impact in St. Louis Park and Council would like to recognize this special donation. Mayor Jacobs also expressed the City Council’s thanks and appreciation to Becky Finnigan for the $500 donation to Westwood Hills Nature Center. 2b. Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park Mr. Basill introduced Mr. Bill MacMillan, Discover St. Louis Park’s current Board chair; Mr. Doug McIntyre, Chair-elect; and Mr. John Smith, who will become Chair after Mr. McIntyre’s term. He also introduced Discover St. Louis Park staff members Ms. Kersten McManamon and Mr. Brent Snyder. He presented the Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) vision and discussed the various business segments targeted by DSLP. He advised that DSLP had approximately 30,000 unique website visitors in 2014, and restaurants were the top search item. He discussed DSLP’s 2014 earned media value of $175,791.98 and recognized Mr. Snyder’s work with “Meet Minneapolis” on securing a commitment from local hoteliers to meet the Super Bowl’s minimum threshold requirements for hotel rooms. He also discussed the aggregate economic impact of awareness generated in 2014 and stated that the total economic impact realized was $1,544,379 compared to $1,054,537 in 2013. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2015 Councilmember Spano asked if there was a deliberate effort on the part of DSLP to bring events into the City even if these events do not fill hotel rooms. Mr. Basill stated that DSLP’s job and mission is to create awareness of St. Louis Park by going after groups, as well as promoting festivals and other events. He advised that DSLP is currently working with the Park and Recreation staff on a potential site that could be used for large events. Councilmember Hallfin stated that Mr. Basill is leaving Discover St. Louis Park and Mr. Basill has been a great cheerleader for St. Louis Park. He expressed his thanks to Mr. Basill for everything he has done over the past three and one-half years. Mayor Jacobs stated that Mr. Basill was the perfect person to be the first CEO of Discover St. Louis Park and that Mr. Basill has turned the organization into a remarkably successful operation that has brought awareness to St. Louis Park. He presented Mr. Basill with a plaque acknowledging his service and expressed the City Council’s thanks and appreciation for all the work done by Mr. Basill. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Study Session Meeting Minutes December 8, 2014 The minutes were approved as presented. 3b. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes December 15, 2014 The minutes were approved as presented. 3c. City Council Meeting Minutes December 15, 2014 The minutes were approved as presented. 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. Adopt Resolution No. 15-001 designating the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor as the City’s Official Newspaper for year 2015. 4b. Adopt Resolution No. 15-002 declaring 2015 City Council Meeting Dates. 4c. Adopt Resolution No. 15-003 appointing the following Councilmembers to the Office of Mayor Pro Tem for the year 2015: Councilmember Term of Appointment Jake Spano January – April 2015 Tim Brausen May – August 2015 Gregg Lindberg September – December 2015 City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2015 4d. Adopt Resolution No. 15-004 approving acceptance of a $2,200 donation from the McManus family for the purchase and installation of a bench in Louisiana Oaks Park honoring Damion and Evan McManus. 4e. Adopt Resolution No. 15-005 authorizing final payment in the amount of $3,295.92 for the Dakota Park Baseball Field Renovation Project with Friedges Landscaping, Inc. - Project No. 20140020, City Contract No. 88-14. 4f. Amend the Professional Services Agreement with Campbell Knutson to increase the rates for attorney and law clerk/paralegal services. 4g. Amend the Professional Services Agreement with Colich and Associates to increase the rates for legal services. 4h. Accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the period of November 22 through December 26, 2014. 4i. Approve for filing Telecommunications Commission meeting minutes of October 14, 2014. 4j. Adopt Resolution No. 15-006 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Becky Finnigan in the amount of $500 for Westwood Hills Nature Center. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Lindberg, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and Commissions It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to reappoint the following Commissioners as City representatives to their respective commissions with terms as follows: Name Commission Term Expiration Susan Bloyer Board of Zoning Appeals 12/31/2017 James Gainsley Board of Zoning Appeals 12/31/2017 Henry Solmer Board of Zoning Appeals 12/31/2017 Chris Anderson Environment and Sustainability Commission 12/31/2017 Judy Voigt Environment and Sustainability Commission 12/31/2017 William MacMillan Fire Civil Service commission 12/31/2017 Paul Beck Housing Authority 6/30/2019 Lawrence Jones Human Rights Commission 12/31/2017 Sarah Foulkes Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 12/31/2017 Elizabeth Griffin Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 12/31/2017 Claudia Johnston-Madison Planning Commission 12/31/2017 Carl Robertson Planning Commission 12/31/2017 Lorne Brunner Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2017 Steve Hansen Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2017 Vladimir Sivriver Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2017 Bruce Browning Telecommunications Advisory Commission 12/31/2017 Cindy Hoffman Telecommunications Advisory Commission 12/31/2017 City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 4 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2015 Councilmember Mavity stated that there are a number of openings for youth commissioners on various commissions and encouraged any interested youth to apply. She stated that she would be voting against the reappointments being considered by Council today and explained that while she is happy that so many people have applied for reappointment, she is not happy with the process that Council uses for making reappointments. She stated that Councilmembers must file for reelection and stand for election, but with the City’s Boards and Commissions, once a person is appointed to a position, all they have to do is fill out an application stating they are interested in being reappointed. She pointed out that she was unhappy with the process and not with anyone who has applied and that she was not asking for term limits. Councilmember Sanger stated that there are a lot of residents who participate on the various Boards and Commissions, and she is grateful for their participation. She stated that when someone serves on a Board or Commission for more than one year, the City benefits from that shared expertise. She was glad to see so many of the City’s volunteers ask to be reappointed, and she would vote in favor of the reappointments. The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Mavity opposed). 6. Public Hearings - None 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items – None 9. Communications – None 10. Adjournment Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 8:14 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Minutes: 3b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JANUARY 5, 2015 The meeting convened at 8:19 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Engineering (Ms. Heiser), Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 1. Southwest LRT Wooddale Station Traffic Analysis Mr. Harmening introduced the topic. Mr. Sullivan presented the staff report and provided additional detail regarding the traffic analysis for the Wooddale station area and potential Xenwood underpass. He also discussed the potential development scenario for the former McGarvey site. Councilmember Brausen asked if it was correct that without the Xenwood underpass, drivers traveling south on Wooddale would not be able to turn into the McGarvey site. Mr. Sullivan stated that drivers would be required to make a U-turn at 36th and Wooddale, adding that staff has expressed its concerns to the SPO about U-turn movements in this area. Councilmember Sanger asked if the SPO would leave the median open if the City were to forego the whistle quiet zone at Wooddale. Mr. Sullivan stated that staff has discussed this with the SPO and there was some discussion about putting a traffic signal at this location but traffic is made worse on Wooddale because there are already five intersections within 700’. He advised that any improvements to Xenwood Avenue would not significantly improve the traffic operations on Wooddale and it is staff’s observation that the cost associated with design and construction of the underpass would provide benefits to other parcels but not to the traffic operations on 36th or Wooddale. Councilmember Sanger stated if the City is going to spend $13-15 million for the Xenwood underpass, it appears the primary beneficiary would be the development that occurs on the McGarvey site and the City would not get any tax benefit for many years because of the TIF financing. She questioned whether it might be worthwhile to let the McGarvey site stay undeveloped and to skip the Xenwood underpass given the significant infrastructure costs to support a development on the McGarvey site. Mr. Harmening noted that the City has previously discussed creating a TIF District on the McGarvey site and some of that tax increment would go toward the PLACE development and would also help pay for part of the Xenwood underpass. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Title: Special Study Session Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2015 Councilmember Mavity stated the McGarvey site could consist of a development that does not include a lot of parking and felt strongly that development should occur adjacent to the light rail station. She stated she was not sure whether building the underpass could create new problems, but was in support of investing money on the engineering study in order to answer these questions. Councilmember Hallfin agreed this site would not need to have one car per apartment given its close proximity to the light rail station. He stated he was not necessarily in favor of the Xenwood underpass, but felt the City should proceed with the engineering study. Councilmember Brausen stated he would like Council to consider a senior affordable housing project on the McGarvey site and referenced a 36-unit senior affordable housing project in Robbinsdale. He stated he was still not sold on the Xenwood underpass and felt the City could do other things in developing this area. Councilmember Lindberg stated that the density in this area is going to create problems no matter what and residents will continue to drive through this corridor to get from one side of the city to another, adding that the same could be said for the Beltline corridor. Councilmember Spano felt that the City should proceed with the engineering study on both Beltline and Wooddale, adding he felt the City was more likely to do Wooddale than Beltline. He stated there is only so much that can be done with 36th and Wooddale and the real issue is the bridge because it does not currently function as it should and it will not function in 20 years. It was the consensus of the majority of the City Council to continue to move forward on a commitment to fund the design for the Xenwood underpass LRCI as well as the Beltline LRCI. 2. Review Draft Agenda for 2015 Council Workshop Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and proposed agenda for the City Council workshop and reviewed the proposed outcomes and proposed format for the workshop. It was the consensus of the City Council that the draft workshop agenda and proposed format of the workshop meets Council’s expectations. 3. Review of 2015 Legislative Issues and Priorities Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and draft list of legislative issues and priorities. He stated that the City intends to request that the State take a more active role regarding the use of body cameras. He stated the City also intends to seek funding support for the LRCIs related to Southwest LRT. Councilmember Sanger urged Council to adopt a policy statement regarding use of body cameras. She suggested adding a priority related to the Reilly Tar consent decree. Mr. Harmening advised the City has been working with the MPCA about the possibility of amending the consent decree and Council will be provided with an update in January or February. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 3 Title: Special Study Session Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2015 Other Discussion Mr. Harmening requested input from Council regarding the CAC and BAC interviews and stated that the appointments need to be made in February. Councilmember Spano spoke in favor of scoring the applicants to narrow the list, similar to the process used by Council when appointments were made to the Environment and Sustainability Commission. It was the consensus of the City Council to schedule interviews with the three candidates who have applied for the two open positions on BAC. It was also the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to forward the CAC applications to Council for ranking. Council discussed the current process for interviewing and selecting candidates for appointment to the various boards and commissions. Mr. Harmening suggested that Council hold a study session discussion about the City’s board and commission appointment/reappointment process. Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:46 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Partners in Energy Memorandum of Understanding Proposal RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the attached Memorandum of Understanding for the City of St. Louis Park to participate in the Partners in Energy Program sponsored by Xcel Energy. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the proposed agreement consistent with the City Council’s Strategic Direction related to environmental stewardship? SUMMARY: The Environment and Sustainability Commission (ESC) created several work groups to study areas of sustainable practices within the City. The Energy Workgroup has been exploring ways to track energy use and develop a sustainability work plan. While researching ways to achieve these goals, the workgroup met with representatives from Xcel Energy and asked them to present information about their Partners in Energy (PIE) program. PIE is a two- year collaboration with Xcel Energy to develop and implement the City’s energy plan goals designed to foster a collaborative, energy-savvy community, define and plan for energy and sustainability goals by engaging and educating the community. This is a cooperative program that Xcel has designed to assist the City in developing an energy plan which includes strategies to understand energy use, conservation, renewables and environmental issues. To participate, the City would need to sign a Memorandum of Understanding, provide GIS information on the City’s boundaries and identify participants to develop and energy action plan. Xcel presented an overview of the program to the full ESC at their December meeting and has received the commission’s unanimous support in participating in this program. The City attorney has reviewed the attached MOU and is comfortable with the City signing the document. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: There is no cost for the City to participate in the program. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Partners in Energy Program Information Memorandum of Understanding Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, Senior Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Today, energy is becoming an expanding focus in community sustainability strategies. Regardless of your starting point, Xcel Energy would like to partner with you to move your energy plan forward. Our Partners in Energy program is designed to help communities like yours develop an energy plan—or identify strategies and resources to successfully augment an existing plan. If you would like to leverage our expertise in plan development and navigating the complexities of energy use, conservation, renewables and environmental issues, we invite you to participate in Xcel Energy’s Partners in Energy. Our energy partnership program will empower your community leaders to take your energy management program to the next level. Partners in Energy may be just the vehicle you’ve been looking for to launch your energy management program and provide your leaders with the framework to develop a custom, strategic energy plan by: • Developing and documenting your community’s long-term energy vision • Identifying the appropriate goals and strategies to help achieve that vision • Engaging and motivating your community to take action • Monitoring and tracking your results • Celebrating your achievements and promoting your success • Carrying forward your energy momentum for the long term Make an Energy Connection With Your Community With energy being a topic of interest for your community, Partners in Energy gives you an opportunity to collaborate on goals that benefit everyone. Envision how your engagement could go. You begin by adding a Partners in Energy Web page on your community’s website that provides resources, tips, goal status updates and links to money-saving rebates. You could decide to send out an announcement letter to build excitement about your collaboration. Then, on a regular basis, send newsletters to keep your program top of mind. You could also send emails with content we provide about money-saving efficiencies. We’ll partner with you to keep awareness high through media buzz, articles in your local paper, ongoing promotions or a calendar of business and resident events. These are just a few examples of how your roll-out could go. PARTNERS IN ENERGY Your Leadership. our energY Know how. a CoLLaborative team. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Title: Partners in Energy Memorandum of Understanding Proposal Page 2 It Begins With an Energy Action Plan The partnership begins with identifying a team to lead the development of your community’s custom energy action plan. We’ll be a part of your planning to help you develop a cohesive plan that identifies a baseline for your community, establishes measurable energy goals with strategies to help you achieve them within 24 months. Partners in Energy Motivates Change Your planning team will be able to leverage a large portfolio of Xcel Energy programs, services and rebate opportunities—from energy efficiency, to renewable choices, to energy education. There are endless formulas for success. The tactics will be unique to your community, and you will have access to communications and promotional templates that will educate your constituents on energy, ways to save, rebates, tips, energy tracking and other outreach approaches. As an incentive to achieve your goals, your community may have the potential to receive a financial bonus to help fund local projects that reward collaboration. Platform for Long-Term Sustainability After you have developed your plan, implemented all the tactics, and celebrated reaching your energy achievements, what then? Xcel Energy will continue to be your energy service provider ... now you and your community will have developed relationships and, more specifically: • Your residents and businesses will have set up an online account to view their energy usage and trends at a glance, and be empowered to set up their own energy strategies for success. • With an energy efficiency mindset, your community will know where to find help through the resources we provide every day to save them money and energy. • With Xcel Energy’s resources and guidance, you’ll have what is needed to implement solar, wind and other alternatives. Our partnership doesn’t stop there. Your Xcel Energy community account manager will continue to be your resource. You can opt to participate in another two-year Partners in Energy program with a new set of goals as well. Ready to Launch? Want to learn more about how to apply for our Partners in Energy? You and your community stakeholders can learn more by visiting xcelenergy.com/PartnersInEnergy for more information. PartnerS In enerGY YouR LEAdERShIP. ouR ENERGY kNow how. A coLLAboRATIvE TEAm xcelenergy.com | © 2014 Xcel Energy Inc. | Xcel Energy is a registered trademark of Xcel Energy Inc. | Public Service Company of Colorado, an Xcel Energy Company. 14-11-415 | 11/14 City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Title: Partners in Energy Memorandum of Understanding Proposal Page 3 Q. What is Partners in Energy? A. Xcel Energy’s Partners in Energy program is a two-year community partnership commitment designed to support communities as they develop and implement an energy action plan unique to their energy needs. If you apply and are accepted into Partners in Energy with Xcel Energy, you receive a dedicated team with expertise in energy planning and implementation. We will provide guidance, education and resources for your municipal staff, businesses and residents to achieve your measurable energy goals by your target date. Q. How is this program going to benefit our community? A. For some communities, Partners in Energy will augment their current sustainability program and for others it will address energy management for the first time. Regardless of the maturity of your community’s planning or sustainability efforts, energy may be one aspect that could be more robust with help from our experts. This program has the flexibility to customize planning to support where your community is in the planning process and move you forward. For established community goals around energy, we will focus on development and delivery of that plan. Our program will match your community’s unique goals during implementation. It may be an education plan on energy conservation, identifying how to finance renewable for municipal buildings, or promoting green technologies to businesses or residents. At the very least, Partners in Energy is a great way to launch a smart, energy management program. Q. What resources are expected from us? A. For the energy action planning, you will need to assign one or more energy ambassadors to work with the Xcel Energy team. Over the first six months, as we work together to develop your action plan, it may require up to 100 hours of the energy ambassador’s time. The time commitment after that will depend on each community’s unique goals, strategies and resources. You will identify a group of planning participants to be involved in the development of the plan. The community will host the planning meetings that will identity its vision, goals, strategies and focus areas. As you enter the program, we will be looking at how your community uses energy and what resources you have available to incorporate into implementation of a successful plan. It could be that you will be using existing communications channels such as the community website, newsletter or cable channel to provide visibility of the program to community members. We will make it as simple as possible by providing marketing and communications templates that you can customize and roll out. Ideally, you will want to leverage any and all gatherings to include a way to promote and motivate your community member participation. PARTNERS IN ENERGY FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Title: Partners in Energy Memorandum of Understanding Proposal Page 4 Q. Is there a cost associated with Partners in Energy? A. There is no cost to participate in Partners in Energy planning, but depending on how your community implements their plan, there may be expenses. The tactics in your energy action plan may be within your current budget, or you may determine short- or long-term investments for a more robust energy management program. Q. Who is involved? A. In addition to your energy ambassador and your planning team, Xcel Energy will be at the table to provide resources, data and support during. In addition, you will have access to energy planning experts and the ability to brainstorm with other community representatives going through this program at the same time. Depending on the goals and strategies in your energy action plan, it will drive who gets involved in implementing energy projects or disseminating your communications to your community. Q. How do we apply for Partners in Energy? A. Your Xcel Energy point of contact will guide you through the application process. We will be receiving applications and accepting communities based on a set of criteria. Before you apply, you can request a presentation about the program for you or a larger group representing your community. This can be delivered either in person or electronically via a webinar. To find out more about when additional communities can join the program or download an application, visit our website at xcelenergy.com/PartnersInEnergy. Q. Once accepted, what are first steps to participate? A. Once you’ve been accepted into the Partners in Energy program, Xcel Energy will organize preliminary meetings to build the framework to launch your energy action planning sessions. Depending on the complexity of your plan, we anticipate six to eight weeks for preparation, and 14 to 16 weeks for development of the plan. We’ll support your implementation activity for up to 18 months, after planning is complete. Specifics of that support will depend on the actions outlined in your goals and strategies for the program. Measurable goals will be monitored and reported to show your successful progress along the way. Q. What types of things will our energy action plan include? A. Your energy action plan will identify strategies to meet your measurable energy goals. To help remove barriers and reach your goals, your Xcel Energy team can help you select from our diverse portfolio of energy efficiency and renewable programs to find the most effective program mix for success. For example, you may want to reduce your community’s business electric usage. The recommended programs may include a combination of lighting, heating or cooling efficiencies, and actions may be equipment upgrades or maintenance measures. Other focus areas may include educating your businesses and residents on energy, working with local contractors to make energy efficiency part of their services, establishing a local fund for energy efficiency or renewables, or developing a green construction program. There is no limit to where your community’s vision can take our team. PARTNERS IN ENERGY FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS xcelenergy.com | © 2014 Xcel Energy Inc. | Xcel Energy is a registered trademark of Xcel Energy Inc. | Public Service Company of Colorado, an Xcel Energy Company. 14-11-516 | 11/14 City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Title: Partners in Energy Memorandum of Understanding Proposal Page 5 XCEL ENERGY PARTNERS IN ENERGY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Memorandum of Understanding Plan Development Phase 1 Memorandum of Understanding Phase 1 – Plan Development Tom Harmening City Manager City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2216 Congratulations on being selected to participate in Xcel Energy’s Partners in Energy program. This program is designed to provide your community with the tools and resources necessary to develop and implement an energy action plan that reflects the vision your community has for shaping energy use and supply in its future. Program participation is intended to span 24 months with the initial 4-6 months dedicated to developing of a strategic energy action plan and the remaining time focused on the implementing that plan. The intent of this Memorandum of Understanding is to confirm the City of St. Louis Park’s intent to participate in the initial plan development phase of the Partners in Energy program and outline the commitment that your community and Xcel Energy are making to this collaborative initiative. The primary objective of this phase of the program is to develop your energy action plan. In order to achieve this Xcel Energy will provide: Consulting support to assist in identifying potential community stakeholders, and constructing or delivering an invitation or informational announcement regarding the planning process. Data analysis of community energy use and Xcel Energy program participation to the extent that it is legally and technically prudent and feasible. The results can be used to identify potential opportunities to implement plan strategies. Xcel Energy will attempt to integrate data provided by the City of St. Louis Park into the analysis if feasible. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Title: Partners in Energy Memorandum of Understanding Proposal Page 6 XCEL ENERGY PARTNERS IN ENERGY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Memorandum of Understanding Plan Development Phase 2 Professional facilitation of 3-5 plan development work sessions with the community stakeholder group to develop the energy action plan’s vision, focus areas, goals and implementation strategies. Assistance as needed in synthesizing the community and program data collected with the vision of the community to identify attainable goals that align with suitable strategies and tactics. Development of the documented energy action plan that will incorporate inputs from the stakeholder planning team and will be accessible to the community. Commitment to delivering an actionable and complete energy action plan within six months of the City of St. Louis Park and Xcel Energy signing this MOU. Although participation in the Plan Development phase of Partners in Energy program requires no monetary contribution, the community, the City of St. Louis Park, does agree to provide: A single contact point to work with recruiting stakeholders, coordinating planning meeting logistics, and coordinate distribution of deliverables and lead participation of the community. Meeting facilities to host the stakeholder group during development of the plan. Identification of existing community energy plans or programs that could be leveraged in successful development and delivery of this plan. Good-faith evaluation of the recommendations and analysis provided and fair consideration of the potential strategies and tactics identified that align with the comity’s goals. Commitment to delivering an actionable and complete energy plan within six months of the City of St. Louis Park and Xcel Energy signing this MOU. Public distribution of the work products developed with the support of the Xcel Energy’s Partners in Energy program. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Title: Partners in Energy Memorandum of Understanding Proposal Page 7 XCEL ENERGY PARTNERS IN ENERGY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Memorandum of Understanding Plan Development Phase 3 Resource Commitment Summary Plan Development Phase City of St. Louis Park Xcel Energy Single point of contact Meeting facilities Access to existing energy-related plans and programs Involvement in developing implementation strategies Commitment to completing the plan development Agreement that the energy plan resulting from this work will be available to the public Assistance identifying and recruiting stakeholders Analysis of community energy use and program participation Facilitation of planning sessions Training and guidance developing goals and strategies Documentation and delivery of the energy action plan Commitment to completing the plan development The Memorandum of Understanding for the Implementation Phase of the Partners in Energy program will be developed upon completion of your energy action plan and will outline your goals and the resource commitment from Xcel Energy and the City of St. Louis Park. All communications pertaining to this agreement shall be directed to Phillip Elkin, on behalf of the City of St. Louis Park and Tami Gunderzik on behalf of Xcel Energy. Thank you again for your continued interest in Xcel Energy’s Partner in Energy program. We look forward to assisting the City of St. Louis Park in the development of an energy action plan. For the City of St. Louis Park: _________________________________________ Date: ___________________________________ For Xcel Energy: ________________________________________ Date: ___________________________________ City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Title: Partners in Energy Memorandum of Understanding Proposal Page 8 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Accept Donation for Tree at Westwood Hills Nature Center from Sherburne-Crouse Family RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a $150 donation from the Sherburne-Crouse family for the purchase and installation of a Bicolor Oak tree, dedicated in the name of the Sherburne-Crouse Family, in Westwood Hills Nature Center. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use? SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being expended. The Sherburne-Crouse family graciously donated $150 for the purchase and installation of a Bicolor Oak tree. The donation is given with the restriction that the tree be placed in Westwood Hills Nature Center. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will be used to purchase and install a Bicolor Oak tree in Westwood Hills Nature Center. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Title: Accept Donation for Tree at Westwood Hills Nature Center from Sherburne-Crouse Family RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $150 FOR A BICOLOR OAK TREE IN WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE CENTER WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance of any donations; and WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor; and WHEREAS, the Sherburne-Crouse family donated $150 to purchase and install a Bicolor Oak tree in Westwood Hills Nature Center; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to the Sherburne-Crouse family with the understanding that it must be used to purchase and install a Bicolor Oak tree in Westwood Hills Nature Center. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council January 20, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Accept Monetary Donation from the St. Louis Park Hockey Association RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from the St. Louis Park Hockey Association in the amount of $100,000 to be used for capital improvements at the Rec Center or other hockey related improvements within the city that are agreeable to both the City of St. Louis Park and the St Louis Park Hockey Association. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use? SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being expended. The St. Louis Park Hockey Association donated $100,000 to be used for capital improvements at the St. Louis Park Rec Center, or other hockey related improvements within the city, with the understanding that the improvements have been agreed to by both parties. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will be used for capital improvements at The Rec Center or other hockey related improvements within the city that are agreeable to both parties. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary Jason Eisold, Rec Center Manager Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Title: Accept Monetary Donation from the St. Louis Park Hockey Association RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 FROM THE ST. LOUIS PARK HOCKEY ASSOCIATION FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT THE REC CENTER OR OTHER HOCKEY RELATED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance of any donation; and WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor; and WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Hockey Association donated $100,000 to be used for capital improvements at The Rec Center or other hockey related improvements within the city with the understanding that the future improvements and the use of the funds are jointly approved by the St. Louis Park Hockey Association Board and the City of St. Louis Park; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to the St. Louis Park Hockey Association with the understanding that the funds must be used for capital improvements at The Rec Center or other hockey related improvements within the city that have been jointly approved by the St. Louis Park Hockey Association and the City of St. Louis Park. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council January 20, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4d OFFICIAL MINUTES Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission July 30, 2014, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Rec Center Programming Office 1. Call to Order Jim Beneke, chair, called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Commission members present: Jim Beneke, George Foulkes, Sarah Foulkes, Elizabeth Griffin, George Hagemann, Edward Halvorson, and Tom Worthington. Commission members absent: Kirk Hawkinson Staff present: Jason West, Recreation Superintendent, Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation, and Stacy Voelker, Recording Secretary. Guests present: Jaime Meyer, Friends of the Arts; Marney Olson, Housing Programs Coordinator; and Steven Rosen, Hockey Association New member: Edward Halvorson, student member, was welcomed to Commission. 2. Presentations a. Friends of the Arts Overview (Jaime Meyer) Jaime Meyer, Executive Director of Friends of the Arts (“FOTA”), introduced himself to the Commission. When Mr. Meyers began with FOTA, there were numerous projects in the works. The ”Our Town” initiative has been going great, Mr. Meyer indicated. One of the projects, “100 Hands Community Mosaic”, offered workshops for more than 100 people in the Wolfe Park pavilion making glass mosaics. The mosaics will be displayed at the Art Exhibit held Oct. 10 and 11. Another project, “Art in Nature” theme, is a 6-week sketching workshop held at Westwood Hills Nature Center. The workshop currently has 25 people enrolled. The mosaics, along with other art exhibits focusing on nature, will be displayed in The Shops at West End October 10 and 11. The exhibit will focus on St. Louis Park artists. Mr. Meyer was pleased The Shops at West End took the art exhibit and expanded it into a weekend event. He also applauded Discover St. Louis Park for their support in the program. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of July 30, 2014 Mr. Meyer indicated the Arts & Culture Grant is a program with the City and the Community Foundation. This program provides grants to artist in amounts ranging from $2,000 to $5,000. Another program, “Arts for Life Scholarship”, provides funding up to $4,000 total per year to individuals to participate in art activities. Examples of these activities include child’s piano lessons; attend an art workshop, etc. The scholarships are awarded to the families based on their needs. The “Music for Life” program encourages instrument donations. This program is operated by Jim Rhodes from the St. Louis Park Community Band. Donated instruments are fixed then given to a child to play the instrument. Mr. Beneke inquired if FOTA is a fiscal agent for the school. Mr. Hagemann advised FOTA will be a fiscal agent to provide non-profit status (i.e. theater productions, school band, etc.). Being a fiscal agent takes so much off small groups and takes on the legal status for those groups. Mr. Meyer thanked Operations and Recreation, along with Lisa Abernathy, for a welcome and collaborative environment. Commission members thanked Mr. Meyer; Mr. Meyer thanked all. b. City-Wide Art Projects (Marney Olson) Marney Olson, Housing Programs Coordinator introduced self to the Commission. Ms. Olson suggested members view the art project of leaves on West 36th Street and the glass on the first floor community room at City Hall. Public art information can be found on the city’s website. There is an interactive map that shows where all public art is in the city. There will be two upcoming public art pieces located at Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue bridge and on Highway 100. The art pieces will be located on the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue bridge and can be seen when you travel under the bridge. Andrea Myklebust and Stan Sears created the art work with St. Louis Park’s history in mind. The city has worked in the past with the artists that carved the design that was created on the bridge. In conjunction with the carvings, two vertical elements will be installed. The elements will be made of steel and glass with lighting inside. Mr. Hagemann advised there will be color changing LED lights under the bridge. Also, the area will be more inviting for pedestrians and bicyclist advised Ms. Olson. MnDOT had visual quality committee that looked at the aesthetics through the Highway 100 corridor and the city came up with a potential for art on the project, indicated Ms. Olson. There will be an artist designed decorative railing on the Minnetonka Boulevard bridge. The railing must meet MnDOT standards and will be an interesting pattern with bronze inset of a lilac (as Highway 100 used to be called Lilac Way). Ms. Walsh advised there are three phases. Mr. Hagemann inquired about the removal of the additional art piece from plans to which Ms. Olson advised it has been removed from the plans for now. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 3 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of July 30, 2014 Ms. Olson indicated the project will provide huge improvements for pedestrians and bikes. Ms. Olson thanked the Commission for their invitation; members thanked Ms. Olson for the updates. 3. Approval of Minutes a. April 23, 2014 It was moved by Commission member Worthington to approve the minutes as presented. The motion passed 7 – 0. 4. Old Business a. Minnehaha Creek Clean-Up Review Mr. Worthington inquired how the flood impacted the boardwalk. Ms. Walsh advised it delayed construction of the trail. Mr. Worthington feels the time of year the clean-up is held is great as was the weather. There was a good turnout and the Lacrosse team worked hard. He recommended the clean-up be held the same weekend next year and in the same location. Ms. Walsh will provide the suggestions onto Rick Beane and Jim Vaughan. Mr. Worthington suggested having life jackets for the volunteers that are in the water. Westwood Hills Nature Center may have jackets that can be used. Mr. Hagemann inquired if there is a phone app to tag locations of garbage pick-up to which members responded they were unsure. Mr. Foulkes appreciated staff and families for attending the event – they were very helpful. b. Community Center Schematic Design Update Ms. Walsh advised staff has reported to Council and Council authorized moving forward and acquiring a schematic design. Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. is the firm hired to prepare the main design, RJM was hired to provide a cost estimate, Sunde Landscape will do the survey work, and American Engineering Testing will test the soils. Staff is aware the soils are poor – contaminated and contain peat. Part of doing the design is to give definition to the location and location size. Council is supportive of moving forward and ensuring to set a nice tone and look, Ms. Walsh indicated. They want a nicer design feature. Although parking ramps are not aesthetically pleasing, there will need to be a ramp due to limited space. The hope is to include public art to assist the look. Elements of design have been cut back as there is a limited amount of space. The schematic design is set to be complete in October. Ms. Walsh anticipates showing members design options in the fall. The main concern of the potential project is funding, Ms. Walsh indicated. Not sure where the city will delegate funding considering other projects in process within the city. Council appears very interested though and has tough decisions ahead. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 4 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of July 30, 2014 Mr. Beneke heard the Jewish Community Center (“JCC”) may be making changes. Ms. Walsh advised there are current partnerships between the JCC and YMCA. Not sure if they would be interested in partnering with the city also. The city has talked with them and no decisions were made. c. Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Feasibility Study Report Ms, Walsh advised the St. Louis Park Hockey Association has been an outstanding partner. The President, Steve Rosen, is great to work with. The Hockey Association approached the city with money they had available and inquired on another sheet of ice. There is not a need for a third sheet of ice year-round so they suggested an outdoor refrigerated ice rink to be utilized November through February. This would provide Hockey Association teams more ice. In 2016, the Rec Center will be changing the current refrigeration system over to a new system. At that time, staff feels it would be ideal to run refrigeration pipes to the outdoor ice. The proposed site of the outdoor ice rink is where the skateboard park is currently located. Mr. Rosen, President of St. Louis Park Hockey Association, advised the association has charitable gambling revenue. Because of the revenue generated from the charitable gambling, they have not had to raise their registration fees for five year. They can keep their fees low and also provide financial assistance. The Hockey Association gives money to the city for improvements to The Rec Center. Ms. Foulkes inquired on the average amount of donations they provide. Mr. Rosen indicated it is generally between $500 and $2,000 annually to other groups in need plus $20,000 in scholarships. St. Louis Park Hockey has the lowest registration fees in the state Mr. Rosen indicated. They are always diversifying. Ms. Walsh indicated that some traditional sports have very little diversity. Mr. Rosen indicated one of the main themes that came from meetings was how to get the word out and obtain more diversity. The Council is very interested in what can be done to make the community better and they want to work with the Association. The city would also benefit from a full-size hockey facility that would be multiple use and could be used year-round. Mr. West showed the Commission pictures of the proposed location and plans created by RSP. Members discussed the two levels to the proposed facility which includes team rooms, bleachers, parking, a canopy over the structure, and a plaza outside of the programming office doors. The facility would seat 300 – 320 with a concrete slab that has coils to heat floor. It would be a multi-use facility for soccer, farmers market, dog shows, car shows, etc. Mr. Hagemann inquired on the turnaround time for a turf field. Mr. West and Ms. Walsh explained staff is researching. The facility could be used for younger soccer players, baseball practice, group fitness, a farmers market, boot camp, etc. There are various options for the area plus would be visually appealing on West 36th Street. The members expressed it is a fantastic project. They asked to be advised if there is anything they can do to assist moving the project forward. Ms. Walsh will advise if/when the project will go to Council. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 5 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of July 30, 2014 Mr. Rosen indicated a goal of getting all associations together to get a governing board that would oversee all associations. This goal has been unsuccessful but will continue to pursue. Mr. Hagemann indicated the outdoor rink may be a project that would create discussions on usage and could also discuss one governing board. The cities of Cottage Grove and Bloomington have a governing association. Appreciation was traded between the Commission and Mr. Rosen. 5. New Business a. Bike Ride with City Council – Saturday, Sept. 20, 1 – 3 p.m. 9 – 11 a.m. Ms. Walsh advised the date of the bike ride with Council has been set for Saturday, September 20 from 1 to 3 p.m. (changed to 9 – 11 a.m.). The route is on the Regional Trail is fairly flat and will equal approximately 9.7 miles. Spouses are also invited on the ride; members were advised to wear helmets. 6. Staff Communication Ms. Walsh indicated business at the Aquatic Park was slightly lower with the cooler and rainy summer this year. Mr. West advised of the menu change in concessions. Concessions is getting a new touch-screen oven, similar to what Subway restaurants have, which will replace the conveyor belt-style. The concession stand will also carry higher quality food items. Mr. West reminded members the Hockey Association runs concessions in the winter. Mr. West advised the Penny Carnival was very successful this year and had a great turnout. The playground program was also successful and extremely affordable for participants. The program is a great way to get Junior Leaders started in a leadership role. Members were updated on four more gardens that were installed in parks that held the playground program. Kids are really interested in the products they grow. Mr. Beneke inquired on community gardens. Ms. Walsh advised the Environmental Coordinator, Jim Vaughan, will be invited to a future meeting to discuss. Mr. Beneke inquired on the potential dog park location on France Avenue. Ms. Walsh advised there has bene no contact from Minneapolis as it belongs to the City of Minneapolis. 7. Member Communication Mr. Worthington mentioned Methodist Hospital is proposing a permanent wall by Minnehaha Creek due to the recent flooding. Meadowbrook Golf Course is also closed for the season due to flooding and is in bad shape. Ms. Walsh advised Hiawatha Golf Course was also flooded and Mr. Foulkes saw Golden Valley Golf Course was pumping water out. Flooding of the Creek touched many areas. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 6 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of July 30, 2014 Mr. Edward was welcome to the Commission. He will be a sophomore at St. Louis Park High School, plays football and baseball and likes the outdoors. He lives by city hall, down the street from the big tree house. Ms. Griffin inquired on the date of the appreciation luncheon, which is Thursday, September 18 from 11:30 a.m. – 1 p.m. Members discussed and will discuss specifics at the September 17th meeting. Mr. Hagemann commented that an oxygen mask that fits on pets had been donated to the St. Paul Fire Department by Invisible Fence Basic Animal Rescue Training. He spoke with Fire Chief Koering and found the St. Louis Park fire department has had a pet mask since 2008. Chief Koering indicated that when they need replacements, he will contact Mr. Hagemann for ideas. Members commented this is another thing that the city does that affects the quality of life in St. Louis Park. 8. Other / Future Agenda Items None. 9. Adjournment It was moved by Commission member Worthington to adjourn at 8:08 p.m. The motion passed 7 – 0. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Voelker Stacy Voelker Administrative Secretary Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4e OFFICIAL MINUTES Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission September 17, 2014, 6 p.m. Meeting Westwood Hills Nature Center 1. Call to Order Commission Member Hageman, called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Commission members present: Jim Beneke (6:10 p.m.), George Foulkes, Sarah Foulkes, George Hagemann and Kirk Hawkinson. Commission members absent: Elizabeth Griffin, Tom Worthington and Edward Halvorson Staff present: Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator, Jason West, Recreation Superintendent, Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation, and Carrie Mandler, Recording Secretary. Guests present: None. 2. Presentations a. Tour of Westwood Hills Nature Center Deck (Jason West & Carrie Mandler) Mr. West and Ms. Mandler led the Commission on a tour of the Nature Center water garden area and new waterfall observation deck. Mr. West distributed information about the area to the commission members. Mr. Foulkes mentioned he knows of someone who would potentially be willing to donate benches and tables to the waterfall observation deck area if we are interested in having them available. 3. Approval of Minutes a. July 30, 2014 It was moved by Commission member G. Foulkes, seconded by Commission member S. Foulkes to approve the minutes as presented. The motion passed 5 – 0. 4. Old Business a. Appreciation Luncheon Assignments Lunch assignments were confirmed and details discussed for the Parks and Recreation staff appreciation lunch hosted by the Commission on September 18. Mr. Hawkinson expressed regrets he cannot attend. Last year 35 attended the event. Mr. Hageman will arrive at 11 a.m. to start grill. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4e) Page 2 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of September 17, 2014 b. Bike Ride with City Council – Saturday, Sept. 20, 9 a.m. – Noon Mr. Hageman suggested the Commission members arrive at the Rec Center at 8:45 a.m. on Saturday for the Bike Ride with City Council. Mr. West offered to ride in the back and Ms. Walsh will ride in the middle. Commission members gave phone numbers to Ms. Walsh so she can contact them if there is rain and the event needs to be cancelled. c. 40th and France Site Update (Cindy Walsh) Ms. Walsh informed the Commission that City Council is discussing the purchase of a portion of land owned by the City of Minneapolis on 44th and France. The City would like to acquire the small portion which is currently a part of Minikahda Vista Park. The sale price is high. Approximately one third of the land is in St. Louis Park and two thirds in Edina. Ms. Walsh stated the land is zoned R1 and will likely be sold to a developer for homes. If the land is not purchased by the City of St. Louis Park, there is a possibility it can be acquired by the park dedication policy. d. Community Center Schematic Design Update (Jason West) Mr. West advised there is a community center plan design going to City Council on October 27. In response to a question from Mr. Hawkinson, Mr. West advised the community center addition would be connected to The Rec Center. The City plans, with Council approval, to move forward with public process and bring in specialists as needed. In response to a question from Mr. Hawkinson, it was clarified multi-purpose spaces will be included in the facility. Ms. Walsh advised results from the soil analysis will come back soon. e. Friends of the Arts Update (George Hagemann) Mr. Hagemann advised there is a change in leadership at the Friends of the Arts organization. In response, board members are taking charge of different parts of the programs. Mr. Hagemann advised the “Art in Nature” sketching workshops were extremely well received. Participants will display their work at the juried show on October 10. The “100 Hands Community Mosaic” workshops created over 100 mosaics that will be grouted into a display at the West End Showplace Icon Theater by the first week of October. The exhibit is contracted to stay at least six months. FOTA will be having an Art Exhibit at the West End in October. It includes a juried show on October 10 at 6:30 p.m. with light refreshments beginning at 6 p.m. The public event is October 11 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. There will be many prizes and awards including best in show and best St. Louis Park artist. The Shops at West End will provide music and food. Deadline for event submissions is September 21. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4e) Page 3 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of September 17, 2014 5. New Business a. Future Community Gardens (Jim Vaughan) Jim Vaughan reviewed the current six community gardens in St. Louis Park: Creekside neighborhood Carol Hurd Park, Texa-Tonka, Bronx Park, Webster Park (with parking and water limitations) and Birchwood Neighborhood where the land use is given by Church of the Reformation. Community garden space within the City is limited. Currently there are 18 residents and five non-residents on the waiting list. The list, however, moves quickly. The fee is $30 per plot. It is recommended participants donate extra harvest to STEP. The City is always open to new suggestions. b. Minnehaha Creek Update The construction of the Minnehaha Creek Trail and restoration was delayed due to extensive rainfall last spring and early summer. Mr. Vaughan advised the Watershed District is now ready to proceed. The restoration will include new vegetation. The Boardwalk is impressive. 6. Staff Communication Mr. Vaughan advised over 300 weed notices were given this year. Once the notice is given, homeowners are allowed seven days to take care of it or the City will have it mowed and assess the bill to the homeowners’ property taxes. Ms. Walsh advised the Commission an Emerald ash borer management program will be in place soon! In response to a question from a commission member, Mr. Vaughan stated there are no known infected trees in St. Louis Park at this time; however, the ash borers are in other nearby communities. Mr. West stated the Operations and Recreation Department is transferring to a new software system called RecTrac. The Class system currently in place will no longer be developed and future support will be phased out as a result. Therefore, St. Louis Park will not renew Class in 2015 but instead transfer to RecTrac. There was a short discussion on a new smartphone application called MySt LouisPark. Residents can use the application to submit, track and view service requests online. They can also receive important information from the City. The MyStLouisPark application was launched on September 7, 2014. In response to a question from Ms. Foulkes, Mr. Vaughan advised residents need to acquire a permit in order to grow lawn prairies. Mark Oestreich, Manager/Naturalist, Westwood Hills Nature Center, will be the staff representative at the October meeting. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4e) Page 4 Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of September 17, 2014 7. Member Communication In response to a question from Mr. Hawkinson on the McGarvy site, staff indicated there would be no odor from fuel. Mr. Hawkinson mentioned an article he had recently read and offered congratulations to St. Louis Park for its ranking on the list of top 100 most livable communities. In response to some questions from Mr. Beneke there was a short discussion on the apartments that will be built on the former Eliot School site. 8. Other / Future Agenda Items None. 9. Adjournment It was moved by Commission member Hageman and seconded by Mr. Beneke to adjourn at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed 5 – 0. Respectfully submitted, Carrie Mandler Carrie Mandler Recording Secretary Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4f OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 19, 2014 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Carl Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Tatalovich STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Ryan Kelley, Nancy Sells 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of October 15, 2014 Commissioner Robertson made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0-1 (Kramer abstained). 3. Public Hearings A. Preliminary Plat with variances and Preliminary Planned Unit Development Location: West End – 1511 Utica Ave. S. Applicant: DLC Residential Case No.: 14-23-S and 14-24-PUD The West End AUAR Analysis Update memorandum prepared by Kimley Horn was distributed. Also distributed was amended language for items No. 3 and 4 of the staff recommended conditions relating to the Preliminary Plat with variances. Sean Walther, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He provided background on the larger West End Redevelopment area which was undertaken by Duke Realty. Mr. Walther stated that Kimley-Horn was hired to review the West End Alternative Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) and compare the impacts of the proposed land use changes to the scenario(s) previously studied. Jessica Laabs, Kimley-Horn, discussed how the analyses of sanitary sewer, water use and traffic were conducted. Kimley-Horn found that sanitary sewer usage generated by the revised scenario can be accommodated within the limits established in the original AUAR and no additional mitigation is needed. The City’s preferred 90% total system use would be exceeded and additional mitigation measures or adjustments may be required. Traffic generated by the revised scenario is beneath the limits established in the original AUAR with the exception of AM peak (outbound) volumes. No additional mitigation measures or adjustments are anticipated at this time because the AM peak is accommodated in the capacity of the transportation system, which was designed to accommodate the higher PM peak volumes. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 2 Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 19, 2014 Mr. Walther presented the preliminary plat analysis. He explained that the eastern 6 acres of the site are within the City of Golden Valley. The applicant will be going to both the cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley for approvals of Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD. Mr. Walther discussed the request for subdivision variances for Lots 1, 2 and 3 to provide no interior lot line perimeter easements. Mr. Walther presented the preliminary PUD analysis. He noted that the 5 buildings are organized around a central park area, a privately owned and maintained open space at the terminus of 16th Street and Utica. He discussed access points, landscaping, parking, stormwater, DORA, and proposed PUD modifications for the site. Parking issues need to be resolved for the multiple-family dwelling on Lot 1 and the hotel on Lot 3 as a condition of approval. David Graham, architect, Elness Swenson Graham, described the proposed development and presented images of the project. Mr. Walther spoke about Utica Ave. reconstruction as part of the overall West End development. Commissioner Peilen asked about the transfer of land from Duke Realty to DLC Residential. Mr. Walther responded that Duke Realty is marketing the site and DLC Residential has a purchase agreement for the property. They anticipate closing before the end of the year. Commissioner Peilen asked if all market rate residential would have access to underground parking. She asked about number of bedrooms and amenities. Mr. Graham said there are about 40% 2-bedrooms and 3-bedrooms. He said every unit has one underground parking stall per bedroom to meet code. He went on to say that each unit will have top notch granite tops, cabinetry, and floors, and in-unit washers and dryers, similar to the amenities at Millennium and other DLC multi-family housing. Commissioner Person asked about phasing. Mr. Walther responded that the parking structure would be built with the office towers. There might be an interim surface lot until the construction moved forward. Commissioner Person asked about the construction period for the entire project. Rich Kauffmann, DLC Residential, said Phase I could start in early 2015. Phase II would start in 2016. Office building construction would probably begin in 2016. Commissioner Person asked if the developer would pay for capacity improvements if it was determined by the City that additional capacity in the water system was needed. Mr. Walther responded that the City had identified this issue several years ago and began collecting a water access fee last January for any new development. The City has already planned, over a 10 year period, to collect the dollars needed, without borrowing, to add capacity to the system. Commissioner Peilen asked if bedroom size would be small. She also asked about rents. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 3 Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 19, 2014 Mr. Graham replied bedrooms would be good sized. He said rents would probably be similar to West End Flats units which are approximately $950 - $2500. Chair Carper said it appears there will be no street parking on Utica or any of the bordering areas. Mr. Walther said that was correct. He added that there may be a couple of pull-out locations for temporary loading or drop-off. Chair Carper asked if any changes will be made to Wayzata Blvd. Mr. Walther responded there are no planned changes to Wayzata Blvd. He said Golden Valley may work with the developer to change the driveway entrance locations onto Wayzata Blvd. Chair Carper asked about shadow studies for the project. Mr. Walther said the applicant has been able to illustrate shadowing through 3D modeling. He added that the zoning ordinance regarding shadowing only applies to property outside of the PUD. He said none of the buildings off-site are impacted buildings. Commissioner Kramer asked if there would be unified Golden Valley/St. Louis Park police staff for the development. Mr. Walther stated that those details have not yet been worked out. He said St. Louis Park does have a community oriented policing substation located in the Shops at West End. Policing may be addressed as part of the Joint Powers Agreement with Golden Valley. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if water and sewer will be addressed through the Joint Powers Agreement. Mr. Walther answered that there are a number of solutions. He said Golden Valley has a watermain in Wayzata Blvd. St. Louis Park does believe it can provide the capacity needed as each phase is developed. He added that the 10% buffer in the city’s capacity is designed for emergency. He said agreements are already in place with Edina, Mpls., Minnetonka, and Golden Valley for emergency water supply. Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated that at one time the Blackstone neighborhood was concerned about water capacity. She asked if that issue has been resolved. Mr. Walther stated that improvements were made to the watermains when Park Place Blvd. was reconstructed. The capacity of those actual lines was improved. He said he was not certain if that work improved service to the Blackstone neighborhood. He added that the capacity issues being discussed are much more broad and city-wide. Commissioner Person remarked that there is a lot of roof space on West End and on the proposed project with good south orientation. He asked if there has been any consideration of solar installation on the buildings. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 4 Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 19, 2014 Mr. Graham said active solar hasn’t been considered at this point, although it could be looked at. He said similar to the Millennium project, access is provided to the rooftops. Green roof pavers are incorporated on top of the terrace areas. Chair Carper asked about the approval process. Mr. Walther said following St. Louis Park and Golden Valley City Council approval of preliminary PUD and plat, requests will be made to both cities for final PUD and plat approval. The Chair opened the public hearing. The Chair closed the public hearing as no one was present wishing to speak. Commissioner Kramer noted that the Planning Commission did have an opportunity to discuss the proposal at a recent study session. Commissioner Kramer made a motion to recommend approval of the amended Preliminary Plat with Subdivision Variances subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Commissioner Person made a motion to recommend approval of the Central Park West preliminary planned unit development and requested modifications subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Peilen seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0. 4. Other Business Commissioner Johnston-Madison spoke about the recent joint study session held with the City Council regarding the South Excelsior Blvd. design guidelines. She remarked that the draft guidelines included possible zoning changes. She said that the Planning Commission needs to look at those and make recommendations. Mr. Walther said zoning items referred to for further study in the draft document would require zoning amendments. Mr. Walther spoke about next steps, beginning by going back to the task force for one final meeting to complete the study. That final draft will come to the Planning Commission either in a study session or a regular meeting. Commissioners Peilen and Johnston-Madison stated that councilmembers encouraged the Planning Commission to be proactive in bringing city-wide items to the Council’s attention. 5. Communications 6. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Submitted by, Nancy Sells Administrative Secretary Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Consent Agenda Item: 4g MINUTES ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION: SUSTAINABLE SLP ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA December 3, 2014 Community Room, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Eilers, Terry Gips, Rachel Harris, Tom Hillstrom, Cindy Larson O’Neil, Alex Sundvall, Judy Voigt, Chris Anderson, Nancy Rose and Rene McGarvey EXCUSED ABSENCE: Karen Kaphingst and Ryan Griffin STAFF PRESENT: Phillip Elkin 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. 2. The minutes of the November 5, 2014 meeting were unanimously approved. 3. Guest Presenter -Xcel Energy Partners in Energy Program The Energy Work Group met with representatives from Xcel energy and asked them to present information about their Partners in Energy (PIE) program. This is a cooperative program that Xcel has designed to assist the City in developing an energy plan which includes strategies to understand energy use, conservation, renewables and environmental issues. To participate, the City would need to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), provide GIS information on the City’s boundaries, and identify participants to develop an energy action plan. The Energy Work Group supports pursuing participation in this plan and moving the MOU forward. After hearing the presentation, Commissioner Eilers made a motion to join the PIE program. Commissioner Voigt seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously by the commission members in attendance. 4. 2015 Goals and Commission Vision Statement Commissioner Harris introduced the topic by asking the group “Where do we focus our efforts in 2015?” She also added that from her communication with the City Manager, it was clear that the City Council wants ESC to bring Vision Conversation to the City soon. A discussion on how to move forward with visioning conversation followed, with Phil Elkin reviewing the results of the visioning survey sent to the group a week before the meeting. The consensus of the discussion was to have Phil re-send the survey to the work groups and for members to return the survey by December 10. Phil would then consolidate the results and send it out to the Communications Work Group for them to develop a draft vision statement. Once completed, this draft would be sent out to the commission members for discussion and to vote on at the January meeting. Additionally, City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 2 Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of December 3, 2014 work groups were asked to meet in the upcoming month and develop draft goals and strategies for 2015 to be shared at the January meeting. 2015 Work Groups are GreenStep Cities, Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy, Communications, Water, Land and Wildlife, and Education and Action. 5. It was announced that Commissioner Hillstrom’s term on the commission was expiring at the end of the year, and that he would not be seeking re-appointment. Commissioner Harris expressed her gratitude for his two-year contribution on behalf of the full commission. 6. The meeting adjourned at 8:18 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Boards and Commissions: 5a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Appointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to appoint the Citizen Representatives to the commissions and terms listed below: Name Commission Term Expiration Stuart Williams Fire Civil Service Commission 12/31/2015 Jay Arneson Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2017 Tiffany Hoffmann Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2015 Maren Anderson Telecommunications Advisory Commission 12/31/2017 POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to appoint the Citizen Representatives listed above to serve on the commissions listed for the respective terms? SUMMARY: The City Clerk’s Office has been accepting applications for Boards and Commissions since October, 2014. With the deadline for application being January 7, 2015, a total of 12 applications were received, and 7 applicants were interviewed for positions on Boards and Commissions. An additional 4 interviews will be scheduled in the next 2 weeks to fill the remaining vacancies – one on the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission and one on the Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP. There are more applicants than positions available, so not all candidates will be able to be appointed to a Board or Commission at this time. There are current vacancies for Youth Commissioners on the Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP; the Planning Commission; the Police Advisory Commission; and the Telecommunications Advisory Commission. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Kay Midura, Office Assistant – City Clerk’s Office Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Boards and Commissions: 5b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Appointment of Citizen Representatives to the Southwest LRT Community Advisory Committee RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to appoint Bill James, Sara Maaske and Janet Weivoda as Citizen Representatives to the Southwest LRT Community Advisory Committee for 2 year terms. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to appoint Bill James, Sara Maaske and Janet Weivoda as Citizen Representatives to the Southwest LRT Community Advisory Committee for 2 year terms? SUMMARY: The Southwest LRT Project Office has requested the City of St. Louis Park’s participation in Advisory Committees to provide guidance on a range of community issues during the engineering and environmental phases of the Southwest LRT project development. The Council has been asked to appoint 3 members to the Community Advisory Committee. Staff advertised the opportunity on the City website and on social media. With the deadline for application being December 19, the City Clerk’s Office received 19 applications for the Community Advisory Committee. On January 6, Council received copies of these applications for review and consideration and further discussed the appointments at its January 12 study session. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Kay Midura, Office Assistant – City Clerk’s Office Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Meg McMonigal, Planning/Zoning Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Public Hearing - MGM liquor License (New Owner) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for IAW Management, LLC, dba MGM Wine and Spirits, located at 8100 Highway 7, for the license term through March 1, 2015. POLICY CONSIDERATION: No issues were discovered during the course of the background investigation that would warrant denial of the license. SUMMARY: The City received an application from IAW Management, LLC, dba MGM Wine and Spirits, for an off-sale intoxicating liquor license located at 8100 Highway 7 within the Knollwood Mall property. This existing liquor establishment location is currently owned by MGM St. Louis Park, LLC who began operation on November 14, 2014, and are in the process of selling the business and subleasing the property to IAW Management, LLC. The premise consists of approx. 8,891 sq. ft. David Weisman, CEO, and Dana Weisman, President each hold a 50% interest in the company. Hours of operation will be Monday – Saturday, 8:00 am to 10:00 pm, which is the full range of hours allowed by Minnesota State Statute. Should Council approve the liquor license, no actual license is issued until all final State/City compliance is met; and consideration for the next license term would occur along with all other liquor license renewals on February 2, 2015. The Police Department has run a full background investigation, and nothing was discovered during the course of this investigation that would warrant denial of the license. The application and Police report are on file in the Office of the City Clerk should Council members wish to review the information prior to the public hearing. The required notice of the public hearing was published January 8, 2015. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Fees for this applicant include $500 for the police background investigation and $380 for the annual license fee. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Action Agenda Item: 8a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue Redevelopment RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from COM – Commercial and RM - Medium Density Residential to MX – Mixed Use for properties: 3907, 3915 Hwy 7; 3031 Glenhurst Ave; and 3914, 3918 31st St W. and authorize summary publication. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council support the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to facilitate platting and a planned unit development (PUD) for the redevelopment of the above properties to a multi-family residential and office building? SUMMARY: A request to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map has been submitted for 3907, 3915 Hwy 7; 3031 Glenhurst Ave; and 3914, 3918 31st St W; namely the ASAP Building and Battlefield Books block. The request is to change the land use designation from COM – Commercial and RM – Medium Density Residential to MX – Mixed Use, which allows a density up to 50 units per acre, or higher with a PUD. The amendment request is driven by a specific development project of 150 units and 10,000 square feet of office, at a density of 69 units per acre. The developer is considering affordable units as well. The amendment would allow development that meets several of the land use and housing goals in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, including: - Promote human scale development; - Promote medium and high density residential development near commercial centers; - Ensure that new medium and high density residential development is near transit service; - Promote a mix of housing types that maintains a balance of affordable housing for low and moderate income households; - Use infill and redevelopment opportunities to help meet housing goals and promote higher density housing near transit corridors and employment centers. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 7, 2015 and recommended approval of the amendment request as it meets several goals of the Comprehensive Plan. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The developer will likely request TIF. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Draft Resolution Aerial and Land Use Maps Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes Proposed Development Site Plan and Related Documents Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 2 Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue Redevelopment DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Bader Development has purchase agreements for the subject properties to assemble a site that would accommodate their development concept. The properties include two single-family houses, a three-unit townhouse and commercial buildings, including the Battlefield Store and the ASAP Printing building. As has been discussed at previous study sessions, the ASAP building has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The current property owner has chosen not to pursue listing the property, and Bader Development has indicated they are not interested in pursuing listing the property. Such a decision lies with the property owner. Staff and the developer have had discussions about allowing various historic entities to document the building for historic posterity if the proposed development were to proceed. Site Conditions: The combined parcels are 2.23 acres in size and feature two single family homes, a multi-family building, the Battlefield Store and the ASAP Printing building . The single-family homes are one story and the multi-family building is two stories at W 31st St. The commercial buildings are both two story buildings. The proposed development is in the Triangle Neighborhood and is within one-half mile of the proposed West Lake Southwest LRT station, and just over one-half mile from the Beltline Southwest LRT station. The site is also served by the numbers 17 and 25 bus routes. The site lies between France Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue just south of the Highway 25 (CSAH 25) frontage road. As a note: Highway 7 was the previous designation of this road, but it was turned over to Hennepin County and the current road designation is County Road 25. The Minneapolis City Boundary is on the east side of the site, running down France Avenue. There are single- story houses and a three-story apartment building across 31st Street to the south of the redevelopment site, single-story houses and Vescio’s restaurant to the west of the site, and a four-story apartment building across France Avenue to the east. An alley divides the redevelopment site connecting France Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue. The property north of the alley is zoned C-2 Commercial, and the properties south of the alley are zoned R-4 Multiple Family Residence. The site is generally flat except for the southernmost portion between W 31st St and the existing alley. This area slopes from W 31st Street down toward the Highway 25 frontage road. The site lies within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Development Proposal: The developer proposes to remove all of the existing buildings and residences and replace them with a residential development that includes some commercial space. The development concept consists of approximately 150 apartment units, including some affordable units, and 10,000 square feet of ground-floor office space along with underground and surface parking. The exact number of affordable units and affordability level will be determined if the project moves forward. The proposed building would front on CSAH 25 and be five stories tall, with the fifth story stepped back from the street. The building would be three stories tall facing W 31st Street, with the building being built into this hillside. Graphics and plans depicting the proposed buildings are included as attachments. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 3 Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue Redevelopment The current site plan indicates the arrangement and footprint of the buildings as well as parking areas. The developer is working with an engineer to evaluate stormwater management on site and is communicating with the City’s Water Resources Manager. Parking for residents would be provided in a structured ramp that would be primarily underground. The proposal also includes on-site surface parking for the office space and guest parking. As proposed, the development exceeds the parking requirements found in the Zoning Ordinance, with a total of 285 spaces while 265 are required. The development is eligible for a transit reduction to the parking requirements for the office use. The reduction is 10%, which would decrease the total required parking spaces to 261. Parking access is proposed from France Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue with a driveway connecting between the two streets. The developer would request the City to vacate the existing alley in this location. Staff is also discussing the possibility of connecting France Avenue to 31st Street. This connection is being considered as a way to provide better circulation through this area for vehicular traffic as well as provide smaller block sizes for pedestrian and bike circulation. Further discussion of this connection will take place, and details worked out, if the project moves forward. The concept site plan was designed to improve the appearance along the CSAH 25 Frontage Road by bringing the buildings closer to the street and placing parking areas toward the rear of the site. The building is also designed to be sensitive to the nature of the adjacent uses by placing the taller portions of the building at CSAH 25 and the shorter portions of the building across from the existing single-family structures. PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: A request for amending the City’s land use plan and zoning map should be evaluated from the perspective of land use planning principles and community goals. These reflect the community’s long range vision and broad goals about what kind of community it wants to be and what makes strong neighborhoods. This amendment request is driven by a specific proposal for development. The request is for residential development at a density of 69 units per acre, which is considered High Density (RH) in the Comprehensive Plan. Due to the proposed inclusion of an office use in the project, a change to MX – Mixed Use would be most appropriate. General Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The City’s land use plan should reflect the broad goals, policies and implementation strategies incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. These elements are the basis for evaluating the requested change. The proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan map meets many of the Land Use and Housing Goals, including: - Promote human scale development; - promote medium and high density residential development near commercial centers; - ensure that new medium and high density residential development is near transit service; - promote a mix of housing types that maintains a balance of affordable housing for low and moderate income households; - use infill and redevelopment opportunities to help meet housing goals and promote higher density housing near transit corridors and employment centers. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 4 Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue Redevelopment Changing the Comprehensive Plan map will allow for additional housing units, including affordable units, in an area that is well served by transit, and along a vibrant commercial corridor. The general area of the development proposal consists of a mix of single-family houses, smaller multi-family houses, such as duplexes, three to four story apartment complexes and commercial buildings. The Comprehensive Plan calls for an increase in the availability of neighborhood housing choices and a broader range of housing types. The proposed development would provide higher density apartment housing, including affordable units, in a building that is respectful of the scale of the surrounding structures. Availability of Infrastructure: The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed development and found the public water and sanitary sewer infrastructure in the area to be adequate to serve the proposed development. Traffic A traffic study was conducted to review the projected potential impacts of the development on the capacity and function of adjacent roadways and intersections. The traffic study includes an analysis of how the proposed development may impact the overall number of vehicle trips in the area and turning movements and the level of service of the following intersections: Glenhurst Ave/CSAH 25 Frontage Rd; France Ave/CSAH 25 Frontage Rd; France Ave/CSAH 25. Results indicate that the proposed development will have a minimal impact on traffic compared to the existing uses. The level of service for each of the studied intersections is not projected to change and the number of average daily trips is projected to increase as follows: 73 a.m. peak period, 79 p.m. peak period and 851 daily. Staff is analyzing the function of France Ave related to the proposed development and potential options for safe and efficient circulation for motorists and pedestrians and bicyclists. France Ave currently is essentially a narrow driveway south of the CSAH 25 frontage road that allows two- way traffic and parking on both sides. If the proposed development were to move forward, this section of street would not be adequate. Several options for addressing traffic circulation and pedestrian/bicycle connections in the neighborhood and for the development are being considered. Further evaluation will occur if the project moves forward. Storm Water City engineering staff foresees no significant issues with the developer complying with City storm water requirements. The application will be required to meet both City and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements. Further detail will be provided if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved and the project moves forward. Impacts to Surrounding Properties and the Physical Character of the Neighborhood Removal of the existing buildings will change the character of the site. The proposed development generally follows the height, density and ground floor area ratio of the RC Zoning District, which has similar dimensional standards as the C2 District, of which a portion of the site is currently zoned. The current development concept includes stepping back the upper floors of the building as well as building walk-up units along France Avenue and West 31st Street in order to create a more pedestrian friendly environment and to provide a more interesting building façade. It is anticipated that the property would be rezoned as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 5 Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue Redevelopment The most noticeable impact to the area would be the addition of a greater number of residents. Having more residents in the neighborhood will provide more activity than strictly retail and low-density residential housing. The proposed development concept minimizes the impacts of the building on the neighborhood with various architectural solutions, such as the inclusion of walk-up units, and stepping back upper stories of the building, and the site design provides more parking than the City requires. Public Process: The developer held a neighborhood meeting January 6, 2015. Generally, those attending were supportive of the project. Residents appreciated the attention given to the scale of the building, particularly along W 31st St. Residents expressed concerns regarding on-street parking and the potential of connecting France Avenue between the CSAH 25 frontage road and W 31st St. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment was unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission on January 7, 2015. To date, the following meetings and communications have occurred: • October 13, 2014: Council Study Session report • November 10, 2014: Council Study Session discussion • November 24, 2014: Council Study Session report • December 17, 2014: Planning Commission Study Session discussion • January 6, 2015: Neighborhood Meeting, City Hall Community Room • January 7, 2015: Planning Commission Public Hearing • January 20, 2015: Council action on Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Request Summary: Requested is a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment to change the property at 3907 & 3915 Highway 7, 3031 Glenhurst Avenue, and 3914 & 3918 West 31st Street from COM – Commercial and RM – Medium Density Residential to MX – Mixed Use. The Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved prior to review of other applications that would allow the developer’s proposal to move forward. A supermajority (5 votes) is required to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment. The proposed development provides for additional housing in the project area and meets several of the Land Use and Housing goals of the Comprehensive Plan. NEXT STEPS: If the City Council approves the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request, staff will process the amendment through the Metropolitan Council. If the Metropolitan Council approves the request, the developer would then apply for: a preliminary and final plat and a preliminary and final PUD. The developer has also indicated they would likely request TIF assistance. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 6 Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue Redevelopment RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364 3907 State Highway 7 3915 State Highway 7 3031 Glenhurst Avenue 3914 31st Street West 3918 31st Street West WHEREAS, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on December 21, 2009 and provides the following: 1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and community facilities and service decisions affecting the City. 2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical, financial, and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and work and a setting conducive for new development. 3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful, interesting, and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large rather than the interests of individual or special groups within the community if their interests are at variance with the public interest. 4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the development and preservation of the community. 5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range considerations into determinations affecting short-range action, and WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change, thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of government, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, and City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 7 Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue Redevelopment WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park recommended adoption of an amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan on January 7, 2015, based on statutes, the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, extensive research and analyses involving the interests of citizens and public agencies; WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 14-28-CP); WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 14-28-CP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, is hereby amended as follows: Change the land use designation as shown on the attached map from COM-Commercial and RM – Medium Density Residential to MX – Mixed Use. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 20, 2015 (Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council) City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 8 Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue Redevelopment SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364 3907 State Highway 7 3915 State Highway 7 3031 Glenhurst Avenue 3914 31st Street West 3918 31st Street West This resolution states that land use designation will be changed from COM-Commercial and RM – Medium Density Residential to MX – Mixed Use. Adopted by the City Council January 20, 2015 Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: January 29, 2015 Aerial City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 9) Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue Redevelopment Page 9 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map - Existing City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 9) Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue Redevelopment Page 10 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map – Proposed City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 9) Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue Redevelopment Page 11 EXCERPTS - UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JANUARY 7, 2015 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3. Public Hearings A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Hwy. 7 & Glenhurst Location: 3907, 3915 Hwy. 7; 3031 Glenhurst Ave.; 3914, 3918 31st St. W. Applicant: Bader Development Case No.: 14-28-CP Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner, distributed a copy of SRF’s traffic study for the proposed development. He presented the staff report. He noted the request is to change the parcels from Commercial and Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use. He reviewed the development proposal which includes a mixed-use building consisting of 150 units and 10,000 sq. ft. of office space. Mr. Kelley reviewed the traffic study. He spoke about further study that needs to be done on France Ave. if the project moves forward Chair Carper asked why the ASAP building is eligible for historic listing. Mr. Kelley responded the eligibility is due to the architect being a protégé of Frank Lloyd Wright and the architecture is representative of that period and that specific style and era. Commissioner Peilen stated that she attended the neighborhood meeting and she will support the development. She said her one concern regards the unknown resolution of what will happen on the piece of France Ave. next to the proposed development. She noted that the residents were concerned about parking on adjacent streets and didn’t want France Ave. to connect to 31st, and the unknowns related to the St. Louis Park/Minneapolis boundary. Mr. Kelley spoke about discussions which have occurred regarding a redo of County Hwy. 25, between Belt Line Blvd. and France Ave., which is another factor which could affect the development. Commissioner Johnston-Madison noted there will be a lot of planning and public process for this area and for the development. She remarked to the developer, Robb Bader, that the neighborhood is one of St. Louis Park’s oldest neighborhoods. She said she would like the developer to consider showcasing some of the history and photographs of the area in the development in some way. Robb Bader, Bader Development, introduced himself and the development team. Chair Carper opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kramer made a motion to recommend approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 9) Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue Redevelopment Page 12 Saint Louis Park, Minnesota November 4, 2014 113-0098.0 BADER - HIGHWAY 7 & GLENHURST MIXED USE BUILDING CONCEPT City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue Redevelopment Page 13 Saint Louis Park, Minnesota December 1, 2014 13-098.00 HIGHWAY 7 & GLENHURST MIXED USE SITE PLAN - NOT TO SCALE NORTH BIKE STORAGE WALK-UP UNITS OFFICE AMENITY POOL OFFICE PARKING WALK-UP UNITS LOBBY RESIDENTIAL PARKING BELOW MN 7 SER VI C E R O A D GLENHURST AVE SFRANCE AVE SWEST 31ST STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON CITY PROPERTY City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue Redevelopment Page 14 Saint Louis Park, Minnesota November 4, 2014 113-0098.0 BADER - HIGHWAY 7 & GLENHURST MIXED USE SITE SECTIONS 64’32’32’36’ 64’49’32’ GLENHURST AVEFRANCE AVE 31ST ST HWY 7 City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue Redevelopment Page 15 Saint Louis Park, Minnesota December 1, 2014 13-098.00 HIGHWAY 7 & GLENHURST MIXED USE AERIAL VIEW City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue Redevelopment Page 16 Saint Louis Park, Minnesota December 1, 2014 13-098.00 HIGHWAY 7 & GLENHURST MIXED USE AERIAL VIEW City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Highway 7 & Glenhurst Avenue Redevelopment Page 17 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Action Agenda Item: 8b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Major Amendment to Homewood Suites Planned Unit Development (PUD) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Major Amendment to the Homewood Suites Final PUD to allow an 18 foot side setback for an existing trash room, subject to conditions. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None. SUMMARY: TPI Hospitality, the owners of Hilton Homewood Suites Hotel submitted an application for a major amendment to the Homewood Suites Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow a side setback of 18 feet for an existing trash room instead of the previously approved 25 feet. 5305/5353 Wayzata Boulevard is a 6.2 acre site located at the southeast corner of Park Place Boulevard and I-394. The Final PUD for the site was approved on August 20, 2007 and consists of the pre-existing Associated Bank building and the Hilton Homewood Suites Hotel. The hotel is six to seven stories, with a one story trash room located at the northeast corner of the building. The Final PUD was approved with a side setback of 25 feet on the east property line; however, the trash room was built larger than originally proposed and is 18 feet from the property line. The noncompliant setback was discovered when the property owner started a refinancing process and staff noticed the difference in the existing setback from the approved PUD. Amending the PUD to allow a side setback of 18 feet on the east side of the property for the trash room only would bring this property into compliance with the PUD. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 7, 2015, and recommended approval of the major amendment (6-0). FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolution Aerial Photo Building Elevations (original exhibit w/ staff notations) Site and Landscape Plan (proposed and existing) Prepared by: Nicole Mardell, Community Development Intern Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 2 Title: Major Amendment to Homewood Suites Planned Unit Development (PUD) DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: The proposed site is 6.2 acres and includes Hilton Homewood Suites Hotel and the Associated Bank building. The seven-story hotel includes a one story trash room to the northeast side of the site. The one story trash room has a side setback to the east of 18 feet rather than the approved 25 feet. This noncompliant setback was discovered by staff when completing a zoning compliance letter requested by the owner through a refinancing process. Staff investigated how and when the change to the plans was made. Staff found that the construction plans submitted with the building permit had discrepancies among the various pages, varying from 18 feet to 25 feet for the side setback to the east. The applicant is proposing a major amendment to the PUD to bring the 18 foot setback into compliance, no further construction is proposed. ZONING ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan: Office Zoning: Office (O) Homewood Suites PUD The Hilton Homewood Suites PUD was approved on August 20, 2007. The PUD ordinance allows certain zoning standards to be modified. Hilton Homewood Suites received approval for a reduced side yard setback for the six-story hotel building, based on the 2007 site plan. This request would allow the side yard setback to be reduced from the required 25 feet to the existing 18 feet to accommodate the existing trash enclosure located at the northeast corner of the building. This change will not negatively impact nearby properties, and the Planning Commission and staff support the request. Zoning Analysis The property owner is not proposing further work to be done to the property; only to amend the final PUD to allow for a setback of 18 feet instead of the previously approved 25 feet for the trash room. The existing building does not encroach into the existing easement on the east side of the property. This change will not impact the required parking, floor area ratio, height of the building, shadowing, noise, screening, or designated outdoor recreation area (DORA). The enclosed trash room portion of the building extends out from the principal structure. It is this portion of the building that encroaches 7 feet into the approved side yard. The dimensional standards for the Office district, under section 36-223(g)(7) of the zoning code, states “the minimum depth of the required side yard of buildings under 40 feet in height shall be 15 feet on one side and half the building height on the other.” Although most of the hotel building is seven stories tall, the height of the trash enclosure portion of the building is only 12 feet. At 12 feet tall, the Office district standards would only require, at most, a 15-foot side yard setback. Planning Commission and staff find that the proposed 18 foot setback is consistent with the intent of the Office district requirements and does not negatively impact the site, and recommend approval. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 3 Title: Major Amendment to Homewood Suites Planned Unit Development (PUD) RESOLUTION NO.15-____ Amends and Restates Resolution No. 07-088 A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. NO. 07-088 ADOPTED ON AUGUST 20, 2007 APPROVING A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW A SIDE SETBACK OF 18 FEET FOR AN EXISTING TRASH ROOM FOR PROPERTY ZONED O-OFFICE LOCATED AT 5305 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WHEREAS, TPI Hospitality has made application to the City Council for a major amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance code to allow a side setback of 18 feet for an existing trash room on the northeast side of the property instead of the previously approved 25 feet, at 5305 Wayzata Boulevard within the O-Office Zoning District having the following legal description: Lot 1, Block 1, HSSLP Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with appurtenant easement(s) for ingress, egress and parking purposes contained in Document No. 4533917. Being registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1228183. WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case No. 14-27-PUD and the effect of the setback on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a Preliminary and Final PUD was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 07-088 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated August 20, 2007 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now necessary, requiring the amendment of that Final PUD; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the permit granted by Resolution No. 07-088, to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 07-27-PUD and 14-27-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing and the record of decision for this case. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 4 Title: Major Amendment to Homewood Suites Planned Unit Development (PUD) CONCLUSION NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 07-088 (document not filed) is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a Final Planned Unit Development to the subject property for the purpose of permitting a side setback of 18 feet for an existing trash room on the northeast side of the property instead of the previously approved 25 feet within the O-Office Zoning District at the location described above based on the following conditions: 1. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met: a. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction and City representatives. b. Stormwater design details shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Director. c. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant and owner. d. All necessary permits must be obtained. e. Specifications for tree protection and erosion control fencing must be submitted and approved by the City Forester. Required tree protection and erosion control fencing must be installed prior to grading activities. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following conditions shall be met: a. To ensure construction of the landscaping, other required public improvements, and the installation of the sculptural element, an irrevocable financial guarantee shall be provided in the amount of 125% of the cost of the landscaping materials, public improvements and the sculptural element. b. The shared parking easement agreement as approved by the City Attorney and filed with the County. Verification shall be provided to the City that the document has been filed with the County. c. A Traffic Demand Management Fee of $0.10 per gross square foot of new construction, for a total of $10,472.80, shall be paid. d. A Park Dedication Fee of $333,610.00 shall be paid. e. Demonstrable progress shall be made toward the completion of a public easement for public access along the full length of the 25 foot wide north-south access drive connecting Wayzata Boulevard to the property south of 5353 Wayzata Boulevard. Said access drive is located approximately 40 feet west of the west entrance to the proposed hotel, as indicated on the official exhibits. f. The preliminary and final plat of Hilton Homewood Suites shall be signed by the City and released to the County for filing. 3. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times. c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. e. The City shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in a public street. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the determination by the City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 5 Title: Major Amendment to Homewood Suites Planned Unit Development (PUD) Director of Public Works that appropriate safety measures have been taken to ensure motorist and pedestrian safety. f. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. 4. Prior to the issuance of any temporary or permanent occupancy permit the following shall be completed: a. Fire lanes shall be signed and striped in accordance with the signed Official Exhibits. b. Landscaping and irrigation shall be in accordance with the signed Official Exhibits. c. Exterior building improvements shall be completed in accordance with the signed Official Exhibits and approved materials and colors. d. As-built drawings of any relocated or modified public utilities, streets or curbs shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department. e. A maintenance plan for the on-going maintenance of the stormwater system shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department. f. All roof top mechanical equipment shall be installed and it shall be demonstrated that all such equipment is fully screened from off-site views. g. A public easement for public access along the full length of the 25 foot wide north-south access drive connecting Wayzata Boulevard to the property south of 5353 Wayzata Boulevard as approved by the City Attorney and filed with the County. Said access drive is located approximately 40 feet west of the west entrance to the proposed hotel, as indicated on the official exhibits. 5. Landscaping alternatives approved include a 1,625 square foot green roof on a portion of the hotel development and a sculpture element on the hotel site. Both alternatives shall be indicated on the official site plans and must remain in good repair. 6. The installation of signage shall be in compliance with the Zoning Code. Signage shall require a separate Sign Permit. 7. No outside storage is permitted. Incidental outside storage shall be removed within 48 hours. 8. All utility lines must be placed underground. 9. Construction plans shall indicate the location of the concrete wash-out area, which shall not be located on any required landscaping areas. 10. No on-site snow storage shall be permitted. Snow shall be plowed and removed from the site any time a snowfall of 2” or greater occurs. 11. To ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety, the installation of any on-site traffic calming measures not indicated on the official exhibits, including speed bumps, shall require a major amendment to the Planned Unit Development. 12. For purposes of compliance with the PUD and Transit reductions to required off-street parking, at such a time as determined by the City, the property owner shall provide to the City at no cost an easement for the permanent construction of a transit shelter along City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 6 Title: Major Amendment to Homewood Suites Planned Unit Development (PUD) Wayzata Boulevard on the northwest side of the site. Said transit shelter easement shall be no greater than 25 feet in width along Wayzata Boulevard and shall not encroach upon the existing off-street parking lot. Said transit shelter easement and construction may result in the displacement of required landscaping materials or trees, but without penalty to the property owner. 13. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on January 20, 2015 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: a. The site shall be developed, used, and maintained in conformance with the Official Exhibits. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit. Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Adopted by the City Council January 20, 2015 ___________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Reviewed for Administration: _______________________________ City Manager City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 7 Title: Major Amendment to Homewood Suites Planned Unit Development (PUD) Aerial Photo 25.0 feet required by PUD 18.0 feet requested in amendment City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Title: Major Amendment to Homewood Suites Planned Unit Development (PUD) Page 8 City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Title: Major Amendment to Homewood Suites Planned Unit Development (PUD) Page 9 City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Title: Major Amendment to Homewood Suites Planned Unit Development (PUD) Page 10 City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Title: Major Amendment to Homewood Suites Planned Unit Development (PUD) Page 11 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Action Agenda Item: 8c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution limiting the number of Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses issued in St. Louis Park. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to limit off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses to the current number and locations while it studies the issue of permanent license limitations and other regulations? SUMMARY: Council has expressed concern over recent months about the number and locations of off-sale intoxicating liquor establishments within St. Louis Park. Discussion took place at the Study Session meeting of January 12, 2015 with consensus of the council to direct staff to prepare a proposed resolution to limit the number of off-sale liquor stores to the present number and location while the council further studies the issue. The laws for liquor licensing are regulated by State Statute and St. Louis Park City Code of Ordinances. Minn Statutes 340A.509 states a local authority may impose further restrictions and regulations. Additionally, Minn. Statutes 340A.413, Subd 5 (2), specifically states that the number of off-sale licenses shall be determined by the city council for each municipality. Currently, City Code does not contain specific provisions limiting the number of liquor establishments in St. Louis Park. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the city council may, by resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued within designated areas or zoning districts within the city. There are currently 16 off-sale intoxicating licenses. The resolution prepared by City Attorney is attached to this report. The proposed resolution sets the maximum number of off-sale intoxicating licenses at the current sixteen. The only new off- sale intoxicating liquor license that will be issued will be for the continued operation of a liquor store by a new owner at a currently licensed location utilizing the existing licensed premises. The resolution shall be effective upon its adoption and shall apply to all pending and future applications, and shall expire on December 31, 2015. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Fees for off sale intoxicating liquor licenses include $500 for the police background investigation and $380 for the license fee. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Proposed Resolution January 12 Study Session Council Report Survey Results Map of Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishments Map of All Liquor Establishments Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Reviewed by: Tom Scott, City Attorney Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 2 Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses RESOLUTION NO. 15-_____ A RESOLUTION LIMITING NUMBER OF OFF-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSES WHEREAS, the current 16 licensed off-sale liquor stores in the City represent a much higher number of such establishments on a per capita basis than neighboring and other comparable cities; and WHEREAS, the City Council has regulatory concerns about this relatively high number and location of off-sale liquor establishments in the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interest of the City and its citizens to engage in more detailed studies to determine if additional regulations are needed; and WHEREAS, the City Council also believes that it is appropriate and in the best interest of the City and its citizens to limit the number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses to the current number of issued licenses at this time while the City Council studies the issue; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State law, City Code Section 3-72 allows the City Council by resolution to restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. Pursuant to St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-72, the total number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses issued in the City will be restricted to sixteen (16). 2. The only new off-sale intoxicating liquor license that will be issued will be for the continued operation of a liquor store by a new owner at a currently licensed location utilizing the existing licensed premises. 3. This resolution shall be effective upon its adoption and shall apply to all pending and future applications, and shall expire on December 31, 2015. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 20, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 3 Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: January 12, 2015 Discussion Item: 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Off Sale Liquor Licensing RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. The purpose of this report is to provide Council with background information regarding off sale liquor licensing. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council need any other information regarding off sale liquor licensing? Does Council want staff to take any other action regarding this matter? SUMMARY: Council has expressed concern over recent months about the number and locations of new off-sale liquor stores within St. Louis Park. At the Council meeting of November 17, 2014, Council approved an off sale intoxicating liquor license for Target Corporation making a total of 16 off sale intoxicating liquor licenses within St. Louis Park. As a result of that action, the consensus of the Council was to discuss this matter at a future study session. Currently, City Code does not contain specific provisions limiting the number of liquor establishments in St. Louis Park, although statutorily the Council has the power to limit the number of licenses or employ other restrictions. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the city council may, by resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued within designated areas or zoning districts within the city. Staff has researched and attached the surrounding communities’ policies and restrictions for issuance of off-sale liquor licenses. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Survey Results Map of Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor Establishments Map of All Off Sale Liquor Establishments Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Bill Chang, Administrative Services Intern Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, HR Director/Deputy City Manager Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 4 Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Off Sale Liquor License Types: There are three different types of off sale liquor licenses. Only an exclusive liquor store can be issued an off sale “intoxicating” liquor license. Other off sale licenses includes 3.2 malt liquor either in a grocery store or brewery. Below is the history of the number of off sale licenses issued since 2000. YEAR Off-sale Intox (liquor stores) Off-sale 3.2 malt liquor (grocery stores) Off-sale Brewery (growlers) TOTAL Off-sale Licenses 2014 16 3 2 21 2013 15 3 2 20 2012 14 3 2 19 2011 14 4 2 20 2010 13 3 1 17 2009 12 3 1 15 2008 11 3 1 14 2007 13 3 16 2006 10 2 12 2005 10 2 12 2004 9 3 12 2003 9 4 13 2002 9 4 13 2001 9 4 13 2000 7 4 11 Liquor Licensing Regulations: The laws for liquor licensing are regulated by State Statute and St. Louis Park City Code of Ordinances. MN Statutes 340A.509 states a local authority may impose further restrictions and regulations for off sale licenses. Limiting the number of liquor licensed establishments: Currently, State law and City Code do not contain provisions limiting the actual number of off sale intoxicating liquor licensed establishments in St. Louis Park; and the Council has the power to limit the number of liquor licenses. City Ordinance Sec. 3-72 states the city council may, by resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued. MN Statute 340A.413 subd.5 limits off sale intoxicating liquor licenses in cities of the 1st class (over 100,000 population) to not more than one license for each 5,000 population, and in all other cities the limit is determined by the governing body of the city. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 5 Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses Minimum Distances: • City Ordinance Sec. 3-110 (f) states that no initial license to sell intoxicating liquor may be issued within 300 feet of a school or place of worship as measured from the property line of the site to receive the proposed license to property line of the school or place of worship. • Zoning Code Sec. 36-194 (d) (19) states that a liquor store lot must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site containing a pawnshop, currency exchange, payday loan agency, firearms sales or sexually-oriented business. • In the case of a shopping center of multi-use building, the distance shall be measured from the portion of the center or building occupied by the liquor store. • If the Council wanted to pursue additional distance restrictions, it should be clearly defined as to how it would be measured (ex. property line to property line). Survey Results: Staff previously presented research to council regarding off sale liquor limitations in surrounding communities. At the time, Council did not come to consensus on the concept of limiting the number or location of off-sale liquor establishments in the city. A recent survey collected liquor information from suburbs with similarities and proximity to St. Louis Park. Of the suburbs surveyed, Hopkins, New Hope, Minnetonka, Blaine, Burnsville, and Brooklyn Park have limitations on the number of off-sale intoxicating licenses. Public Safety Impact: The police department previously did not feel there was any direct relationship between the number of and/or location of off-sale establishments and any particular outcomes, either positive or negative. Lieutenant Chad Kraayenbrink stated the current number of liquor stores has had no direct effect on public safety. CITY Population Total OFF Sale Intox (liquor stores) OFF Sale Intox (liquor stores) per capita Other limitations Hopkins 17,591 8 1 per 2,200 Limit 8 off-sale and 7 on-sale per year. Not within 350 feet of school, daycare, church, an existing off-sale liquor store, pawn shop, license currency exchange. New ordinance Nov 2014 limits SIZE of liquor stores to max of 5000 sq ft Golden Valley 20,371 5 1 per 4,100 No off sale limitations New Hope 20,339 5 1 per 4,100 Limit 7 off-sale per year Crystal 22,151 10 1 per 2,200 Not within 300 feet of any school building or church building without 60 days prior notification given by the clerk to the governmental entity or organization operating the school or church Roseville 33,660 10 1 per 3,400 Limit 10 off sale per year. Council shall consider all factors relating to health safety & welfare of citizens, effect on market value of neighboring properties, proximity to churches/schools, effect on traffic & parking. Premises at least 1,600 sq ft. Cottage Grove 35,399 5 1 per 7,000 No off-sale intoxicating license shall be granted for premises located within one thousand feet (1,000') of another licensed off-sale intoxicating premises as measured between the nearest building walls of the establishments. St. Louis Park 45,250 16 1 per 2,828 Not within 300 feet of school or church. Off sale - total window sign coverage not >50% Minnetonka 49,374 10 1 per 4,900 12 off-sale licenses, but council has discretion to approve for purposes of area and type of service. Blaine 60,480 8 1 per 7,000 Off sale limited to 1 per 7,000 polulation. 1 mile apart from door to door. 500 ft from schools and churches. Restaurants not required to report sales. Burnsville 60,306 12 1 per 5,000 Maximum 12 off sale 1 per 5,000 population. 3/4 miles apart. No off-sale intoxicating liquor license shall be issued for a premises that is within 0.75 mile of another off-sale intoxicating liquor facility and not located in a freestanding building; except facilities located within the "Burnsville Center retail area", the area encompassing all Burnsville Center shopping centers and strip shopping centers as identified in 2030 comp plan, in general bounded by the nearest principal arterial, A minor arterial or B minor arterial streets. This area is bounded by McAndrews Rd on the north, Portland Ave on the east, Southcross Drive on the south, County Road 5 on the west plus lots 1-3 block 1 of Westburn first addition. Coon Rapids 62,103 15 1 per 4,100 No intoxicating off-sale liquor establishments shall be located within one mile radius of any other licensed Class A off-sale intoxicating liquor establishment. Council may issue no more than eight Class A Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses annually. Woodbury 65,656 12 1 per 5,500 No off sale limitations. Maple Grove 66,842 12 1 per 5,600 No off sale limitations. Eagan 64,456 15 1 per 4,300 300 ft from schools and churches Plymouth 70,576 13 1 per 5,400 No off sale limitations. 500 ft from schools Brooklyn Park 72,724 14 1 per 4,800 Feb 2013 - 6 mos. moratorium on new off sales. Nov 2013 Resolution AREA limitation - no new off sale licenses south of Hwy 610. (no off-sale limits for North of Hwy 610 new developed area). 300 ft from schools and churches Bloomington 82,893 23 1 per 3,600 No off-sale limitations. 300 Ft from schools and churches. 2015 OFF Sale Intoxicating Establishments Survey City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses Page 6 CITY Population Total OFF Sale Intox (liquor stores) OFF Sale Intox (liquor stores) per capita Other limitations Columbia Heights 19,674 3 1 per 6,600 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Fridley 27,667 2 1 per 13,800 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Brooklyn Center 30,104 2 1 per 15,000 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Richfield 36,175 4 1 per 9,000 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Edina 47,425 3 1 per 15,800 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Eden Prairie 60,797 3 1 per 20,300 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Apple Valley 70,924 3 1 per 23,600 Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects 2015 OFF Sale Intoxicating Establishments Survey - CITIES with Municipal Liquor Stores City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses Page 7 Excelsi or Bl v d Minnetonka Blvd Lake StLouisiana AveWo o d d a l e A v e 36th St W Cedar Lak e R d Liquor Establishments Off Sale Brewery - Growlers (2) Off Sale 3.2 - Grocery Stores (3) Off Sale Intox - Liquor Stores (16) January 2015 City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses Page 8 Excelsi or Bl v d Minnetonka Blvd Lake StLouisiana AveWo o d d a l e A v e 36th St W Cedar Lak e R d On & Off Sale Liquor Establishments Liquor Establishments On Sale Intox (26) On Sale Club (2) On Sale 3.2 & Wine (15) On Sale Intox; Off Sale Brew/Pub (1) On Sale 3.2 (1) On Sale Brewery Taproom & Off Sale Brew/Pub (1) Off Sale 3.2 (3) Off Sale Intox (16) January 2015 City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Title: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses Page 9 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Action Agenda Item: 8d EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve amendments to Chapter 36 of the City Code pertaining to Planned Unit Developments. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council support the proposed procedural and policy changes to the PUD ordinance? SUMMARY: Staff proposes ordinance text amendments to the City’s PUD procedures and regulations. Staff introduced the option of revising the entire PUD section of the zoning code at the October 27, 2014 study session in the context of the Bally’s redevelopment proposal. The Council provided direction for staff to pursue a complete revision at that time. A draft PUD ordinance was provided to the Council at the December 8, 2014 study session and discussed at the January 12, 2015 study session. The draft ordinance has also been discussed at a Planning Commission study session. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the new ordinance on January 7, 2015 and no one was present to speak, nor were any comments received. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ordinance changes. Planned Unit Developments are currently processed and approved by resolution, and handled more similarly to a conditional use permit (CUP). The proposed change would require each PUD to be approved as a distinct zoning ordinance, with its regulations specified in the approving ordinance and development agreement. Each PUD would be approved in the same manner as other ordinances, and a PUD designation would be placed on the zoning map. Staff also proposes revisions throughout the PUD ordinance which reorganize several sections and eliminate redundant text. These revisions are intended to clarify regulations and provide consistent language and formatting with other sections of the Zoning Code. Additional revisions relate to the policies and procedures for approving and amending PUDs. Generally, the proposed changes give the City Council more flexibility to establish and modify development standards for PUDs. The proposed procedural and policy changes are discussed in more detail later in this report. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Draft PUD Ordinance Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 2 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Staff undertook a review of the City’s PUD ordinance over a year ago at the request of the City Attorney. Staff researched several other cities’ PUD ordinances and interviewed staff from other cities. Versions of the proposed ordinance have been reviewed by the Planning Commission at a study session and more recently at a Public Hearing. The City Attorney has also reviewed the most recent draft ordinance. City Council was presented an earlier draft of the ordinance on December 8, 2014 as a study session report, and discussed a revised draft ordinance at the January 12, 2015 study session. The proposed ordinance keeps certain key policy and procedural elements contained in the existing PUD ordinance, but it also contains several significant changes. Below is a more detailed description of the more substantive changes. Procedural Changes Preliminary and Final PUD process and approval: The revised PUD ordinance will still include a preliminary and final PUD process, and now more clearly articulates that the preliminary and final PUD may be processed simultaneously. The preliminary and final PUD will follow similar procedures as the existing processes, but now the final PUD will be approved by ordinance. If the preliminary and final PUD are processed simultaneously, it will follow the same procedure as a preliminary PUD, requiring a public hearing, and be approved as an ordinance. PUD Amendments: Staff proposes to reclassify all amendments as either administrative or major. Administrative amendments would be expanded to include changes to: building dimensions or site modifications that are ten percent or less of the applicable measure. (i.e. ten percent change in building setbacks or building height measured in feet or to the number of tree plantings related to landscaping). Minor changes to the building materials, type of tree plantings, and changes made to the building or site to comply with the building code or accessibility requirements could also be approved administratively, similar to the current ordinance. Major amendments would include any change to those same items that is greater than ten percent, items that the Zoning Administrator determines are major, which may include changes that fall below the ten percent threshold, and items that are specified as a major amendment in the development agreement. Major amendments would now constitute an ordinance amendment, requiring a public hearing at the Planning Commission and final action by the City Council. Policy Changes There are three major policy changes included in the proposed revisions to the PUD ordinance: 1. Permitted land uses; 2. Modification of district regulations; and 3. Requiring compliance with the City’s “Green Building Policy” for PUDs, even if City financial assistance is not being provided. Permitted land uses: Staff proposes allowing a mix of land uses in any PUD as long as those uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff included the statement that the following uses are prohibited in any PUD: Currency exchange; Firearms Sales; Pawnshop; Payday loan agency; Sexually Oriented Business. Additionally, other uses can be specifically excluded from a PUD district at the Council’s discretion. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 3 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance Modifications: The proposed PUD revisions would also change the way modifications are handled. There are currently eight specified allowable modifications in the PUD section: • distance from property lines, • distance from other buildings, • building height, • density, • ground floor area, • floor area ratio, • Designed Outdoor Recreation Area, and • parking. Of these existing allowable modifications, the density, ground floor area, Designed Outdoor Recreation Area and parking, limit the degree they can be increased or decreased from the base regulations. The distance from property lines is also limited when a PUD is adjacent to single family residential. Staff proposes changes which allows the Council to have greater discretion in how much any performance standard or dimensional standard can be changed from the base requirements. Staff proposes the following language to limit modifications for the following items: 1. PUDs with side or rear property lines adjacent to R-1 or R-2 zoned and used districts shall have a maximum building height of 40 feet, and minimum side and rear yard of 15 feet. Buildings may exceed 40 feet in height if the portion of the building above 40 feet is stepped back from the side and rear property lines a distance equal to the additional height. 2. PUDs shall comply with the requirements of the Floodplain Ordinance. 3. PUDs shall comply with the sign requirements of the most closely related zoning district. 4. PUDs shall comply with the requirements of the Travel Demand Management District. The Planning Commission and City Council will evaluate each proposed PUD on its own merits, and determine what performance and dimensional standards are appropriate and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Green Building Policy: The Planning Commission asked Staff to include language in the PUD ordinance related to environmental sustainability. Both the Planning Commission and City Council have expressed a desire to strengthen the City’s approach to sustainability. Staff proposes requiring that applicants for a PUD adhere to the City’s Green Building Policy, even if City financial assistance is not being provided, expanding its applicability. Staff also added a statement that encourages the use of green roofs or white roofs, and renewable energy. NEXT STEPS: The second reading is currently scheduled for February 2, 2015. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 4 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance ORDINANCE NO.____-15 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE CREATING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Chapter 36 shall have the following Sections renumbered as follows: Secs. 36 – 6 — 36 - 3029. Reserved Sec. 36-310. Interpretation; procedures. Sec. 36-321. Registration of land use. SECTION 2. Chapter 36 is amended to add the following: Sec. 36-32. Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. (a) Purpose and Intent. The purpose of a PUD District is to benefit the city and its residents by providing a comprehensive procedure intended to allow greater flexibility in the development of land than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The intent of this section is to: (1) Allow for the greater utilization of new technologies in building design, construction, and land development. (2) Promote higher standards of site and building design. (3) Promote a more efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, and public facilities to support high-quality development at a lesser cost. (4) Provide for the establishment of recreational, public, and open spaces which may be made more usable and be more suitably located than would otherwise be provided under conventional development procedures. (5) Allow modifications to the strict application of regulations of conventional zoning districts that are in harmony with the goals, policies and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and this chapter. (6) Encourage a more creative and efficient use of land. (7) Preserve and enhance desirable site characteristics, including flora and fauna, scenic views, screening and access. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 5 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance (8) Promote environmental sustainability in the development of land, building construction and building operations. (10) Ensure integrated pedestrian facilities to and within a PUD district. (11) Provide for improved connections to mass transit facilities. (12) Encourage an increase in the supply of low-income and moderate-income housing. (13) Allow for the mixing of land uses within a development when such mixing of land uses could not otherwise be accomplished under this Chapter. (b) Building and site design. The City Council shall find that the quality of building and site design proposed by the PUD plan will substantially enhance aesthetics of the site and implement relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan before a PUD ordinance may be approved. In addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied: (1) The design shall consider the project as a whole, and shall create a unified environment within project boundaries by ensuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and design and efficient use of utilities. (2) The design of a PUD shall achieve compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed, and shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD. (3) A PUD shall comply with the City’s Green Building Policy. (4) The use of green roofs or white roofs and on-site renewable energy is encouraged. (5) More than one building may be placed on one lot in a PUD. (c) Application of section provisions. The provisions of this section shall be administered as follows: (1) Land use guidance. No PUD shall be approved on property guided by the Comprehensive Plan for low density residential development. (2) PUD regulations. A PUD district may incorporate the regulations of one or more other zoning districts as determined by the zoning administrator and designated in the ordinance creating the district. (3) Modifications. A PUD district may modify any provision of this Chapter except for the following: a. PUDs with side or rear property lines adjacent to R-1 or R-2 zoned and used districts shall have a maximum building height of 40 feet, and minimum side and rear yards of 15 feet. Buildings may exceed 40 feet in City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 6 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance height if the portion of the building above 40 feet is stepped back from the side and rear property lines a distance equal to the additional height. b. PUDs shall comply with the requirements of the Floodplain Ordinance. c. PUDs shall comply with the sign requirements of the most closely related zoning district as designated in the approving ordinance. d. PUDs shall comply with the Travel Demand Management District. (4) Permitted land uses. Any land use that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan may be allowed in a PUD district. Residential and non-residential uses may be included in a single PUD district. The PUD ordinance shall identify all land uses allowed in the PUD district. Any change from the uses listed in the PUD ordinance shall be considered an amendment to the PUD and shall follow the procedures specified in this section. The following uses are prohibited in a PUD: Currency exchange; Firearms Sales; Pawnshop; Payday loan agency; Sexually Oriented Business (5) Minimum area. A PUD district must consist of a parcel or contiguous parcels of land at least two acres or more in size. Tracts of less than two acres may be approved only if the applicant can demonstrate that a project of superior design can be achieved or that greater compliance with comprehensive plan goals and policies can be attained through use of a PUD. (6) Additional Requirements. PUDs shall be subject to the imposition of additional requirements when, in the opinion of the City Council, such additional requirements are necessary to protect the general welfare, public safety, neighborhood character and/or to achieve the objectives contained in Section 36-1. (d) Submission requirements and procedure. Planned unit developments shall be proposed and considered according to the requirements of this section. (1) Pre-Application Conference. Before filing an application for approval of a PUD, an applicant may submit a concept plan for review and comment by City Staff. Staff may schedule a review of the concept plan by the Planning Commission and/or City Council to obtain nonbinding comments on its merits. (2) Preliminary PUD plan. A complete application for a preliminary PUD plan shall include all of the following information: a. An application and payment of required application fee. b. A statement describing how the PUD will meet the stated purposes and objectives of this section. c. If land encompassed within a proposed PUD is to be platted, replatted or subdivided, all information required for consideration and approval of a preliminary plat is also required in accordance with the subdivision ordinance, and the review may be carried out simultaneously with the review of a PUD. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 7 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance d. A current certified survey showing existing conditions of properties located within the proposed PUD, and buildings and topography of properties located within 150 feet of the proposed PUD. e. Preliminary general development plans. Plans shall be dimensioned and based on the survey. Plans shall show compliance to the City Code and proposed modifications. 1. Detailed site plan. 2. Landscape plan, including spaces used for designed outdoor recreation area (DORA) 3. Tree preservation and replacement plan. 4. Erosion control plan. 5. Utility, drainage and storm water management plans prepared by a civil engineer registered in Minnesota. 6. Lighting plan. 7. Building elevations and floor plans. 8. Fire protection plan. f. Traffic study containing, at a minimum, the total and peak hour trip generation from the site at full development, the effect of such traffic on the level of service of nearby and adjacent streets, intersections, and total parking requirements. g. If a PUD has been requested that involves two or more phases, the PUD applicant shall submit a phasing plan. This plan shall demonstrate that each phase is capable of independently addressing and complying with the City Code, traffic study and storm water requirements and include the geographical sequence of construction and the number of dwelling units or square footage of nonresidential property to be constructed in each phase. h. Environmental data which the City may deem necessary. This data must include a preliminary analysis of the probability of site contamination. i. Any other information required by the City. (3) Final PUD plan. A complete application for a final PUD plan shall contain all of the following information: a. An application and payment of required application fee. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 8 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance b. A final plat that meets the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, and creates condominium ownership, if required. c. A current certified survey showing existing conditions of properties located within the proposed PUD, and buildings and topography of properties located within 150 feet of the proposed PUD. d. Final general development plans. Plans shall be dimensioned and based on the survey. Plans shall show compliance to the City Code and proposed modifications. 1. Detailed site plan. 2. Landscape plan, including spaces used for designed outdoor recreation area (DORA) 3. Tree preservation and replacement plan. 4. Erosion control plan. 5. Utility, drainage and storm water management plans prepared by a civil engineer registered in Minnesota. 6. Lighting plan. 7. Building elevations and floor plans. 8. Fire protection plan. e. Any deed restrictions, covenants, agreements, and articles of incorporation and bylaws of any proposed homeowners' association or other documents or contracts which control the use or maintenance of property covered by the PUD. f. A final phasing plan, if phasing is proposed, indicating the geographical sequence and timing of development of the plan or portions thereof, including the estimated date of beginning and completion of each phase. g. Any other information required by the City. (4) Procedure. Planned unit developments shall be proposed and processed according to the requirements of this Section. No application for a final PUD shall be processed until the application for a preliminary PUD has been approved by the City Council unless the Zoning Administrator determines the preliminary PUD and final PUD may be processed simultaneously. a. Preliminary PUD. An application for preliminary approval of a PUD district shall be on a form provided by the City and shall include all required information comprising a Preliminary PUD plan. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 9 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance 1. Referral to Planning Commission. The completed application shall be reviewed by city staff and a report concerning the application shall be submitted to the Planning Commission. 2. Public Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing in accordance with section 36-35(b). 3. Approval. The City Council may approve the preliminary PUD plan in whole or in part, may approve subject to conditions, may deny, or may continue consideration of the preliminary PUD plan for further investigation and hearing at a later date. 4. Denial. When a preliminary PUD plan has been denied by the City Council, the owner or applicant may not reapply for the same or similar development on the same property for the six-month period following the date of the denial. b. Final PUD. A final PUD district shall be approved by ordinance. An application for approval of a final PUD district shall be on a form provided by the City and shall include all data and plans comprising a Final PUD plan. 1. The City Council shall consider the final PUD plan. If the City Council deems it necessary, it may set a public hearing for consideration of the final PUD plan. The City Council may deny the final PUD plan or may approve the final PUD plan in whole or in part. 2. No development activity may occur on a site for which a PUD has been applied, until a final PUD has been approved in whole or in part for that site. c. Preliminary and Final PUD combined. Application may be made to process a preliminary and final PUD simultaneously at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator. 1. The application form for a final PUD shall be used. 2. The application shall include all data and plans comprising both a Preliminary PUD plan and Final PUD plan. 3. The approval procedure shall be the same as for a preliminary PUD, except that final approval shall be by ordinance. (5) Development agreement. a. The City may, at its sole discretion, require the owner and developer of a proposed PUD to execute a development agreement which may include, but not be limited to, all requirements of the final PUD plan as a condition to approval of a final PUD. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 10 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance b. The development agreement may require the developers to provide an irrevocable letter of credit in favor of the City, performance guarantee or cash escrow. The letter of credit shall be provided by a financial institution licensed in the state and acceptable to the City. The City may require that certain provisions and conditions of the development agreement be stated in the letter of credit. The letter of credit shall be in an amount sufficient to ensure the provision or development of improvement called for by the development agreement. (6) Operating and maintenance requirements for common areas. If certain land areas or structures within the PUD are designated for recreational use, public plazas, open areas or service facilities, the owner of such land and buildings shall enter into an agreement with the City that ensures the continued operation and maintenance of such areas or facilities in a manner suitable to the city. (7) Zoning map. All approved PUD districts shall be designated on the City's zoning map as it is revised from time to time. (8) Building Permit. No building permit shall be issued or development shall occur on land for which a PUD district has been approved which does not conform to the approved final plan. (9) Amendments. Proposed development of land for which a PUD has been approved or modifications to existing projects which does not conform to the approved final plan shall be processed as either an Administrative Amendment or Major Amendment as defined in this subsection as determined by the Zoning Administrator. a. The Official Exhibits affected by the approved amendment shall be amended and replaced in their entirety. b. Administrative amendments. 1. Proposed changes to building dimensions involving ten percent or less of such dimension, proposed site modifications involving ten percent or less of the total existing site area, and proposed changes to other previously approved standards involving ten percent or less of such standard, which meet all ordinance requirements may be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to a building permit being issued and shall not require planning commission review or council approval, unless otherwise stated in the approved development agreement. 2. Administrative approval shall only be granted if the applicant has provided written notification to all owners of property within the PUD that such approval is being sought. The notification shall inform the property owners that approval of the proposed modification may be granted after ten calendar days have elapsed from the mailing date of the notice unless a property owner files an appeal with the Zoning Administrator within that time. If any such appeal is filed, the proposed modification shall be City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 11 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance considered in the same manner as a major amendment to the approved final plan. 3. Administrative approval may be obtained for modifications specified in the development agreement as requiring only administrative approval. 4. The Zoning Administrator may determine that a proposed amendment is a Major Amendment, even if it meets the criteria of an Administrative Amendment, and shall follow the procedure for major amendments in this Subsection. c. Major amendments. A major amendment to the approved final plan of the PUD shall be processed and approved in the same manner as a preliminary and final PUD, except that submission requirements shall be modified as appropriate by City Staff to reflect the nature of the proposed amendment. Major amendments shall include: 1. Any amendment that is not an Administrative Amendment. 2. Any amendment determined to be a Major Amendment by the Zoning Administrator. 3. Any amendment specified as such in the development agreement. (10) Final Development Plan governs use of land. The subject area shall be permanently governed by the conditions, provisions and restrictions of the approving ordinance and final development plan. The ordinance and plan, as amended from time to time, shall govern the use of the land. SECTION 3. Section 36-34 is amended as follows: *** (b) Process. A request for a variance shall be considered by the board of zoning appeals. The city council will act as the board of zoning appeals for variance requests made in conjunction with a conditional use permit, PUD application, or subdivision. The planning commission shall hold the public hearing on the variance request, review the variance request along with the conditional use permit, PUD application, or subdivision process, and report its findings and recommendations to the city council. *** SECTION 4. Section 36-82 is amended as follows: *** (b) Authorized temporary uses *** (5) Temporary outdoor sales. a. Temporary sales, including licensed food service, shall only be permitted within a C, O, M-X, or I or PUD district or in public parks or closed right-of-way as approved by the city or as specified by PUD approval. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 12 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance *** (7) Same--Up to six months. *** b. The temporary use shall be located in the C-1 district, C-2 district, M-X district, PUD district, in a public park or closed right-of-way as approved by the city., or as specified by PUD approval. SECTION 5. Section 36-111 is amended to add the following subsection: (7) Planned Unit Development (PUD) District, See Section 36-32. SECTION 6. Subsections 36-115(e) and 36-166(e) are deleted in their entirety and subsequent subsections renumbered accordingly. SECTION 7. Section 36-167 is amended as follows: *** (a) Purpose and effect. The purposes of the R-C high-density multiple-family residence district are to provide appropriately located areas for family living in a variety of dwelling types at densities generally up to 50 units per acre (or up to 75 units per acre by PUD) with sound standards for public health and safety; to preserve as many as possible of the desirable characteristics of the single-family residential districts while permitting higher population densities; to provide opportunities for accessory and transitional commercial uses to support residential development; to ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling unit; provide space for institutions which require residential environments; to provide community services such as parks, schools, religious facilities, and community centers supportive of a residential area while safeguarding its residential character; to minimize traffic congestion and the impacts of high traffic volumes; to provide space for off-street parking of automobiles; and to protect residential properties from noise, illumination, unsightliness, odors, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare, and other objectionable influences. *** (c) Uses permitted with conditions. *** (12) Cluster housing. *** g. Conditions listed in subsections (c)(13)a.--(c)(13)c and (c)(13)e-f. of this section and certain performance standards may be waived or amended using the PUD process if so specified in a redevelopment plan for the area that has been adopted as part of the city comprehensive plan. (Ord. No. 2267-04, 4-12-04) *** (e) Uses permitted by PUD. No structure or land in an R-C district shall be used for the following uses except by the PUD process. Provisions for the PUD and modifications to dimensional standards and densities are provided under section 36-367: ground floor retail, service, office and medical/dental office in mixed-use buildings that are predominantly residential. (fe) Accessory uses. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 13 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance *** (gf) Dimensional standards/densities. *** SECTION 8. Subsection 36-194(e) is deleted in its entirety and subsequent subsections renumbered accordingly. SECTION 9. Section 36-223 is amended as follows: *** (c) Uses permitted with conditions. A structure or land in any O district may be used for one or more of the following uses if it complies with the conditions stated in section 36-222 and those specified for the use in this subsection: (1) Adult day care. The conditions are as follows: a. This use shall be permitted only as a part of a larger development which contains at least one other principal use or as part of a PUD. *** (2) Group day care/nursery schools. The conditions are as follows: a. This use shall be permitted only as a part of a larger development which contains at least one other principal use or as part of a PUD. *** (4) Libraries. This use shall be permitted only as a part of a larger development which contains at least one other principal use or as part of a PUD. *** (6) Museums/art galleries. This use shall be permitted only as a part of a larger development which contains at least one other principal use or as part of a PUD. *** (14) Private entertainment (indoor) without intoxicating liquor license. The conditions are as follows: a. This use shall only be permitted as part of a larger development which contains at least one other principal use or as part of a PUD. *** (15) Restaurants without intoxicating liquor license. The conditions are as follows: a. This use shall be permitted as part of a larger development which contains at least one other principal use or as part of a PUD. *** (16) Retail. The conditions are as follows: a. No single use retail establishment over 20,000 square feet is permitted. The retail facility shall be permitted only as a part of a larger development on a single parcel which contains at least one other permitted principal use or as a part of a mixed use PUD. *** (d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 14 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance *** (2) Restaurants with intoxicating liquor license. The conditions are as follows: a. Restaurants with intoxicating liquor licenses shall be permitted only as part of a larger development which contains at least one other principal use or as part of a PUD. *** (e) Uses permitted by PUD . This subsection shall be deleted in its entirety. (fe) Accessory uses. *** (gf) Dimensional standards. *** (10) Each lot shall contain designed outdoor recreation area/plazas at the ratio of 0.12 times the gross floor area of all the structures on the lot; but shall not be less than 12 percent of the total lot area. These areas shall be developed into functional and aesthetic yard areas, plazas, courtyards and/or pedestrian facilities which are compatible with or enlarge upon the pedestrian links and public open space. The designed outdoor recreation area may be provided on a lot separate from the use provided that it is part of the overall development covered by a PUD process or that covenants which ensure the perpetuation of the required designed outdoor recreation area in a form approved by the city attorney be provided. SECTION 10. Subsections 36-233(e) and 36-243(e) are deleted in their entirety and subsequent subsections renumbered accordingly. SECTION 11. Section 36-326 is amended as follows: Sec. 36-326. Traffic management plan. In addition to being approved by the joint task force, the initial traffic management plan shall be reviewed by the other city planning agencies and approved by the city council as part of the regular conditional use permit or planned unit development use approval process. It shall utilize the appropriate techniques available to reduce the p.m. peak hour traffic generated by the parcel, including but not limited to: SECTION 12. Section 36-329 is amended as follows. Sec. 36-329. Traffic management administrative fee. Under the authority in M.S.A. § 462.353, subd. 4, each owner of a parcel or development subject to the terms of this division shall pay a traffic management administrative fee of $0.10 per square foot of gross floor area. Fifty percent of the fee shall be paid at the time such owner applies for a conditional use permit or planned unit development permit for such development and 50 percent of the fee shall be paid at the time such owner applies for a building permit thereof. The fees shall be collected by the city and deposited as a separate fund under the authority of the joint task force. The fund will be used by the joint task force only for its costs incurred in reviewing, investigating and administering traffic management plans under this City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 15 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance division. Should the costs of administering and enforcing this division require it, the city reserves the right to periodically assess such costs to the parcels within the area covered. The city also reserves the right to periodically assess the parcels within the respective areas for the costs involved in implementing capital improvements designed to reduce traffic congestion, facilitate transit use, and implement traffic management plans in the vicinity of Xenia/Park Place Boulevard and I-394, Louisiana Avenue and I-394, and Boone Avenue and I-394. *** SECTION 13. Section 36-405 is amended as follows: Sec. 36-405. Special requirements. (1) City approvals. a. Condition for approval. The city may not issue a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Planned Unit Development (PUD), or building permit for an addition which increases the leasable floor area or density for any property that is not in compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Amendments to existing special permits shall be administered in accordance with section 36-36(c)(4). b. Exception. If a new use requiring a CUP, PUD or special permit amendment is proposed for part of a multiple tenant building, and there are no exterior modifications needed to accommodate the new tenant which would result in an increase in floor area ratio, ground floor area ratio, building height, density, or a decrease in required yards, or other substantial change (other than property improvement to meet building code requirements), then the city may issue a CUP, PUD or special permit amendment provided the following standards are met: *** SECTION 14. Section 36-367 is deleted in its entirety and subsequent subsections renumbered accordingly. SECTION 15. Divisions 10, 11, and 12 shall be amended as follows: Division 10. Floodplain Districts Planned Unit Development Districts Division 11. Travel Demand Management District Floodplain Districts Division 12. Travel Demand Management District SECTION 16. Divisions 9 and 10 shall be amended as follows: Division 9. M-X Mixed Use District *** Secs. 36-268—36-290. Reserved Division 10. Planned Unit Development Districts Secs. 36-268—36-290. Reserved City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 16 Title: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance SECTION 17. APPENDIX A – 2015 FEE SCHEDULE shall be amended as follows: *** COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT *** PUD – MinorAdministrative Amendment *** SECTION 18. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its passage and publication. Public Hearing January 7, 2015 First Reading January 20, 2015 Second Reading February 2, 2015 Date of Publication February 12, 2015 Date Ordinance takes effect February 27, 2015 ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________, 2015, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ATTEST: By: Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor Nancy Stroth, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Action Agenda Item: 8e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Resolution Approving Annual City Manager Evaluation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution for formal acceptance of the final City Manager annual evaluation. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to formally accept the annual City Manager evaluation? BACKGROUND: On Monday, January 12, 2015, the Council met in a Closed Executive Session to discuss the annual City Manager evaluation. Lynae Steinhagen, consultant, reviewed the results and facilitated the discussion with the Council. The Mayor Pro-Tem will provide a summary of the evaluation results at the Council meeting. Approval of this resolution will authorize the City Manager’s annual salary increase to be processed as approved in Resolution 14-185, retroactive to January 1, 2015. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of January 20, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Page 2 Title: Resolution Approving Annual City Manager Evaluation RESOLUTION NO. 15-___ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE ANNUAL CITY MANAGER EVALUATION WHEREAS, the City Council provides an opportunity to hold an annual evaluation of the City Manager; and WHEREAS, on January 12, 2015, a Closed Executive Session of the Council was held to discuss the evaluation; and WHEREAS, Lynae Steinhagen, consultant, facilitated the conversation with the Council to finalize the evaluation; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park hereby accepts the annual evaluation of the City Manager. Additionally, acceptance of the evaluation triggers an annual salary increase for the City Manager retroactive to January 1, 2015 in accordance with Council Resolution 14-185. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 20, 2015 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk