Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/03/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA March 6, 2006 7:30 PM 6:30 p.m. Study Session 7:25 p.m. EDA Meeting 7:30 p.m. City Council Meeting 1. Call to Order 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 2b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of February 6, 2006 3b. Study Session Minutes of February 13, 2006 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes 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. Action: Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items listed on the consent calendar (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar). 5. Boards and Commissions 5a. Appointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions Recommended Action: Motion to appoint three citizen representatives to commissions. 6. Public Hearings 6a. Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Reallocation of $57,500 of 2004 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds Resolution approving the reallocation of 2004 CDBG funds, and authorizing execution of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any related Third Party Agreements. Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to adopt the Resolution approving reallocation of 2004 funds, and authorizing execution of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any related Third Party Agreements 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Zoning Ordinance Amendments An ordinance amending the St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance by amending sections 36-73, 36-115a, 36-162, 36-163, 36-164, 36-165, and 36-361 relating to residential setbacks, detached garages, accessory buildings, and to allow studios in the Industrial Park (IP) zoning district. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt first reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to residential setbacks– Sections 36-73, 36- 163, 36-164, 36-165. Motion to adopt first reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to garages and accessory buildings - 36- 162. Motion to adopt first reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to deleting Table 115a, a summary of land uses by zoning district. Motion to adopt first reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to Adding “Studio” as a use in the IP district – Sec. 36-361. 8b. City Engineer’s Report: Local Street Rehabilitation Project – Area 2, Project No. 2005-1000 This report considers the Residential Pavement Management Project scheduled for the 2006 construction season in Area 2 of the City’s Pavement Management Program. The streets selected for work will have their existing asphalt pavement removed and then replaced with a new asphalt surface. Other work associated with the project will include drainage system repairs. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 2005-1000, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids. 8c. Westmarke Condominiums – Major Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit Case No. 06-09-CUP Stonebridge Development and Acquisition, LLC. 1155 Ford Road Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Major Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, subject to conditions found in the resolution. 8d. Request of St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association to conduct lawful charitable gambling at Bunny’s Bar & Grill located at 5916 Excelsior Blvd. in St. Louis Park. Recommended Action: Motion to approve Resolution authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association operating at Bunny’s Bar and Grill, 5916 Excelsior Boulevard. 9. Communications 10. Adjournment 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. ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF March 6, 2006 SECTION 4: 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. Motion to approve ownership transfer of current liquor license for Yangtze River Restaurant, 5625 Wayzata Blvd. 4b. Resolution Approving Preliminary And Final Plat Of Louisiana Alignment 4c. Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the execution of an Agreement between the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Soo Line Railroad Company and the City of St. Louis Park for the installation of new signals and crossing gates at the Dakota Avenue railroad crossing. 4d. Motion to accept vendor claims for Filing. (supplement) AGENDA SUPPLEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ***March 6, 2006*** Items contained in this section are those items which are not yet available in electronic format and which are identified in the individual reports by inclusion of the word “Supplement”. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 3a - City Council Minutes Feb. 6, 2006 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA February 6, 2006 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Loran Paprocki and Susan Sanger Councilmember Paul Omodt was absent. Staff present: Associate Planner (Mr. Fulton), City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Director of Parks & Rec. (Ms. Walsh), Housing Program Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations - None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of December 19, 2005 Councilmember Finkelstein indicated on page twelve, second paragraph (regarding PPL), replace “agreement” with “negotiation process.” The minutes were approved as corrected. 3b. Study Session Minutes of January 9, 2006 The minutes were approved as submitted. 3c. City Council Minutes of January 17, 2006 Councilmember Sanger indicated on page 12, the motion was passed on a 4-1 vote, but six people were present. Councilmember Basill believed Councilmember Omodt might have stepped out of the room when the vote was taken. Councilmember Sanger asked the minutes reflect that. The minutes were approved as corrected. 3d. Study Session Minutes of January 23, 2006 Councilmember Finkelstein noted under Item 4, paragraph five, end of first sentence, add “but with no commitment at this point in time as to when they would start the public process on the sidewalk. They needed to see what other projects were first in line.” St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 3a - City Council Minutes Feb. 6, 2006 Page 2 Councilmember Sanger stated under Item 3, first paragraph, to clarify the pedestrian crossing “at Ottawa Avenue.” The minutes were approved as corrected. 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. Authorize staff to execute an Agreement with Unplugged Cities related to partnership to deliver Broadband Access and Public Safety and Service Applications over a Meshed Wireless Network in an amount not to exceed $26,000. 4b. Item was removed. 4c. Adopt Agreement between the Friends of the Arts and the City of St. Louis Park. 4d. Approve Resolution No. 06-017 establishing a special assessment for the installation of a fire suppression sprinkler system at 4300 36½ Street, St. Louis Park, MN 55416, rescinding Resolution No. 04-143 adopted December 6, 2004. 4e. Approve Resolution No. 06-018 establishing a special assessment for the installation of a fire suppression sprinkler system at 4003 Wooddale Avenue, St. Louis Park, MN. 4f. Approve Resolution No. 06-024 for year 2006 Liquor License Renewals for license year to run March 1, 2006 through February 28, 2007. 4g. Adopt Resolution No. 06-025 approving a minor amendment to a Planned Unit Development (Tower Place PUD) for exterior changes at 5500 Excelsior Blvd. (Timberlodge Steakhouse, now known as Granite City Food and Brewery). Case No. 05-75-CUP 4h. Approve Resolution No. 06-026 to designate Marcia Honold as the Deputy City Clerk in the absence of the City Clerk. 4i. Approve a Resolution No. 06-021 supporting the City of St. Louis Park’s application to the Minnesota Housing and Finance Agency (MHFA) for assistance in funding the citywide inspection “home rehab program. 4j. Adopt Resolution No.’s 06-028 through 06-037 Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License Violations according to the recommendation of the City Manager. 4k. Approve Resolution No. 06-038 for Final Payment to Cool Air Mechanical for replacement of HVAC. City Project No. 2005-1600 Contract No. 112-05 4l. Designate Rainbow Tree Care, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder and to authorize execution of a contract for the 2006 Arbotect 20-S Elm injection program at a cost of $12.15 per diameter inch. 4m. Accept Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of September 22, 2005 for filing. 4n. Accept Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of October 27, 2005 for filing. 4o. Accept Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of January 5, 2006 for filing. 4p. Accept Human Rights Commission Minutes of November 16, 2005 for filing. 4q. Accept Human Rights Commission Minutes of December 21, 2005 for filing. 4r. Accept Planning Commission Minutes of December 21, 2005 for filing. 4s. Accept Planning Commission Minutes of January 4, 2006 for filing. 4t. Accept vendor claims for filing (supplement). St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 3a - City Council Minutes Feb. 6, 2006 Page 3 It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 6-0. 5. Boards and Commissions 5a. Appointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions Mayor Jacobs thanked those who served on the boards and commissions. It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Carver to appoint the following citizen representatives: Commission Appointed Member Term Expires Planning Commission Richard Person December 31, 2006 CEAC - Community Education Advisory Council Joe Tatalovich June 30, 2008 PRAC – Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission George Hagemann December 31, 2007 Nick Magrino – youth member December 31, 2007 PAC – Police Advisory Commission Richard Markgraf December 31, 2006 HRC – Human Rights Commission Mindy Greene December 31, 2006 The motion passed 6-0. Councilmember Finkelstein noted they had additional openings and were doing more interviews. Mayor Jacobs added there were additional opening on the Human Rights. If interested, contact the City Clerk’s Office. 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the Board of Zoning Appeals denial (2-2 vote) of a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow an addition. Mr. Morrison presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. John White, applicant, stated a goal of the Council is to promote a balanced and sustainable housing stock to meet diverse needs including remodels which add more bedrooms, more bathrooms, 2+ garages, which they were trying to do. Their lot width is 80’, five feet under the minimum lot size. If they deducted the setbacks and the width of the house, it left a balance of 1.7’. There were concerns the long wall would look like a fortress. It would not be visible to people driving by or looking from the South. They St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 3a - City Council Minutes Feb. 6, 2006 Page 4 would put in shrubbery to break up the wall. They needed to maximize the value of their property and make it more comfortable. They had a hardship because they had spent a great deal of time and money to get to this point. If they wanted to sell the property, they need have a good resale value, which required good design. That design was not practical. He submitted letters from the neighbors on the north, east, west, and a neighbor down the street. Perry Bolan, architect, indicated a new construction one block east of this property has homes near $1 million, so it made sense to put value into this addition with a straightforward, simple design that makes sure the master bedroom is very livable. If they were forced to put in a jog, the room was not nearly as nice. Offsetting the suite would put some or part of it up against their picture window, which would only be 1.7 feet from the wall. It adds value to the community. The narrowness of this lot was a hardship. They will be making an investment, and if they followed the zoning ordinance to the letter, they would not see as good of a return and get a lot less for the property when they sell it. They were proposing landscaping along the North wall with conifer trees that would break up the wall. He asked that the variance be granted. Councilmember Carver asked the height of the roofline? Mr. Bolan replied nine feet to the eave which would continue to the addition. Councilmember Carver asked the maximum allowable height for a fence in the backyard? Mr. Morrison replied six feet. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Sanger commented under normal circumstances she did not like to overturn the work of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) and she supported the rationale behind the zoning ordinance. However, she didn’t think that rule made sense for this particular property. There are hardships associated with the arrangement on the property that support granting a variance. The property was too narrow compared to what the zoning code required. It is on a corner and as a result the house is set further back from 26th Street, off-center and relatively close to the property to the north. If this variance is granted, another hardship would be avoided. She was invited to the home and the picture window view would be partially blocked if the solution that the Planning Commission came up with was implemented. If the Board of Zoning Appeals solution were required, the bedroom would be a zigzag shape, which would be unworkable. The only person who would ever see the long wall were the people in the home directly to the North. The suggestion of softening the appearance with landscaping or fencing would take care of it. You cannot see the wall from any other direction. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Carver to direct staff to draft a resolution approving a variance to section 36-163(f)(8) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an addition to the house with a 7 foot 2 inch side yard instead of the required 9 feet 10 inches at 2537 Inglewood Ave S, with a condition prohibiting a second story on the home. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 3a - City Council Minutes Feb. 6, 2006 Page 5 Mayor Jacobs asked the City Attorney if they could draft a variance prohibiting construction of a second story? Mr. Scott replied yes. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if that was acceptable to the applicants? Mr. White replied yes. Councilmember Finkelstein stated he viewed the property and agreed with Councilmember Sanger. This is a unique request, they have a small lot on a corner and if they were to get any enjoyment of their property and follow the housing goals, this was the one way to do it. Councilmember Paprocki added this was a very deep lot and there would be plenty of yard left. He commended them for a well-done addition. Councilmember Carver agreed with previous comments. He noted that the Zoning Appeals Board had a 2-2 vote and clearly they had some questions. It was ironic there was no problem adding a garage addition, but a problem adding to the living space. Mayor Jacobs agreed with the fact that there was a lot of thought at the Board of Zoning Appeals. They do a lot of work and he typically didn’t like to overturn their work either. As he went through the seven factors necessary to grant a variance, there were clearly grounds to grant a variance on a number of those. The motion passed 6-0. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Hoigaard Village - Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Final Plat Resolution No 06-019 and 06-020 Mr. Fulton presented the staff report. Noah Bly, Urban Works Architecture discussed the project site plan and presented a 3D design model. Frank Dunbar, Union Land II, reiterated that Hoigaard’s is in business and will stay in business through construction. The closing is scheduled on February 28th. He hoped the redevelopment contract would come together this week. If that happens, they would buy all three parcels on February 28th and start immediately going through the review process to begin demolition, which would take 60-90 days and open a marketing office in March. When they meet their presale requirements, they hope to start Phase I in June, 2006 and complete in June 2007. They would start the second building around the first of September and complete it twelve months later. Hoigaard’s is working with them to determine the time for them to be acquired. They are a member of the partnership. They will start the Hoigaard’s project when they make a determination about relocating. They would be back before the Council for Phase II plans. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 3a - City Council Minutes Feb. 6, 2006 Page 6 Councilmember Basill asked for an update on Hoigaard’s. He had been receiving phone calls asking why the city was initiating this. The City did not initiate this, Hoigaard’s decided to sell. What are their plans? Mr. Dunbar replied they had indicated they would probably go elsewhere and were looking at a number of sites, but had not shared those. It was a very slight possibility they would stay on 36th. Councilmember Basill wanted the community to know that Hoigaard’s was choosing to sell and most likely wouldn’t be on 36th Street. They could not force a business to stay here and residents should know that the city was not controlling this. Councilmember Finkelstein stated either the deal made sense or it didn’t and they were not approving or making any changes regarding tax increment financing in regards to whether Hoigaard’s stayed or not. They would not be doing this deal as a business subsidy. Mr. Dunbar stated they had a number of options, that did not mean they would leave the community. They were working with them on the best time frame to acquire the site. Councilmember Finkelstein asked clarification that Hoigaard’s was now a partner in the real estate project? Mr. Dunbar replied that was true. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if that would affect the City’s ability to issue tax increment financing? Mr. Scott didn’t believe it would. Councilmember Basill asked when the TIF discussion would come forward? Mr. Locke replied staff was working on that and it would be before EDA and Council on February 21st. Mr. Dunbar indicated that element was critical to him for closing on February 28th. Mr. Harmening clarified the business points were brought to the Council a few weeks ago with the amount of tax increment, the interest rate and the length of time. They were being incorporated into the development contract that would be coming before Council. Councilmember Sanger asked what guaranteed all four buildings would be done by the deadline? Ms. McMonigal replied the planned unit development is for the entire development. They were looking at re-platting the first two buildings because those are the buildings they were purchasing, demolishing and reconstructing at this time. There are some financial guarantees that would be required as part of a planning/development contract which included giving a financial guarantee for the pond. Councilmember Sanger asked by what date would they reasonably expect that the whole project would be completed? Mr. Dunbar responded under the terms of the TIF, the outside date everything has to be done is December 2009. The draft development agreement says everything has to be done by December 2008. Councilmember Basill stated this is the first building on 36th Street and it needs to look good for the community because it is an entrance to the neighborhoods. Had they done market studies on this type of building (retro/industrial) and the attractiveness to buyers? Mr. Dunbar replied a market research group analyzed the exterior/interior and diversification of the project. They made changes to the exterior to provide more detail. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 3a - City Council Minutes Feb. 6, 2006 Page 7 Councilmember Basill asked the unit prices? Mr. Dunbar replied the most cost effective units would be $192,900 and the corner units on the top would be $415,000, which had been sold. The majority will be in the mid $300,000 range. Councilmember Basill asked about the setback from 36th Street and expressed concern about the walk-ability as people come over the bridge. Mr. Dunbar replied they had tried to address that concern. Councilmember Basill commented about the two buildings on the corner which were not involved with this project. It would have been better if those buildings were part of the project, although he realized they couldn’t be. He commended the developer for coming in with the right density and seeing what fit for the community. This is below what they could put on this property. They had found a nice balance. David Stall, Urban Works, displayed other similar projects in the neighborhood (Excelsior and Grand and Village in the Park) and compared the setbacks. They have 22’ from the curb edge, which did not include a parking aisle. Above the retail it steps back for the residential. Councilmember Basil felt the additional space would make it pedestrian friendly. Ms. McMonigal stated because they were working on the redevelopment contract, some conditions of approval may be modified. The redevelopment contract will be before Council on February 21st, and they would clarify the conditions in the contract. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Paprocki, to adopt Resolution No. 06-019 approving the Final Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions as recommended by Staff. The motion passed 6-0. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Paprocki, to adopt Resolution No. 06-020 approving the Final Plat for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Hoigaard Village 1st Addition, subject to conditions as recommended by Staff. The motion passed 6-0. 8b. Comprehensive Plan Amendments for three Excess Land Parcels Resolution No. 06-021, 06-022 and 06-023 Mr. Fulton presented the staff report. Councilmember Paprocki asked if the Edgebrook site was used occasionally by residents as parking for the park and as a way to get to the park. By changing the zoning, he wanted to be sure they still had an opportunity to reserve space for parking and/or access to the park? Ms. Larsen replied yes. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 3a - City Council Minutes Feb. 6, 2006 Page 8 It was moved by Councilmember Paprocki, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt Resolution No. 06-021 amending the Comprehensive Plan for 7701 Edgebrook Drive from P - Park to RL - Low Density Residential and approve publication of the summary resolution; to adopt Resolution No. 06-022 amending the Comprehensive Plan for a portion of 9019 Cedar Lake Road from P - Parks and Open Space to RL - Low Density Residential as shown on the attached map and approve publication of the summary resolution; and, to adopt Resolution No. 06-023 amending the Comprehensive Plan for 2715 Monterey Avenue South from P - Park to RL - Low Density Residential and approve publication of the summary resolution. The motion passed 6-0. 8c. Agreement Between the City of St. Louis Park and Torah Academy Relating to Joint Use of Facilities. Ms. Walsh presented the details of the agreement and noted Torah Academy requested it be a two-year agreement. Rabbi Ginsburg, Dean at Torah Academy, stated a paper agreement was only as good as the people who signed it. He understood the need for the formality, but appreciated and valued the relationship that they have had and looked forward to continuing it. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt approve the agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Torah Academy for joint use of facilities, with amendments as follows: Section 7, clarify this is a two-year agreement commencing on January 1, 2006 and ending December 31, 2007; Section 3, add “non- exclusive” in the second sentence after “The Academy will have the”; at the end of the same paragraph insert “and the city will determine when repairs or replacement of the equipment is necessary” after “…safety regulations.”. Councilmember Paprocki asked about the non-exclusive use? Councilmember Sanger replied during the school day Torah Academy and its children would have the use of the playground, but that should not preclude others in the neighborhood who may also want to use the playground equipment at the same time. Councilmember Paprocki asked if that was amenable to the Academy? They replied yes. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein. Councilmember Sanger asked if this would impact the City’s agreement to maintain or replace the park building? Ms. Walsh replied what would be in the City’s best interest would be to wait until Torah Academy got further along in their Visioning process. The City’s intent is to change that building, either reconstruct it in its present form or create a picnic shelter usable to the neighborhood. They would also like to do field improvements at that time. Torah Academy is undertaking a Visioning process and they want to work with that. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 3a - City Council Minutes Feb. 6, 2006 Page 9 Christie Ulman, Board of Directors at Torah Academy, suggested they clarify in Sections 2 and 3, the last sentence where it says, “The parties…” to be “Both parties”. Councilmember Sanger and Councilmember Finkelstein agreed on the friendly amendment to Sections 2 and 3, last sentence to change, “The parties…” to “Both parties”. The motion passed 6-0. 8d. First Reading: Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 12, Section II, Private Residential Pools Mr. Hoffman presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs asked if this would apply to existing pools? Mr. Hoffman replied, only for new pool installations. Mayor Jacobs asked if there was a concern about building up too much heat? Mr. Hoffman replied the pump house would have to be large enough to allow heat to escape and be ventilated. Councilmember Basill believed manufacturers of pumps have specifications for enclosures. They would need to get a permit and it would be inspected to make sure they were following the specifications. Mr. Hoffman replied that was correct. This code requirement would not set the specifics and not tell people how to build it. They would say to put it inside of a detached accessory structure (i.e. garage) or in a pump enclosure. Councilmember Sanger spoke in favor of the motion. This has been an issue for some people, particularly as some of the pump motors age, they don’t work as quietly as they were designed and it becomes an issue for neighbors. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger to approve First Reading of the amendment to the Environmental Code - Private Residential Pools section of the Ordinance Code and to set 2nd reading for February 21, 2006. Councilmember Carver asked if this would apply if someone were replacing a pump? Mr. Hoffman replied no, only with a new pool installation. Councilmember Carver seconded the motion. Councilmember Paprocki clarified someone getting a new pump would not need an enclosure, but if they were getting a new pool, they would? Mr. Hoffman replied yes. The trigger is the permit, which is required for the installation of a swimming pool or replacing a pool and would need to meet performance criteria. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 3a - City Council Minutes Feb. 6, 2006 Page 10 Councilmember Paprocki asked that could encourage someone not to replace their pool and just replace their pump to avoid enclosing it. Sheds need to have a pad to avoid wildlife inhabiting underneath. Does this require a pad? Mr. Hoffman replied it would be the owners choice, it was not required. Councilmember Paprocki asked what a noise attenuating structure was? Mr. Hoffman replied something designed to reduce the sound being transmitted from the equipment to the outside. It could be any type of wood structure and it would need to meet the code requirements. Councilmember Paprocki was unsure why they were doing this. Mayor Jacobs agreed, he understood a concern was raised by a resident, but he did not see a big enough problem to do something. He was unsure he could support this. Councilmember Sanger believed this was a growing problem because a growing number of people were installing pools. Sometimes they were on smaller lots and closer to neighbors. While a motor may be designed to be quiet, that doesn’t mean it actually was quiet. Because they run non-stop, it can be an irritant to neighbors. Mayor Jacobs was unsure pumps were louder than air conditioners. He hadn’t heard any complaints on this issue and didn’t believe it was a big enough issue to pass an ordinance. Councilmember Basill agreed with the issue about rodents and thought it would be a burden to put in a cement pad. He was concerned about the heat, how they would be built and if it would be a fire hazard. He understood a resident had a concern, but he didn’t know if there was a problem. Councilmember Finkelstein believed this was discussed in 2005 and they thought the “cure might be worse than the disease” with people putting up structures, although he was sympathetic to the resident with concerns. Mayor Jacobs noted this ordinance wouldn’t solve that problem. The motion failed 1-5 with Councilmember’s Basill, Carver, Finkelstein, Paprocki and Mayor Jacobs opposed. 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs reported on the Visioning process and indicated a Visioning Summit would be held Sunday, February 12th at the High School Field House from 1-4 PM. The Remodeling Fair will be February 26th at the Eisenhower Community Center in Hopkins from 10:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. The Youth Summit will be held on March 30th at the St. Louis Park Junior High. More information will follow. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 3a - City Council Minutes Feb. 6, 2006 Page 11 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 3b - Study Session Minutes Feb. 13, 2006 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION February 13, 2006 The meeting convened at 6:34 p.m. Councilmembers present: John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran Paprocki, Susan Sanger, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening); Community Development Director (Mr. Locke); Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt); Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal); Senior Planner (Mr. Walther); Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin); Operations Superintendent (Mr. Hanson); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson). Guests present: Fred Richards, John Wanniger, Dean Dovolis, Damon Farber, and Annette Sandler. 1. Al’s Bar Site Redevelopment Plans & View Planning and Zoning Supervisor Meg McMonigal introduced Senior Planner Sean Walther. Ms. McMonigal said the city has received an application for a preliminary PUD and a preliminary plat. Staff provided Council with a map of heights of other buildings in St. Louis Park that are greater than five stories and the shadow study information that was presented as part of the application; a traffic analysis is underway for the proposed site. Fred Richards said he is one of five principals in this project along with Troy Mathwig, John Wanniger, Les Warner and Jerry Berg. Mr. Richards named Dean Dovolis, Scott Nelson, Paula Merrigan from DJR Architecture as project participants, Damon Farber is the landscape architect, and Robert Duke is the general contractor. Mr. Richards said Al’s Bar and Anderson Cleaners are under contract with Mathwig Development to acquire the site on the northwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue. The motel site to the immediate west is not part of the development. To date, three public hearings have been held. Mr. Richards reported that there is approximately 53% green space on this site. He said they think the price point will be approximately the high $300,000 to over one million dollars on the upper floors. It has been designed as a PUD concept and as a PUD, there will be no requirements for variances, no condemnation of sites would be necessary for the project to occur, financing is secure, and the development team is in place. Mr. Richards stated that this is an $80 million dollar project and could generate one million dollars in real estate taxes. Dean Dovolis, from DJR Architecture, said the footprint of the building would be small and the building slender. Damon Farber said they would like to create a sense of gateway. Councilmember Basill said there are development guidelines, “France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard Development Guidelines,” for this site to address building heights and those guidelines call for 3-4 stories or a maximum of 46 feet; there are some limited opportunities to build five stories for a portion of the buildings. Councilmember Basill said if there is a reason to deviate from the guidelines, it must be compelling reasons. Councilmember Basill had St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 3b - Study Session Minutes Feb. 13, 2006 Page 2 requested multiple options but he sees only one option being presented, therefore, he is leery about moving forward with one option and he needs more information. With such limited information, Councilmember Basill said he cannot support this project. Councilmember Finkelstein asked several questions regarding finances. Councilmember Finkelstein said the Council must bear in mind that a precedent would be set with this project in regard to what would follow down the block (just west of Excelsior Blvd. and France Avenue). Councilmember Finkelstein said he cannot support this project at this time. Mr. Richards said this project would not work financially at five or six stories. Councilmember Sanger said she is aware that the condominium market has been cooling down, so why is this project expected to succeed? John Wanniger said the market has softened considerably due to the over-saturation of the same old stuff. Mr. Wanniger said the units in this building would have a particular niche to offer, i.e., unit sizes and amenities. Councilmember Sanger asked what kind of TIF would be requested. Mr. Richards said there is no specific dollar amount in mind because they believe they can do the project without TIF. Councilmember Sanger asked the developer about shadow studies, which require a better explanation. Councilmember Basill remarked that the scale and scope of the building doesn’t fit the character of the community at the Excelsior Blvd. and France Avenue site. Councilmember Omodt said not all TIF is bad. Mayor Jacobs is concerned about the height. 2. NORC Grant Request Annette Sandler from Nurturing Our Retired Citizens (NORC) was present to discuss a NORC grant proposal being submitted to the Sate. As part of this grant proposal, NORC is requesting $1,000 from the City to assist in matching this proposed grant. Ms. Sandler said, if approved, the $1,000 grant would be used for the publication of the newsletter NORC produces quarterly. NORC would like to apply for a $250,000 grant from the state of Minnesota. To apply, NORC must be able to match the $250,000 through a combination of dollars and in-kind services. The proposal is for congregational nursing to strengthen the safety net of seniors living in St. Louis Park. Councilmember Finkelstein, Councilmember Sanger and Mayor Jacobs have reservations about the grant because NORC is a faith-based organization, however, more seniors would have services available to them. Councilmember Paprocki said the Council is not specifying a specific religion. This item will appear on the City Council agenda for Tuesday, February 21st. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 3b - Study Session Minutes Feb. 13, 2006 Page 3 3. Bass Lake Site: 3735 Belt Line Boulevard Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report for this item. From the staff report, Ms. McMonigal listed seven key attributes the future use of this site should exhibit. City Manager Tom Harmening said there are some local users interested in this property, however, the Council had indicated they wanted a discussion about this property absent any specific development proposal and to determine what the city might want to do with it. Councilmember Sanger asked if the city is obligated to find or provide an alternative space for the tennis courts. Mr. Harmening replied no, but there is a need for tennis courts. Councilmember Sanger said this may be a good site for single-family homes. Councilmember Basill agreed. Councilmember Finkelstein suggested a land trust or affordable row housing. Mayor Jacobs would like to consider having move-up housing. Mr. Harmening urged caution when considering the future use for the Bass Lake site. Councilmember Carver asked, “What don’t we have in St. Louis Park that we need?” Councilmember Carver said this site is important because it links directly to the Rec Center, which links to the park, which links to Excelsior and Grand. Councilmember Carver continued: It is critical as part of creating that community synergy in a central place when we consider what might need to be there. Mr. Harmening said the best thing to do is to proceed slowly. Mayor Jacobs said he would like to get feedback from what the Vision St. Louis Park process brings to the Council. Councilmember Sanger said the slowing down makes a lot of sense. She would like information on what might work on this size parcel; and let’s put clear architectural designs principles in place. 4. Sidewalk Snow Removal Discussion Public Works Director Mike Rardin said the staff report was prepared mainly by Operations Superintendent Mark Hanson. Mr. Harmening asked the Council to comment on the seven recommendations listed by staff in the report. Councilmember Sanger asked if a volunteer network has been identified for sidewalk cleaning services disadvantaged residents. Mr. Rardin replied no firm services have been identified; however, services are currently available through programs such as STEP or HOME. Councilmember Carver commented on the unsatisfactory condition of city-maintained sidewalks after cleaning with city equipment. Mr. Hanson said he will investigate. Councilmember Sanger has the same concern regarding Minnetonka Blvd. Councilmember Basill asked for clarification on citation service. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 3b - Study Session Minutes Feb. 13, 2006 Page 4 Councilmember Sanger said she is fine with the staff proposals in the report and she would encourage 100% inspection after each snow event. She would like to have a complaint system in place. Mr. Harmening summarized that proposals 1-7, as suggested by staff, are satisfactory to the Council with these changes: proposal #2, 25% and complaints; and proposal #4, as soon as practicable and reasonable. 5. Future Study Session Agenda Planning Mr. Harmening and the Council discussed future study session agenda planning. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 4a - Yangtze New Ownership Liquor License Page 1 4a. Motion to approve ownership transfer of current liquor license for Yangtze River Restaurant, 5625 Wayzata Blvd. Background: Angela Lin Diong has made application to the city for transfer of ownership of the Yangtze River Restaurant Corporation located at 5625 Wayzata Blvd. The new ownership consists of 99% of stock purchase of the corporation. An existing Intoxicating On-sale and Sunday liquor license is currently in place for the premises, which was recently renewed and covers the license term of March 1, 2006 through February 28, 2007. The establishment name, manager, and staff will remain the same. Minnesota Statutes 340A.412 Subd. 9 states that a license may be transferred with the consent of the issuing authority. Where a license is held by a corporation, a change in ownership of ten percent or more of the stock of the corporation must be reported in writing to the authority who issued the license within ten days of the transfer. City Ordinance Section 3-69 (b) states licenses issued to corporations shall be valid only as long as there is no change in the officers or ownership interest of the corporation, unless such change is approved by the city council. The Police Department has run the required background investigation and has found no reason to deny the new ownership based on the investigation. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of new ownership of intoxicating on-sale and Sunday liquor license for Yangtze, Inc., DBA Yangtze River Restaurant, 5625 Wayzata Blvd. Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 4b - Louisiana Alignment Plat Page 1 4b. Resolution Approving Preliminary And Final Plat Of Louisiana Alignment Description of Request: The request is for preliminary and final plat approval for property located at the intersection of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue. The land is owned by the City of St. Louis Park and City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority. The plat simplifies the legal description of the property, dedicates adequate road right-of-way for existing roads that abut or pass through the property, and provides appropriate drainage and utility easements. Background: Site Map: Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue Location: Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue Applicant: St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 06-01-S Current Zoning: C2 – General Commercial, IG – General Industrial Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial, Right-of-Way Parcel Size: 6.096 acres Current Land Use: Vacant lots, roads, utility building St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 4b - Louisiana Alignment Plat Page 2 Existing Conditions: The majority of the property is vacant. The property on the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue currently serves as the City’s secondary snow storage site. Most of the northeast and southwest corners of the Louisiana Avenue are used for stormwater drainage. There is a brick utility building on Lake Street on the east side of the site. Proposed Changes: The proposed plat combines several lots into two lots and three outlots, and dedicates additional road right-of-way to Louisiana Avenue and the Highway 7 frontage road. Area Summary: Lot 1, Block 1 = 2.918 acres Lot 1, Block 2 = 0.430 acres Outlot A = 0.556 acres Outlot B = 1.510 acres Outlot C = 0.683 acres Road Dedication = 3.788 acres No physical changes will occur on the site as part of this subdivision application. However, a future parking lot is proposed on Lot 1, Block 1, Louisiana Alignment. The parking lot will help facilitate redevelopment of the nearby Golden Auto property, as that project will partially displace offsite employee parking leased by Methodist Hospital. The proposed parking lot will need a conditional use permit for grading and site plan review at a later date (possibly in May 2006). The developer for the Golden Auto site, Real Estate Recycling, will design and construct the parking lot. The parking lot will also serve as a cap for impacted (polluted) soils present on the property and reduce the risk of ground water contamination. In the long term, the City is proposing that a grade separated crossing be built at the intersection of Louisiana Ave and Hwy 7 that could take most of the subject land for right-of-way. Analysis of Request: The plat simplifies a complex set of lots and vacated roads, and appropriately dedicates road right-of-way and drainage and utility easements. Because both the City and EDA own portions of the property to be platted, both entities are applicants for the final plat. The EDA will most likely take control of Lot 1, Block 1, Louisiana Alignment and the City will take the remainder of the site. After recording the final plat, each entity will quit claim deed the property ownership accordingly. The transfer of ownership would need to be authorized by City Council and Economic Development Authority resolutions. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 4b - Louisiana Alignment Plat Page 3 Recommendation: The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat. Attachments: Draft Resolution Preliminary Plat Final Plat (Page 2 of 2 only) Concept Site Plan (for information, not approval) Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner 952-924-2574 swalther@stlouispark.org Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 4b - Louisiana Alignment Plat Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 06-056 RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF LOUISIANA ALIGNMENT BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. The City of St. Louis Park and City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be platted as Louisiana Alignment submitted an application for preliminary and final plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder. 2. The proposed preliminary plat and final plat have been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit: Tract A: That part of Lot 1, Block 158, "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park" lying Westerly of a line drawn parallel with and 20 feet Easterly of the West line of said Lot 1, as measured along the Southeast line of said Lot. Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens Property, Torrens Certificate No. 519782 (includes additional land). PIN No. 17-117-21-34-0069 Tract B: Lot 1, Block 158, "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park" which lies Southwesterly of a line drawn from a point in the Southeasterly line of said Lot 1, distant 110 feet Northeasterly of the Southwest corner of said Lot 1 to the Southwest corner of Lot 5, Block 323, "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park," and there terminating, except that part lying Westerly of a line drawn parallel with and 20 feet Easterly of the West line of said Lot 1, as measured along the Southeast line of said Lot. Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens Property, Torrens Certificate No. 766282. PIN No. 17-117-21-34-0069 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 4b - Louisiana Alignment Plat Page 5 Tract D: Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 158, Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 159, All in "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park". Together with those portions of vacated Hurst Avenue and Rex Avenue South which accrue to premises as vacated in Document No. 1984132 in Book 386 of Misc., Page 236. Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. PIN No. 17-117-21-43-0052 Tract E: Lots 5 and 6, Block 158, including that part of Rex Avenue, vacated, lying Southwesterly of the center line thereof and between extensions of the South line of said Lot 6 and the North line of said Lot 5; Lots 5 and 6, Block 159, including that part of Rex Avenue vacated, lying Northeasterly of the center line thereof and between extensions of the South line of said Lot 6 and the North line of said Lot 5 and including that part of Hurst Street, vacated lying Southwesterly of the center line thereof and between extensions of the South line of said Lot 6 and the North line of said Lot 5; "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park". Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens Property, Torrens Certificate No. 524886. PIN No. 17-117-21-34-0068 Tract F: That part of Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 163, "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park" lying Northerly of State Highway No. 7, together with that part of the Southeasterly Half of First Street N.W. vacated lying between the North line of said highway and the extension across said street of the Northeasterly line of said Lot 2. Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens Property, Torrens Certificate No. 409009. PIN No. 17-117-21-43-0052 Tract G: Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, lying Southerly of Highway No. 7 and Northerly of Lake Street, Block 163, "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park". Together with that part of vacated alley and vacated Hurst Avenue which accrue to premises, as vacated in Document No. 1984132 in Book 386 of Misc., Page 236. Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. PIN No. 17-117-21-43-0052 Tract H: Lots 17, 18, 19, and 20 lying Southerly of Highway No. 7, Block 163, "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park". Together with that part of vacated alley and vacated Hurst Avenue which accrue to premises, as vacated in Document No. 1984132 in Book 386 of Misc., Page 236. Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. PIN No. 17-117-21-43-0052 Above legals taken from Commercial Partners Title, LLC, having an effective date of March 20, 2005 and bearing file number 24768. Doc. No. 1146068 Par. 1. Lot 14, Block 323; That Part of Lot 1, Block 158, lying Westerly of a line drawn parallel with and 20 feet Easterly of the West line of said Lot 1, as measured along the Southeast St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 4b - Louisiana Alignment Plat Page 6 line of said Lot; together with that portion of 37th Street, now vacated, lying between extensions across it of the East and West lines of Lots 8, Block 158, and Lot 14, Block 323, except the South 10 feet thereof, and that portion of said street lying between extensions across it of the West line of said Lot 1 and 5 and a line drawn parallel with and 20 feet Easterly of the West line of said Lot 1 and its extension; all in Rearrangement of St. Louis Park. PIN No. 17-117-21-34-0069 Par. 2. That part of Lot 6, Block 323, Rearrangement of SL. Louis Park, described as commencing at the Southeast corner of Lot 10; thence Southerly along the Westerly line of Lot 6 to the South line thereof; thence East on the South line of Lot 6 to a point 40 feet West of the East line of said lot; thence Northerly parallel with the Westerly line of Lot 6 and 40 feet distant from the East line thereof to the intersection with the South line of Lot 10 produced; thence. West to beginning, also that part of First Street, vacated, lying North of the center line thereof and between extensions across it of the West line of Lot 6 and a line parallel to the West line thereof and 40 feet West of the East line of Lot 6; and excepting that part of said Lot 6 which is North of the South line of State Highway No. 7, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County. PIN No. 17-117-21-34-0069 Doc. No. 4148110 The Northeasterly seventeen (17) feet of Lot Seven (7), Block One Hundred Fifty-eight (158), Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PIN No. 17-117- 21-34-0017 Doc. No. 4148109 That part of Lots 1 and 7, Block 158 and Lots 6 and 14, Block 323 Rearrangement of Louis Park, together with part of vacated street, enclose by a line described as follows: Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Lot 1; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of said Lot 1 a distance of 20 feet; thence northwesterly parallel to the southwesterly line of said Lot 1 to the north line of said vacated street; thence westerly along the north line of said vacated street to the southeasterly corner of said Lot 6; thence northwesterly along the easterly line of said Lot 6 to the south Right-of-Way line of Trunk Highway 7; thence southwesterly along the south Right-of-Way Line of Trunk Highway 7 to the westerly line of said vacated street; thence southerly along the westerly line of said vacated street to the south line of said vacated street and the northeast corner of Lot 39, Block 158; thence easterly along south line of said vacated street a distance of 15 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 8, Block 158; thence northerly perpendicular to the south line of said vacated street a distance of 10 feet; thence easterly parallel to the south line of said vacated street to the intersection of the described line with a line parallel to and 30 feet southwesterly of, measured perpendicular to, the southwesterly line of said SEE RIDER ATTACHED St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 4b - Louisiana Alignment Plat Page 7 RIDER Lot 1; thence southeasterly parallel to the southwesterly line of said Lot 1 to the intersection of the described line with the easterly extension of the south line of Lot 8, Block 158, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park; thence easterly along the easterly extension of the south line of said Lot 8, Block 158, to the intersection of the described line with a line parallel to and 17 feet southwesterly of, measured perpendicular to, the southwesterly line of said Lot 1, thence northwesterly parallel to the southwesterly line of said Lot 1 to the south line at said vacated street; thence easterly along the south line of said vacated street to the northwest corner of said Lot 1; thence southeasterly along the southwesterly line of said Lot 1 to the most southerly corner of said Lot 1, the point of beginning at the described line. PIN No. 17-117-21-34-0069 Doc. No. 4180005 and 4180006 PARCEL "F" All of Lot 1 in Block 163 in the Rearrangement of St. Louis Park. PIN No. 17-117-21-43- 0027 ALSO: That part of the southwesterly half of vacated Monitor Street lying northeasterly of and adjoining said Lot 1. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that part lying within Minnesota State Highway No. 7. PIN No. 17-117-21-43-0027 ALSO: That part of Lot 18 in Block 324 in said Rearrangement of St. Louis Park which lies northeasterly of a line drawn radially to the northwesterly line of said Lot 18 at a point thereon distant 330 feet northeasterly from the intersection of said northwesterly line, and its southwesterly extension, with the center line of Hurst Street, except that part platted as Mill City Addition. PIN No. 17-117-21-42-0090 ALSO: That part of vacated First Street lying between said Lots 1 and 18. PIN Nos. 17-117-21- 42-0090 and 17-117-21-43-0027 All that part of Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 324, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, and of the Northwesterly 1/2 of vacated First Street Northwest, lying Easterly of a line drawn between the most Northerly corner of said Lot 6 and a point on the Southerly line of the Northwesterly 1/2 of vacated First Street Northwest 200 feet Southwesterly of the point of intersection of said Southerly line with an extension across said street of the curved Southerly line of Lot 18 in said block, said curved Southerly line of Lot 18 is the Easterly line of the portion of said vacated street, except that part platted as Mill City Addition. PIN No. 17-117-21-43-0055 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 4b - Louisiana Alignment Plat Page 8 Conclusion 1. The proposed preliminary and final plat of Louisiana Alignment is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota; provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owners and subdividers, who are the applicants herein. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled. 4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdividers and City officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. 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. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 6, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 4c - Dakota Ave RR Signal Agmt Page 1 4c. Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the execution of an Agreement between the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Soo Line Railroad Company and the City of St. Louis Park for the installation of new signals and crossing gates at the Dakota Avenue railroad crossing. Background: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has a Railroad Grade Crossing Safety Program that inventories and ranks for safety, all railroad crossings throughout the state. Through its ranking, certain crossings are identified as deficient in safety from which projects are then programmed for improvements. The Dakota Avenue railroad crossing just north of Wooddale Avenue is one such project that has been identified and programmed for improvement in 2006. The improvements will include the installation of new signal warning devices and crossing gates. To allow for the railroad grade crossing improvements at Dakota Avenue the City needs to enter into an agreement with Mn/DOT and the Soo Line Railroad Company. The agreement spells out the duties of each party and the cost responsibilities. Briefly, the Soo Line will be responsible for the installation and maintenance of the new crossing improvements, Mn/DOT will administer the project and provide for 90% of the costs through Federal Funding, the City will provide for 10% of the costs. The City Attorney has reviewed this agreement and has no suggestions for changes. Timing: The installation of the new signals and crossing gates is likely to occur in the 2006 construction season. The Soo Line Railroad Company will have 12 months to complete the installation once the State has authorized the work. This work should not interfere with the City’s street reconstruction project on Lake Street and Dakota Avenue. In addition, this work can be completed independently of any future Whistle Quiet Zone improvements that may be considered. Cost and Funding: The estimated cost for this project is $154,069.91. The City’s 10% share of this cost will be $15,406.99. The 2006 CIP has programmed $20,000 in Municipal State Aid Funds to provide for the local share in this project. Recommendation: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution allowing for the execution of the Agreement between the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Soo Line Railroad Company and the City of St. Louis Park. Attachments: Resolution Agreement with Project Location Map and Cost Estimate (Supplemental) Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 4c - Dakota Ave RR Signal Agmt Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 06-057 RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT WITH SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAION BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of St. Louis Park enter into an agreement with the Soo Line Railroad Company (D/B/A/ Canadian Pacific Railway Company) and the Commissioner of Transportation for the installation and maintenance of railroad flashing light signals, gates, ped gates, and circuitry at the intersection of Dakota Avenue (MSAS 280) with the tracks of the Soo Line Railroad Company in St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and appointing the Commissioner of Transportation agent for the City to supervise said project and administer available Federal Funds in accordance with Minnesota Statute, Section 161.36. The City’s share of the cost shall be 10 percent of the total signal cost. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute said agreement and any amendments thereto for and on behalf of the City. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 6, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 5a - Appointments To Commissions Page 1 5a. Appointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions Recommended Action: Motion to appoint three citizen representatives to commissions. Background: The City Council interviewed Hans Widmer and James Smith on February 13, 2006 for two remaining vacancies on the Police Advisory Commission. After the interviews, Council discussed the candidates at length and agreed to make appointments to the Police Advisory Commission. The Police Advisory Commission (PAC) has two mid-term openings. Both terms expire on December 31, 2007. When a vacancy occurs in the middle of the term, the Council may appoint a citizen representative to complete the remainder of the term. If appointed, the new commissioners would serve until December 31, 2007. After these appointments, all vacancies for the PAC will be filled. Council also interviewed Joe Polach for Human Rights Commission on February 27 and after discussion, Council decided to appoint Mr. Polach at the March 6 meeting. This appointment would fill a vacancy from a commissioner who did not seek reappointment, thus the term will expire on December 31, 2008. If Mr. Polach is appointed, there will still be a total of six vacancies on the Human Rights Commissions: two commissioner openings, two youth member opening and one school liaison vacancy. Recommendation: It is recommended that Council make a motion to appoint two citizen representatives to serve on the Police Advisory Commission until December 31, 2007 and one citizen representative to serve on the Human Rights Commission until December 31, 2008. Attachments: Boards and Commissions Update Prepared By: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 5a - Appointments To Commissions Page 2 Boards and Commissions – Vacancies as of 3/2/06 Community Education Advisory Council – Council appoints 6 3 Openings Councilmember 1 At-large members 2 Human Rights Commission - 13 members 6 Openings Commissioners 3* Youth (non-voting) 2 School Board 1 *(If Joe Polach is appointed, there will be two commissioner vacancies) Parks & Recreation Commission – 8 members 1 Openings School Board 1 Police Advisory Commission – 11 members 2 Openings Commissioners 2** **(If Hans Widmer and James Smith are appointed, the PAC will be at full complement) St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 6a - CDBG Public Hearing Continued Page 1 6a. Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Reallocation of $57,500 of 2004 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds Resolution approving the reallocation of 2004 CDBG funds, and authorizing execution of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any related Third Party Agreements. Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to adopt the Resolution approving reallocation of 2004 funds, and authorizing execution of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any related Third Party Agreements BACKGROUND: The Public Hearing regarding use of 2006 CDBG funds and reallocation of 2004 funds was opened on February 21, 2006. At this meeting Council approved the use of 2006 CDBG funds for the single family emergency repair program, a housing land trust to assist with acquisition of a single family affordable home, STEP’s building acquisition and assistance with improvements to the PPL Louisiana Court stabilization project as noted in the table below. Approved Use of 2006 CDBG Funds. Activity Project City Admin Budget Emergency Repair Program - single family housing rehabilitation $52,372 $4,930 $57,302 Housing Land Trust - acquisition single family housing $17,000 $1,500 $18,500 Multifamily Rehabilitation - rental housing rehab $78,000 $2,000 $80,000 St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP)- acquisition assistance $51,800 $5,700 $57,500 Total $199,172 $14,130 $213,302 Reallocation of 2004 CDBF funds of $57,500. In 2004, $57,500 of CDBG funds was allocated for STEP’s acquisition of a building. STEP has not purchased a building and these funds should be redirected to another use. They need to be expended by June 2006 to prevent recapture of funds by the county. Since a last minute change had been suggested in the Public Hearing staff report for use of a portion of the 2004 funds, the Council decided to continue the public hearing and discuss the funding at its next study session on February 27. Improvements at the Wayside House Facility. The primary reason for the late request was uncertainty about the future of Wayside’s building at 3705 Park Center Boulevard. It is anticipated that at some time in the future the existing building will be replaced. What is known is that Wayside will continue to operate at its current site for a period of time. And minimum improvements are required, (as noted in the attached correction orders from the MN Health Department and letter from Wayside Executive Director) regardless of the duration of Wayside’s use of the building. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 6a - CDBG Public Hearing Continued Page 2 The minimum improvements are noted below: • $18,000 for partial carpet replacement. The Department of Health has granted Wayside until April of 2006 to make this safety related improvement. • $7,500 for replacement of the water heater. The water heater has not failed, but is estimated to have less than 1-year life remaining. An additional improvement would be $7,500 for parking lot and pot-hole repair. The city administrative costs for all these improvements would be $1,500. Single Family Deferred Loan Program. Staff had originally proposed that $57,500 be used to fund the single family housing rehab through the County administered deferred loan program as noted in the February 13 Council report. This is the primary ongoing CDBG rehab loan program targeted for homeowners with annual income of 50% or less of the median area income, or $38,850 for a household of 4, and assets less than $25,000. The rehab focuses on improvements to bring homes into code compliance and provide long-term maintenance free housing. The maximum loan amount is $25,000 and is forgiven after 15 years. Repayment is required if homeowners sell the property before the 15-year period expires. The funding considerations for the single family deferred loan program are unique to this activity and should be considered in a reallocation discussion. • This project is potentially funded not only with the 2004 reallocation, but also with loan repayment income from the program itself. • However, in the future if more funds are needed for this program, a reallocation can be considered. Recommendation: A resolution approving reallocation of the 2004 CDBG funds is needed. The City Council is asked to select the alternative reallocation it prefers from the options outlined in the table below. Alternatives Wayside House Improvements City Admin Single-Family Deferred Loan Total 1 Carpet replacement $18,000 $500 $39,000 $57,500 2 Carpet & water heater $25,500 $1,000 $31,000 $57,500 3 Carpet, water heater & parking lot repairs $33,000 $1,500 $23,000 $57,500 4 No funding $0 $0 $57,500 $57,500 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 6a - CDBG Public Hearing Continued Page 3 Motion: Once the alternative is determined, Council should approve a motion to adopt a Resolution approving either a) reallocating all the 2004 CDBG funds to the single family deferred loan rehab program. or b) reallocating a portion of the 2004 CDBG funds to the single family deferred loan rehab program and a portion to the Wayside House based on the options above. Next Steps: After the public hearing and authorization of the 2004 reallocation, the appropriate third party agreement(s) will be executed. Attachments: Resolution February 27, 2006 Study Session Report Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 6a - CDBG Public Hearing Continued Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 06-_____ RESOLUTION APPROVING REALLOCATION OF 2004 FUNDS, AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park developed a proposal for the use of 2006 Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park held a public hearing on February 21, 2006 to obtain the views of citizens on local and urban Hennepin County housing and community development needs and priorities for the City’s proposed use of $213,302 from the 2006 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant. BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of St. Louis Park approves the following projects for funding from the 2006 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County. BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota approves the reallocation of Community Development Block Grant funds by reallocating 2004 funds as follows: ____________________________________________________________________. Project Budget Emergency Repair Program - single family housing rehabilitation $57,302 Housing Land Trust - acquisition single family housing $18,500 Multifamily Rehabilitation - rental housing rehab $80,000 St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP)- acquisition assistance $57,500 Total $213,302 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 6a - CDBG Public Hearing Continued Page 5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and its City Manager to execute a Subrecipient Agreement and any required Third Party Agreements on behalf of the City to implement the 2006 CDBG program. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 6, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 6a - CDBG Public Hearing Continued Page 6 STAFF REPORT OF FEBRUARY 27, 2006 STUDY SESSION 5. Study Session February 27, 2006 CDBG 2004 Reallocation Discussion Community Development PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: The purpose of this discussion is to consider funding options for the reallocation of $57,500 of 2004 CDBG funds following Council discussion at the February 21 Public Hearing. Background: The $57,500 of 2004 CDBG funds were planned to be used for STEP’s move to a permanent home. STEP has not yet found a permanent location, and can not use these funds at this time. The 2004 funds must be expended by June 2006, so these funds must be reallocated. Reallocation of funds from one project to another allows the flexibility to ensure community needs are met as they arise and funds are expended. In the original CDBG staff report of February 13, staff had recommended reallocating the $57,500 in 2004 funds for the single family deferred home rehab loan program. The reasons for this recommendation were twofold: • the need and activity level of this loan program remains strong, and • County staff noted they could expend the 2004 funds by the June deadline. Following the study session of February 13, the need for improvements at the Wayside House became more clear to staff. Admittedly, this was very late in the CDBG process, and the first opportunity to present a revision to the proposed reallocation to Council was in the Public Hearing staff report for the February 21 meeting. Issues for Consideration: Wayside House Wayside House is undergoing a strategic planning process that includes analysis of remaining at their current site, the cost effectiveness of major building rehab to their current building, and relocation considerations. The Wayside location is shown on the City’s Comp Plan as mixed use and the right of way for a new street. It is anticipated that at some point in time Wayside will need to relocate at least temporarily or permanently.. Staff has been having ongoing discussions with Wayside about possible scenarios over the last year and beyond. It has become fully apparent that a resolution regarding their location will not be imminent. Wayside has noted that under any case they will likely be in their current building for a minimum of two years, even three years. In the meantime, they plan to keep operations running and have been directed by the State of MN and their mechanical consultant that the following repairs are considered urgent: St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 6a - CDBG Public Hearing Continued Page 7 • $18,000 for carpet replacement. A citation from the MN Health Department (see attachment) mandates replacement of carpeting for safety issues, since it is torn, tattered and could lead to falls. Wayside is required to make this improvement regardless of the City’s funding decision. • $7,500 for replacement of the water heater. The replacement of the water heater, which has not yet failed, is a preemptive attempt to contain costs. The mechanical consultant estimates that the heater has less than 1-year life remaining. If replacement is made before the equipment fails, additional clean up costs and higher emergency replacement costs would be avoided. The property management of Wayside also notes that the building’s roof is in need of replacement and estimates this cost at $100,000. However, since the long term use of the building is unknown, the high cost of this repair at this time is not prudent, and they will patch as needed. Wayside had requested $7,500 for parking lot improvements. Staff believes since this is not critical to their operation, this improvement could be deferred. Single Family Rehabilitation Deferred Loans In the February 13, study session report staff had recommended the full 2004 reallocation of $57,500 be directed to this program. This is the primary ongoing CDBG rehab loan program targeted for homeowners with annual income of 50% or less of the median area income, or $38,850 for a household of 4, and assets less than $25,000. The rehab focuses on improvements to bring homes into code compliance and provide long-term maintenance free housing. The maximum loan amount is $25,000 and is forgiven after 15 years. Repayment is required if homeowners sell the property before the 15-year period expires. As noted earlier, county staff projected they could expend the money by the June deadline. The activity level is healthy in that the previous year long waiting list no longer exists. Three projects were completed in 2005 and another eight are funded and in process. The funding considerations for the single family deferred loan program are unique to this activity and should be considered in a reallocation discussion. • This project is currently funded through loan repayment. The deferred loan program has evolved to a revolving loan program, in that when residents move before the expiration of the forgiveness period, the original principle is repaid. The city has been funding this program since 1975 and currently has over 50 active loans. The repayment of loans helps fund this project. • This project provides budget flexibility that prevents loss of unexpended funds. o When we have unexpended funds resulting from situations like STEP not being able to use the money in the projected timeframe, we can “park” CDBG funds in this project. o Funds can be drawn down from a specific grant year or from the loan repayment income which does not have the same deadline as grant year funds. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 6a - CDBG Public Hearing Continued Page 8 • This project would be adequately funded with a portion of the 2004 reallocation plus loan repayment income. However, in the future if more funds are needed for this program, a reallocation can be considered. Project Eligibility The use of CDBG funds is restricted by federal guidelines, and it can be quite challenging to find projects that meet both the community’s needs and federal guidelines. Many cities do not fully expend their CDBG funds due to their restrictive use. Both the Wayside House improvements and single family deferred loan program meet federal eligibility guidelines based on low income requirements and type of work. One Final Consideration As part staff’s annual funding recommendations, the city’s affordable housing providers are contacted to determine if CDBG funding would be appropriate in the coming grant year. The focus of funding has been to make capital improvements to single family homes, apartment buildings and community buildings that meet the needs of low income individuals such as Lenox Center and Wayside House. CDBG funding has been instrumental in providing capital improvements for Community Involvement Programs, Vail Place, Wayside House, Perspectives Family Services, and Project for Pride in Living properties. Reallocation Amounts for Council Discussion – Total Amount is $57,500 Staff recommends the following activities be funded with the 2004 reallocation: Activity Amount Wayside House Carpet Replacement $18,000 Water Heater Replacement $7,500 City Admin Cost $1,200 Single Family Deferred Loan $30,800 Total $57,500 Next Steps Upon Council direction, staff will prepare the proposed reallocation report for continuation of the CDBG Public Hearing at the March 6, 2006 Council meeting. Attachment: Wayside House, MN Department of Health Citation Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 1 8a. Zoning Ordinance Amendments An ordinance amending the St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance by amending sections 36-73, 36-115a, 36-162, 36-163, 36-164, 36-165, and 36-361 relating to residential setbacks, detached garages, accessory buildings, and to allow studios in the Industrial Park (IP) zoning district. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt first reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to residential setbacks– Sections 36-73, 36- 163, 36-164, 36-165. Motion to adopt first reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to garages and accessory buildings - 36- 162. Motion to adopt first reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to deleting Table 115a, a summary of land uses by zoning district. Motion to adopt first reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to Adding “Studio” as a use in the IP district – Sec. 36-361. Description of Request: An outcome of the Housing Summit process included the idea of encouraging the expansion of existing single family homes. Over the past several months, the Planning Commission and City Council have met to discuss zoning ordinance changes that will clarify, simplify and provide more ease to citizens in remodeling and expanding homes. Process: Proposed Zoning Code updates were discussed at Study Sessions on July 11, 2005, September 26, 2005, and on February 27, 2006. A public hearing on the proposed changes was held by the Planning Commission on January 4, 2006. The Commission met again January 18, 2006 to discuss an alternate proposal amending residential front yard setbacks. The Planning Commission recommended approval of all the proposed amendments. Staff is also working on numerous other changes to the ordinance in order to make it more workable and understandable. Some of the changes will relate to substantive issues, however most relate to the organization of the ordinance and to the language used. The language is very difficult to interpret, and portions of the ordinance are disjointed. Over the next year or so we will bring forth recommended changes for further discussion. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 2 Description of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments: Attached are several changes related to improving the ordinance. The changes address setbacks, detached garages, accessory buildings, and allowing studios as an allowed use in the Industrial Park (IP) zoning district. In working through the Ordinance, the Staff is also proposing changes to amend and clarify language in several places. The following changes relate to single family homes: 1. Amending residential setback issues – Sections 36-73, 36-163, 36-164, 36-165. 2. Changes to placement of accessory structures – 36-162. The following changes are additional changes the Staff recommends: 3. Deleting Table 115a, which is a summary of land uses by zoning district Sec. 36-115A. 4. Adding “studio” as a use in the IP district – Sec. 36-361. SUMMARY AND EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED CHANGES 1. Amending Residential Standards The intent of the amendments is to provide some regulatory changes to the code, which are summarized below. a. Front Yard Setbacks The front yard is currently determined by taking five feet less than the average front yard of all properties within 150 feet of the subject property. This has been problematic for residents and staff. Staff explored options to improve the rules for determining the front yard setbacks in residence districts. The current code is ambiguous, requires residents to survey neighboring properties, and each addition to a front of a building may reduce the required setback and allow homes to shift closer to the street. One of the goals identified from the Housing Summit was to encourage house additions. The Planning Commission and City Council have also expressed a possible competing goal of maintaining the view or character of the streetscape on blocks where existing houses are built further back than the required minimum setback (in other words preserve larger front yards). Staff identified five different scenarios for determining the front yard setback. There are pros and cons to each approach. The table below provides a brief summary and staff’s analysis of each scenario. # RULE DESCRIPTION PROS & CONS A (Current Code) Average Setback. Five feet less than the average front yard setback of all properties within 150 feet of the subject property. + Setback tailored for each property - Complicated to explain and determine - Include subject property in calculation? Before or after project? - Must survey neighboring properties - Required setback changes over time - House may get closer to the street over time - Existing houses built closer to the street than “five feet less than the average setback” have nonconforming front yard setbacks St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 3 B Average Setback. Five feet less than the average front yard setback of the houses on either side of the subject property. + Setback tailored for each property + Fewer lots to survey than Option #1 + Excludes subject property - Complicated to explain and determine - Must survey neighboring properties - Moving target - Setback may shrink over time - Existing houses built closer to the street than “five feet less than the average setback” have nonconforming front yard setbacks C Fixed Setback, With List of Specific Street Exceptions. Fixed, district-wide setback; but identify and list individual blocks with large front yards and require a larger, fixed setback for each of those blocks. + Setback tailored for each block + Less complicated + Fixed setback + Won’t shift over time + No survey of neighboring lots - Difficult and time consuming to identify and establish a comprehensive list of blocks that warrant exceptions (see exhibits) - Draft list is already too long to be practical D Fixed Setback, With General Exception. Fixed, district-wide setback or the closest house (smallest front yard) on the block, whichever is greater. (An exception is proposed to allow enclosed front entryways not exceeding a depth of 5 feet toward the front lot line and not exceeding a total of 40 square feet in area. + Setback tailored for each block + Less complicated + Fixed setback + Won’t shift over time + Must survey only one additional lot + More intuitive requirement + Creates no nonconformities + No need for City to develop and establish a comprehensive list - One outlier (very small front yard) on a block may set standard for whole block, not less than the base setback E Fixed Setback, No Exceptions. Fixed, district-wide setback. + Consistent requirement district-wide + Least complicated + Fixed setback + Won’t shift over time + No survey of neighboring lots + No limit on one property based on decisions of neighboring owners + No lists, no exceptions - Less flexible - No protection of blocks with large front yard setbacks Currently the code allows houses to be built five feet closer to the street than the average setback which is explicit in Options #A and #B, and incorporated into Option #C. The intent of this rule was/is to allow existing houses to add a modest, enclosed front entryway to a house. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 4 Staff recommends Options #D (Fixed Setback, With Exception). This approach is relatively clear, simple and intuitive; and creates no new nonconforming front yard setbacks. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Option #C (Fixed Setback, With Exceptions), however, the list of properties became unmanageable. Staff determined that Option #D (Fixed Setback with Exception) could accomplish the same objectives, with a simpler method of doing so. Staff also recommends adding an exception for front entryways not exceeding a depth of 5 feet toward the front lot line and not exceeding a total of 40 square feet in area. This exception would allow homeowners to build an entryway without affecting the required front yard setback for their block. b. The “side yard abutting a street” standards would be consistent throughout the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Residential Districts. They would require a 9 foot minimum side yard for those properties less than 60 feet wide, and a 15 foot side yard for those lots that are 60 feet or more in width. c. The maximum ground floor area in R-1, R-2 and R-3 would be increased slightly from 30% to 35%, in order to allow more expansion of single family homes. d. The area required when a back yard abuts a front yard would have a maximum size of 30’ x 30’ in the R-1 District and 25’ x 25’ in the R-2 and R-3 Districts. This would free up some space in the corner lot for expansion. e. The requirement to have at least 10 feet between homes is proposed to be removed. An exception currently exists for homes with legal, nonconforming side yards. However, the exception is not available to those properties that do not have at least 10 feet between the house and the neighboring home. The 10-foot rule is not required by the building or fire codes; therefore, staff proposes to remove this restriction to allow house additions that maintain the existing side yard setback. f. In the R-3 Residential District the side yard requirements are proposed to be amended to create a reduced setback for single family homes to be consistent with the R-2 Residential District (7 feet on one side, 5 on the other). 2. Accessory Building Regulations The intent of the amendment is to clarify and condense the regulations into a format that is easier to read and use. In summary, the proposed amendments will result in the following changes: a. Under the proposed changes, detached garages would not be treated differently from other detached accessory buildings. Currently accessory buildings have a 3 foot side and rear yard, while detached garages have a 2 foot side and rear yard. This means, for example, a 10’ x 10’ storage shed has a greater setback requirement than a 26’ by 26’ detached garage. The proposed amendments establish a 2 foot side and rear yard for all accessory buildings, regardless of use or size. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 5 b. It is also proposed that there be a 5 foot setback from the alley for detached garages when the garage door faces an alley. This additional setback is to allow for turning movements into the garage. c. It is proposed to add an exception to allow a detached garage of up to 576 square feet (24’ x 24’) even if it exceeds the maximum 25% back yard coverage allowed for accessory buildings. This would allow more homes to have a 2-car garage, without additional accessory buildings. d. It is proposed to remove the option to have a garage that is larger than 800 square feet with a conditional use permit. Three-car garages could be built within this square footage. e. The maximum height allowed for accessory buildings would continue to be 15 feet to peak, however, an exception would be added to go up to 24 feet to the roof peak with the conditions that the exterior materials on the garage match with those of the house, and that the roof pitch matches the roof pitch of the house. The side wall would be limited to 9 feet in height in order to prevent a two story garage with a 4/12 roof pitch. f. The proposed amendments would remove the minimum allowed roof pitch so a flat roof could be constructed with second story windows that look either to the right-of-way or the backyard. g. Windows would be allowed in the second story of an accessory building if the openings face a public right-of-way or are at least 15 feet from a property line shared in common with another residential property. This would allow a home owner to construct an accessory building that is compatible with the home in architecture and design. h. The proposed language clarifies that accessory buildings cannot be used for dwelling purposes, but allows them to be used for other purposes such as storage and hobby spaces. The home occupation provision of the residential districts will continue to prohibit the use of accessory buildings as part of the home occupation. 3. Deleting Table 36-115-a Table 36-115a is intended to provide a simple summary list of land uses by zoning districts. However, the table is not accurate and is repetitious. For purposes of accuracy and clarity the table should be removed. Removing the table reduces the possibility of error in the Zoning Code by listing land uses in only one location within the Code, rather than in multiple locations. 4. Adding ‘Studios’ as a Permitted Use in the IP – Industrial Park District Studios are currently a permitted use in the C-2, O, and I-G Zoning Districts. Studios are permitted with conditions in the C-1 Zoning District. There does not appear to be any reason why studios have been included in the less restrictive I-G district but excluded from the more restrictive I-P district, as the I-P district is typically a less-intense use district than the I-G district. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 6 Studios, as described by Section 36-142 “Land Use Descriptions and Characteristics,” include facilities where the practice or study of visual and audio art occurs, including painting, sculpturing, photography, recording, radio, and television studios; and also including dance and martial arts studios. The use does not include large industrial photography or printing processes. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the First Reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Prepared By: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Planning Staff Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 7 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO.______-06 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 36-73, 36-115A, 36-162, 36-163, 36-164, 36-165, 36-361 Residential Setbacks, Detached Garages, Accessory Buildings, Studios in Industrial Park (IP) Zoning District THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 05-69-ZA). Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-73, 36-115A, 36-162, 36-163, 36-164, 36-165 and 36-361, is hereby amended by deleting striken language and adding underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***. Sec. 36-73. Yard Encroachments. (b) Principal building - any yard. The following shall not be encroachments on yard requirements for principal buildings provided no permanent structure is placed in an easement without first obtaining approval of an encroachment agreement: (6) Front entryways not exceeding a depth of 5 feet toward the front lot line and not exceeding a total of 40 square feet in area. Sec. 36-115A. TABLE 115A [DELETE ENTIRE TABLE] Sec. 36-162. Restrictions and performance standards. (7d) Accessory structures. Accessory structures shall comply with the following regulations: (1)a. Location-- 1a. Accessory buildings shall be erected or located within the back yard as defined in subsection (b) above, except that an detached accessory building, designed and used as a garage and meeting the provisions of subsections 2 and 3 below, may be located within a side yard unless it abuts a street. No accessory building shall be located in the front yard as defined in subsection (b) above. 2b. A detached garage Accessory buildings located 60 feet or more from the front lot line within the back yard shall meet the following locational provisions: St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 8 i1. Garages where the building dimensions do not exceed 15 feet in height and/or 26 feet in length or width Accessory buildings shall be located a minimum of two feet from any lot lines. ii. Garages where the building dimensions exceed 15 feet in height and/or 26 feet in length or width shall be located the following minimum distances from any lot lines: District Min. Interior Side Yard Min. Rear Yard Min. to Alley R-1 9 feet 25 feet 2 feet R-2 7 feet 25 feet 2 feet R-3 9 feet 25 feet 2 feet iii. Garages on alleys shall be located and designed to maintain adequate visibility and vehicle turning movements. iv2. Eaves, overhangs, gutters or other extensions from the roof of the structure shall be located a minimum of 16 inches from any property line abutting a right-of- way and two feet from all other property lines. 3c. Accessory buildings on through lots shall be subject to the front and side yard requirements of the principal building if the accessory building is located within 60 feet of the rear lot line. No accessory building, including a detached garage, shall be located within a side or rear yard abutting a street. 4. No accessory building other than a detached garage meeting the requirements of subsection 2 above shall be located within three feet of any lot line. 5d. All accessory buildings and structures shall be located to comply with the principal building yard requirements Detached garages when located in the side yard must conform to the side yard requirements of the principal building unless exempt by this section or section 36-73. 6e. No accessory building or permanent structure shall be located in a drainage or utility easement without first obtaining approval of an encroachment agreement. b(2). Size-- 1a. Accessory buildings on single-family lots in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Districts and on non-conforming two-family lots: i. The total cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings on single-family lots and on non-conforming two-family lots in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Districts (detached garages, storage sheds and other accessory buildings) shall not exceed the smaller of 800 square feet or 25 percent of the back yard area between the principal structure and rear lot line. This provision shall not prohibit the construction of a detached garage that is no greater than 576 square feet in area provided there are no other accessory buildings. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 9 ii. The total cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 800 square feet, unless approved as a conditional use. 2b. Accessory buildings on conforming two-family lots in the R-3 or R-4 District: i1. The total cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 25 percent of the area between the principal structure and rear lot line. ii2. No single accessory building may exceed 800 square feet in total area and the cumulative area of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 1,200 square feet unless approved as a conditional use. 3c. The total cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall be smaller than the ground floor area of the principal building on the lot. c(3). Height-- 1a. Detached garages Accessory buildings - Shall not exceed 15 feet or 22 feet in height. The maximum height may be increased to twenty four feet where the primary exterior materials of the accessory building match the primary exterior materials of the principal building and the roof pitch matches the primary roof pitch of the principal building, and provided the wall height shall not exceed 9 feet from the floor to the top plate. as measured in accordance with section 36-4 depending upon the location as specified in section 36-162(c)7.a above. 2b. Parking ramps--Height is regulated by sections 36-166 and 36-167. 3c. Other aAccessory buildings and structures shall not exceed 15 feet in height as measured in accordance with section 36-4 unless exempt by section 36-78. 4d. The height of all accessory buildings and structures shall be lower than the highest roof line point of the principal building unless exempt by section 36-78. d(4). Design-- 1a. All detached garages and other accessory buildings shall be compatible in design and materials to the principal building on the parcel. 2. All detached garages and other accessory buildings shall have a minimum 3/12 pitch on any roof section, unless approved as a conditional use. 3b. No plumbing for kitchen or bathroom facilities (including but not limited to toilets and showers) is allowed in any detached garage or other accessory building. Hose bibs and utility sinks are allowed. 4c. Floor drains in garages and other accessory buildings must be connected to sanitary sewer as approved by the city. 5d. No part of any Wwindows, doors, skylight or and similar openings shall may be located in the second story of an accessory building if the wall or dormer in which it is located faces a lot line that abuts a public right-of-way or is at least 15 feet from St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 10 any property that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use. detached garage unless approved as a conditional use. 6e. Accessory buildings shall not be used for dwelling purposes. Second stories of detached garages may only be used for storage, unless another use is approved as a conditional use. e(5). Accessory buildings as part of the principal buildings--Accessory buildings located less than six feet from a principal building on the same lot shall be considered part of the principal building for the purpose of applying provisions of this chapter. f(6). Garages below grade level--Where the natural grade of a lot at the building line of a house is eight feet or more above the established curb level, a private garage may be erected within any yard provided one-half or more of its height is below grade level and it is located a minimum of ten feet from any street line and five feet from any side lot line. g(7). Permit required--All accessory buildings (including storage buildings 120 square feet or less in area) shall obtain a zoning or building permit prior to installation and must be anchored in a manner approved by the city. (8)(e) Parking and storing vehicles. (81) Except as provided in subsections (c)(9) and (c)(15) (e)(2) and (e)(8) of this section, no motor vehicle, recreational vehicle, commercial vehicle, or trailer shall be permitted to stand or park in any R district which exceeds any of the following: a. Eight feet in height, measured from the ground to the highest point on the vehicle at recommended tire pressure. For the purpose of measuring height, all accessories, attachments, and materials carried upon a vehicle shall be considered part of the vehicle; b. Twenty-two feet in length, measured at the longest point of the vehicle or, if a trailer, the horizontal distance between the front and rear edges of the trailer bed. For the purpose of measuring length, all accessories, attachments, and materials carried upon a vehicle shall be considered part of the vehicle or trailer bed; or c. Six thousand five hundred pounds, empty weight including the box. (92) One recreational vehicle which exceeds any of the limits set forth in subsection (c)(8) (e)(2) of this section and is owned by the occupant of the premises can be parked in the back yard area if: a. The vehicle is parked no closer than five feet from any property line. b. If the property is a multifamily property, the vehicle must be stored on a concrete or bituminous surface and the parking space must be in excess of the minimum number of parking spaces required by this chapter. c. The vehicle shall be screened using a 90 percent opaque fence which is six feet high and plant materials which at maturity have the ability to screen 100 percent of the height and 100 percent of the length of the vehicle with a minimum of 50 percent opacity from view from: St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 11 1. Any park. 2. Any abutting residentially developed property. 3. Any street which abuts the back yard. The fence and plant materials shall be located in such a manner that visibility is maintained as required in section 36-76. A six-foot-high gate may be placed in the fence to allow for ingress and egress. Plant materials may be omitted at points of ingress and egress but the gap in landscaping may not exceed the width of the vehicle plus two feet. (103) The following provisions shall apply to the parking and storage of vehicles on residential parcels in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 districts: a. No more than three vehicles can be parked or stored outside an enclosed building at a single-family residence. For a duplex, six vehicles can be parked or stored outside. If there are more than three persons residing at a single-family dwelling who have valid state driver's licenses showing the residence address, then the total number of vehicles allowed to be parked outside is increased to a number equal to the number of licensed drivers residing at the property not to exceed five vehicles. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply during snow emergencies. b. No more than two non-passenger vehicles can be parked on a residential lot outside of an enclosed building. Except as permitted in subsection (c)(9) (e)(2) of this section, vehicles shall be stored on a designated parking space. Non-passenger vehicles cannot be parked or stored in a front yard or a side yard abutting a street except as allowed under subsection (c)(10)g. (e)(3)g of this section. c. Only commercial vehicles which do not exceed any of the size requirements under subsection (c)(8) (e)(1) of this section and are designed exclusively for on-street use can be parked on residential lots outside an enclosed building. Commercial vehicles shall be parked only within a garage or on a designated parking space and cannot be parked or stored in a front yard or a side yard abutting a street except as permitted under subsection (c)(10)g.(e)(3)g of this section. d. Except as permitted in subsection (c)(9) (e)(2) of this section, all vehicles must be stored on a surface improved for driveway purposes with an approved paving surface. e. No more than one recreational vehicle which exceeds the size requirements in subsection (c)(8) (e)(2) of this section can be parked on a residential lot outside an enclosed building. f. No non-passenger vehicle can be parked within five feet of an interior side lot line or rear lot line. g. No non-passenger vehicle can be parked within the front yard or within a side yard abutting a street except where designated parking space is permitted under subsection 36-361(b)(3)l. Under no circumstances can a non-passenger vehicle which exceeds the size limitations in subsection (c)(8) (e)(1) of this section be parked in a front yard. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 12 h. No non-passenger vehicle can be parked on a residential lot if the vehicle is not owned or leased by the occupant of the premises where it is parked or is a commercial vehicle owned by the employer of an occupant who is using the vehicle for business purposes. i. Only one tow truck can be parked on a residential property. j. Parking is not permitted within a driveway in the R-1, R-2 or R-3 district within five feet of the curb of a public street. In the absence of a curb, parking shall not be permitted within five feet of the traveled public roadway, in no event can a vehicle be parked in such a manner as to block a public sidewalk. k. The total area in the front yard of a single-family lot improved for parking and driveway purposes shall not exceed 30 percent of a front yard area. Additionally, the average width of a driveway shall not be more than 22 feet. This provision will not prohibit an average driveway width of up to 22 feet for all single-family lots. l. Recreational vehicles six feet in height or less at their highest points may be parked in one non-driveway side yard on a residentially zoned lot provided that they are ten feet or more from the adjacent residence, do not extend beyond the front building wall of the house, and are screened from the street and from the adjacent neighbor with a 90 percent opaque fence with a height at least equal to the height of the highest point of the vehicle to be screened. A fence-height gate may be placed in the fence to allow for ingress and egress. (11) (4) One vehicle with an attached snowplow can be parked outside of an enclosed building between November 1 or the first two-inch snowfall, whichever occurs first, and April 30. This vehicle will be considered to be a commercial vehicle when applying this chapter. (12) (5) Snowplows and other commercial equipment must be stored within an enclosed structure when not attached to a vehicle. (13) (6) Outdoor storage of fish houses is not permitted on a residential lot. (14) (7) On-street parking of non-passenger vehicles is not permitted within any R district. (15) (8) The following are exempt from the provisions in this subsection: a. Any vehicle being used in conjunction with a temporary service benefiting the property. b. Vehicles used in conjunction with authorized construction sites between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. c. Vehicles used in conjunction with authorized public works construction. d. Recreational vehicles can be parked temporarily while being loaded or unloaded or during routine maintenance and servicing not exceeding 48 consecutive hours. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 13 Section 36-163 R-1 Single Family Residential District *** (e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in an R-1 district: (3) Private swimming pool and tennis court in conformance with section 36-73; pool house building in conformance with the following conditions: c. Notwithstanding section 36-162(c)(7), the pool house must meet all principal building yard requirements of subsection (f) of this section. (5) Detached garages. a. The following detached garage uses and features may be allowed as a conditional use. 1. Floor areas in excess of the square footage limitations of section 36-162 (7)b.1.ii, 2. Second stories used for other than storage purposes. 3. Window, door, skylight or similar openings located in the second story. 4. Roof pitch less than 3/12 slope. b. The conditions are as follows: 1. The area, bulk height, design or use shall have minimal impact on the use, enjoyment or property value of adjoining property. 2. The detached garage is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 3. Detached garage space is not be used for dwelling purposes (i.e. bedroom, bathroom, kitchen or other similar uses). 4. Garage space is not used for business or commercial purposes. 5. The cumulative ground floor area of the detached garage and any other accessory buildings does not exceed 25 percent of the back yard. *** (f) Dimensional standards/densities. *** (2) The ground floor area ratio within the R-1 district shall not exceed 0.35. (3) A side yard abutting a street shall not be less than at least 15 feet in width, except that a lot of record less than 60 feet in lot width shall have a side yard abutting a street of a minimum of 9 feet in width. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 14 (4) If a corner lot has a rear lot line which is common with the side lot line of another lot, no building shall occupy that portion of the rear yard of the corner lot which that abuts the front yard of the other lot for a distance equal to the depth of the front yard of that other lot or 30 feet, whichever is less, measured from the common property line of the two lots extending toward the front lot line of the corner lot on a line perpendicular to the common lot line of the two lots. See the following diagram. Common Lot Line (5) The following minimum requirements and those additional requirements, exceptions and modifications contained in subsection (f)(6) through (f)(11) of this section and provisions regarding subdivision shall govern the use and development of lots in the R-1 district: Lot Area (square feet) Lot Width (feet) Front Yard Depth (feet) Rear Yard Depth (feet) Side Yard Width 9,000 75 30 feet or the front wall of the closest house on the block front, whichever is greater. (See additional exceptions in Section 36-73.) 25 9 feet on one yard and 6 feet on the other yard, except when there is an attached garage accessible from the street or when the lot abuts an alley, both may be 6 feet. (6) The depth of the front yard of a lot shall be 30 feet unless the average depth of at least two existing front yards, for buildings within 150 feet along the same block front of the lot in question, are less or greater than 30 feet, then, the required front yards shall be five feet less than the average depth of such existing front yards. However, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than 20 feet or be required to exceed 50 feet. *** (9) Side yard widths may be reduced if the side wall of a building is not parallel by more than ten degrees with the side lot line. to permit the The minimum side yard shall be met by the average depth of the side yard to conform to the minimum side yard depth in the St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 15 district, but nNo side yard shall be less than five feet deep. No side yard shall be reduced to prevent construction of a driveway from the street into the rear of the lot unless a garage which has access from the street is located on the lot or an alley provides a secondary access to the rear yard of the lot. (10)A single-family house which legally existed or for which a valid building permit had been granted on or before the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived, may be expanded by an addition or dormer, provided the addition does not extend into the existing side yard, and provided the combined width of the side yard for the building and the adjacent building is not less than ten feet. *** (12) Each lot developed with a single-family residence shall contain at least 600 square feet of open lot area. Sec. 36-164. R-2 single-family residence district. *** (d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any R-2 district shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the requirements of all the general conditions provided in section 36-365(b) and with the specific conditions imposed in this subsection and such other conditions as may be imposed by the city council under section 36-34(b). *** (3) Detached garages. a. The following detached garage uses and features may be allowed as a conditional use. 1. Floor areas in excess of the square footage limitations of section 36- 162(7)b.1.ii, 2. Second stories used for other than storage purposes. 3. Window, door, skylight or similar openings located in the second story. 4. Roof pitch less than 3/12 slope. b. The conditions are as follows: 1. The area, bulk height, design or use shall have minimal impact on the use, enjoyment or property value of adjoining property. 2. The detached garage is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 3. Detached garage space is not be used for dwelling purposes (i.e. bedroom, bathroom, kitchen or other similar uses). 4. Garage space is not used for business or commercial purposes. 5. The ground floor area of the garage and accessory building area does not exceed 25 percent of the rear yard area. *** St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 16 (f) Dimensional standards/densities. The dimensional standards/densities are as follows: *** (2) The ground floor area ratio within the R-2 district shall not exceed 0.35. (3) A side yard abutting a street shall not be less than 15 feet in width except that a lot of record which is a minimum of 40 feet in width but less than 60 feet shall have a side yard abutting a street of a minimum of nine feet in width. (4) If a corner lot has a rear lot line which is common with the side lot line of another lot, no building shall occupy that portion of the rear yard of the corner lot which abuts the front yard of the other lot for a distance equal to the depth of the front yard of that other lot or 25 feet, whichever is less, measured from the common property line of the two lots extending toward the front lot line of the corner lot on a line perpendicular to the common lot line of the two lots. See the following diagram. (5) The following minimum requirements and those additional requirements, exceptions and modifications contained in subsections (f)(6) through (f)(11) and provisions regarding subdivision shall govern the use and development of lots in the R-2 district: Lot Area (square feet) Lot Width (feet) Front Yard Depth (feet) Rear Yard Depth (feet) Side Yard Width 7,200 60 25 feet or the front wall of the closest house on the block front, whichever is greater. (See additional exceptions in Section 36-73.) 25 7 feet on one yard and 5 feet on other yard, except when there is an attached garage accessible from the street or when the lot abuts an alley both may be 5 feet. The depth of the front yard shall be 25 feet deep unless the average depth of at least two existing front yards, for buildings within 150 feet along the same block front of the lot in question, are less or greater than 25 feet, then, the required front yards shall be five feet less than the average depth of such existing front yards. However, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than 20 feet or be required to exceed 45 feet. If there are no adjacent homes with front yards on the same street as the lot in question, then the front yard shall be no less than 30 feet. (9) Side yard widths may be reduced if the side wall of a building is not parallel by more than ten degrees with the side lot line. to permit the The minimum side yard shall be met by the average depth of the side yard to conform to the minimum side yard depth in the district, but Nno side yard shall be less than five feet deep. No side yard shall be reduced to prevent construction of a driveway from the street into the rear of the lot unless a garage which has access from the street is located on the lot or an alley provides a secondary access to the rear yard of the lot. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 17 (10)A single-family house which legally existed or for which a valid building permit had been granted on or before the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived, may be expanded by an addition or dormer, provided the addition does not extend into the existing side yard, and provided the combined width of the side yard for the building and the adjacent building is not less than ten feet. *** (12) Each lot developed with a single-family residence shall contain at least 400 square feet of open lot area. Sec. 36-165. R-3 two-family residence district. *** (d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any R-3 district shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the residential restrictions and performance standards of section 36-162, all the general conditions provided in section 36-365, the specific conditions imposed in this subsection (d) and such other conditions as may be imposed by the city council under subsection (b) of section 36- 34. *** (4) Detached garages. a. The following detached garage uses and features may be allowed as a conditional use. 1. Floor areas in excess of the square footage limitations of section 36-162(7)b.2.ii, 2. Second stories used for other than storage purposes. 3. Window, door, skylight or similar openings located in the second story. 4. Roof pitch less than 3/12 slope. b. The conditions are as follows: 1. The area, bulk height, design or use shall have minimal impact on the use, enjoyment or property value of adjoining property. 2. The detached garage is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 3. Detached garage space is not be used for dwelling purposes (i.e. bedroom, bathroom, kitchen or other similar uses). 4. Garage space is not used for business or commercial purposes. 5. The ground floor area of the garage and accessory building area does not exceed 25 percent of the rear yard area. *** (f) Dimensional standards/densities. The dimensional standards/densities are as follows: St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 18 *** (4) A side yard abutting a street shall not be less than 15 feet in width except that a lot of record which is at least 40 feet in width but less than 60 feet shall have a side yard of at least nine feet in width abutting a street. (5) If a corner lot has a rear lot line which is common with the side lot line of another lot, no building shall occupy that portion of the rear yard of the corner lot which abuts the front yard of the other lot for a distance equal to the depth of the front yard of that other lot or 25 feet, whichever is less, measured from the common property line of the two lots extending toward the front lot line of the corner lot on a line perpendicular to the common lot line of the two lots. See the following diagram. (6) The following minimum requirements and those additional requirements, exceptions and modifications in subsections (f)(7) through (f)(13) of this section shall govern the use and development of lots in the R-3 district: Lot Area (square feet) Lot Width (feet) Front Yard Depth (feet) Rear Yard Depth (feet) Side Yard Width 7,200* 60 25 feet or the front wall of the closest house on the block front, whichever is greater. (See additional exceptions in Section 36-73.) * 25 Single Family: 7 feet on one yard and 5 feet on other yard, except when there is an attached garage accessible from the street or when the lot abuts an alley both may be 5 feet. Duplex: 9 feet on one yard and 6 feet on other yard, except when there is an attached garage accessible from the street or when the lot abuts an alley, both may be 6 feet. *This minimum lot size is for the development of a single-family house. The minimum lot size for a two-family house is 8,000 square feet. (7) The depth of the front yard of a lot shall be 30 feet unless the average depth of at least two existing front yards, for buildings within 150 feet along the same block front of the lot in question, are less or greater than 30 feet, then, the required front yards shall be five feet less than the average depth of such existing front yards. However, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than 20 feet or be required to exceed 45 feet. *** (9) Each lot developed with a single-family or two-family residence shall contain at least 400 square feet of open lot area per dwelling unit. *** St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 19 (1213) Side yard widths may be reduced if the side wall of a building is not parallel by more than ten degrees with the side lot line. to permit the The minimum side yard shall be met by the average depth of the side yard to conform to the minimum side yard depth in the district, but nNo side yard shall be less than five feet deep. No side yard shall be reduced to prevent construction of a driveway from the street into the rear of the lot unless a garage which has access from the street is located on the lot or an alley provides a secondary access to the rear yard of the lot. *** Sec. 36-243. I-P Industrial Park District. *** (b) Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an I-P district if the use complies with the industrial restrictions and performance standards of section 36-242: (11) Studios. Sec. 36-361. Off-street parking areas, paved areas, and loading spaces. (b) Off-street parking and paved areas; general regulations. *** (2) General provisions. *** j. Location of parking facilities. Required off-street parking in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 districts shall be located within an enclosed building or, if outside, shall be located behind a line created by extending the front building wall of the principal structure to the side lot lines and shall not be located within a side yard abutting a street except as permitted under subsection (b) (3) l. of this section. Parking shall not be permitted on any landscaped area except as permitted under section 36-162(ec)(92). Passenger vehicles can be parked on private driveways in the front yard or side yard abutting a street of single- family or two-family dwelling units provided these vehicles meet the requirements of this section and of this article. Required off-street parking spaces shall be on the same lot as the building housing the principal use, except in the cases of: Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 05-69-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8a - Zoning Code Amendments Page 20 First Reading Second Reading Date of Publication Date Ordinance takes effect Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council March 6, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8b - 2006 Local Street Rehabilitation Page 1 8b. City Engineer’s Report: Local Street Rehabilitation Project – Area 2, Project No. 2005-1000 This report considers the Residential Pavement Management Project scheduled for the 2006 construction season in Area 2 of the City’s Pavement Management Program. The streets selected for work will have their existing asphalt pavement removed and then replaced with a new asphalt surface. Other work associated with the project will include drainage system repairs. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 2005-1000, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids. BACKGROUND: Staff developed and the City Council adopted a Pavement Management Program to address the problem of deteriorating streets within the city. Many of the roads are now approaching 40 years of age or more. The city’s streets are still in relatively good condition due to the fact that the streets were built well, are situated on good soils, utilize curb & gutter for drainage and have been well maintained. City maintenance crews have continually worked to keep streets in decent condition using basic maintenance strategies such as patching, crack filling and seal coating. However, as pavements age, more aggressive maintenance strategies are needed to prolong their life. The Pavement Management Program has been developed to extend pavement life and enhance system-wide performance in a cost-effective and efficient way by providing the right maintenance or repair at the right time. Using the city’s pavement management software, staff can obtain a rating of the street condition and monitor their performance. Staff can then evaluate the condition of the street and select a cost-effective treatment to extend the pavement life. ANALYSIS: The 2006 construction season will be the second year of implementing the City’s Pavement Management Program. This year’s work will be performed in Area 2 of the City’s 8 pavement management areas. The attached map identifies which streets in Area 2 have been selected for rehabilitation. Selection was based on previous condition surveys of the streets and field evaluations to determine current conditions of the pavement, curb and gutter, and the city’s underground utilities. A team of staff members was formed to select streets for inclusion in this year’s program and to recommend appropriate rehabilitation techniques. The team included members of Operations, Utilities, Engineering and the Public Works Asset Management Group. The residential streets selected this year for rehabilitation were all originally constructed in a similar fashion. The structure of most of the streets consists of a two (2) inch layer of asphalt pavement over six (6) inches of quality gravel. Staff has determined that an appropriate treatment for rehabilitating the streets consists of removing all of the old asphalt pavement and replacing it with three (3) inches of new pavement. The thicker asphalt section is being used to St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8b - 2006 Local Street Rehabilitation Page 2 provide for heavier vehicles, such as garbage trucks, and the increased volume of traffic on the streets. This will also allow for flexibility of future maintenance. For example, with a 2-inch thickness of asphalt, a typical mill and overlay is not possible because the asphalt layer is too thin. With a 3-inch thickness, 1.5 inches of asphalt can be milled off and replaced with the same thickness of new pavement. In conjunction with the pavement replacement, necessary drainage system (curb & gutter and catch basin) repairs will also be made. The Engineering Staff has prepared plans and specifications for this year’s project. With this project, a few streets selected for rehabilitation are shared with the City of Edina. These streets include 40th Street between Natchez and Joppa Avenue, the 4000 block of Natchez, a short segment on Morningside near Ottawa Avenue and a short portion of Browndale Avenue south of the city limits to 44th Street. Edina has agreed to pay for the expenses related to rehabilitating the streets within their city limits. All of the private utility companies have been contacted to inform them of the city’s proposed work plan and schedule. For those companies who may have buried utilities, staff has asked them to consider replacing any aging systems prior to our paving of the streets. Centerpoint/Minnegasco has informed us that they will be replacing some of their gas mains within our project area. Staff will work with them to coordinate their work prior to City construction. PUBLIC PROCESS: Staff invited area residents and neighborhood association leaders to an open house to review the preliminary plans. Thirteen residents attended the open house on February 22, 2006. People asked questions about how to get their driveway aprons replaced or widened and whether the city’s contractor would be interested in doing this private work. Since the driveway apron area is integral with the city’s curb and gutter drainage system, staff explained that it would be best to have this work performed by the city’s contractor at the resident’s expense. Otherwise the resident could perform the desired work with their hired contractor and coordinate with the city to ensure proper scheduling. Residents wishing to widen aprons in satisfactory conditions will be responsible for the replacement cost. If the work is performed by the city contractor, the cost will be based on the city’s contract prices. Driveway aprons that have failed and created drainage problems as a result boulevard tree roots heaving the apron or as a result of roadbed failure will be replaced at city expense. For any other driveway work performed on the private property, it will be the resident’s responsibility to hire the contractor and pay for the work. Staff will help facilitate the initial communication between the city’s contractor and those interested residents. Two residents on Browndale Avenue asked that speed humps be installed with this project to help control speeding and cut through traffic. Speed humps are not considered qualified traffic calming devices under the city’s policy. However, staff explained that the neighborhood could initiate a petition to request speed humps as part of a traffic calming effort. Staff has forwarded information on the petition process to the two interested residents. It is not necessary to install speed humps in conjunction with the installation of the new pavement. Speed humps could be installed separately. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8b - 2006 Local Street Rehabilitation Page 3 Other questions by residents generally related to the timing of the project and what construction impacts would be felt by the residents while the project is underway. The project is anticipated to start mid- June and last approximately 2 months. Work on any one block will usually last two weeks to replace curbing, if needed, then remove the pavement, grade the street, and then pave the first layer of bituminous. During this work residents will always have access to their driveways and overnight parking will be allowed on the street. The final layer of bituminous is typically placed near the end of the project and will result in another day of disruption for any one block. COST AND FUNDING: This project is included in the 2005 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) with an estimated cost of $901,626. Our Engineer’s estimate at this time is $1,072,575 which includes 5% for contingencies and 8% for engineering & administration. Although the total estimated cost is greater than anticipated in the CIP, it is still within the overall multi-year budget for the program. Staff anticipates the actual bids being lower than the estimated cost due to the time of year and the substantial size of the project. Last years project came under budget by approximately $235,000. All funding for this project will come from the Pavement Management Fund. PROJECT TIMELINE: Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated that the following schedule could be met: • Approval of Plans/Authorization to Bid by City Council March 6, 2006 • Advertise for bids Late March, Early April • Bid Opening April 6, 2006 • Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award contract April 17, 2006 • Construction June/July, 2006 Attachments: Resolution Map of Select Streets for Construction in Area 1 (Supplement) Prepared By: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed By: Scott Brink, City Engineer Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8b - 2006 Local Street Rehabilitation Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 06-053 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT, ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005-1000, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005-1000 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the City Engineer related to the 2006 Local Street Rehabilitation Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the 2006 Local Street Rehabilitation Program within the City is hereby accepted. 2. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 2005-1000, is hereby established. 3. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the direction of the City Engineer, are approved. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvement under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. 5. The bids shall be tabulated by the City Engineer who shall report her tabulation and recommendation to the City Council. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 6, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8c - Major Amendment Westmarke Condo Page 1 8c. Westmarke Condominiums – Major Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit Case No. 06-09-CUP Stonebridge Development and Acquisition, LLC. 1155 Ford Road Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Major Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, subject to conditions found in the resolution. Site Area: 1.3 Acres Zoning: C-2 General Commercial Comprehensive Plan: Commercial Description of Request: Requested is approval of a major amendment to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The primary changes to the CUP involve the building’s exterior façade and height. Background: The Westmarke Condominium development (formerly known as Stonebridge Condominiums) was originally approved in 2002. In 2004 the developers determined that changes to the site and building plan were necessary, and received a major amendment to the CUP at that time. No action has been taken on the site since the 2004 approvals, and a major amendment is now being requested. The approved proposals have all featured a mixed-use development on the site with the intent of removing the existing structure. In the C-2 zoning district, it is possible to construct a building with a commercial use on the first floor with housing above. The development proposal meets the requirements of the zoning code. Revised Proposal: The development has changed very little since the approval in 2004. At this time, the developer is requesting changes to: 1. Revise the appearance of the building and change the exterior building materials, including the proposed material ‘hardiboard’ as a Class I material. 2. Increase the height of the building’s architectural features from 56’ to 64’. 3. Decrease the number of residential condominiums from 65 to 64. 4. Increase the number of available parking spaces from 135 spaces to 138 spaces. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8c - Major Amendment Westmarke Condo Page 2 The proposed building remains five stories in height; as shown on the attached elevation, the increase in building height primarily results from an increase in height at the corners of the building, where an architectural parapet rises above the roof line. The height increase will not result in an increased ceiling height in any units within the building. Analysis: Building Height A Major Amendment to a CUP is required whenever a developer requests an increase in the height of an already approved building. During the last amendment process, the developer requested an increase in building height to accommodate nine foot ceilings. At this time, no change to ceiling height is proposed; however, the architectural design and related elements proposed for the building have changed, resulting in an increase in height. The attached building elevations depict the new height of the building. As the requirement remains within the maximum height limit imposed by the zoning code, staff has determined that the increase in height is appropriate. Building Materials For buildings in the C-2 Zoning District, the Zoning Code requires the use of a minimum of 60% Class I materials. Materials are defined in the Zoning Code as follows: Class I Brick, Marble, Granite, other natural stone, Cement Stucco, Copper, Porcelain, Glass Class I – Four or fewer residential dwelling units only Wood or Vinyl siding, Prefinished metal Class II Exposed aggregate concrete panels, Burnished concrete block, exposed aggregate concrete block, cast in place concrete, artificial stucco (EFIS), artificial stone, prefinished metal Class III Unpainted concrete block, unpainted or surface painted concrete panels, unfinished or surface painted metal The developer is requesting a change to the approved exterior building materials. The proposal shows that 50% of the building will be composed of brick and glass, with the remainder composed of hardiboard. Due to the fact that hardiboard is a new material and has not been classified in the Zoning Code, its status must be administratively determined. Because hardiboard continues to be present in development and redevelopment proposals, Staff intends to bring forward an amendment to the ‘Architectural Standards’ section of the Zoning Code. The amendment will clarify how hardiboard is counted as an architectural material. The previous approval for Westmarke Condominiums featured glass and brick and exceeded the requirement for Class I materials. Staff believes the current proposal for the use of hardiboard is appropriate because it contributes to the building’s unique architectural character. The developer has indicated that the change in materials results from the design of the building and the weight St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8c - Major Amendment Westmarke Condo Page 3 of the brick on the proposed structural system. The building design, which is not changing, features a cantilever design for portions of the exterior walls. The cantilevered portions of the building could not support the weight of brick without a substantial upgrade to the building’s structural system; for this reason, the developer has modified the building materials to be used. Decreased Number of Units The developer has proposed reducing the number of units in the Westmarke building from 65 to 64. Staff has determined that a reduction in the number of units will not negatively affect the development proposal and that the proposal remains within the density guidelines for the C-2 zoning district. The reduction in units reflects a change to the number of different units types within the proposed condominium. Increased Parking The developer is proposing to increase the number of parking spaces available in the development from 135 to 138 spaces. The spaces are provided in an at-grade surface parking lot and in the basement and first floor of the building. The number of parking spaces provided meets the zoning code requirements; further, proof of parking is provided that would allow the developer to increase the number of spaces in the surface parking lot if it becomes necessary. Because the number of parking spaces is increasing, Staff has determined that this change to the CUP is appropriate. Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) The developer is not proposing any changes to DORA in comparison with the previously approved site plan. The DORA contains picnic tables, a barbeque pit, and several benches. The DORA is connected to the greater Shelard Park Neighborhood through sidewalks that will connect the site to other surrounding uses. The proposal for DORA (22% of the site) exceeds the required 12% of the site that must be provided. Other Issues Staff has determined that no other changes are proposed in the major amendment. The primary characteristics of the proposed building remain the same: one level of underground parking; office and parking on the first floor; and 4 levels of housing above the first floor for a relatively typical five-story building. The development continues to meet the required conditions for multi- family housing located in the C-2 General Commercial district. The site plan, landscape plans, stormwater plan, and other associated plans remain the same from previous approvals. Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended approval (6-0) of the Major Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. The unapproved minutes from the Planning Commission meeting, as attached, provide information regarding the Planning Commission’s questions about the use of hardiboard on the building. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8c - Major Amendment Westmarke Condo Page 4 The Planning Commission and Staff recommend a motion to adopt a resolution approving a Major Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the conditions found in the resolution. Attachments: Location Map Color elevations Site Plan and related documents Unofficial minutes, Feb. 15 Planning Commission Meeting Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8c - Major Amendment Westmarke Condo Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 06-054 Amends and Restates Resolution No. 04-114 RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 04-114 ADOPTED ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 AND GRANTING AMENDMENT TO EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36- 33 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN BUILDING HEIGHT AND CHANGES TO BUILDING MATERIALS AT 1155 FORD ROAD WESTMARKE CONDOMINIUMS FINDINGS WHEREAS, Stonebridge Development, has made application to the City Council for an amendment to an existing conditional use permit under Section 36-33 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow an increase in building height and changes to the building’s materials at 1155 Ford Road within a C-2 General Commercial Zoning District having the following legal description: That part of the South 2 acres of the East 10 rods of the East ½ of the West ½ of the Northeast ¼, Section 1, Township 117, Range 22, which lies Northerly of the Northerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 12, and South of a line 67.0 feet North of and parallel to the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of said South 2 acres of the East 10 rods distant of 103 feet South from the Northwest corner thereof; thence run East to a point on the East line of said South 2 acres of the East 10 rods distant 113.05 feet South of the Northeast corner thereof and then terminating. WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case Nos. 02-40-CUP, 02-41-VAR, 04-40-CUP, and 06-09-CUP and the effect of the proposed revisions 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 conditional use permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 02-094 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated September 3, 2002 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8c - Major Amendment Westmarke Condo Page 6 WHEREAS, an amendment to the existing conditional use permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 04-114 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated September 20, 2004 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 conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the permit granted by Resolution Nos. 02-094 and 04-114, to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; WHEREAS, the contents of Case No. 02-40-CUP, 04-40-CUPand 06-09-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 04-114 filed as Document No. 8488769 is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a conditional use permit to the subject property for the purposes of increasing building height and changing the building materials within the C-2 General Commercial District at the location described above based on the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used, and maintained in accordance with the official exhibits, which shall be revised to meet the following conditions: a. Correct tree replacement calculations and size of plant materials in the plant schedule on the landscape plan. b. Move the handicap parking stalls to the northwest side of the exterior lot. c. Revise the east and west building elevations to provide building wall deviations, a minimum of 3 feet in depth that extend from the grade at ground level to the roof. d. Revise parking lot dimension to meet the required amount of usable open space requirements as approved by the Zoning Administrator. e. Remove that portion of the billboard, approximately 49’ x 2.8’, that projects over the southeast property line. 2. Prior to any site work, the developer shall meet the following requirements: a. A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City. b. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained. c. Sign assent from and revised official exhibits. d. Required erosion control permits, utility permits and other required permits shall be obtained from the City. e. Final sidewalk construction documents are approved by the Public Works Director and any easements required for installation of sidewalks on private property shall be dedicated to the City. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8c - Major Amendment Westmarke Condo Page 7 3. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the developer shall comply with the following: a. Building material samples must be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator. b. The landscape plan must comply with Table 36-364F. c. All building elevations must meet building wall deviation requirements. d. A lighting plan and photometrics and irrigation plan meeting the ordinance regulations shall be submitted to and approved by the community development department. e. Meet all Accessibility Code requirements during construction. 4. The developer shall comply with the following conditions. a. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during construction. b. 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. on weekdays and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. 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 Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. 5. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit the billboard shall be removed from the subject property. 6. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. 7. Prior to installation of any signs the applicant shall obtain sign permits. 8. The building height may be decreased to four stories with a commensurate reduction in the number of residential units without amending the conditional use permit. 9. The conditional use permit shall be amended on September 20, 2004 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the revised exhibits, such documents incorporated by reference herein. b. The site and landscape plan shall be revised to show the location of the freestanding sign to comply with the five-foot setback requirement. 10. The conditional use permit shall be amended on March 6, 2006 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: a. Revised official exhibits depicting the approved changes to the building height and materials must be signed by applicant and owner. b. All necessary permits must be obtained prior to starting issuance of the building permit. c. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8c - Major Amendment Westmarke Condo Page 8 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. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed. 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. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council March 6, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8d - Gambling Renewal SLP Hockey Page 1 8d. Request of St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association to conduct lawful charitable gambling at Bunny’s Bar & Grill located at 5916 Excelsior Blvd. in St. Louis Park. Recommended Action: Motion to approve Resolution authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association operating at Bunny’s Bar and Grill, 5916 Excelsior Boulevard. Background: St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association (SLPHBA) has submitted a renewal application for a Gambling Premises Permit to conduct lawful charitable gambling in the form of pull-tabs sales at Bunny’s Bar & Grill located at 5916 Excelsior Blvd. in St. Louis Park. Pull-tab sales are already in progress at this location under a previously issued permit. SLPHBA is a public charitable non-profit organization and provides opportunity for kids eighteen years old and under to play competitive hockey. The charitable gambling makes the opportunity more affordable for the players and their families. Because of the charitable gambling, the cost to play youth hockey in St. Louis Park is approximately one half the cost of the metro area cities. The premises permit duration is May 1, 2006 – April 30, 2008. All current requirements for issuance of the license have been met. The Police Department has conducted a background investigation and no records or warrants were discovered by using conventional police methods of investigation. This action does not require a public hearing as the building location meets all proximity requirements in the ordinance. The City Council must act to approve or deny the renewal before it is submitted to the State Gambling Control Board who is responsible for issuing the license. Recommendation: License materials are in order and the staff recommends approval. Should the City Council approve the application, the Resolution of approval will be forwarded to the State Gambling Control Board. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 030606 - 8d - Gambling Renewal SLP Hockey Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 06-055 RESOLUTION OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT FOR LAWFUL GAMBLING FOR ST. LOUIS PARK HOCKEY BOOSTERS ASSOCIATION AT BUNNY’S BAR AND GRILL, 5916 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, ST. LOUIS PARK PERMIT DURATION MAY 1, 2006 –APRIL 30, 2008 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance Section 15, provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board; and WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless it has first obtained from the Board a premise permit for the site; and WHEREAS, the Board may not issue or renew a premises permit unless the organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicant listed below meets the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit, and the application is hereby approved ST. LOUIS PARK HOCKEY BOOSTERS ASSOCIATION AT BUNNY’S BAR AND GRILL 5916 EXCELSIOR BLVD ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55426 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 6, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk