Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/04/03 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA April 3, 2006 7:30 PM 7:00 p.m. Study Session 7:30 p.m. City Council Meeting 1. Call to Order 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 2b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. Sharon Anderson’s Recognition 2b. Bruce Stepnick’s Recognition 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Study Session Minutes of February 13, 2006 3b. Study Session Minutes of February 27, 2006 3c. City Council Minutes of March 6, 2006 3d. City Council Minutes of March 20, 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 appointment citizen representatives to Boards and Commissions. 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing on Sungate One Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area The Sungate One Condominium Association has petitioned the City Council to hold a public hearing to consider an ordinance to establish the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area (HIA) and a resolution approving a housing improvement fee for the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Recommended Action: Mayor to close Public Hearing. Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance to establish the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area and to set Second Reading for April 17, 2006. 6b. Public hearing to consider two appeals of the Board of Zoning Appeals decision on three variances for property at 4611 Excelsior Blvd. Location: 4611 Excelsior Boulevard Applicant: Daniel LeSage Case No.: 06-10-VAR Recommended Action: • Mayor to close the public hearing. • Motion to approve an application for variances to section 36-193(c)17)b & c of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a restaurant (coffee shop) to be less than 25 feet from a residentially zoned parcel, and to allow less landscaping than required by bufferyard E. • Motion to deny an application for a variance to section 36-361(c)(1) of the zoning ordinance to allow fewer parking spaces than required for a restaurant (coffee shop) use. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Request by Ted Bigos for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the export/import of over 400 cubic yards of soil for property at 1351 and 1361 Hampshire Ave. Case No. 06-13-CUP Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the excavation/fill of more than 400 cubic yards of soil at 1351 and 1361 Hampshire Avenue, with conditions. 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 April 3, 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 adopt the attached resolution approving the Sidewalk Snow Removal Enforcement Policy 4b. Motion to approve Resolution establishing a special assessment for the installation of a fire suppression sprinkler system at 5551 West Lake Street, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. 4c. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Concrete Idea, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $40,569.00 for Alley Improvement Project – 2900 Block Ottawa/Princeton Avenue, City Project No. 2005-1800 4d. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate ELXSI d/b/a CUES as the lowest responsible bidder and authorize the purchase of a Closed Circuit Color Television Inspection System for $118,200.00. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 2a - Sharon Anderson Recognition Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 06-_______ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO SHARON ANDERSON WHEREAS, Sharon Anderson began her employment with the City of St. Louis Park 27 years ago on April 2, 1979; and WHEREAS, Sharon also provided service to the City for 1 ½ additional years, from April 11, 1977 to October 12, 1978; and WHEREAS, Sharon has worked diligently in the Community Development Department and St. Louis Park Housing Authority, moving from the position of Executive Secretary to Public Housing Manager; and WHEREAS, through her passion and dedication to her work in the areas of affordable housing and advocacy against discrimination, Sharon has earned the respect of peers, citizens, boards and commissions, and city council; and WHEREAS, Sharon has made many contributions in her commitment to the Hamilton House and family public housing residents; and WHEREAS, Sharon was presented the Spirit of St. Louis Park Award in 1997, recognizing her numerous contributions to her job and the community including her volunteer service with the Vital Aging Network, S.T.E.P., the YMCA, Meals on Wheels and Mother’s Against Drunk Driving; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Sharon Anderson for her great contributions and 27 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and the St. Louis Park Housing Authority and wish her the best in her retirement. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 3, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 2b - Bruce Stepnick Recognition Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 06-070 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO BRUCE STEPNICK WHEREAS, Bruce Stepnick began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park almost 28 years ago on July 3, 1978; and WHEREAS, Bruce has achieved the Senior Accredited Minnesota Assessor, the highest designation an Assessor can obtain; and WHEREAS, Bruce has been a member of the Minnesota Association of Assessing Officers since 1988; and WHEREAS, Bruce has been an active member in many City volunteer groups such as CITE and the Benefits Committee; and WHEREAS, Bruce has been an extremely valuable resource to employees and the public through his knowledge of Assessing and the Community and he has the uncanny ability to work through contentious situations to come to a resolution that all can agree to; and WHEREAS, Bruce has given his time to the Community of St. Louis Park by giving presentations at the Senior Summit and other organizations, and; WHEREAS, Bruce will begin his retirement by continuing his fishing expeditions, hiking, home repairs, and vacations to such places as Africa and Alaska; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Bruce Stepnick for his great contributions and 28 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 3, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3a - 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; and a traffic analysis is underway for the proposed site. Fred Richards said he is one of five principals in this project and those principals are 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 Blvd. 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 would be approximately 53% green space on this site. He said they think the price point will be approximately the high $300,000s to over one million dollars on the upper floors of this 14-story building. Mr. Richards said the neighbors who participated in the neighborhood meetings made it known that the height would be an issue, however, Mr. Richards said on balance the tradeoffs, i.e., lesser density, traffic flows, open space, and the tax benefit to be gained by the City, those tradeoffs are certainly significant and would more than justify the approval for a 14-story structure. 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. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3a - Study Session Minutes Feb. 13, 2006 Page 2 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. He said if there is a reason to deviate from the guidelines, it must be compelling reasons. Councilmember Basill had requested multiple options but he sees only one option being presented, therefore, he is leery about moving forward with one option; he needs more information. With such limited information, Councilmember Basill said he cannot support this project. Councilmember Finkelstein asked how much the developer is paying for the land and per unit? The response was approximately $6,000,000 for the land which is a mix of commercial and residential, therefore, it is difficult to determine price per unit. Councilmember Finkelstein said his understanding is that the average price per unit for land in a Twin Cities’ suburb is about $50,000 or less. He asked if the developer is aware of any other plans coming forward with the hotel right now. No, the developer is not aware of any such plans. 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. Councilmember Finkelstein said because the building is too high and doesn’t meet the guidelines, he did not feel it meets the criteria for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and that he is willing to wait. 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 t his 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. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3a - Study Session Minutes Feb. 13, 2006 Page 3 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 Sanger felt there was a need for these services, but was concerned with city money being spent for religious oriented services. She also stated concern that the program would not help those who are non-affiliated. While Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Finkelstein want to maintain the separation between church and state, they felt this grant would provide much needed services in getting help to seniors. Ms. Sandler stated there are over 8,000 parish nurses in our country with less than 10 Jewish congregational nurses. Three of these Jewish congregational nurses have been established in St. Louis Park and by the end of 2007, that could make St. Louis Park a national leader by changing the movement of how people reach out to seniors. This item will appear on the City Council agenda for Tuesday, February 21st. 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 Thomas 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. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3a - Study Session Minutes Feb. 13, 2006 Page 4 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. 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: 040306 - 3b - Study Session Minutes Feb. 27, 2006 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION February 27, 2006 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran Paprocki, Susan Sanger, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Councilmember Basill arrived at 8:20 p.m. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening); Community Development Director (Mr. Locke); Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt); Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal); Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison); Senior Planner (Mr. Walther); Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin); Utilities Superintendent (Mr. Anderson); Housing Program Coordinator (Ms. Larsen); Police Chief (John Luse); Police Lieutenant (Lori Dreier); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson). Guests present: Alva Rankin, Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH); Michael Baum, Chair Police Advisory Commission; Maureen Gormley, Vice Chair Police Advisory Commission; Duane Spiegle, Vice President Real Estate Park Nicollet, Ben Oehler, Chairman of EDI Major Gifts Campaign, Carol Tappen, EDI Director of Operations. Joel Jahraus, Department Chairman EDI 1. Sanitary Sewer Inflow and Infiltration Study Alva Rankin from Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH) presented a report on Sanitary Sewer Inflow and Infiltration (I&I). Mr. Rankin said the sanitary sewer system is a closed system and should only contain sewage; the sanitary and storm systems must be separate. Mr. Rankin discussed inflow and infiltration which are indirect connections. He said the sources of inflow and infiltration are public and private properties. Mr. Rankin emphasized that if inflow is reduced, “the surcharge will be solved.” Mr. Rankin discussed the Metropolitan Council’s requirements and mandates. He said communities with excess I&I in their sanitary will be required to eliminate it with a reasonable time. Communities with an excess I&I will be charged a surcharge. Mr. Rankin said communities served by the regional wastewater system will be required to come up with an I&I reduction plan in their comprehensive plans. Communities will have five years to meet I&I goals and will be charged a surcharge for additional I&I. If a program is in place and if the funding to reduce I&I is equal to what the surcharge would be, there will be no surcharge. If the I&I problem is not solved by 2013, a demand charge would be instituted (up to five times the surcharge amounts) for the communities that fail to meet I&I reduction goals. Councilmember Sanger asked how the City will check out internal connections within private property. Mr. Rankin responded new ordinances may need to be passed to require that no clear water connection to the sanitary sewer exists. The City would have to inspect to determine that, and if not allowed to inspect, the property owner would receive a surcharge on the sewer bill St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3b - Study Session Minutes Feb. 27, 2006 Page 2 until the property owner allows inspection. If an illegal connection is found, there would be a surcharge until it was disconnected. Councilmember Sanger asked if the problem is fixed, does the storm water sewer system have sufficient capacity? Utilities Superintendent Scott Anderson said that is an unknown and first we need to determine where the problems are. Mr. Rankin said for every sump pump taken out of the community, a $500 credit is given. City Manager Tom Harmening asked what will happen next. Mr. Anderson said at this time data is being collected and flow monitors are in designated manholes. Staff anticipates returning to the Council mid-summer with additional information. Mr. Anderson said staff would like to capture some rain events. 2. Police Advisory Commission Annual Report Michael Baum, Chair of the Police Advisory Commission, said the first run of the police academy will be open to the public this April for five weeks, and again in the fall for five weeks. Councilmember Sanger asked how the police academy is being advertised to the public. Lieutenant Dreier said it is being advertised through the Park Perspective and the Sun Sailor. Councilmember Carver asked for a sense of what took place during the 10 week pilot program. Maureen Gormley, Vice Chair of the Police Advisory Commission, said last time the Chief gave an introduction of the academy, a history of the police department was presented, a dispatcher explained 911 operations, there was one visit to the Hennepin County jail, and a drug task force officer spoke, as did school liaisons. Mr. Baum said for 2006, the Police Advisory Commission is looking to capitalize on the momentum established. Mr. Baum said key objectives for 2006 are: • To continue to find funding sources • To establish partnerships with other constituencies in the community, especially to bring in people to be part of the subcommittees • To continue with the Citizens’ Academy • To study traffic issues Councilmember Finkelstein asked if pedestrian safety could be considered as part of the traffic issues, such as enforcement at crosswalks and stop signs. Councilmember Carver said he did not envision the Police Advisory Commission would be talking about traffic concerns. The Police Advisory Commission was envisioned to be a liaison between the police department and community, as Councilmember Sanger mentioned, to create connections between groups that might not feel free or comfortable in talking with the police department. Councilmember Carver asked the Commission if traffic concerns fit squarely within their mission? Mr. Baum said traffic concerns probably do fit because the most common interaction a citizen has with a St. Louis Park officer is through a traffic stop. Mayor Jacobs supports the traffic issues discussion and he is highly supportive of outreach. Mayor Jacobs is thankful for the DARE officer assigned full-time to the junior high school. Councilmember Omodt said all of the kids look forward to the DARE officer. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3b - Study Session Minutes Feb. 27, 2006 Page 3 3. Park Nicollet Eating Disorder Institute Chairman of the Eating Disorders Institute (EDI) Ben Oehler said St. Louis Park would be the ideal location for EDI. Mr. Oehler described his family’s personal and professional experiences with eating disorders. Director of Operations Carol Tappen said EDI has an identity in St. Louis Park; EDI has been in St. Louis Park for 20 years and EDI needs to stay in St. Louis Park. Councilmember Sanger asked when EDI moves, how large will EDI want to grow its patient numbers? Vice President of Real Estate for Park Nicollet Duane Spiegle responded that EDI currently has six separate locations. Five locations are in St. Louis Park and one in Chaska. Park Nicollet would like to have EDI in one location. They hope the outpatient population would grow to 900, and Park Nicollet hopes to provide teaching opportunities for psychiatrists, doctors and clinicians. Mr. Spiegle would like to have a facility with 80,000-90,000 square feet. Park Nicollet has looked at 14 sites; eight of those sites are in St. Louis Park. Park Nicollet listed the Bass Lake site as their number one choice, the Wayside House site was a close second, and the third preference is to consideration to build onto the Park Nicollet campus. Councilmember Carver said he would love to see EDI and Park Nicollet stay in St. Louis Park. Councilmember Finkelstein wants EDI to stay in St. Louis Park. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if there are any other sites in St. Louis Park on EDI’s list, Mr. Spiegle said no. Councilmember Finkelstein asked: When would you like to break ground? Mr. Spiegle said as soon as possible, but Park Nicollet needs to identify a site before the fall of 2006. Councilmember Omodt said there is a lot of pressure on this site. Mayor Jacobs said he would like to see EDI stay in St. Louis Park. Mayor Jacobs would like to see concept plans for the Bass Lake site. Mr. Oehler said if EDI were to use the Bass Lake site, it would create more jobs and a tax base. Councilmember Sanger asked: What does “partnering” mean to Park Nicollet and are you asking for city money? The response was no, they are not asking for city money. Park Nicollet would like to buy the property from the city and develop it in an acceptable manner to the city. Mr. Harmening said the city is not committing to provide this site to Park Nicollet, however, the Council is willing to look at concept designs to get an understanding as to how an EDI could be placed on this site and allow various other uses on this site. Regarding the Wayside House site, Councilmember Sanger asked if Park Nicollet is willing to reopen the discussion with Wayside and come up with a win-win approach for Wayside and Park Nicollet. Mr. Oehler said he and Mick Johnson would be happy to work with Wayside, not only to help them find another location but also help them raise money. Mr. Oehler thinks it could be successful. Mr. Oehler said if Wayside House is willing to sell, Park Nicollet would be willing to bid on it and compete with others, but Park Nicollet would need direction and a certain timeframe. Councilmember Sanger said in order for Wayside to sell, they would need a place to go to, which is a time-consuming and expensive proposition, and that is where the help is needed. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3b - Study Session Minutes Feb. 27, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Harmening summarized: For Park Nicollet/EDI, do some concept planning on the Bass Lake site and undertake another conversation with Wayside House as to possibilities of some kind of deal associated with that property. 4. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Planning and Zoning Supervisor Meg McMonigal presented a staff report. Ms. McMonigal said two of the issues concern front yard setbacks and changes to the garage regulations. Councilmember Sanger said she had concerns about what was being proposed. She felt the main reason people wanted to add onto the front of their homes was to have entryways as opposed to walking straight into the living room. Councilmember Sanger listed two proposals. Council and staff discussed the five scenarios for determining the front yard setback listed in the staff report. Councilmember Paprocki likes Scenario B, which is average setback. Councilmember Finkelstein is concerned about unintended consequences such as “creep.” Mr. Harmening said the primary problem with the current ordinance is that it is extremely cumbersome and confusing for residents. The Council consensus is a preference for Scenario D, which is fixed setback, with exception. Councilmember Sanger said Scenario B is preferable to Scenario D. Mr. Harmening asked: What needs to return for further conversation? Councilmember Sanger is concerned about the proposed lot divisions, which are listed on page 5 of the report. She commented that, hopefully, we can get away from windows on second story garages. Councilmember Paprocki called attention to page 9, c4 of the staff report, which reads: Floor drains in garages and other accessory buildings must be connected to sanitary sewer as approved by the city. He said, currently, that would be contrary to I&I. Mr. Harmening said staff will check on that. Councilmember Basill said the changes are reasonable and Councilmember Omodt agreed. Councilmember Sanger would like to have architectural design standards. Everything except the lot division item will return to Council at the next available meeting, the motions will be separate. 5. 2004 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Reallocation Housing Programs Coordinator Kathy Larsen presented a staff report. Councilmember Omodt raised concerns about the report and he would like to know what other programs would be eligible for CDBG funds. Mayor Jacobs agreed. Ms. Larsen said the CDBG reallocation fund is a revolving pool of money with very specific guidelines and deadlines. Councilmember Finkelstein and Mayor Jacobs are troubled by the reallocation. Ms. Larsen said CDBG reallocation is very restrictive. Mr. Harmening said this item will be on the agenda for Monday, March 6th. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3b - Study Session Minutes Feb. 27, 2006 Page 5 6. Alternate Sources of Energy for City Buildings Mayor Jacobs requested this subject be discussed. Mayor Jacobs spoke on the subject of alternative sources of fuel. He asked: Is it worthwhile to have staff investigate the notion that the city pursue alternative sources of energy? Councilmember Carver and Councilmember Finkelstein think it would be a good idea to explore the pros and cons; Councilmember Sanger agreed and she suggested perhaps looking at hybrid city vehicles. Mayor Jacobs likes the idea of researching natural gas powered vehicles, hybrid vehicles, alternative fuel vehicles, and perhaps a small wind-powered generator as a Children First type of project. Councilmember Finkelstein said alternative sources of energy would be an ideal subject for the League of Cities or the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, perhaps a conference on how cities can promote alternative energies. Mr. Harmening said, let us do some research and return to Council with information and ideas. Councilmember Omodt left the meeting at 9:45 p.m. 7. Future Study Session Agenda Planning A study session is scheduled for Monday, March 6, 2006 at 6:30 to discuss Highway 100. Councilmember Finkelstein requested Council receive a short verbal or written report on land sales. The meeting adjourned at 10:11 p.m. ___________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3c - City Council Minutes Mar. 6, 2006 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA March 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, Paul Omodt, Loran Paprocki and Susan Sanger Staff present: Associate Planner (Mr. Fulton), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Olson), Housing Program Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations - None 3. Approval of Minutes– removed from agenda 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. Approve ownership transfer of current liquor license for Yangtze River Restaurant, 5625 Wayzata Blvd. 4b. Adopt Resolution No. 06-056 approving Preliminary and Final Plat of Louisiana Alignment. 4c. Adopt Resolution No. 06-057 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. Accept vendor claims for Filing. (supplement) It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to approve the Agenda, removing the February 6 and February 13th minutes, and to approve items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 7-0. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3c - City Council Minutes Mar. 6, 2006 Page 2 5. Boards and Commissions 5a. Appointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to appoint the following citizen representatives: Commission Appointed Member Term Expires PAC - Police Advisory Commission Hans Widmer December 31, 2007 PAC - Police Advisory Commission James Smith December 31, 2007 HRC - Human Rights Commission Joe Polach December 31, 2008 HRC - Human Rights Commission Craig Aizman December 31, 2008 Councilmember Finkelstein asked if there was only one opening on the Human Rights Commission? Mayor Jacobs replied there were three. Councilmember Carver noted a number of vacancies still existed to be appointed by the School Board and Council. He encouraged them to get the Commissions running at full capacity. It serves the community better to do that. Mayor Jacobs thanked the applicants and those who serve on the Boards and Commissions. The motion passed 7-0. 6. Public Hearings 6a. Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Reallocation of $57,500 of 2004 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds Resolution No. 06-058 Ms. Larsen presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. Sharon Johnson, Executive Director of Wayside House, stated they contracted Welsh Management Companies for facility management assessment and were implementing routine maintenance. The Department of Health had written them up about the carpet and the report from Welsh indicated the water heater needed to be replaced. She contacted City staff and realized she had missed the request for reallocation, but informed them of their urgent issues and deferred maintenance. They had deferred maintenance because they were in “limbo” with possible redevelopment of a new road. They hoped the City might consider funding the urgent issues. They would continue to work with staff on a long-term solution about redevelopment or relocation. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3c - City Council Minutes Mar. 6, 2006 Page 3 Councilmember Omodt stated that the city takes pride on using a set and fair process. Staff’s initial recommendation was to put the reallocation toward neighborhoods. He was surprised to see they had zeroed out the loans to the neighborhood and given it all to Wayside without any documentation or process. It did not seem fair to other non-profits. Carpet replacement was a problem they should see coming. Non-profits should know more about building maintenance and management. It was not their role as a City to come in and “save the day” when they couldn’t mange their assets and appreciation of their assets. It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Basill to adopt Resolution No. 06-058 approving reallocation of 2004 funds, and authorizing execution of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any related Third Party Agreements, specifically to allocate $7,500 for the water heater and the remaining portion to the single family loan program. Councilmember Sanger stated she would be abstaining from discussion and voting as a board member for Wayside House. Councilmember Basill asked to clarify that the motion was to provide $7,500 for the water heater and the remaining $50,000 would go where it was originally intended as noted in Council report of February 27. Councilmember Omodt replied correct. Councilmember Paprocki appreciated the concern from Councilmember Omodt and was also concerned about the late request. They didn’t expect to have the $57,500 and the loan program was doing fine. Ms. Larsen indicated it was funded and continued to be funded through repayments. In the event they got to the point where there was no money, they could consider another reallocation from the 2005 funds or 2006 funds. It was funded to repair eight houses and also had additional program income. Councilmember Paprocki stated they knew Wayside needed these repairs and this would be the best use of the money. He wished they knew about it earlier, but he would be in favor of the full amount. Councilmember Carver agreed with the spirit of the motion. After the study they had done and understanding that the loan program has no current request for funds? Ms. Larsen replied the requests are currently being met with the funds they have. Councilmember Carver asked when loans are repaid, does that go back into the fund and is it made available for new loans? Ms. Larsen replied correct. The loans are forgiven if a resident lives in their house for a period of time (30-years). Before the deferred period is expired, if residents move, the money goes back to the program. Councilmember Carver agreed with the spirit of the motion and thought there is a call for division of the funds so some goes into the community through the single family deferred loan program. The carpeting was an issue because there was a health code violation. He would suggest including the carpet as well as the water heater. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3c - City Council Minutes Mar. 6, 2006 Page 4 Councilmember Finkelstein felt the public needed to understand that CDBG was a program in which the City received money and used it for “Sticks and Bricks” programming. It was a use it or lose it program. After the end of the funding year, sometimes they have to reallocate. In the past they had used this money for Vail Place, PPL, and others. If they didn’t reallocate the $57,500, it would be lost and they wanted to make use of it in the community. Based on the understanding the loan program was currently funded and meeting its needs, he would support Councilmember’s Paprocki and Carver. The carpet and water heater were appropriate uses of the money. Councilmember Finkelstein strongly encouraged Wayside House to get their application in on time in the future and not wait for the City regarding the new road and to continue discussions with Park Nicollet. It seems like there is an opportunity to make future development plans and he would take advantage of those opportunities and of the Welsh Companies while they could. Mayor Jacobs asked if they were to give part of the funds to Wayside House and the balance to the deferred loan program for neighborhoods, would the money be in jeopardy of being lost if they weren’t able to use it? Ms. Larsen replied no, it wouldn’t be lost if it were allocated to the County. The County has the flexibility to use the 2004 funds before they use a program income. Mayor Jacobs indicated they were suggesting alternative number two (in the staff report) and $31,000 would go to the single family deferred loan. Councilmember Paprocki made a friendly amendment to approve staff alternative number two (reallocate $25,500 of the 2004 CDBG Funds for Wayside House improvements to use for carpet and water heater replacement, $1,000 City Admin. and $31,000, to the Single- Family Deferred loan program). The friendly amendment was accepted by Councilmember’s Omodt and Basill. Councilmember Omodt stated he believed there was a certain level of unfairness that other non-profits might not have gotten a chance at this. Some of the things in the Welsh report troubled him, such as bathrooms that were not ADA compliant, blocked entryways, electrical components that were inaccessible in case fire crews needed to go in there. They had heard from Wayside House that the City might take over, which he didn’t know to be true or that they had the funding to buy the Bass Lake site. They hear different things as to the future. He hoped they fixed the items in the Welsh Company report that seemed more glaring as opposed to the carpet, which was cosmetic. Ms. Johnson responded they had a handyman in the past, but they do not have the full set of skills that a company like Welsh was able to bring. They had done most of the fixes. The bathroom was now ADA compliant, and they had always thought it was. They did not have any excess dollars with which to purchase any property now and had been in ongoing discussions with the City and Park Nicollet. She thanked the Council for the time and thoughtfulness. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Councilmember Sanger abstained). 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3c - City Council Minutes Mar. 6, 2006 Page 5 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Ms. McMonigal, Mr. Walther and Mr. Morrison presented the staff report. Councilmember Sanger stated on ordinances one and two, there were parts of each that made a lot of sense, but parts that she didn’t think made sense. Mayor Jacobs stated they would begin discussing the residential setback ordinance. Councilmember Sanger indicated regarding residential setbacks, the one that concerned her was 1a. A lot of people would like to expand their houses and they needed to change their ordinances for people to do that. The current approach was unworkable and hard for people to understand. 1d went to the opposite extreme by having the same setback requirement for all R1, R2 and R3’s when some streets were very different in terms of how houses are configured. They talked about protecting the vistas and pretty streets when people like the openness. She was afraid this approach was a “one size fits all.” People need to add onto their houses, but in many cases adding onto the front changes the architectural character of the house. Mayor Jacobs asked what Councilmember Sanger suggested they do? Councilmember Sanger suggested she was least uncomfortable with option b, even that goes too far, but it was less intrusive on the front yards. She understood why people needed to build a front entry way if they didn’t have one, but beyond that she didn’t see the necessity for having additions on the front of the house. She preferred they modify the ordinances to make it easier for people to do additions in the rear of the property. Councilmember Paprocki clarified option b was taking five feet less than the average front yard setback of houses on either side of the property? Councilmember Sanger replied yes, as opposed to option d, you can go much closer if a house down the block is closer and it could cause zigzagging and they would not have a vista anymore. Mr. Walther stated that the option staff presented was not a “one size fits all”. It provided some tailoring for blocks that have houses further back than the required setback they were proposing. In the R1 district, if the required setback is 30 feet for the district and every house is further back than 30 feet, they would use the closest house to determine the setback for that block. In the sense of vistas from the street, if there is already a house or two that are closer than the rest, there would not be a pure vista through that street. Some of the advantages they identified for this strategy were that it was less complicated and more intuitive for residents. It requires surveying fewer properties. Councilmember Sanger believed 1b was much more tailored than what Mr. Walther described because the resident would only need to look to the houses on either side of them. As long as they didn’t build closer to the street than the houses next to them, they wouldn’t have to do any surveying. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3c - City Council Minutes Mar. 6, 2006 Page 6 Mayor Jacobs liked option d, because with option b there could be “leapfrogging” toward the street over time, which may be more problematic. Option d was easier for staff to explain and was intuitive. One of the concerns he had heard was that it is difficult for staff to explain to people what they can and can’t do, which was one of the problems they were trying to alleviate. Councilmember Basill asked to clarify on 1f, in the R3 residential district, does the side yard requirement for duplexes stay at nine feet? Mr. Morrison replied correct. Councilmember Basill stated on 1b he wanted to make sure the effect it could have on corner lots. Mr. Morrison replied under today’s regulations, if a lot is less than 40 feet wide, it is required to have a 15 foot side yard abutting the street. Lots that are between 40 and 60, get a 9-foot setback. Once you get greater than 60 feet in width, the setback goes back to 15 feet. They were trying to create some uniformity and get rid of a hardship because smaller lots should have a 9-foot setback, not fifteen. Councilmember Basill stated Council approved some corner lots that were trying to be split and he wanted to be sure they weren’t jeopardizing that. Mr. Morrison replied they were not changing the width requirements, just the setback for the house. Councilmember Basill agreed with the Mayor. The staff had done a nice job of laying out the minuses for option b. Residents have to figure out within 150 feet of their property what the average setback is. Option b was still complicated, it was a moving target and could shrink over time. Existing houses built closer to the street, five feet less than the average setback are non conforming if they go with option b. The pluses of option d were: the setback was tailored for each block, less complicated, fixed setback, won’t shift, must survey only one additional lot (that was a reasonable burden to put on their neighbors if they wanted to do an addition, but not to survey 150 feet), creates no non conformities, and there is no need for the City to establish a comprehensive list. The minus were if someone on the block had moved up, it can’t set a base less than what the minimum setback was, but it could still allow people to move out further. He believed staff looked at this and come up with the right answer and he felt option d worked best. Councilmember Omodt concurred with Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Basill on option d. From the end user perspective of a homeowner trying to do an addition, this was probably easiest for them to understand. It had some nice pluses and the minus, was something that existed under the old ordinance. This was much better and easier way for people to understand the code. Councilmember Finkelstein disagreed. He complimented staff on their work and meeting the needs of the community as well as those who wanted to do additions. He was concerned when he heard that even City staff couldn’t explain the current ordinance. As an outcome of the Housing Summit, they wanted to make these changes and assist people to remain in St. Louis Park. He compared options b and d and thought d was too much of a “cleaver” and hardheaded approach. Option b was somewhat more complicated, but not so much more than d and it was a lot simpler than what they currently had. It may add a concern about people having forward creep toward the street. Whatever they could do to protect that, they should. Option d was still complicated and they would still have issues. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3c - City Council Minutes Mar. 6, 2006 Page 7 Councilmember Carver indicated the Housing Summit came up with the idea of encouraging single-family homes in St. Louis Park. To make that happen, they needed to clarify, simplify and provide more ease to citizens in remodeling and expanding homes. He supported option d for all of the reasons mentioned, but mainly because this option best met the goal of simplifying the process completely. It also met the goal of having some uniformity. Councilmember Paprocki stated he was favoring option b. What happens if someone is on the corner? Mr. Walther replied people on corner lots will sometimes front a different street than the rest of the block. The front yard is the narrowest side of the lot. If they didn’t have anything else on either side, the setback would be what they currently had and they would be allowed to add on five feet in either option. The block is defined as street to street. Mr. Morrison added they would not go across the street they would look at the neighboring home to determine the average setback. Councilmember Paprocki favored option b and thought it would protect some of the forward creep. It was a little more common sense because people could look at the properties on either side of them. Councilmember Carver stated he heard forward creep a couple of times and believed it was staff’s position that forward creep was more likely to happen under option b than option d and he asked for clarification. Ms. McMonigal replied yes, that was what would happen. It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to approve First Reading of the proposed ordinance related to residential setbacks– Sections 36-73, 36- 163, 36-164, 36-165 as stated in Option D of the staff report. Councilmember Sanger disagreed with staff analysis about forward creep. Under option d, if there is any one property on the block that is quite a ways forward, then the rest of the houses on that block can creep forward. Under option b, you only get to creep as far as the average of the house on either side of you and don’t get to consider any other house on the block. She thought their analysis didn’t hold up. Councilmember Basill clarified the district wide setback would make sure there wasn’t too much creep. If a house was in front of the district wide setback, they could not move their house up or add on if they would move into the minimum setback. That was protection for forward creep. Option B didn’t provide that. The minimum district wide setback needed to be honored. Councilmember Sanger stated even with option b, there were minimum district wide setbacks that were elsewhere in the zoning code that offered that protection. Under option d, while they are correct it wouldn’t creep forward of the district wide line. She believed there would be a lot more creep. Mr. Morrison clarified when staff talked about creeping, they referred to the required setback and not the houses actually moving forward. Under option d, they look at the house on the block that is already closest to the street, which establishes a setback. That does not change over time. Under option b or any other averaging example, that required setback does change depending on what your neighbors do. If a neighbor adds on, the required setback changes. Over time, the required setback is always changing. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3c - City Council Minutes Mar. 6, 2006 Page 8 Councilmember Finkelstein stated if there is a house far out ahead of every other house on the block under option d, this would allow everyone else to add onto their house and “catch up” to it? Mr. Morrison replied yes. Councilmember Carver stated the point of this process was for people to expand their single-family homes. You need to have space to do an expansion. If you have a 45-foot yard now, but there is one house at 30 feet, they have the potential for expansion on all of the other homes. That is the reason he supported option d, because it allowed people to do what they said they should be doing at the Housing Summit. Councilmember Paprocki stated with one house further up and the others further back, it could be a “saw toothed” development where every other house potentially could build up, whereas with option b, there is buffering. They would have the possibility of creep, but it was all buffered by what was happening on either side of them. He believed staff had done good work on this. Councilmember Sanger asked in option b, were they saying they were also proposing to eliminate the current minimum setback for the front if option b was permitted? Mr. Walther replied their intent was not to do that. They would still provide a minimum setback in the district. Councilmember Sanger commented in response to Councilmember Carver, it was true that one of the goals was to help people expand their houses and she was fully in support of that. But another part of the goals was to preserve the neighborhoods integrity and character, and one of the things that go toward the character was the architecture and spacing of the homes and they needed to protect that. Councilmember Omodt called the question. The motion passed 4-3. (Councilmember’s Finkelstein, Paprocki and Sanger oppose). Councilmember Basill indicated 2f stated the proposed amendments would remove the minimum allowed roof pitch to allow flat roofs to be constructed with a second story window that looks either at the right of way or the back yard. He asked staff for clarification. Mr. Morrison replied he thought there was an error in that paragraph. The intent was that no sidewall would exceed nine feet in height, which was a one-story garage. The second level would be a half story, there would be a pitch so they could not have a flat roof on a two-story garage. Councilmember Basill stated they could have a second-story, but it would be pitched as paragraph e described. There was good staff work on this. This was a question he was asked the most. They were restricting large garages, but we are saying it was OK in St. Louis Park to have a two-car garage. They heard that at the Housing Summit and if they wanted to keep residents here it was very important. With the existing ordinance, they were forcing people into a low pitch and cheaper type of garage. If you look at the pitch and matching it to the house, with materials that match the house, this is a good change. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3c - City Council Minutes Mar. 6, 2006 Page 9 It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to approve First Reading of the proposed ordinance related to garages and accessory buildings Section 36-162. Councilmember Finkelstein agreed with Councilmember Basill. This encouraged better design and for people to remain in the City and get the second stall they need. Councilmember Sanger stated there were parts of this section she thought were wonderful and parts that were problematic. Doing something to make it easier for someone to be able to build a two-car garage without having to get a variance made sense and she supported that. The part she was not in support of had to do with allowing the garages up to 24’ tall. She and Mayor Jacobs lived through at least two years of debate trying to figure out the correct way to regulate the height of garages. She would like to stay where they finally ended up. When you have a tall garage close to other people’s property, there had been a lot of complaints because it blocked the sun. Another issue was windows facing people’s yards. By both moving it closer to the property line and allowing them to be taller, they were going to be contributing to more neighbors on neighbor complaints. She was OK moving it closer to the property line, but would like to leave the height requirements as they were. People can still have storage in their garage on the rafters without it being 24’ tall. Councilmember Basill indicated they were talking about going to 24’ to the peak, if the building materials match the house and designed in a fashion that is aesthetically pleasing and an upgrade from a standard garage that protects the architectural design of the community and neighborhood. Garages with these pitches look better, fit the homes and are upgrading the community. If they continue to make the low, flat-topped roofs on garages, it wasn’t good for property values and degrades the block versus an improvement that could be made because the outside of the garage does not match the home. Councilmember Finkelstein agreed and thought this would encourage better design. It would be more elegant design instead of more flat topped garages with pitches that didn’t match. This would enhance the neighborhoods and community. Mayor Jacobs stated he had also struggled with this and remembered the debates from a few years ago. He agreed with what had been stated about the design and materials and lower quality looking garages and was coming down in favor of the recommendation. The main complaint of the issue years ago with a tall garage had to do with the windows overlooking the neighbor’s house. The piece that swayed him was the recommendation that they not have windows facing neighbor’s homes. He hated to think people felt constrained to put in a cheaper garage to meet the ordinance when they could have matched the exterior treatment of the house for a little more money. Councilmember Sanger stated she was still struggling with this because there were good and bad points. She was glad people were concerned about the architectural design of the garages. If that was their concern, maybe they should have an ordinance that addressed the need for any garage, no matter how tall, to be architecturally compatible with the home it was part of. Mayor Jacobs didn’t mind the height as long as it met the architectural features of the house although he was not willing to have an architectural review board. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3c - City Council Minutes Mar. 6, 2006 Page 10 The motion passed 7-0. It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve First Reading of the proposed ordinance related to deleting Table 115a, a summary of land uses by zoning district. The motion passed 7-0. It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve First Reading of the proposed ordinance related to adding “Studio” as a use in the IP district – Section 36-361. The motion passed 7-0. Mayor Jacobs thanked staff for their work. This was important because they were talking about implementing what they had heard through the Housing Summit and through informal feedback to the Council and staff. 8b. City Engineer’s Report: Local Street Rehabilitation Project – Area 2, Project No. 2005-1000 Resolution No. 06-053 Mr. Olson presented the staff report. Councilmember Omodt asked why the costs were up more than the estimate? Mr. Olson replied when they originally programmed this project, they looked at different maintenance strategies. At the time they programmed, they took a less aggressive approach. Based on their results from last year of removing all the pavement and replacing it with 3 inches, they felt that was the best route. They looked at lesser treatments such as only milling the outer six feet of the road and paving over the center portion of the road and the outside. This resulted in lower estimates in the planning process. They had chosen to remove all of the pavement because it would last longer. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt Resolution No. 06-053 accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 2005-1000, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids. Councilmember Finkelstein felt this was a great program, very proactive and good stewardship. The motion passed 7-0. 8c. Westmarke Condominiums – Major Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, Case No. 06-09-CUP, Stonebridge Development and Acquisition, LLC., 1155 Ford Road. Resolution No. 06-054 Mr. Fulton presented the staff report. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3c - City Council Minutes Mar. 6, 2006 Page 11 Ron Mehl, Stonebridge Development and Acquisition, LLC, stated the only area they were asking for height increases was on the parapets to add some architectural differences. When he first presented this, they had bump-outs for the living room areas that were entirely brick. The reason they were cantilevers was because it was a 1.3-acre site and they were trying to maximize green space. To do brick, they would have had to do a very expensive engineering angle to hold the weight. Hardy board provides a lighter product that was still a cement fiber that will be long lasting. The other option would be stucco. Presently they were seeing a lot of problems with stucco with mold and water penetration and were not excited about looking at it as an option. Councilmember Carver asked on the South face, is the area with bicycle racks going to be retail or office? Mr. Mehl replied office, which was part of the original development agreement with the City. It is a mixed-use zoning. Councilmember Omodt asked about the color scheme. Mr. Mehl replied they did a dark brown or tan that matched the brick and a lighter tan that corresponded with the same colors. They would not have blue, yellow or white. Councilmemeber Basill asked the total number of colors? Mr. Mehl replied four. Councilmember Sanger asked if this were approved, when would they begin construction? Mr. Mehl replied when they hit their presales. They were planning on moving forward with demolition in the next month. Councilmember Sanger indicated they had experiences with colors on other projects and she wondered if they could soften this? Mr. Mehl showed what had been approved. It had yellow and blue and they changed it to be more neutral with the tans and brick colors. Phil Duran, BKV Architects, added at Planning Commission they had another color scheme, which was a form of architecture geared to a younger group. The Planning Commission asked them to take another look and the design presented was what they had come up with. It was earth tones. Councilmember Carver stated this property is addressed 1155 Ford Road. If you go across 394 further South on Ford Road, it is 1015 and then goes to 1300. There is something off in the numbers. Mr. Fulton replied that was something staff could address. Mr. Mehl noted that Wayzata Blvd would be the main entrance into the property and they would like to chcange the address to be off of Wayzata Blvd. It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Paprocki, to adopt Resolution No. 06-054 approving a Major Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, subject to conditions found in the resolution. Councilmember Basill indicated he was in favor of the project. When this project was done, it would be worthwhile for the Council to look at this and other projects that used hardy board. He and the Mayor received correspondence about a recent building, feeling stucco would have looked better. The Council should review this to see if they believe it is up to class one materials. If they didn’t think it was, they could make the appropriate long- term decision for the community. Councilmember Finkelstein suggested as part of that they look at other class one and class two materials. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3c - City Council Minutes Mar. 6, 2006 Page 12 Councilmember Carver stated they had done a number of projects with hardy board. Not all hardy board was created equal, and a term that applied to many products. He had been in favor for some time of dispensing with the discussion on every project and recognized that hardy board and hardy plank was a superior product that fits the definition of class one material. He stressed the importance of the sidewalks for this project and that they were necessary to tie together what was happening further north. It would enhance the entire location. Councilmember Basill agreed with the comment about the durability of hardy board. He wanted to look at it aesthetically. A few comments they had received related to the seaming. Mayor Jacobs added the feedback they had gotten from staff was that it wasn’t so much the inherent characteristics of hardy board itself, but rather the way it was being installed. Mr. Duran indicated there are different manufacturers, they were referring to hardy panels, which would create more of a stucco appearance. It depends on the application and installation of the product. The motion passed 7-0. 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. Resolution No. 06-055 It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Basill, to adopt Resolution No. 06-055 authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters Association operating at Bunny’s Bar and Grill, 5916 Excelsior Boulevard. The motion passed 6-0-1. (Councilmember Omodt abstained). 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs reported: • Highway 100 Interim project approval is scheduled for Council discussion and a potential vote at the March 20th Council meeting. A public hearing was held in January. • Bookmark in the Park will be meeting on March 16th at 3:00 PM in City Hall • Empty Bowls Project will be meeting March 9th from 4-7:00 PM at the Rec. Center • St. Louis Park Youth Summit is March 30th at 6:30 PM at the High School • Precinct Caucuses are March 7th. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3d - City Council Minutes Mar. 20, 2006 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA March 20, 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, Paul Omodt, Loran Paprocki and Susan Sanger Staff present: Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), City Clerk (Ms. Stroth), City Engineer (Mr. Brink), City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Olson), Human Resources Director (Ms. Gohman), Fire Chief (Mr. Stemmer), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations - None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of February 6, 2006 Councilmember Basill indicated on page seven in the second paragraph, at the end of the second sentence, “because of the unwillingness of the property owners, he would not be in favor of parking variances in the future” should be inserted. Councilmember Paprocki noted in item 8b, “asked” should be replaced with “stated that.” Councilmember Finkelstein indicated the following should be inserted on page seven, before the paragraph starting with Ms. McMonigal, “Councilmember Finkelstein pointed out that this builder took account of lower density and lower height in terms of meeting neighborhood needs and they encouraged other builders to take a look at that issue too.” Councilmember Basill indicated his name was incorrectly spelled in item 8a. The minutes were approved as corrected. 3b. City Council Minutes of February 21, 2006 The minutes were approved as presented. 3c. Study Session Minutes of March 6, 2006 The minutes were approved as presented. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3d - City Council Minutes Mar. 20, 2006 Page 2 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 4a. Adopt Ordinance No. 2312-06 regarding Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to residential setbacks, Sections 36-73, 36-115a, 36-162, 36-163, 36-164, 36-165, 36-73, and 36-361 relating to residential setbacks, detached garages, accessory buildings, and to allow studios in the Industrial Park (IP) zoning district; approve second reading, summary and authorize publication. 4b. Adopt Resolution No. 06-064 authorizing the execution of the Amended City of St. Louis Park Cafeteria Plan Master Plan Document. 4c. Adopt Resolution No. 06-065 to approve St. Louis Park Lions Club, application for the placement of temporary signs in the public right-of-way. 4d. Adopt Resolution No. 06-066 for Final Payment to Lametti & Sons Inc. for work on Lamplighter Pond Problem Area No. 4. City Proj. 2000-1800A Contract No 99-04. 4e. Adopt Resolution No. 06-067 calling for a public hearing by the City Council on the proposed creation of the Highway 7 Corporate Center Tax Increment Financing District (a Redevelopment District) and a Hazardous Substance Subdistrict within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (relates to former National Lead/Golden Auto site). 4f. Accept Planning Commission Minutes of February 15, 2006 for filing. 4g. Accept Housing Authority Minutes of February 8, 2006 for filing. 4h. Accept Human Rights Minutes of January 17, 2006 for filing. 4i. Accept Park And Recreation Minutes of January 18, 2006 for filing. 4j. Accept Vendor Claims for filing. (supplement) It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and Commissions 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing to Consider an Intoxicating On-sale and Sunday Sale Liquor License for Byerly’s, Inc, DBA Byerly’s-St. Louis Park. Ms. Stroth presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to approve an intoxicating on-sale and Sunday sale liquor license for Byerly’s, Inc., DBA Byerly’s St. Louis Park, 3777 Park Center Boulevard. Councilmember Finkelstein indicated the staff report said Sunday sale liquor license, was that just for catering? Ms. Stroth replied the Sunday sale liquor license was for Byerly’s restaurant and that the catering license was issued by the State. The motion passed 7-0. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3d - City Council Minutes Mar. 20, 2006 Page 3 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Fire Union Contract: January 1, 2006 - December 31, 2007 Resolution No. 06-059 Ms. Gohman presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs congratulated the labor union and the management team for the settlement. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No 06-059 approving a Labor Agreement between the City and International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local #993, establishing terms and conditions of employment for two years, from 1/1/06 - 12/31/07. The motion passed 7-0. 8b. Conditional Use Permit for excavation and fill of more than 400 cubic yards for the construction of a single family home. Location: 2821 Nevada Avenue South, Applicant: Sergey Vladyka, Case No.: 05-74-CUP Resolution No. 06-060 Mr. Morrison presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs asked if the maintenance agreement would run with the land and be on the deed? Mr. Morrison replied yes. Councilmember Sanger asked with issues with potential drainage and flooding, by approving this CUP was the City assuming any liability in the event there are subsequent flooding problems to the house downstream? Mr. Morrison replied they didn’t believe so. That was why they worked with the applicant to design a system that not only maintained the status quo, but also actually improved upon it. Councilmember Omodt noted there was a presentation recently on new storm water guidelines, does this fit with those? Mr. Morrison replied it did. The water would be pumped up and discharged within the yard, not directly onto the street. From there it would flow like any naturally occurring rainfall into the system. Mr. Harmening clarified the difference was that this water would be pumped into the storm sewer system, not the sanitary sewer system. It was moved by Councilmember Paprocki, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No 06-060 approving a conditional use permit, subject to conditions found in the resolution. Councilmember Paprocki commented this was a very complex piece of land and he commended the Vladyka’s for their work with the City. The motion passed 7-0. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3d - City Council Minutes Mar. 20, 2006 Page 4 8c. City Engineer’s Report: Lake Street Reconstruction Project- City Project No. 2006-0100 Resolution No.’s 06-061 and 06-062 Mr. Olson presented the staff report. Councilmember Sanger asked with construction of the sidewalk on the north side of West Lake Street, can staff confirm they are not going to be taking anyone’s property and this would be constructed on the city’s right-of-way? Mr. Olson replied that was correct, the sidewalk would run along the new curb and gutter and be within the right-of-way. Councilmember Sanger stated she heard quite a few people did not agree with replacing the traffic light at Zarthan Avenue with a four-way stop sign, particularly people concerned about kids going to the school. Could they leave the traffic lights in place, even though they were turned off, to make sure it worked as a four-way stop sign before removing the traffic lights? Mr. Olson replied it would be possible. Councilmember Sanger requested staff put some thought into that. In the event the four- way stop sign approach didn’t work, they could go back to the traffic lights. Councilmember Finkelstein stated the Council revisited this issue less than two years ago and this was a location they discussed. The Council specifically agreed it was appropriate to keep the stoplight there. The school is getting larger, there is a church there and this area is also going to be getting a lot of traffic from the Highway 100 construction. Mayor Jacobs noted this was going to be closed to traffic along Lake Street while it was under construction. During construction of Hwy 100, the designated detour route would be down Dakota and not Lake Street because it would only be open to local traffic. He didn’t think there would be cut-through traffic. Mr. Harmening stated staff could look at the feasibility of keeping the traffic signals in place, although he was unsure they could guarantee it. People need to stop whether they have a stop sign or a red light on a signal. What may be compromised was easier movement by the traveling public who has to stop regardless. Presently they can move right through the intersection with a green light, which he believed was part of speed concerns on that road. Mayor Jacobs agreed they should look at the idea of keeping the signal. He had been getting feedback on the intersection of Wooddale and Dakota, and the idea of having a stoplight there. There are times, especially in the morning, that intersection backs up, almost to Highway 7, which is a concern. He suggested they give some thought to that as well. Mr. Olson replied that could be looked at. Staff would examine traffic volumes and take into consideration future road improvements in that area as well. Darla Hoffer, Zinnia’s Gifts, 6610 W. Lake St, asked where her customers would be able to park when the repaving project is done? Mr. Olson replied during the construction on that segment, the milling operation would last a day or two. When that was complete, people would be able to park on the street. When they come back to fill in the pavement, there would be minimum disruption of on street parking in that area. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3d - City Council Minutes Mar. 20, 2006 Page 5 Mike Spack, 3259 Yosemite Av. S, indicated he worked as Traffic Engineer for the City of Maple Grove where they had bad stop sign compliance compared with signals. Round abouts were something that might be a good solution as well. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 06-061 accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 2006-0100, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids; and, adopt Resolution No. 06-062 authorizing the installation of parking restrictions at certain locations along Lake Street as part of the Lake Street Reconstruction Project, City Project No. 2006-0100, and as required by the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (Mn/DOT’s) State Aid Standards. Councilmember Sanger stated they had been talking about this project for many years and she was glad to be doing this. The motion passed 7-0. 8d. Municipal Consent Request for Mn/DOT Trunk Highway 100 Temporary Lane Addition Project: State Project 2734-43 Resolution No. 06-063 Mr. Rardin presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs asked if anything had changed in the design of the project from what was shown at the public hearing in January? Mr. Rardin replied no. Ann Blumberg, 2824 Utica, stated she had concerns about potholes on Utica and people speeding off of Hwy 100. Can they get the potholes taken care of? Mr. Rardin replied they should be able to take care of the potholes, although they would not get to an overlay of the street this year. Mayor Jacobs asked if they could work with MnDOT on signage to indicate this was not a through road? Mr. Rardin replied during construction, they would have ramp closures. Staff was concerned with uncertainty of where traffic would go. MnDOT would provide for detours on the County and State system. They would need to take special measure in the neighborhoods in this area and respond during the project. Because MnDOT had accelerated the full build to the advanced design stage, they had the full expectation of bringing that back to Council in September or October for layout approval. When that happened, they would know what the right of way alignment would be, specifically through this area, at which point they could look at Utica for 2007 to see what kind of improvements they could make. Ms. Blumberg indicated they would be coming in six feet toward Utica on the West side into the median. She asked if they would protect the trees there or if they would be removed? Harvey Scheffert, MnDOT Project Manager, replied they would be putting snow fences around the trees to protect them during construction. They were trying to protect all trees along the corridor not being impacted by construction. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3d - City Council Minutes Mar. 20, 2006 Page 6 Kim Anderson, Golden Valley resident, asked what effort MnDOT would make to coordinate the reconstruction so there were no delays and then would have 24-hr/day construction? Mr. Scheffert replied they had laid out short-term closures for specific ramps. They would begin on the SE quadrant of Hwy 7 along with the NW and the ramp exit behind the Holiday Station, which would be about one month. Stage two, would be the NW quadrant of Hwy 7. People would be able to utilize Minnetonka. Contractors are aware of the time frames required for each stage. Completion of the project is scheduled for mid October. Mayor Jacobs noted the plans were available from city staff. Mr. Scheffert added they would not have construction 24 hrs/day, although the last two stages may include 24-hr construction over a weekend to expedite the work. Braden Beam, 2856 Utica Av. S, asked if the access from Utica would be closed? Mr. Rardin replied it would be temporarily closed at a certain point during construction. Mr. Beam asked if they would be removing the dead end at Utica? Mr. Rardin replied that was not a part of the interim project, but was a possibility with the full build project. Mr. Beam added a concern about the speed of vehicles traveling on Utica and believed part of the reason was trees covered that signage. Mayor Jacobs asked staff to look into that. JC Beckstrand, 4386 Wooddale, member of the Edina Study Advisory Committee, Transportation Planning Committee, stated his support of the project and urged the Council to move forward because the present situation was not acceptable. Representative Steve Simon supported the interim project and urged the Council, residents, etc, to keep up the pressure so that this does not become the permanent fix. Mayor Jacobs agreed and stated his concern with the growing level of traffic and safety issues with the bridges. Representative Simon commented on the ballot initiative this fall that would dedicate the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST). Presently that money goes into the general fund, which would dedicate money for roads and transportation. There are a number of reasons this would be important. Locally, it would mean there would be more of a chance Hwy 100 would be built earlier. Councilmember Carver added a letter from the Commissioner of Transportation stated, “One possible new source of funding would be the constitutional dedication of motor vehicle sales tax revenue to transportation which is on the ballot for November of 2006. If this referendum succeeds, revenue would be only gradually dedicated to transportation, limiting the increase in the near term.” The letter essentially said that projects like the full build had been delayed so far for want of money. This was an opportunity for residents to do something about Hwy 100. Lee Engler, Twin West Chamber of Commerce Chair, indicated this could not become a permanent solution, but they felt it was something needing to be done now. The continued delay had adversely affected many people and businesses. The Twin West Chamber and its member businesses remain committed to see the completion of the final project and would continue to work with the City of St. Louis Park and the State Legislature to secure long term funding necessary to develop the transportation infrastructure in the West Metro Market. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3d - City Council Minutes Mar. 20, 2006 Page 7 Mike Spack, 3259 Yosemite Av. S, felt if they approved this interim project, it would make the region happier, but they would not be getting the fix needed. He believed this would be the permanent fix and urged the Council to deny this project and wait until the funding was available to do it right. It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt Resolution No. 06-063 approving the final design layout of the TH100 temporary improvement project, adding to the fourth bullet of the final Whereas statement, “subject to neighborhood input.” Mayor Jacobs agreed and noted that MnDOT typically solicits neighborhood input, although the noise walls were not planned to be part of the interim project. Councilmember Carver commented he was in favor of the motion. They had a responsibility to continue being “squeaky” and he urged residents of St. Louis Park, Edina and Golden Valley to do the same. This action was setting an example for MnDOT about what government should be about, making it better for where they live and it would not be better if they waited two years. Sitting back and doing nothing would not cause something different to happen. He expected to be vigilant over the next several years and regular interims of monitoring. He expected they would remain among the advanced design projects and among the very strongest candidates, which was how the full build project was characterized at the public hearing. What had to happen for this to go forward in 2009 was money. They will have the opportunity to vote on the constitutional amendment, whether or not money gets spent on projects like this. The goal of the interim project was to reduce congestion, increase safety and increase overall environment. Cars are stopped there now and creating noise and pollution. They want to get rid of that. Once those goals are no longer being met, it is time that MnDOT will be back here to finish the project, this is just the first step. Councilmember Sanger believed this proposal represented a no win situation because traffic on 100 was very congested and would continue to get worse. It was not ideal for this community. She had concerns about safety, the impact of this on various neighborhood issues and the most important concern, the issue of this being labeled as an interim project, but was it really something they would be stuck with indefinitely? They still didn’t know when it would be built and even if the constitutional amendment passed, there was no guarantee money would be dedicated to the construction of the full build project. She was concerned if they approved this, they were approving a longer-term project. Neighbors need the option to consider what kind of noise barriers they wanted, if any. Since this project was first announced, the residents and owners of about 20 owners had been in limbo. They were told their houses would be taken, and they did not know if they should put money into their houses and were having difficult selling their houses. This project did not make any effort to help those homeowners or help the neighborhood around them. There was also the issue of Utica Avenue and no permanent fix to the problems with their road and the drainage. Safety was an issue. Lanes will be narrowed to eleven feet. MnDOT told them there were no eleven-foot lanes in the Metro area and many people had concerns about sideswipe accidents. People are fearful and would rather go through the neighborhoods. These issues needed to be considered and if they voted in favor of this project they hadn’t tried hard enough to solve the problems. Her preference would be to keep the pressure on MnDOT even more by voting to deny this and reopening St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3d - City Council Minutes Mar. 20, 2006 Page 8 negotiations with MnDOT to try to come up with a better design. It could delay the interim project for a year, but she felt they needed to look at the project in the long run and the impact on the community. She feared the interim project was the long run and this would be what they would have to live with, so she would be voting against this. Councilmember Finkelstein stated the importance of this issue to the neighborhoods, the city and the entire region. What they were looking at wasn’t the preferred plan. They would prefer a permanent and total highway reconstruction. However, they had an opportunity to offer some relief for people spending time on the Highway 100 “parking lot” and to do some of the prep work necessary for the full design and future permanent project. They were forced to make a decision between doing nothing and trying something. He felt the responsible decision was to try to do something, which was the “least bad” alternative. This wasn’t perfect and didn’t take care of all of the concerns, but at least it gave them a start for the full build project. It was too important for them to play a game of “chicken” and he felt they needed to approve this, go forward and keep the pressure on. Councilmember Paprocki agreed with Councilmember’s Finkelstein and Carver. In the report they estimate a 20% reduction in accidents. When someone is at a stand still on a highway and gets rear-ended at 50 mph, this was different than a sideswipe. They could wait another year, but if there was a fatality, it was their fault for doing that. Councilmember Basill agreed with the Councilmembers in support. There are neighborhood issues with cut-through traffic. If they do nothing, those issues would be elevated. It would be unconscionable for them to do that. There were other neighborhood concerns, but when they try to balance them, they were affecting everyone’s quality of life. With the 35W/Crosstown project coming, there would be more traffic and they should not let traffic from Hwy 100 flow any more into the neighborhoods. He believed it was a very small chance this would be the final project. Engineers indicated that the bridges crossing Hwy 100 only had so much useful life left. No governmental entity would rebuild the bridges exactly as they were. The permanent fix would come and the argument that this will become the permanent fix didn’t hold water. They needed to do this and if they didn’t, he believed they would be asking for more problems. Councilmember Basill made a friendly amendment to clarify the resolution in the fourth bullet point of the final Whereas clause, “The installation of these noise walls shall not occur until adjacent neighborhoods are consulted, are allowed to provide input, and the City Council approves the noise wall project.” Councilmember’s Carver and Finkelstein accepted the friendly amendment. Councilmember Omodt indicated his support. He was concerned about air pollution and noise pollution in the area. They also hadn’t thought through the issue of residents whose homes were in “limbo” and he hoped they could give some guidance to those residents. He hoped residents understood how much it took to get where they were today. It took a lot of groups and people coming together, including push from staff at MnDOT. They couldn’t give up on being “squeaky” and everyone needed to keep it up. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 3d - City Council Minutes Mar. 20, 2006 Page 9 Mayor Jacobs stated Councilmember Sanger raised a good point about the issue of if they could trust MnDOT about the full build project happening. If he thought that waiting on this project guaranteed them the full build in 2009, he might go along with it, but it doesn’t. If they delayed this, there was still no guarantee the full build project would get started in 2009 or 2010. Should they do something today that would help alleviate the gridlock that currently existed on Hwy 100 and the cut-through traffic that existed currently or do they not? He thought the most responsible course of action was to go forward and alleviate some of the congestion. This would not fix all of the problems. The bridges are narrow, but beyond the bridges the lanes would widen. There being no guarantee of money for this in 2009, was all the more reason to do this now as opposed to waiting. They needed to continue keeping up the pressure and make sure this did not become the permanent project. Councilmember Sanger stated her comment had been misconstrued. She was not suggesting doing nothing at all. She was suggesting by voting to reject to give them greater leverage to reopen the discussion to develop a better project. She agreed doing nothing was not constructive. She just wanted to do something in a different way. The motion passed 6-1 with Councilmember Sanger opposed. 9. Communications – None 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 4a - Sidewalk Snow Removal Enforcement Policy Page 1 4a. Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving the Sidewalk Snow Removal Enforcement Policy Background: The City of St. Louis Park’s goal in providing a city-wide sidewalk system is to provide the reasonably prudent person with an alternative to walking in the street. With regard to snow and ice removal, sidewalk surfaces do not need to be bare, but they do need to be passable/walkable. Since the City maintains less than half of the entire sidewalk system, Council determined the best way to encourage property owners to clean their sidewalks was through aggressive education and enforcement programs. During a Study Session on February 13th, staff reviewed the enforcement component of the sidewalk snow removal program. As a part of this discussion, staff presented Council with several different snow removal enforcement options. Attached is a copy of the staff report that was sent to the Council. Staff feels that it would be helpful to our residents if the Council adopted a resolution which specifically outlined the sidewalk snow removal enforcement policy. Attached is a resolution which is intended to carry out staff’s understanding of the Council’s direction. The policy states the following: • Sidewalks should be inspected at 2” loose accumulation of snow • Approximately 25% of the sidewalk system should be inspected after each snow event plus locations which receive complaints • The minimum width of sidewalk cleared should be 3’ wide • The sidewalks should be inspected as soon as possible, but no later than the second day of the street plowing effort • In keeping with past practice, educational letters will be sent (in lieu of citations) for first- time offenders • If a resident either refuses to do so or is unavailable to do so (i.e., out of town), the city will abate (remove) snow-related nuisances approximately two days after citation service • As with other practices, the city will not provide special treatment for residents who are seniors/disabled/disadvantaged. Services are available through programs such as STEP, HOME, or community/neighborhood volunteer networks (if they exist) St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 4a - Sidewalk Snow Removal Enforcement Policy Page 2 Next Steps: Staff has taken steps to remind and inform residents/property owners of our sidewalk snow removal program and associated enforcement measures in the City’s Park Perspective, website, and other avenues and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Attachment: Study Session Report from February 13, 2006 Resolution Prepared By: Mark P. Hanson, P.E. Public Works Operations Superintendent Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, P.E. Public Works Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 4a - Sidewalk Snow Removal Enforcement Policy Page 3 REPORT FROM FEBRUARY 13, 2006 4. Sidewalk Snow Removal Discussion Public Works PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: To provide Council with follow up information and request further direction regarding possible sidewalk snow removal education and enforcement programs. BACKGROUND: Council concluded at the November 28, 2005 Study Session that their goal is to have all sidewalks maintained such that a reasonable person prefers to use the sidewalk rather than the street. With regard to snow and ice removal, sidewalk surfaces do not need to be bare, but they do need to be passable / walkable. Since the City maintains less than half of the entire sidewalk system, Council determined the best way to encourage property owners to clean their sidewalks was through aggressive education and enforcement programs. Based on the above discussion and direction, Council asked staff to: 1) Ensure the current ordinance wording is in line with Council’s goals/expectations 2) Research options for more aggressively enforcing snow removal on sidewalks, and 3) Prepare a public education campaign aimed at improving residential sidewalk snow removal efforts PAST PRACTICE: Past practice had been for Street maintenance staff to inspect sidewalks on the third or fourth day after a snow storm. This information was then provided to the City Clerk’s Office for issuing citations. Unfortunately, field inspections at the time were not 100% accurate, so citations were sometimes issued to property owners where sidewalks did not exist. Lastly, City-wide enforcement generated hundreds of citations which would overwhelm the City Clerk’s office. The end result was a slow, sporadic and inaccurate enforcement process. As a result, at the request of the City Clerk, and at the direction of the City Manager, this practice was discontinued in 2004 and a complaint based process was initiated. CURRENT PRACTICE: As noted above, the City Manager approved a complaint only process that stresses public education. Currently, when complaints are received, PW Operations will send a letter to offending property owners informing them of their responsibility to clear their sidewalk. The letter also informs residents they will be fined for any subsequent event in which their sidewalk is not cleared. ENHANCED PUBLIC EDUCATION PLAN: In addition to the City’s routine educational efforts, implementation of a more aggressive enforcement program will require a significant public education effort. The attached two year Public Education Plan includes information on our current cleaning requirements along with notice of more aggressive enforcement of sidewalk snow removal requirements during the 2006 / 2007 winter season. Information regarding assistance for disadvantaged residents will also be made available during this time. Media avenues include Park Perspective articles (a primary and possibly a follow-up refresher), direct- mailed postcards, Sun Sailor articles, and the City’s website. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 4a - Sidewalk Snow Removal Enforcement Policy Page 4 ORDINANCE REVISIONS: Based on the Council direction described above, the current ordinance (attached) does not need to be changed. In addition, the administrative penalty process approved by Council in 2002 currently provides for a simple notice/fine procedure. Thus, no regulatory changes will be necessary to allow staff to more aggressively enforce sidewalk snow removal. ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS: Staff understood the Council to desire an enforcement program that was aggressive, timely, and accurate. The policy options below have been developed by staff to help determine relevant service / enforcement levels desired by Council. The bolded options are recommended by staff for discussion purposes: 1) When should sidewalks be inspected? • Any accumulation of snow • 1” loose accumulation of snow • 2” loose accumulation of snow • 3” loose accumulation of snow 2) How much of the system should be inspected after each event? • 10% • 25% • 50% • 100% 3) What should be the minimum width of sidewalk cleared? • 2’ wide path • 3’wide path • 4’wide path • Full width 4) How quickly should the sidewalks be inspected? • Per ordinance (see attached) • Day 1 of plowing effort • Day 2 of plowing effort • Day 3 of plowing effort 5) Should educational letters be sent (in lieu of citations) for first-time offenders? • Yes (past practice) • No 6) How soon after a citation has been served should the City abate the nuisance (remove the snow) if the resident either refuses to do so or is unavailable to do so (i.e., out of town)? Based on a Day 2 inspection above, citation service is planned to be done by mail on Day 3 of the plowing effort. • 1 day after citation service (per ordinance); abatement on Day 4 of plowing effort St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 4a - Sidewalk Snow Removal Enforcement Policy Page 5 • 2 days after citation service; abatement on Day 5 of plowing effort • 3 days after citation service; abatement on Day 6 of plowing effort 7) How are seniors/disabled/disadvantaged to be treated if they are unable to comply with ordinance requirements? This was an issue with our past practice and generated a large volume of complaints/appeals. Services are currently available through programs such as STEP or HOME; plus staff has determined how to provide a volunteer network for disadvantaged residents. • City provides no sidewalk cleaning services (all residents / property owners are responsible for the cleaning of their sidewalks – except for the city adopted system of walks) • City provides sidewalk cleaning services at cost to disadvantaged residents (elderly, disabled, etc.) • City provides sidewalk cleaning services at a reduced cost to disadvantaged residents (elderly, disabled, etc.) SUMMARY: For the above program to work effectively, Public Works proposes to hire 1 to 2 seasonal employees dedicated solely to the sidewalk inspection effort. In addition, we plan to use the City’s GIS tool to eliminate inspection errors, automatically generate notice letters, track payments, and identify problem areas in the community so special education or enforcement efforts can be applied, as appropriate. Costs to provide the bolded options are estimated at $10- 20K, but could vary widely depending on Council selected options and future snowfall patterns. Finally, if Council desires staff to provide sidewalk cleaning services for disadvantaged residents, that will require additional staff or the use of independent contractors. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: 1. How bad is the sidewalk snow problem? Does aggressive enforcement need to be done or will education and complaint basis enforcement be adequate? 2. Does Council desire enforcement policy options other than identified or recommended above? 3. Is the estimated annual cost an issue? 4. Does Council want the enforcement policy/program adopted by resolution or simply by Council direction? 5. Is Council comfortable with the proposed Public Education Plan? Attachments: Public Education Plan Ordinance – Article IX. Snow and Rubbish Removal Prepared By: Michael P. Rardin, P.E., Public Works Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 4a - Sidewalk Snow Removal Enforcement Policy Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. 06-071 SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL ENFORCEMENT POLICY RELATING TO PUBLIC SIDEWALKS IN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK WHEREAS, The City Ordinance Section 24-342 establishes sidewalk snow removal requirements for public sidewalks; and WHEREAS, The City Council wishes to ensure safe, efficient and cost effective sidewalk snow removal on public right-of-way in St. Louis Park, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of St. Louis Park Public Works Department, in cooperation/coordination with other City Departments, is directed as follows: • To inspect sidewalks at 2” loose accumulation of snow, • To inspect approximately 25% of the sidewalk system after each snow event plus locations which receive complaints, • The minimum width of sidewalk cleared should be 3’ wide, • To inspect the sidewalks as soon as possible, but no later than the second day of street plowing, • In keeping with past practice, educational letters will be sent (in lieu of citations) for first- time offenders, • If sidewalks are not cleaned, the city will abate (remove) snow-related nuisances approximately two days after citation service, cost to be assessed to property owner. • As with other practices, the city will not provide special treatment for any residents, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this policy becomes effective immediately upon passage of this resolution. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 3, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 4b - Fire Sprinkler Assess. 5551 W Lake Str. Page 1 4b. Motion to approve Resolution establishing a special assessment for the installation of a fire suppression sprinkler system at 5551 West Lake Street, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. Background: Coty Lowry and Laurie Jacobi, owner(s) of the commercial building at 5551 West Lake Street, have requested the City to authorize the installation of an automatic fire suppression sprinkler system for the commercial building and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy. Analysis: The special assessment policy for installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in existing buildings was adopted by the City Council in 1995. The City promotes the installation of fire suppression sprinkler systems and facilitates their installation to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The Building Code requires the installation of a fire sprinkler system due to major remodeling project of the building. The property owner will be hiring a contractor to install the sprinkler system throughout the building and bring it up to compliance with the current code. Based on the proposed work, the system qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the installation of the fire sprinkler system and special assess the cost of the installation. Sprinkler plans have been submitted and approved by City staff. The total eligible cost of the installation has been determined to be $31,170.00. An Administrative Fee of $156.00 will be added to the special assessment. Staff has determined that adequate funds are available through the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund to fund this special assessment project. Attachments: Resolution Prepared By: Cary Smith, Fire Marshal Through: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 4b - Fire Sprinkler Assess. 5551 W Lake Str. Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 06-069 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT 5551 West Lake Street, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 WHEREAS, Cotty Lowry and Laurie Jacobi commercial property, located at 5551 West Lake Street has petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the installation of a fire sprinkler system in the building on the Benefited Property; and WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive their right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Fire Marshal related to the installation of the fire sprinkler system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the fire sprinkler system is hereby accepted. 2. The installation of the fire sprinkler system in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Fire Department and Department of Inspections is hereby authorized. 3. The total estimated cost for the design and complete installation of the fire sprinkler system is accepted at $31,170.00. 4. An administrative fee of $156.00 for processing shall be added to the special assessment. 5. The total special assessment against the property will be $31,326.00. 6. The Property Owners have agreed to waive their rights to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law. 7. The Property Owners agree to pay the City for the cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at five point nine percent (5.9%) interest. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 4b - Fire Sprinkler Assess. 5551 W Lake Str. Page 3 8. The Property Owners agree to execute an agreement with the City and any other documents necessary to implement the installation of the fire sprinkler system and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 3, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 4c - Bid Tab 2900 Ottawa Princeton Alley Page 1 4c. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Concrete Idea, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $40,569.00 for Alley Improvement Project – 2900 Block Ottawa/Princeton Avenue, City Project No. 2005-1800 Background: Bids were received on Thursday, March 16, 2006 for the construction of a concrete alley in the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue. This project was initiated through a petition signed by 74% of the benefiting property owners. A total of three (3) bids were received for this project. An advertisement for bids was published in the Sun Sailor on March 2, and March 9, 2006 and in the Construction Bulletin on March 3 and March 10, 2006. A summary of the bid results is as follows: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT Concrete Idea, Inc. $40,569.00 Ron Kassa Construction *$41,400.00 O’Malley Construction, Inc $54,688.33 Engineer’s Estimate $50,341.00 *Bid corrected upon extension Evaluation of Bids: A review of the bids indicates Concrete Idea, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid. This contractor has satisfactorily completed projects in the past for the City. Financial Considerations: 100% of the cost for the concrete alley paving is to be assessed to the abutting property owners. A total of 21 properties will be assessed. The costs will be apportioned in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy with direct and indirect benefits. Assessment Considerations: The assessment hearing for Project No. 2005-1800 was held on October 17, 2005. The property owners had 30 days to file an appeal from the date of the assessment hearing. The 30-day appeal period expired on November 16, 2005 and as of that date the City had received no appeals. Construction Timeline: Work is anticipated to begin in mid-May as soon as the frost leaves the ground and road restrictions are removed. Adjacent residents will receive notice of the construction schedule once a firm starting date has been determined. Staff will also schedule a meeting with the affected homeowners prior to the start of construction to review the proposed work and answer any questions they may have. Prepared By: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 4d - Video Inpsection System Bid Tab, Utilities Page 1 4d. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate ELXSI d/b/a CUES as the lowest responsible bidder and authorize the purchase of a Closed Circuit Color Television Inspection System for $118,200.00. Background: The Closed Circuit Color Television Inspection System is a TV camera that collects data by taking photographs of the condition of the interior of the sewer lines. This provides timely and ongoing information related to the structural integrity of the system. The data is evaluated and used to prepare the CIP repair and replacement schedule. An advertisement for bids was published in the Sun Sailor on February 2 and 9, 2006. Bids were received on Thursday, February 23, 2006 for the inspection system. A total of three suppliers bid the project. The bid results are as follows: BIDDER BID AMOUNT Cobra Technologies * $109,670.00 ELXSI d/b/a CUES $118,200.00 Flexible Pipe Tool Company $124,900.00 Estimate $120,000.00 *Bid does not include additional intermediary software required to link inspection data. Evaluation of Bids: The bid(s) were reviewed by City Attorney Roger Knutsen to determine compliance and responsiveness to bid specifications. It was determined that Cobra Technologies failed to meet bid specification section 24, requiring data to transfer directly to the City’s utility management system (HIMS). Cobra Technologies failed to include the additional software ($5,000.00) to link their system software with HIMS. City staff located only two current users of the Cobra system with integration to HIMS. The responses ranged from multi-step export/import process, numerous data conversions, inflexibility, and poor customer service. Recommendation: To reject the bid from Cobra Technologies and designate ELXSI d/b/a CUES the lowest responsible bidder for one Closed Circuit Color Television Inspection System. ELXSI d/b/a CUES have met the bid specifications and have received good feedback from references. Staff recommends authorizing the execution of a purchase agreement with ELXSI d/b/a CUES in an amount not to exceed $118,200.00. Financial Considerations: The purchase of this equipment was planned for in our CIP. The Equipment Replacement Fund will finance this purchase. Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Superintendent of Utilities Dennis Millerbernd, Superintendent of Central Equipment Services Reviewed By: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 5a - Appointments To Commissions Page 1 5a. Appointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions Recommended Action: Motion to appointment citizen representatives to Boards and Commissions. Background: The City Council interviewed Shirley Zimmerman, Greg Asche, Julian Brown and Jason Van Buren on March 27, 2006 for remaining vacancies on boards and commissions. After the interviews, Council discussed the candidates at length and agreed to make appointments at April 3, 2006 meeting. There are a total of five openings remaining for Boards and Commissions: Human Rights Commissioner: 1 vacancy, expires December 31, 2008 Human Rights Youth Representative: 2 vacancies, expire December 31, 2008 Community Ed. Advisory Commission: 1 at-large vacancy, expires June 30, 2008 Community Ed. Advisory Commission: 1 Council representative In addition, one of the youth applicants who applied for the Human Rights Commission expressed an interest in serving on the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC). There is not an opening for a youth commissioner currently, but Council could discuss appointing this applicant as an alternate PRAC youth commissioner. If all five appointments are made, this will conclude the Council’s appointment process for Boards and Commissions. Recommendation: It is recommended that Council discuss the openings and candidates, and make a motion to appointment citizen representatives to Boards and Commissions. Prepared By: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6a - Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Page 1 6a. Public Hearing on Sungate One Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area The Sungate One Condominium Association has petitioned the City Council to hold a public hearing to consider an ordinance to establish the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area (HIA) and a resolution approving a housing improvement fee for the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Recommended Action: Mayor to close Public Hearing. Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance to establish the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area and to set Second Reading for April 17, 2006. Background: The housing goals of Vision St. Louis Park, the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan, the goals established from Housing Summit 2004 and the City’s Comprehensive Plan include promoting and facilitating a balanced and sustainable housing stock and ensuring that all housing is safe and well maintained. The City is implementing a comprehensive strategy to preserve and enhance the single family detached homes, multifamily buildings, and neighborhoods. The HIA tool addresses the aging owner-occupied townhouse and condominium housing stock. Construction and conversion of townhouses and condominiums, which comprise 12% of the City’s housing stock, began in the 1970’s. The City’s Comprehensive Plan notes that “there is a concern that maintenance may be underfunded for some townhouse associations and maintenance issues may arise in the future.” The Council adopted the HIA Policy in June 2001 and established the City’s first HIA for the Cedar Trail Condominiums in 2002. State Statute authorizes cities to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private housing improvements. An HIA is a defined area within a city where housing improvements are made and the cost of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the properties within the area. This tool is similar to the commercial special service district tool which we currently use on Excelsior Blvd. Sungate One Condominiums. Sungate One is located at 2551-2619 Alabama Ave S, see location map. The four single-story, five-unit buildings were constructed in 1968 as rental and converted to condominiums in 1978. All units are identical in size and features. The units are primarily owner occupied. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6a - Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Page 2 On March 13, 2006, the City Council received an analysis of the Sungate One Condominium’s preliminary application for establishment of a Housing Improvement Area. On March 20, 2006 the Sungate One Condominium Association submitted fifteen signed petitions requesting the City Council to conduct a Public Hearing for the purpose of establishing an HIA and imposing fees. State Statute requires that petitions be received from at least 25% of the owners and the City’s policy requires that petitions be received from a majority of owners. There are twenty owners at Sungate, and the fifteen signed petitions represent 75% of owners. Analysis of Sungate One Application The following analysis is intended to describe how the proposal meets the City HIA policy and intentions of the statute. The preliminary application has been received and favorably reviewed by staff and the City’s financial advisor, Ehlers and Associates. 1. The Association contracted with a third party to conduct a reserve study. The Association has worked with Gassen Company, a property management firm, since June 2002. The Association believes they have benefited from the direction provided by Gassen, including a reserve study conducted by Reserve Data Analysis in October 2005. The study includes a physical needs assessment, twenty year capital improvement plan and a financial analysis of the current and projected financial situation. Based on the physical assessment, Gassen Company compiled a scope of work, which has been reviewed and approved by the membership. The goal of the HIA loan is to make needed improvements while building up reserves for the future. The reserve study indicates that projected association fee increases will meet the projected future costs and that the Association will be capable of funding future needs with their reserves. 2. Project Costs. The construction estimate is $170,120 and includes the following improvements: replacement of water line from curb to buildings and associated work, partial replacement of sidewalks, replacement of some water heaters, boilers, a garage roof, and improvements to the driveway, parking lot, lights, sidewalks and stoops plus miscellaneous landscaping. The estimates are based on bids that have been received and reviewed by Gassen Management. These improvements are consistent with HIA guidelines in that they are common area improvements and improvements integral to the operation of the buildings. The total loan amount would be $183,884 to cover all project costs, see table below. The loan would include the fee to be paid to the City along with funds to cover the City’s legal and advisory costs. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6a - Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Page 3 Table 1. Project Costs Sungate One HIA Project Costs Construction Costs $170,120 City Admin Fee $5,000 Legal Fees $2,500 Financial Advisor $1,500 Construction Oversight $1,000 Capitalized Interest $3,764 Total $183,884 3. HIA and City Goals The proposed improvements meet the City goals in that they will result in the upgrading of the existing housing stock in a neighborhood, stabilization of the owner-occupancy level within the association, and preserve existing housing stock. 4. Additional Statute and City Policy Criteria. The Sungate One proposal meets the following critical statutory and City Policy requirements. • The project is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances. • A majority of owners support the project, 15 of 20 signed petitions requesting a public hearing. This number reflects 75% of the units. • The unit's average market value meets policy criteria in that it does not exceed the maximum home purchase price of existing homes under the State's first time homebuyer program which is $279,000 in 2005/6. The 2005 estimated market value of the units is $121,000 and a unit recently sold for $140,000. • The basis for imposition of fees is consistent with dues structures as prescribed in the Association By-Laws. • The Association has demonstrated that without the HIA, improvements could not be made. The Association has provided documentation from Wells Fargo and M & I Bank, that financing improvements without adequate collateral requires conditions of high interest rates and balloon payments, which in turn would result in onerous assessments to residents. • The Public Hearing requirements are being met. • A written objection process allows individual owners to file an objection to inclusion in the area and subjection of fees. • A veto period of 45 days follows the adoption of the ordinance, where 35% of the owners, or 35% of tax capacity, may file written objections. When this occurs the statute requires that the HIA not be granted. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6a - Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Page 4 5. Financing and Loan Terms The loan to the association would be an internal loan, using City/EDA Development Funds, rather than issuing bonds. The use of the Development Fund for the internal loan meets the Fund’s policy criteria. An internal loan resolution will be drafted to formalize the arrangement. The City’s Finance Director and City Assessor are involved in structuring the loan and ensuring assessment procedures are followed. A Development Agreement with the Association will ensure that the loan is secured by Association Assets, defined as dues, fees, assessments and other income owing to the Association from unit owners. The table below outlines the loan terms. Owners will have the option to prepay prior to the fees being assessed and avoid interest costs. Fees will be payable with property taxes beginning in 2007. Table 2. Loan Terms Project Costs $170,120 Capitalized Interest $3,764 Soft Costs $10,000 Total Loan Amount $183,884 Term (years) 10 Average Interest Rate 5.90% Average Annual Debt Service $24,866 Required Coverage (105%) $26,109 Total Units 20 Cost/Unit - Annual $1,305.45 Cost/Unit - Monthly $108.79 Average Assessment - Per/Unit $9,194.20 Recommendation: Motion to adopt First Reading of an Ordinance to Establish the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area and to set Second Reading for April 17, 2006. Next Steps: Staff will continue to work with Kennedy & Graven, Ehlers and Associates and the Association Board to finalize a Development Agreement and Internal Loan Fund Resolution. The Economic Development Authority will consider an Internal Loan Fund Resolution on April 17, 2006. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6a - Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Page 5 The Second Reading of the Ordinance will be scheduled on April 17, 2006, at which time the Council would: adopt a Fee Resolution, approve an Ordinance to Establish the HIA, and approve the Development Agreement. Attachments: Sample Petition Public Hearing Notice Ordinance Establishing the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Resolution Approving a Housing Improvement Fee for Sungate One HIA Prepared By: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Reviewed By: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6a - Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Page 6 SUNGATE ONE CONDOMINIUMS PETITION OF PROPERTY OWNERS FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA AND THE IMPOSITION OF A FEE TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA: The undersigned owner(s) of a housing unit at Sungate One Condominiums that would be subject to the fee in the proposed Housing Improvement Area encompassing the Sungate One Condominiums, hereby request(s) the Council to conduct public hearings to consider the establishment of the Improvement Area and the imposition of a fee to pay for housing improvements pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 428A.11 - .21 (200): Unit Number: __________________________________ Owner (s) __________________________________ print name __________________________________ print name Owner(s) Address(es)__________________________________ St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Owner(s) __________________________________ signature __________________________________ signature Dated: __________________________________ Attached is the proposed project costs, the proposed scope of improvements, the loan term, interest rate and annual and total fee amounts. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6a - Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Page 7 Sungate One Project Costs Estimated Replace water line from curb stop to buildings:25,000.00 Repair lawn etc from water line work 3,000.00 Remove and replace existing fence for water line work 8,346.00 Remove and replace 3 concrete patios for water line work 4,070.00 Replace middle walk way with asphalt side walk 2,600.00 Remove and replace various sidewalk segments 16.00 / sf 4,456.00 Remove and replace existing stoop ( 3 each)3,150.00 Replace water heaters 1 building (no floor replacement) see n 2,900.00 Replace boilers in 3 buildings 30,000.00 Replace roof on North garage building 9,529.00 Replace driveway and parking lot / with striping 18,160.00 Replace lighting / poles re use existing wire feeds- (5 each)4,200.00 Remove and replace 3 water softeners 4,500.00 Remove and replace parking lot fence 4,968.00 Tree trimming and landscaping 4,000.00 Contingency 12,887.90 Sub Total 141,766.90 Contractors Fee 28,353.38 SubTotal Construction 170,120.28 City Admin Fee $5,000 Legal Fees $2,500 Fiancial Advisor $1,500 Construction Oversight $1,000 Sub Total Soft Costs $10,000 Capitalized Interest $3,764 Total Loan Amount $183,884 Total Loan Amount. The total loan amount is estimated to be $183,884. The term of the loan and imposed fees would be 10 years. The interest rate is estimated to be 5.9%. Amount to be charged against each housing unit: Estimates of the fee to be imposed on housing units in the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area are included in the table below. Fees are based on percentage of undivided ownership as prescribed in the Exhibit A to the Declaration. The Annual Fee per unit is shown and includes interest on the cost per unit at a rate of 5.9% per annum. The total 10 year fee amount is shown. Undivided Ownership Percent of Dues Structure Annual Payment for 10 Years Total 10 Year Payment 0.05% 100% $1,305 $13,055 The Total Prepayment Fee (Principal only) is $9,194. Housing unit owners may prepay in whole but not in part the Total Prepayment between May 19, 2006 and November 20, 2006. If a prepayment is made by Nov. 30 in any subsequent year, the amount must include interest at the rate of 5.9 % through the end of that calendar year. If the prepayment is made after Nov. 30, the amount must include interest through the end of the following calendar year. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6a - Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Page 8 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota will hold a public hearing on April 3, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the City of St. Louis Park, City Hall Council Chambers, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. regarding two actions under Minnesota Statutes Sections 428A.11- 428A.21 as follows: 1. Adoption of an ordinance establishing the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area. 2. Adoption of a resolution imposing fees on housing units within the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area. Within the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area, the City proposes to facilitate various improvements to the Sungate One Condominiums. The boundaries of the proposed Sungate One Housing Improvement Area are shown in the map below. Fees imposed on the owners of units in the Sungate One Condominiums would finance the improvements. Details regarding the hearing, the improvements and the fees are described below: 1. Persons to be heard: All persons owning housing units in the proposed housing improvement area that would be subject to a fee for housing improvements, and all other interested persons, will be given an opportunity to be heard at the hearing. 2. Proposed Improvements: The exterior common area and building system improvements include: replacing water line from curb stop to buildings; repairing lawn and landscaping from water line work; removing and replacing existing fence for water line work; removing and replacing 3 concrete patios for water line work; replacing middle St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6a - Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Page 9 walkway with asphalt side walk; removing and replacing various sidewalk segments; removing and replacing existing stoop ( 3 each); replacing water heaters 1 building (no floor replacement); replacing boilers in 3 buildings; replacing roof on North garage building; replacing driveway and parking lot / with striping; replacing lighting / poles, reusing existing wire feeds (5 each); removing and replacing 3 water softeners; removing and replacing parking lot fence; and tree trimming and landscaping. 3. Estimated Cost of Improvements to be paid in whole or in part by housing improvement fee: $183,884 including administrative costs and cost of arranging financing for the improvements. 4. Amount to be charged against each housing unit: Estimates of the fee to be imposed on housing units in the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area are included in the table below. Fees are based on percentage of undivided ownership as prescribed in the association bylaws. The Annual Fee per unit is shown and includes interest on the cost per unit at a rate of 5.9% per annum. The total 10 year fee amount is shown. The Total Prepayment Fee (Principal only) is shown. Fees may not be more than the amounts shown. Undivided Ownership Percent of Dues Structure Annual Fee for 10 Years Total 10 Year Fee Total Prepayment Fee 0.05% 100% $1,305 $13,055 $9,194 5. Owner's right to prepay the total fee: Housing unit owners may prepay in whole but not in part the Total Prepayment between May 19, 2006 and November 20, 2006. If a prepayment is made by Nov. 30 in any subsequent year, the amount must include interest at the rate of 5.9 % through the end of that calendar year. If the prepayment is made after Nov. 30, the amount must include interest through the end of the following calendar year. 6. Number of years the fee will be in effect: If owners do not prepay the Total Prepayment Fee, the Annual Fee will be imposed in equal installments over a period not to exceed 10 years. The first installment will be payable in 2007 with each half of real estate taxes. 7. Owner’s right to prepay after imposition of the Annual Fee: Owners may prepay the unpaid installment of the Annual Fee at any time. 8. Compliance with Petition Requirement: Owners of more than 50 percent of the housing units that would be subject to the proposed fee in the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area have filed a petition with the City Clerk requesting a public hearing on the proposed fee, which exceeds the requirement under Ch. 428A.12. For further information on the proposed housing improvement fee, contact Kathy Larsen, Housing Program Coordinator, at 952-924-2196. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6a - Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Page 10 Dated: March 23, 2006 Nancy Stroth City Clerk AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE. TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS CONTACT THE PERSONNEL OFFICE AT 924-2520. Published: March 23, 2006 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6a - Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Page 11 ORDINANCE NO. ______-06 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE SUNGATE ONE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 428A.11 to 428A.21. BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City of St. Louis Park ("City") is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21 (the "Act") to establish by ordinance a housing improvement area within which housing improvements are made or constructed and the costs of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed within the area. 1.02. The St. Louis Park City Council (“Council”) adopted a Housing Improvement Area policy on July 16, 2002. 1.03. The City has determined a need to establish the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area as further defined herein, in order to facilitate certain improvements to property known as the "Sungate One Condominiums,” all in accordance with the Housing Improvement Area policy. 1.04. The City has consulted with the Sungate One Condominium Association (the “Condominium Association”) and with residents in the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area regarding the establishment of the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area and the housing improvements to be constructed and financed under this ordinance. Section 2. Findings. 2.01. The Council finds that, in accordance with Section 428A.12 of the Act, owners of at least 25 percent of the housing units within the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area have filed a petition with the City Clerk requesting a public hearing regarding establishment of such housing improvement area. 2.02. The Council has on April 3, 2006, conducted a public hearing, duly noticed in accordance with Section 428A.13 of the Act, regarding adoption of this ordinance, at which all persons, including owners of property within the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area, were given an opportunity to be heard. 2.03. The Council finds that, without establishment of the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area, the Housing Improvements (as hereinafter defined) could not be made by the condominium association for, or the housing unit owners in, the Sungate One Condominium Association. 2.04. The Council further finds that designation of the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area is needed to maintain and preserve the housing units within such area. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6a - Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Page 12 2.05 The City will be the implementing entity for the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area and the improvement fee. 2.06 The Council finds that the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area meets each of the approval criteria contained in the Housing Improvement Area Policy (listed as 5.01A- 5.01M), including the criterion that a majority of the condominium association owners support the project and the Housing Improvement Area financing. The Condominium Association presented evidence to the Council adequate to demonstrate that these criteria were met, including presentation to the Council of the petitions described in 2.01 above. Section 3. Housing Improvement Area Defined. 3.01. The Sungate One Housing Improvement Area is hereby defined as the area of the City legally described in Exhibit A. 3.02. The Sungate One Housing Improvement Area contains 20 housing units as of the date of adoption of this ordinance, along with other garage units and common area. Section 4. Housing Improvements Defined. 4.01. For the purposes of this ordinance and the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area, the term "Housing Improvements" shall mean the following improvements to housing units, garages, and common areas within the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area: Replacing water line from curb stop to buildings; repairing lawn and landscaping from water line work; removing and replacing existing fence for water line work; removing and replacing 3 concrete patios for water line work; replacing middle walkway with asphalt side walk; removing and replacing various sidewalk segments; removing and replacing existing stoop ( 3 each); replacing water heaters 1 building (no floor replacement); replacing boilers in 3 buildings; replacing roof on North garage building; replacing driveway and parking lot / with striping; replacing lighting / poles, reusing existing wire feeds (5 each); removing and replacing 3 water softeners; removing and replacing parking lot fence; and tree trimming and landscaping. 4.02. Housing Improvements shall also be deemed to include: (a) all costs of architectural and engineering services in connection with the activities described in Section 4.01; St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6a - Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Page 13 (b) all administration, legal and consultant costs in connection with the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area; and (c) costs of arranging financing for the Housing Improvements under the Housing Improvement Act; and (d) interest on the internal loan as described in Sections 5.04 and 6.01. Section 5. Housing Improvement Fee. 5.01. The City may, by resolution adopted in accordance with the petition, hearing and notice procedures required under Section 428A.14 of the Act, impose a fee on the housing units within the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area, at a rate, term or amount sufficient to produce revenues required to provide the Housing Improvements (hereinafter referred to as the "Housing Improvement Fee"), subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Section. 5.02. The Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed on the basis of each owned housing and garage unit's Percent of Undivided Interest in Common Areas and Facilities, as described in Exhibit A to Declaration of Apartment Ownership (Condominium) Sungate One Condominium, dated as of September 10, 1979. 5.03. The Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed and payable for a period no greater than 10 years after the first installment is due and payable. 5.04. Housing unit owners shall be permitted to prepay the Housing Improvement Fee in accordance with the terms specified in the resolution imposing the fee. 5.05. The Housing Improvement Fee shall not exceed the amount specified in the notice of public hearing regarding the approval of such fee; provided, however, that the Housing Improvement Fee may be reduced after approval of the resolution setting the Housing Improvement Fee, in the manner specified in such resolution. Section 6. Housing Improvement Area Loan. 6.01. At any time after a contract with the Condominium Association for construction of all or part of the Housing Improvements has been entered into or the work has been ordered, and the period for prepayment of the Housing Improvement Fee has expired as described in Section 5.04 hereof, the Council may begin disbursement to the Condominium Association of the proceeds of an internal loan (the “loan”) of available City funds in the principal amounts necessary to finance the cost of the Housing Improvements that have not been prepaid, together with administrative costs. 6.02. The City may refinance the loan or any unpaid portion of the loan at any time by issuing bonds secured by Housing Improvement Fees, as outlined by Section 428A.16 of the Act. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6a - Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Page 14 Section 7. Annual Reports. 7.01. On August 15, 2007, and each August 15 thereafter until there are no longer any outstanding obligations issued under the Act in connection with the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area, Sungate One Condominium Association (and any successor in interest) shall submit to the City Clerk a copy of the condominium association's audited financial statements. 7.02. The Condominium Association (and any successor in interest) shall also submit to the City any other reports or information at the times and as required by any contract entered into between that entity and the City. Section 8. Notice of Right to File Objections. 8.01. Within five days after the adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to mail to the owner of each housing unit in the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area: a summary of this ordinance; notice that owners subject to the proposed Housing Improvement Fee have a right to veto this ordinance if owners of at least 35 percent of the housing units within the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area file a written objection with the City Clerk before the effective date of this ordinance; and notice that a copy of this ordinance is on file with the City Clerk for public inspection. Section 9. Amendment. 9.01. This ordinance may be amended by the Council upon compliance with the public hearing and notice requirements set forth in Section 428A.13 of the Act. Section 10. Effective Date. 10.1. This ordinance shall be effective 45 days after adoption hereof. Read, approved and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park on April 3, 2006. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: City Clerk City Attorney St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6a - Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Page 15 EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. _____ Legal Description Of The Underlying Land – Sungate One Condominiums Apartment No. 2557, Condominium No. 114, Sungate One Condominium, located in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Located on the following described land: Lots 1 and 2 And the West 45 feet of the East 227.28 feet of the North 80 feet of Lot 3, all in Block 1, Parkaire Addition, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. According to the declaration of apartment ownership and attached by-laws filed as document No. 1303141 on the 9th day of November, 1978, Files of the Registrar of Titles. Which apartment is restricted for residential purpose as more fully set out in said declaration; Subject to the provisions of Minnesota Condominium Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 515, and acts amendatory thereof. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6a - Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Page 16 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK RESOLUTION NO. 06-_______ RESOLUTION APPROVING A HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FEE FOR THE SUNGATE ONE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 428A.11 to 428A.21. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City of St. Louis Park ("City") is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21 (the "Act") to establish by ordinance a housing improvement area within which housing improvements are made or constructed and the costs of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed within the area. 1.02. The St. Louis Park City Council (“Council”) adopted a Housing Improvement Area policy on July 16, 2002. 1.03. By Ordinance No. ______ adopted April 3, 2006 (the "Enabling Ordinance"), the Council established the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area in order to facilitate certain improvements to property known as the "Sungate One Condominiums," all in accordance with the Housing Improvement Area policy. 1.04. In accordance with Section 428A.12 of the Act, owners of at least 25 percent of the housing units within the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area have filed a petition with the City Clerk requesting a public hearing regarding imposition of a housing improvement fee for the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area. 1.05. The Council has on April 3, 2006, conducted a public hearing, duly noticed in accordance with Section 428A.13 of the Act, regarding adoption of this resolution at which all persons, including owners of property within the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area, were given an opportunity to be heard. 1.06 The Council finds that the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area meets each of the approval criteria contained in the Housing Improvement Area Policy (listed as 5.01A- 5.01M), including the criterion that a majority of the condominium association owners support the project and the Housing Improvement Area financing. 1.07. Prior to the date hereof, Sungate One Condominium Association (the "Condominium Association") has submitted to the City a financial plan prepared by Reserve Advisors, Inc., an independent third party, acceptable to the City and the Condominium Association, that provides for the Condominium Association to finance maintenance and operation of the common elements in the St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6a - Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Page 17 Sungate One Condominiums and a long-range plan to conduct and finance capital improvements therein, all in accordance with Section 428A.14 of the Act. 1.08. For the purposes of this Resolution, the terms "Sungate One Housing Improvement Area" and "Housing Improvements" have the meanings provided in the Enabling Ordinance. Section 2. Housing Improvement Fee Imposed. 2.01. The City hereby imposes a fee on each housing unit within the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area (the "Housing Improvement Fee"), as specified in Exhibit A attached hereto, which Housing Improvement Fee is imposed on the basis of each housing unit and garage unit’s Percent of Undivided Interest in Common Areas and Facilities, as described in Exhibit A to Declaration of Apartment Ownership (Condominium) Sungate One Condominium, dated as of September 10, 1979, and as shown under the heading Undivided Ownership in that Exhibit. 2.02. The owner of any housing unit in the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area may prepay the Housing Improvement Fee in total and without interest thereon between the effective date of this resolution and November 20, 2006. The amount of the prepayment is shown under the headings Total Prepayment Fee in Exhibit A. After November 20, 2006, the Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed on an annual basis as described in 2.03, and housing unit owners shall be permitted to prepay the outstanding principal portion, with accrued interest at the rate of 5.90%, on any date. If a prepayment is made by November 20 of 2007 or any subsequent year, the amount must include interest on the outstanding principal portion of the fee through the end of that calendar year. If a prepayment is made after November 20 of 2007 or any subsequent year, the amount must include interest through the end of the following calendar year. Partial prepayment of the Housing Improvement Fee shall not be permitted. Prepayment must be made to the City Treasurer. 2.03. If the Total Prepayment Fee is not paid between the effective date of this resolution and November 20, 2006, the Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed as an annual fee, in the amount shown under the heading Annual Fee in Exhibit A. The Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed in equal installments, beginning in 2007, for a period no greater than 10 years after the first installment is due and payable. The Annual Fee shall be deemed to include interest on the unpaid portion of the total Housing Improvement Fee. Interest shall begin to accrue on January 1, 2007 at an annual interest rate of 5.90% percent per annum. 2.04. Unless prepaid between the effective date of this resolution and November 20, 2006, the Housing Improvement Fee shall be payable at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.15 and 428A.05. As set forth therein, the Housing Improvement Fee is not included in the calculation of levies or limits on levies imposed under any law or charter. 2.05 A de minimis fee may be imposed by Hennepin County for services in connection to administration required in order for the fee to be made payable at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6a - Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Page 18 Section 3. Notice of Right to File Objections. 3.01. Within five days after the adoption of this Resolution, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to mail to the owner of each housing unit in the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area: a summary of this Resolution; notice that owners subject to the Housing Improvement Fee have a right to veto this Resolution if owners of at least 35 percent of the housing units within the Sungate One Housing Improvement Area file a written objection with the City Clerk before the effective date of this Resolution; and notice that a copy of this ordinance is on file with the City Clerk for public inspection. Section 4. Effective Date. 4.01. This Resolution shall be effective 45 days after adoption hereof. Section 5. Filing of Housing Improvement Fee. 5.01. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution together with a final update of Exhibit A hereto to the Hennepin County Director of Taxation to be recorded on the property tax lists of the county for taxes payable in 2007 and thereafter. Approved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park this 3rd day of April, 2006. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 3, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6a - Sungate One Housing Improvement Area Page 19 EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 06-_____ Undivided Ownership Percent of Dues Structure Annual Fee for 10 Years Total 10 Year Fee Total Prepayment Fee 0.05% 100% $1,305 $13,055 $9,194 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6b - BOZA Appeal Page 1 6b. Public hearing to consider two appeals of the Board of Zoning Appeals decision on three variances for property at 4611 Excelsior Blvd. Location: 4611 Excelsior Boulevard Applicant: Daniel LeSage Case No.: 06-10-VAR Recommended Action: • Mayor to close the public hearing. • Motion to approve an application for variances to section 36- 193(c)17)b & c of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a restaurant (coffee shop) to be less than 25 feet from a residentially zoned parcel, and to allow less landscaping than required by bufferyard E. • Motion to deny an application for a variance to section 36- 361(c)(1) of the zoning ordinance to allow fewer parking spaces than required for a restaurant (coffee shop) use. Request: The applicant would like to purchase the building at 4611 Excelsior Boulevard and convert one third of the building, approximately 970 square feet, to a coffee shop. The remaining portions of the building would be used as a studio use – possibly a yoga studio. The zoning ordinance classifies a coffee shop as a restaurant use, which is permitted in the C-1 Zoning District as long as it meets certain conditions. A summary of the conditions and the requested variances are listed and explained in the attached Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) report. Board of Zoning Appeals Action (BOZA): The BOZA heard the application on February 28, 2006, and approved (3-0 vote) variances from the Zoning Ordinance rear yard and buffer yard requirements; and denied (3-0 vote) a variance to the required number of parking spaces. Several people were in attendance and spoke mostly against the application. Attached are the minutes of the meeting and letters from the applicant and neighbors. Within 10 days following the BOZA decision, the city received the following two separate appeals: 1. Applicant Daniel LeSage appealed the BOZA decision to deny the parking variance; and 2. David Reddan, 4608 Vallacher Ave, appealed the BOZA decision to approve the setback and bufferyard variances. The concerns of the applicant and residents as expressed at the public hearing are stated in the attached minutes. In summary, LeSage believes a variance should be granted because, in his opinion, the parking needs for the coffee shop peak in the morning while the retailers peak in the late afternoon resulting in an opportunity to share one another’s parking spaces. While Judith McGrann expressed concerns regarding the amount of parking spaces, the residents expressed concerns about the odor coming from the roasting of coffee beans that would occur at the coffee shop. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6b - BOZA Appeal Page 2 Recommendation: Bufferyard and Setback: In as much as staff believes that all 7 criterion have been satisfied for the bufferyard and setback variance, staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution approving a variance to allow a 23 foot variance to the required 25 foot setback and a variance to allow a reduction in the required Bufferyard E to allow 113 points of landscaping in stead of the required 275 with the following conditions: 1. That the setback variance is granted to the one story building as illustrated in the survey attached as Exhibit A. 2. That the building remains as a one-story building, and that no additions to the building that brings the building any closer to the rear property line than currently exists as illustrated in the survey attached as Exhibit A. 3. That the six foot tall white vinyl fence that exists along the rear property line of the neighboring building at 4615 Excelsior Blvd. be extended along the rear property line, and that 18 techny arborvitae be planted along that fence in the same manner as those planted at 4615 Excelsior Blvd. 4. This variance is limited to the use of a coffee shop with morning peak hours only and shall not be used to allow any other use or any other type of restaurant. Parking: In as much as staff believes that 6 of the 7 criterion have not been satisfied for the parking variance, staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution denying the request for a variance to the parking required for the operation of a restaurant based on the findings in the attached Resolution. Alternatives If the Council desires to consider denial of the bufferyard and setback variance, staff should be directed to prepare a resolution of denial for consideration at the next Council meeting. If the Council desires to consider approval of the parking variance, staff should be directed to prepare a resolution of approval for consideration at the next Council meeting. Attachments: BOZA Staff Report - Case No. 06-10-VAR with attachments. (supplement) Letters of Appeal (supplement) Proposed Resolutions BOZA Minutes Excerpts with handouts received at the meeting (supplement) Prepared By: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6b - BOZA Appeal Page 3 VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 06-____ RESOLUTION OF FINDING REGARDING THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE UNDER SECTION 36-361(c)(1) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FEWER PARKING SPACES THAN REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTIY LOCATED AT 4611 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. Daniel LeSage has applied for a variance from Section 36-311(c) (1) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to allow fewer parking spaces than required for property located in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District at the following location, to-wit: Lot 10; That part of Lot 9 lying Southwesterly of a line drawn parallel with and 15 feet Northeasterly of, measured at right angles to the Southwesterly line of said Lot 9; The Northeasterly 24 feet of Lot 11; The Northwesterly 24 feet of the Northwesterly 19 feet of Lot 22; and Lot 23 except the Southeasterly 116 feet of said Lot 23; all in Block 3, “Minikahda Vista”, St. Louis Park, Minnesota. 2. On February 28, 2006, the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing, received testimony from the public, discussed the application and approved a resolution of denial. 3. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the City Council makes the following findings: a. The requested variance does not meet the requirements of Section 36-33(d) of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances. There are no factors related to the shape, size or other extraordinary conditions of the lot which prevent a reasonable use. b. Granting of the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. The property can continue to be used for retail or other uses permitted by the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District without the need of a parking variance. c. There are no demonstrable or undue hardships under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance or Minnesota Statue, and therefore, conditions necessary for granting the requested variance do not exist. d. The granting of the variance may result in a shortage of parking spaces available to the uses at the subject property and the neighboring property at 4615 Excelsior Blvd. that also shares the parking lot. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6b - BOZA Appeal Page 4 4. The contents of Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 06-10-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case. CONCLUSION The applicant’s request for a variance from 36-361(c)(1) to allow 14 parking spaces instead of the required 23 spaces at property located at 4611 Excelsior Boulevard is hereby denied based on the findings setforth above. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 3, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6b - BOZA Appeal Page 5 VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 06 -____ RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 36-193(C)(17) B AND C OF THE ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT TO BE LOCATED LESS THAN 25 FEET FROM A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND TO ALLOW LESS LANDSCAPING THAN REQUIRED BY BUFFERYARD E FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4611 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD. BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. Daniel LeSage has applied for a variance from Section 36-193(C)(17) B and C of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to allow a restaurant to be located less than 25 feet from a residential property and to allow less landscaping than required by Buffyerard E for property located in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District for property at the following location, to-wit: Lot 10; That part of Lot 9 lying Southwesterly of a line drawn parallel with and 15 feet Northeasterly of, measured at right angles to the Southwesterly line of said Lot 9; The Northeasterly 24 feet of Lot 11; The Northwesterly 24 feet of the Northwesterly 19 feet of Lot 22; and Lot 23 except the Southeasterly 116 feet of said Lot 23; all in Block 3, “Minikahda Vista”, St. Louis Park, Minnesota. 2. On February 28, 2006, the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing, received testimony from the public, discussed the application and moved approval of a variance to allow a restaurant to be located less than 25 feet from a residential property and to allow less landscaping than required by Bufferyard E. 3. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which such land is located. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6b - BOZA Appeal Page 6 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 7. The contents of Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 06-10-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case. 8. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the variance is granted. 9. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the variance is granted is removed. CONCLUSION The application for the variance to allow a 23 foot variance to the required 25 foot setback and a variance to allow a reduction in the required Bufferyard E to allow 113 points of landscaping instead of the required 275 with the following conditions is granted based upon the findings setforth above, and subject to the following conditions. 1. That the setback variance is granted to the one story building as illustrated in the survey attached as Exhibit A. 2. That the building remains as a one-story building, and that no additions to the building that brings the building any closer to the rear property line than currently exists as illustrated in the survey attached as Exhibit A. 3. That the six foot tall white vinyl fence that exists along the rear property line of the neighboring building at 4615 Excelsior Blvd. be extended along the rear property line, and that 18 techny arborvitae be planted along that fence in the same manner as those planted at 4615 Excelsior Blvd. 4. This variance is limited to the use of a coffee shop with morning peak hours only and shall not be used to allow any other use or any other type of restaurant. 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 April 3, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 6b - BOZA Appeal Page 7 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 8a - CUP 1351 1361 Hampshire Page 1 8a. Request by Ted Bigos for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the export/import of over 400 cubic yards of soil for property at 1351 and 1361 Hampshire Ave. Case No. 06-13-CUP Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the excavation/fill of more than 400 cubic yards of soil at 1351 and 1361 Hampshire Avenue, with conditions. REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is requested to export contaminated soils and import clean fill prior to developing a 48-unit apartment building on the property. A CUP is required when more than 400 cubic yards of soil will be exported/imported/displaced. In this case, an estimated 2,800 tons of soil will be exported. The area from which soil is removed will be filled with clean material purchased from an aggregate supplier. This request is only for approval of excavation and placement of clean fill, not the apartment development. The apartment building development will require Planned Unit Development approval at a later date. SITE MAP: Zoning: R-4 Multiple Family Residence District Comp. Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 8a - CUP 1351 1361 Hampshire Page 2 BACKGROUND: The site is located near the end of a cul-de-sac on Hampshire Avenue two blocks south of Wayzata Boulevard. Surrounding land uses include Otten Pond, Park Place West, Bennigans, Shelly’s, Prestige Auto, and apartment buildings. The City has previously approved Special Use Permits for the existing 101-unit apartment building at 1351 Hampshire Avenue and a 45-unit apartment building at 1361 Hampshire Avenue. During the excavation for the 45-unit building in 1999, workers became ill due to contaminants in the soil. The foundation area for the proposed building was filled with clean sand and work ceased. Subsequent investigation found that the most severe contamination on the site is located approximately 12 feet below grade. The contamination includes arsenic, lead, barium, trichloroethylene, petroleum compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and construction debris. The source of the contamination appears to be imported fill deposited over low wetlands on the property in the 1930s or 1940s. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency approved a Voluntary Response Action Plan (VRAP) for the site in March 2004. The proposed excavation, along with future development of the apartment building, will implement the approved plan. The excavation will occur on portions of the vacant lot at 1361 Hampshire Avenue and the 101-unit apartment building site at 1351 Hampshire Avenue. The project will remove the top two feet of soil below the proposed parking lot, four feet below proposed landscaped areas, and in corridors where utility installation or repair will occur. Residual contamination will be capped by the future building and parking lot, and deed restrictions will be recorded to be certain future owners are aware of the issue and prevent future exposure. ISSUES ANALYSIS: Staff reviewed the proposal and found that it meets the general zoning requirements. City Code Section 36-79, “Grading; Filling and Land Reclamation; Excavation and Mining” requires a CUP to prevent any adverse impacts to the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding community. The applicant submitted a letter dated February 27, 2006 that concisely summarizes the scope of work (see attachment). How will the proposed excavation affect the surrounding properties? There will be approximately 150 truck loads of soil hauled from the site. The contractor will use 10 trucks. Each truck will make a maximum of four trips per day, and thus the project will take approximately one week to complete. It is expected that a backhoe will be used to complete the process of excavation and placement of soils. For this reason, there will be some noise involved with the excavation and loading process (backup beepers, engines, loading, etc.). All work will occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. If confirmation samples indicate that additional excavation is needed, the project may take two weeks to complete. The applicant intends to begin work when road restrictions are lifted, which typically occurs in mid- May. What measures will be taken to ensure erosion and sedimentation control? In general, a majority of the soil will be excavated, directly loaded onto dump trucks and hauled to an approved disposal facility. Some stockpiling will be required for the lead-stabilization process. Any soil stockpile will be placed on and covered with appropriate plastic material and St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 8a - CUP 1351 1361 Hampshire Page 3 bermed to prevent wind erosion and contaminant runoff. The applicant has submitted an Erosion Control Permit application to Public Works for review and approval. The vacant lot at 1361 Hampshire is already surrounded by chain link fence to limit access. The 1351 Hampshire Avenue site will be surrounded by safety fence and caution tape to reduce access to the work areas. According to the applicant’s engineer, the contaminants that will be excavated and exposed have a low volatility, which means there should not be any odor problems during the excavation process. This is different from some of the contaminants that exist deeper on the site, which explains why there was odor and vapor problems associated with a previous site excavation. In accordance with the MPCA approved plan, Bigos Management intends to obtain deed restrictions to protect the deeper contaminants that will be left in place. What traffic impacts are associated with the proposed excavation? No major traffic impacts are expected as a result of the proposed excavation. It is estimated that approximately 150 trucks over a period of 1-2 weeks will enter and depart the site. The trucks exit the site from the south driveway, turn north on Hampshire, then turn west on Wayzata Boulevard, then north onto Interstate 394 from Louisiana Avenue. HAUL ROUTES: St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 8a - CUP 1351 1361 Hampshire Page 4 PROCESS: The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on March 9, 2006. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 15, 2006, and recommended approval of the CUP. The applicant submitted an erosion control permit application to Public Works for review and approval. The applicant submitted a planned unit development application on Monday, March 20, 2006, for the apartment building at 1361 Hampshire Avenue. The PUD was needed due to the new Designed Outdoor Recreation Area regulations, and design changes that caused the building to exceed height limits and to encroach into required yards. The Planning Commission and City Council will likely be asked to consider the application on April 26, 2006 and May 15, 2006, respectively. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the excavation/fill of more than 400 cubic yards of soil at 1351 and 1361 Hampshire Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall meet the following conditions: a. Obtain all necessary permits from the City (erosion control permit), Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, and other agencies. Copies of permits from the watershed and other agencies shall be provided to the City. b. Install erosion control measures on any portion of the site disturbed by the project. c. Submit a performance guarantee to the City in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit for 125% of the cost of the restoration work. 2. All contractors shall comply with state and local dust control and noise regulations. 3. The trucks utilized for hauling shall use Hampshire Avenue, Wayzata Boulevard, Louisiana Avenue and Interstate 394 for trips to and from the site. 4. Work shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekends, if needed. 5. Upon completion of excavation and filling, the applicant shall restore all disturbed parking, driveways, paths, and landscaped areas. Sod or seed shall be installed upon any affected portions of the site, where appropriate. 6. The City will not issue building permits for the planned apartment building until: a. The Planned Unit Development Application is approved. b. The applicant implements the Response Action Plan and the Implementation Report has been submitted to the City of St. Louis Park and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 7. The applicant shall provide to the City a copy of the No Action Letter or related communications from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 8. The landowner shall pay an administrative fine $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 8a - CUP 1351 1361 Hampshire Page 5 Attachments: • Draft Resolution to Approve the Conditional Use Permit • Neighborhood Meeting Summary • Letter from Applicant dated February 27, 2006 (less attachments) • Excavation Plan (supplement) • Proposed Site Plan and Building Elevation (for information, not approval) (supplement) Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Approved by: Meg McMonigal, Planning Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 8a - CUP 1351 1361 Hampshire Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. 06-068 RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-79 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT THE EXCAVATION/FILLING OF MORE THAN 400 CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL FOR PROPERTY ZONED R- 4 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1351 AND 1361 HAMPSHIRE AVENUE SOUTH BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. Ted Bigos has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 36-79 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of excavation/filling within an R-4 Multi-Family District located at 1351 and 1361 Hampshire Avenue South for the legal description as follows, to-wit: Lot 5, Block 1, LOU PARK ADDITION, according to the map or plat on file or of record in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 5; Thence North 02 degrees 21 minutes 30 seconds East, plat bearing, along the west line of said Lot 5, a distance of 60.00 feet, to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 87 degrees 38 minutes 30 seconds East, and parallel with the south line of Lot 5, a distance of 50.00 feet; thence South 66 degrees 11 minutes 23 seconds East, a distance of 71.09 feet; thence South 87 degrees 38 minutes 30 seconds East, and parallel with said south line, a distance of 222.49 feet; thence North 02 degrees 21 minutes 30 seconds East, a distance of 207.89 feet; thence South 87 degrees 41 minutes 44 seconds East, a distance of 174.52 feet; thence North 73 degrees 15 minutes 44 seconds East, a distance of 10.95 feet; thence South 87 degrees 38 minutes 30 seconds East, and parallel with said south line, a distance of 96.47 feet, to the east line of said Lot 5; thence North 02 degrees 21 minutes 30 seconds East, along the said east line, a distance of 183.26 feet, to the northeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 87 degrees 38 minutes 30 seconds West, along the north line of said Lot 5, a distance of 620.00 feet, to the northwest corner of said Lot 5; thence South 02 degrees 21 minutes 30 seconds West, along the west line of said Lot 5, a distance of 368.90 feet, to the point of beginning. ` 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 06-13-CUP) and the effect of the proposed excavation/filling 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, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 8a - CUP 1351 1361 Hampshire Page 7 3. The Council has determined that the excavation/filling will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and the proposed excavation/filling is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The contents of Planning Case File 06-13-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The Conditional Use Permit to permit the excavation/filling at the location described is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits incorporated by reference herein. 2. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall meet the following conditions: a. Obtain all necessary permits from the City (erosion control permit), Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, and other agencies. Copies of permits from the watershed and other agencies shall be provided to the City. b. Install erosion control measures on any portion of the site disturbed by the project. c. Submit a performance guarantee to the City in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit for 125% times the cost of the restoration work. 3. All contractors shall comply with state and local dust control and noise regulations. 4. The trucks utilized for hauling shall use Hampshire Avenue, Wayzata Boulevard, Louisiana Avenue and Interstate 394 for trips to and from the site. 5. Work shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekends if needed. 6. Upon completion of excavation and filling, the applicant shall restore all disturbed parking, driveways, paths, and landscaped areas. Sod or seed shall be installed upon any affected portions of the site, where appropriate. 7. The City will not issue building permits for the planned apartment building until: a. The Planned Unit Development Application is approved. b. The applicant implements the Response Action Plan and the Implementation Report has been submitted to the City of St. Louis Park and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 8. The applicant shall provide to the City a copy of the No Action Letter or related communications from MPCA. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 8a - CUP 1351 1361 Hampshire Page 8 9. 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. 10. Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed. 11. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of an erosion control permit. 12. Approval of an erosion control permit, which may impose additional requirements. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council April 3, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 040306 - 8a - CUP 1351 1361 Hampshire Page 9 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY The neighborhood meeting on March 9, 2006 for Ted Bigos’s apartment building proposal went very smoothly. There was a light turnout, about 10 residents of the Lou Park and Park Pointe apartment buildings attended. The topics discussed included (* indicates attendees’ key concerns): Related to construction: *Hours of operation *Noise *Loss of parking stalls during construction *Dust Repair/rebuilding the south driveway (construction entrance) Related to the building: Amenities Shared parking/drives Proposed name of the project may cause confusion Impact on rents of existing buildings Environmental: *Health concerns related to soil contamination (i.e. impact on drinking water) I think most of the concerns were addressed by the developer’s architect. Parking during construction and the soil contamination will be lingering concerns. Respectfully submitted, Sean Walther, AICP