Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/06/19 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA June 19, 2006 7:30 PM 7:10 p.m. EDA Meeting 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1. Call to Order 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. 394 MNPass Lanes Update 3. Approval of Minutes 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. Housing Authority Commissioner Reappointment 6. Public Hearings 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. 2221 Hill Lane Plat and CUP for Excavation Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a Resolution approving the Preliminary and Final Plat, subject to conditions as recommended by Staff. Motion to adopt a Resolution denying the Conditional Use Permit. 8b. Junior High Addition – Preliminary Plat with Variances to Lot Size, Lot Width and Maximum Driveway and Parking Area in Front Yard Location: 1650 Texas Avenue South Applicant: Parkway Development, LLC Case Nos.: 06-15-S and 06-16-VAR Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution of denial for the application for preliminary plat with variances to lot size, lot width, and maximum driveway and parking area in the front yard for property located at 1650 Texas Avenue South 8c. Interim Ordinance – First Reading of an Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting the Subdivision of Property Located in the R-1 Single-Family Residence District Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the First Reading of Interim Ordinance for a period extending to August 1, 2007 and set second reading for July 10, 2006. 8d. Consider Regional Trail Crossing Improvements This report requests that the City Council approve staff recommended improvements to Regional Trail Crossings of City Streets Recommended Action: Motion to approve the staff recommended regional trail crossing improvements described in this report 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 June 12, 2006 SECTION 4: CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are c onsidered 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. 2006 Street Sealcoat Project: Motion to designate Pearson Brothers, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $178,857.45 for the 2006 Street Sealcoat Project, No. 2006-0001 4b. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Hardrives, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $312,860.60 for the Quentin Avenue, Municipal State Aid Street Rehabilitation Project – Project No. 2005-1100 4c. Motion to approve contract with URS for Environmental Review for Du ke Realty Property, authorize Mayor and City Manager to sign contract. 4d. Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Preliminary Development Agreement with the EDA and United Properties for a portion of 3515 Belt Line Boulevard (the Bass Lake property). 4e. Motion to approve the attached resolution establishing a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 2515 Pennsylvania Avenue. 4f. Motion to approve the attached resolution establishing a special assessment for the repair of the water service line at 3377 Library Lane 4g. Motion to approve the attached resolution establishing a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 4053 Quentin Avenue 4h. Motion to adjust the CIP schedule to contribute $40,000 in 2007 towards a joint project with the School District to improve the fields at the Junior High School. 4i. Motion to Set Public Hearing for Private Activity Refunding Bonds - 3610 Phillips Parkway 4j. Motion to Appoint Vision Action Group Chairs Kristin Berns, Brad Bakken, George Hagemann, Steve George, Sue Santa, Nancy Lapakko, Bill Kenzie, Tsehai Wodajo and Neil Anderson to their respective St. Louis Park Vision Action Groups. 4k. Motion to adopt Resolution Ordering an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Duke Realty property located in the southwest corner of Highways 394 and 100. 4l. Motion to accept Planning Commission Minutes of May 17, 2006 4m. Motion to accept Vendor Claims for filing (supplement) St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4a - Bid Tab Street Maintenance Annual Sealcoat 2006-0001 Page 1 4a. 2006 Street Sealcoat Project: Motion to designate Pearson Brothers, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $178,857.45 for the 2006 Street Sealcoat Project, No. 2006-0001 BACKGROUND: Sealcoating is the surface application of an asphalt material followed by the placement of aggregate (rock) which is embedded into the asphalt material while it is liquid. The purpose of this treatment is to add surface friction to the pavement, facilitating vehicle traction, and to seal the surface from oxidation and the effects of moisture. Sealcoating can extend the life of a pavement, in good condition, by 5-9 years. The City’s Pavement Management Program provides for the sealcoating of each street once every eight (8) years. Area 6 of the Pavement Management Program is scheduled for sealcoating in 2006. Area 6 comprises the streets in the Elmwood, Brookside, Creekside, Brooklawns and Meadowbrook neighborhoods. This area is west of Hwy 100 and south of the Southwest Regional Railway corridor. These streets were last sealcoated in the 1980’s. A map of the streets to be sealcoated is attached. Not all streets in Area 6 will be sealcoated. Based on the city’s computerized pavement management software and visual inspections by City staff, several streets in the area were determined to be in need of more aggressive maintenance than has been done in the past. Sealcoating these streets at this time would be an inappropriate use of resources. Thus, they have been eliminated from this sealcoat project with the understanding that they are scheduled for higher levels of maintenance or rehabilitation in 2010, as part of the overall Pavement Management Program. BID ANALYSIS: Bids for the project were received on June 8, 2006. An Advertisement for Bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on May 18 & 25, 2006 and in the Construction Bulletin on May 19 & 26, 2006. A summary of the bid results is as follows: Contractor Bid Amount Pearson Brothers, Inc. $178,857.45 Allied Blacktop Company $249,333.35 Engineer’s Estimate $164,500.70 Two (2) contractors submitted bids. A review of the bids indicates Pearson Brothers, Inc. submitted the lowest bid. Pearson Brothers is a reputable contractor who has worked for the City before. Staff recommends that a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $178,857.45. It should be mentioned that we are seeing significant increases in construction costs this year as a result of rising oil prices. However, the Pavement Management Fund balance is in firm enough condition to handle the costs. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4a - Bid Tab Street Maintenance Annual Sealcoat 2006-0001 Page 2 OTHER FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Costs for sealcoating the local streets will be paid from the City’s Pavement Management Fund. Municipal State Aid streets in Area 6 that are sealcoated will be paid from the Citywide Public Works Operations budget. PROJECT TIMING: This work is expected to take place between August 1 and August 31. The entire process on a given street takes approximately 72 hours. Streets will be posted for “No Parking” beginning the day before work is to occur. Residents will receive notice of the impending construction and parking restrictions. Attachment: Maps (supplement) Prepared By: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed By: Scott Brink, City Engineer Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4b - Bid Tab MSA Street Rehab Project Quentin Ave 2005-1100 Page 1 4b. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Hardrives, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $312,860.60 for the Quentin Avenue, Municipal State Aid Street Rehabilitation Project – Project No. 2005-1100 BACKGROUND: Bids were received on June 6, 2006 for the 2006 MSA Street Rehabilitation Project. Work for this project will occur on Quentin and Princeton Avenues between Wooddale Avenue and Excelsior Blvd. The rehabilitation work will include removing the existing asphalt pavement, grading and placing 6 inches of new aggregate base, then placing a new asphalt surface. Other work associated with the project includes drainage system repairs such as curb repairs. A total of five (5) bids were received for this project. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on May 11 and 18, 2006, and in the Construction Bulletin on May 12 and 19, 2006. A summary of the bid results is as follows: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT Hardrives, Inc. $312,860.60 Valley Paving, Inc $333,910.20 Northwest Asphalt,Inc $338,524.00 Bituminous Roadways,Inc $358,327.00 Midwest Asphalt Corporation $389,255.70 Engineer’s Estimate $293,014.00 EVALUATION OF BIDS: Staff has reviewed all of the bids submitted and has tabulated the results. From the review, staff recommends Hardrives, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder. Hardrives is a reputable contractor that is currently working for the city on the 2006 Local Street Rehabilitation Project in the same neighborhood area. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The 2006 CIP budgeted $138,978 for this street rehabilitation work. The work will be paid for using Municipal State Aid Funds (Gas tax monies). As explained in a previous staff report, the increased cost is a result of a more aggressive rehabilitation treatment chosen for this project than what was planned two years ago. Also, we are seeing considerable increases in construction costs as a result of the rising oil prices. However, the cost increase from the CIP estimate can still be funded within our State Aid budget. CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE: The work is anticipated to begin in July and should be completed by early September. Prepared By: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed By: Scott Brink, City Engineer Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4c - Contract With URS For Environmental Review - Duke Development Page 1 4c. Motion to approve contract with URS for Environmental Review for Duke Realty Property, authorize Mayor and City Manager to sign contract. PURPOSE: To facilitate the completion of the required environmental review (Alternative Urban Areawide Review - AUAR) for the Duke property located in the southwest corner of Highways 394 and 100, Staff recommends retaining the firm of URS. The AUAR would be prepared at the expense of Duke Realty. SRF Consulting will be completing the traffic portion of the AUAR. The proposed contract is attached. BACKGROUND: URS has extensive environmental review and planning expertise. The proposed contract amount is for a “not-to-exceed” amount of $111,180.00, which requires City Council approval. This is a maximum scope and has been agreed upon by Duke Realty. Duke will forward the contract amount to the City to retain in escrow. The City will manage the contract and the process, paying the consultant as work is completed. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the contract and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign it. Attachments: Agreement for Professional Services AUAR Scope of Work Cost Estimate (supplement) Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4c - Contract With URS For Environmental Review - Duke Development Page 2 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is made on the 19th day of June, 2006, between the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“City”), whose business address is 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2290, and URS Corporation (“Contractor”) whose business address is 700 Third Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55415 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The City has adopted a policy regarding the selection and hiring of consultants to provide a variety of professional services for City projects. That policy requires that person, firms, or corporations providing such services enter into written contracts with the City. The purpose of this contract is to set forth terms and conditions for completing the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), except for the traffic portion, for the Duke Realty property located in the southwest corner of Highways 394 and 100. The City and Contractor agree as follows: 1. Contractor’s Services. The Contractor agrees to provide professional services as described in Exhibit A, attached and made a part of this Agreement. 2. Time for Performance of Services. The Contractor shall perform the services outlined in Exhibit A with a draft report completed no later than November 1, 2006. 3. Compensation for Services. City agrees to pay the Contractor for services as described in Exhibit A. Compensation shall be paid upon receipt of bills from the contractor and confirmation that work has been completed. The amount of the contract is not-to-exceed $111,180.00. Payment will be only for hours worked and service provided. If additional work is necessary, it must first be approved by the City. 4. The City agrees to provide the Contractor with the complete information concerning the scope of the Project and to perform the following services: A. Access to the Area: The City shall obtain access to and make all provisions for the Contractor to enter upon public and private lands as required for the Contractor to perform such work as surveys and inspections in the development of the Project. B. Consideration of the Contractor’s Work: The City shall give thorough consideration to all reports, sketches, estimates, drawings, and other documents presented by the Contractor, and shall inform the Contractor of all decisions within a reasonable time so as not to delay the work of the Contractor. C. Standards: The City shall furnish the Contractor with a copy of any design and construction standards they may require in the preparation of the report for the Project. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4c - Contract With URS For Environmental Review - Duke Development Page 3 D. Owner’s Representative: A person shall be appointed to act as the City’s representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. He or she shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret, and define the City’s policy and decisions, with respect to the materials, equipment, elements, and systems pertinent to the work covered by this Agreement. 5. Method of Payment: The Contractor shall submit to the City, on a monthly basis, itemized bills for professional services performed under Section 4 of this Agreement. Bills submitted shall be paid in the same manner as other claims made to the City. A. Progress Payment. For work reimbursed on an hourly basis, the Contractor shall indicate for each employee, his or her name, job title, the number of hours worked, rate of pay for each employee, a computation of amounts due for each employee, and the total amount due for each project task. Contractor shall verify all statements submitted for payment in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.38 and 471.391. For reimbursable expenses, if permitted in Exhibit A, the Contractor shall provide such documentation as reasonably required by the City. B. Abandoned or Suspended Work. If any work performed by the Contractor is abandoned or suspended in whole or in part by the City, the Contractor shall be paid for any services performed on account of it prior to receipt of written notice from the City of such abandonment or suspension, all as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. C. Compensation for Services of the Contractor. The City shall pay the Contractor for the services described in Exhibit A of this Agreement. The fee that the City will pay under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount shown on Exhibit B for this project. D. Payments for the Contractor’s Reimbursable Costs. The Contractor shall be reimbursed for the work of special consultants, as described in Section 4.B, and for other items when authorized in writing by the City. Such items shall include: Transportation of principals and employees on special trips to the Project or to other locations, materials and supplies, and AutoCADD as required to expedite the work, and reproduction of reports. 6. Accuracy of Work. Contractor shall be responsible for the accuracy of the work and the utilization of all determinant data, and shall promptly make necessary revisions or corrections resulting from errors and omissions on the part of Contractor without additional compensation. If the date or materials furnished by the City, and used in the conduct of this work are found to be in error, incorrect, or inappropriate, the City shall direct Contractor to modify, update, and/or correct the affected work product. All such corrective work performed by Contractor shall be considered to be additional services for which additional compensation shall be paid to Contractor on the basis of Contractor’s standard fees or actual costs incurred. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4c - Contract With URS For Environmental Review - Duke Development Page 4 7. Project Manager and Staffing. The Contractor has designated Beth Kunkel to serve on the Project. They shall be assisted by other staff members as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Project in accordance with the terms established herein. Contractor may not remove or replace Beth Kunkel from the Project without the approval of the City. 8. Audit Disclosure. The Contractor shall allow the City or its duly authorized agents reasonable access to such of the Contractor’s books and records as are pertinent to all services provided under this Agreement. Any reports, information, data, etc. given to, or prepared or assembled by, the Contractor under this Agreement which the client requests to be kept confidential shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the City’s prior written approval. All finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, and reports prepared by the Contractor shall become the property of the City upon termination of this Agreement, but Contractor may retain copies of such documents as records of the services provided. 9. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from June 2006 through approximately January of 2007, the date of signature by the parties notwithstanding. This Agreement may be extended upon the written mutual consent of the parties for such additional period as they deem appropriate, and upon the terms and conditions as herein stated. 10. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either party by seven (7) days’ written notice delivered to the other party at the address written above. Upon termination under this provision if there is no fault of the Contractor, the Contractor shall be paid for services rendered and reimbursable expenses until the effective date of termination. If however, the City terminates the Agreement because the Contractor has failed to perform in accordance with this Agreement, no further payment shall be made to the Contractor, and the City may retain another contractor to undertake or complete the work identified in Paragraph 1. If as a result, the City incurs total costs for the work (including payments to both the present contractor and a future contractor) which exceed a maximum Agreement amount, if any, specified under Paragraph 3, then the Contractor shall be responsible for the difference between the cost actually incurred and the Agreement amount. 11. Subcontractor. The Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for services provided under this Agreement except as noted in the scope of services, without the express written consent of the City. The Contractor shall pay any subcontractor involved in the performance of this Agreement within ten (10) days of the Contractor’s receipt of payment by the City for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. If the Contractor fails within that time to pay the subcontractor any undisputed amount for which the Contractor has received payment by the City, the Contractor shall pay interest to the subcontractor on the unpaid amount at the rate of 1-1/2 percent per month or any part of a month. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100 or more is $10. For an unpaid balance of less than $100, the Contractor shall pay the actual interest penalty due to the subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from the Contractor shall be awarded its costs and disbursements, including attorney’s fees, incurred in bringing the action. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4c - Contract With URS For Environmental Review - Duke Development Page 5 12. Independent Contractor. At all times and for all purposes herein, the Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. No statement herein shall be construed so as to find the Contractor an employee of the City. 13. Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this contract, the Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicants for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, or age. The Contractor shall post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause and stating that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment. The Contractor shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all of its subcontracts for program work, and will require all of its subcontractors for such work to incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts for program work. 14. Assignment. Neither party shall assign this Agreement, nor any interest arising herein, without the written consent of the other party. 15. Services Not Provided For. No claim for services furnished by the Contractor not specifically provided for herein shall be honored by the City. 16. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion hereof is, for any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of the Agreement. 17. Entire Agreement. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. 18. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. In providing services hereunder, the Contractor shall abide by all statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations pertaining to the provisions of services to be provided. Any violation shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and entitle the City to immediately terminate this Agreement. 19. Waiver. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Agreement shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. 20. Indemnification. Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, and employees harmless from any liability, claims, damages, costs, judgments, or expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees to the extent resulting directly or indirectly from an act or omission (including without limitation professional errors or omissions) of the Contractor, its agents, employees, or subcontractors in the performance of the services provided by this Agreement and against all losses by reason of the failure of said Contractor fully to perform, in any respect, all obligations under this Agreement. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4c - Contract With URS For Environmental Review - Duke Development Page 6 21. Insurance. A. General Liability. During the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall maintain a general liability insurance policy with limits of at least $600,000 for each person, and each occurrence, for both personal injury and property damage. This policy shall name the City as an additional insured for the services provided under this Agreement and shall provide that the Contractor’s coverage shall be the primary coverage in the event of a loss. The policy shall also insure the indemnification obligation contained in Paragraph No. 21. A certificate of insurance on the City’s approved form which verifies the existence of this insurance coverage must be provided to the City before work under this Agreement is begun. B. Worker’s Compensation. The Contractor shall secure and maintain such insurance as will protect Contractor from claims under the Worker’s Compensation Acts and from claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage which may arise from the performance of Contractor’s services under this Agreement. C. Professional Liability Insurance: The Contractor agrees to provide to the City a certificate evidencing that they have in effect, with an insurance company in good standing and authorized to do business in Minnesota, a professional liability insurance policy. Said policy shall insure payment of damage for legal liability arising out of the performance of professional services for the City, in the insured’s capacity as the Contractor, if such legal liability is caused by an error, omission, or negligent act of the insured or any person or organization for whom the insured is legally liable. Said policy shall provide an aggregate limit of $1,000,000. 22. Records Access. The Contractor shall provide the City access to any books, documents, papers, and record which are directly pertinent to the specific contract, for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcriptions, for three years after final payments and all other pending matters related to this contract are closed. 23. Ownership of Documents. All plans, diagrams, analyses, reports, and information generated in connection with performance of the agreement shall become the property of the City. The City may use the information for it purposes. Such use by the City shall not relieve any liability on the part of the Contractor. 24. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be controlled by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Executed as of the day and year first written above. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4c - Contract With URS For Environmental Review - Duke Development Page 7 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 19, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk OWNER(S)/CORPORATION By____________________________ Its____________________________ St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4c - Contract With URS For Environmental Review - Duke Development Page 8 ATTACHMENT A AUAR SCOPE OF WORK The West End Site The AUAR process requires the preparation of two review documents (Draft AUAR and mitigation plan, Final AUAR and mitigation plan). The AUAR uses the EAW format for issue analysis and requires a stand alone mitigation plan that must be acceptable to the regulatory agencies. The AUAR also requires the worst-case (maximum allowed by zoning) development scenario to be evaluated. The significant benefit of the AUAR process is achieving the same level of analysis as an EIS with a shorter preparation and review period (typically four to five months) as a result of fewer documents to be prepared and reviewed. Task 1.0 Project Management Project Kick-Off Meeting URS will coordinate and lead the kick-off meeting for the project. We will coordinate with primary contacts from the City and Duke Realty to schedule a meeting date and time that is agreeable to both parties. URS will prepare and distribute a draft agenda prior to the meeting. In addition, URS will prepare a detailed list of anticipated data needs and forward the list to the City and Duke Realty prior to the meeting. URS will take meeting minutes and prepare draft minutes that will be distributed to all attendees after the meeting. Final meeting minutes will be prepared based on attendee comments, and redistributed. Status Reports and Schedule Updates URS will prepare progress reports detailing the status of completion of major tasks associated with the project on a monthly basis. Specific tasks will include updating the project schedule and timeline, as required; preparing a summary memorandum of project status; and preparing a monthly invoice. Task 2.0 Draft AUAR and Draft Mitigation Plan Description of Alternatives Prior to beginning an inventory and analysis, URS will provide assistance to the RGU in establishing area boundaries and alternatives to be reviewed in the AUAR. It is assumed that the City and/or Duke Realty will provide information on anticipated levels of development on various parcels within the boundary. We have assumed that the AUAR boundary will not be expanded from the proposed Duke Realty redevelopment area. URS will prepare a description of the alternatives to be evaluated in the AUAR for the project. We anticipate evaluating potential areas of impact against a Comp Plan alternative. Four other alternatives will be described including the preferred alternative and three other build alternatives. URS will assist Duke Realty and the City in consolidating alternatives if necessary. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4c - Contract With URS For Environmental Review - Duke Development Page 9 Inventory and Analysis URS will complete the environmental analyses required to document the potential environmental impacts within the AUAR boundary. This analysis will be sufficient to include all elements of an AUAR as set forth by the MnEQB. It is assumed that the majority of the data needed to complete this analysis will be available from previous studies, and information from the City and Duke Realty. As part of this analysis, previous agency coordination and database research will be updated as needed. This will include: • Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding properties in the area that are listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places • Coordination with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, regarding rare, threatened or endangered species within a one-mile radius of the project • A basic records search for any contaminated or leaking properties within a one-mile radius. • It is assumed that Duke Realty will provide the necessary utility requirements for the project. URS will obtain capacity information from the Metropolitan Council and City. Results of the above searches would dictate the need for further study. No additional analysis of these issue areas is included in the scope of work at this time. The findings of each of these inquiries will be incorporated into the AUAR. Additional Analysis Based on previous environmental studies, and our understanding of the project, we anticipate the following impact areas will require the bulk of the analysis: • Traffic (to be provided by City) • Air Quality • Noise • Storm Sewer • Sanitary Sewer We have included hours for qualified staff in each of these areas. For storm sewer and sanitary sewer analysis, it is assumed that Duke Realty will provide the necessary utility requirements for the project, as well as other information required to calculate service and capacity needs. URS will obtain capacity information from the Metropolitan Council, It is anticipated that air quality and noise studies will relate primarily to traffic and not proposed activities on the site. Based on the findings of the new traffic study, air quality and noise analyses will be updated. Minimal noise modeling is anticipated. Document Preparation and Distribution URS will prepare a Draft AUAR for the project. Mitigation measures for all impacts identified in the Draft AUAR will be developed by URS with input from the Duke Realty and the City, and incorporated into the draft Mitigation Plan. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4c - Contract With URS For Environmental Review - Duke Development Page 10 A preliminary copy of the Draft AUAR/draft Mitigation Plan will be prepared and reviewed with the City and Duke Realty staff. URS will prepare all text, graphics and tables for inclusion in the draft AUAR/draft Mitigation Plan, based on mapping provided by Duke Realty. URS will print up to 50 copies of the draft AUAR/draft Mitigation Plan and will circulate the document in accordance with MnEQB rules. URS will also be responsible for preparing and submitting required notices to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MnEQB) Monitor and local newspaper(s) of general circulation in the project area. Task 3.0 Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan Based on the comments received on the draft AUAR/draft Mitigation Plan, URS will prepare a Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan. The AUAR will include supplemental analysis in response to comments received if needed, as well as specific response to comments. Up to 50 copies of the Final AUAR/Mitigation Plan will be prepared and distributed by URS in accordance with MnEQB rules. URS will also be responsible for preparing and submitting required notices to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MnEQB) Monitor and local newspaper(s) of general circulation in the project area. Following the end of the AUAR comment period, if no objections have been filed, the RGU will adopt the AUAR and Mitigation Plan. If objections are filed and cannot be resolved, the MnEQB makes the determination of adequacy of the review. Task 4.0 Meetings and Coordination A number of staff meetings with Duke Realty and the City are expected to be necessary through the course of the AUAR process. Up to three staff meetings are included in this scope of work, in addition to the project kick-off meeting. It is assumed that the City will lead all public meetings associated with the project. URS will assist the City in organizing each meeting. For each of the following public meetings, URS will provide up to two staff members for support: • Three neighborhood meetings • Two Planning Commission meetings • Two City Council meetings • One joint meeting with the City of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park Schedule A detailed schedule will be prepared after the City and Duke Realty agree on/select the environmental review process to be followed. Generally the AUAR schedule would be 4 to 5 months from the notice to proceed, depending on the amount of time required for proposer and RGU review of the AUAR document prior to approval for public release. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4c - Contract With URS For Environmental Review - Duke Development Page 11 Assumptions URS’ work plan, schedule and budget assume the following information/coordination will be provided by Duke Realty and/or the City of St. Louis Park: • Definition of AUAR boundaries • Information on anticipated levels of development on various parcels within the AUAR boundary • Background on project purpose and description including construction timeline • Master plan for the project (site plan and general grading plans) • Project area map • Survey of property • Details about buildings proposed for removal (number of buildings, square footage, uses, parking, etc.) • Access to previous environmental studies (state environmental documents, Phase 1 investigations, etc.) and permits • Utility design plans including storm water management plan, water quality analysis, wastewater generation and water use estimates • Traffic studies (previous and new as provided by City) • Zoning requirements and plan compatibility information • Soil boring information It should be noted that our scope of work, schedule and cost estimate relies upon the timely receipt of new traffic data and analysis that will be completed by the City. Aside from the traffic analysis need for the AUAR, noise analysis and air quality analysis to be conducted depends heavily on the findings of the traffic study. Our proposal assumes that the City of Golden Valley will be involved in review of the project, as part of the project area lies within that city. We assume that an attorney (City and for Duke Realty) will also be involved in review of project documents. However, we also assume that the City of St. Louis Park, Duke Realty, and their attorneys will facilitate cooperation and will agree to a project review schedule, negotiated at the project kick-off meeting. This scope assumes that the majority of environmental impact topics have been previously addressed in prior environmental studies and can be dismissed from further evaluation with minimal effort, with the exception of traffic, air/noise, and utilities. Given that the site has been previously developed and most of the site has been previously evaluated through an EIS, we have assumed that there will be minimal public controversy/interest in the project and therefore minimal public comment. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4d - Preliminary Development Agreement United Properties-Park Nicollet Page 1 4d. Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Preliminary Development Agreement with the EDA and United Properties for a portion of 3515 Belt Line Boulevard (the Bass Lake property). BACKGROUND: At the May 22, 2006 Study Session the EDA/City Council expressed its general support to allow United Properties to develop a 90,000 square foot medical office building on a portion of the City’s property located at 3515 Belt Line Boulevard (the Bass Lake site). The facility would subsequently be leased by Methodist Hospital for it’s nationally recognized Eating Disorders Institute. As a result, staff was directed to prepare a Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) with United Properties. A draft of the proposed agreement was provided to the Council for the June 12 study session. No comments were made or changes suggested. Attached is the PDA negotiated with United Properties. The purpose of this agreement is to formalize the developer’s exclusivity, the conditions of engagement, roles and responsibilities of the parties, due diligence, and feasibility work to be completed, etc. It commits the City, EDA, and the developer to work exclusively together on the proposed project for a period of six months. It should be noted that the concept site plans prepared by MFRA and United Properties and discussed at the study session are not part of the Agreement. However, they will serve, along with the EDA/City Council’s comments from the study session, as the starting point for preparing a more definitive site plan for the property at a later date. Furthermore, the proposed Agreement merely outlines next steps in the pre-development process and the specific responsibilities of the respective parties. It is not meant as any kind purchase agreement and therefore contains no such conditions or terms of sale. NEXT STEPS: Upon approval, the three parties will undertake actions outlined in the PDA over the next six months. Provided all parties are reasonably satisfied with each other’s findings within that due diligence period, staff will negotiate a mutually satisfactory Development Agreement with United Properties. Attachment: Preliminary Development Agreement Prepared By: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed By: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4d - Preliminary Development Agreement United Properties-Park Nicollet Page 2 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT dated this 19th day of June, 2006, by and between the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a municipal corporation (the “City”); the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic (the “Authority”); and United Properties LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Developer”): WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Authority and the City desire to promote development of certain property within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”) in the City, which property is described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property is currently owned by the City; and WHEREAS, the Developer has proposed to acquire approximately half the Property and develop of a 90,000 square foot medical office facility thereon (the “Development”), to be leased by Park Nicollet Health Services for its Eating Disorders Institute; and WHEREAS, the Authority and City have determined that it is in their best interest that Developer be designated sole developer of the Property during the term of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Authority, City and Developer are willing and desirous to undertake the Development if (i) a satisfactory agreement can be reached regarding the portion of the Property to be conveyed to Developer; (ii) satisfactory mortgage and equity financing, or adequate cash resources, for the Development can be secured by Developer; (iii) satisfactory resolution of zoning, land use and site design issues and (iv) the economic feasibility and soundness of the Development and other necessary preconditions have been determined to the satisfaction of the parties. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and obligations set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Negotiations between the parties shall proceed in an attempt to formulate a definitive development contract (“Contract”) based on the following: (a) Developer’s current proposal which shows the scope of the proposed Development in its latest form as of the date of this Agreement, together with any changes or modifications required by the Authority; (b) A mutually satisfactory Contract to be negotiated and agreed upon in accordance with this Agreement; (c) Such documentation regarding economic feasibility of the Project as the Authority may wish to undertake during the term of this Agreement; and (d) Other terms and conditions of this Agreement. 2. It is the intention of the parties that this Agreement (a) documents the present understanding and commitments of the parties and (b) will lead to negotiation and execution of a St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4d - Preliminary Development Agreement United Properties-Park Nicollet Page 3 mutually satisfactory Contract for the Development prior to the termination date of this Agreement. The Contract (together with any other agreements entered into between the parties hereto contemporaneously therewith) when executed, will supersede all obligations of the parties hereunder. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Authority and City shall have no obligation to provide any financial assistance to the Developer or approve any action in connection with the Development unless and until final approval by the Authority and City of a definitive Contract. 3. During the term of this Agreement, the Developer, Authority and City agree to undertake the respective actions described in Exhibit B attached hereto. 4. It is expressly understood that execution and implementation of a Contract shall be subject to; (a) A determination by the Authority and City that its undertakings are feasible based on the purposes and objectives of the Authority’s Redevelopment Plan for the Project; (b) Agreement by the parties on a mechanism for recapture of public funds, if any, provided to the Developer under certain conditions; and (c) A determination by Developer that the Development is feasible and in the best interests of the Developer. 5. This Agreement is effective for a term ending 180 days from its date, unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties. The Executive Director of the Authority is authorized to execute any such extension on behalf of the Authority and City. 6. Upon execution of this Agreement, the Authority acknowledges receipt from the Developer of a deposit in the amount of $10,000, from which funds the Authority may pay any third party out-of-pocket costs incurred by the Authority or City in connection with the Exhibit B activities for furthering the Development from and after the date of this Agreement (hereafter, the “Authority Costs”). If at any time after the date of this Agreement the Authority determines that Authority Costs will exceed $10,000, the Authority may notify the Developer of the amount of such additional costs. Within ten calendar days of receipt of said notice, the Developer shall deliver to the Authority the required additional funds. If a Contract is successfully negotiated, any unused balance in the funds deposited under this Section 6 shall be returned to the Developer upon execution of the Contract (unless the parties specify otherwise in the Contract). If this Agreement is terminated in accordance with its terms, the Authority will return to the Developer the balance of any funds deposited under this section as of the date of receipt of the notice of termination, and less any Authority Costs incurred through the date of receipt of the notice of termination. For the purposes of this paragraph, Authority Costs are considered to be incurred if they have been paid, relate to services performed, or are payable under a contract entered into, on or before the date of receipt of the notice of termination. The Authority agrees that it will promptly terminate any contract for Authority Costs (except as provided below) upon St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4d - Preliminary Development Agreement United Properties-Park Nicollet Page 4 receipt of the notice of termination, and Authority Costs include amounts payable under the terms of such terminated contract, including without limitation costs payable prior to termination and any damages or other amounts payable in connection with the termination. If the Authority elects not to terminate the contract, Authority Costs will include only the lesser of: i) amounts that would be payable to the contracting party if the contract were terminated or ii) amounts paid or incurred under the contact as of the notice of termination. The Authority agrees to use its best efforts to negotiate termination clauses in all contracts for Authority Costs that provide for no penalties for termination, but only provide for payment of a prorata contract amount in the event of such termination. 7. This Agreement may be terminated upon ten (10) days written notice by any party to the others if: (i) A party fails to perform any of its obligations hereunder, and fails to cure the default within 30 days after receipt of written notice thereof; or (ii) An impasse has been reached in the negotiation of any material term or condition of the Contract. Upon termination under this Section, no party thereafter shall have any liability or obligations to the other except as otherwise provided in Section 6 hereof. 8. Developer is designated as sole developer of the Property during the term of this Agreement. During the term of this Agreement, the Authority and City agree that they will not negotiate or contract with any other party concerning the development or sale of any portion of the Property. The Developer shall not assign or transfer its rights under this Agreement in full or in part without the prior written consent of the Authority. 9. In the event that any party, its heirs, successors or assigns, fails to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement, the non-defaulting party may proceed to enforce this Agreement by appropriate legal or equitable proceedings, or other similar proceedings. 10. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of any remaining portion of the Agreement. 11. In the event any covenant contained in this Agreement should be breached by one party and subsequently waived by another party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach. 12. Notice or demand or other communication between or among the parties shall be sufficiently given if sent by mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested or delivered personally: (a) As to the Authority: 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4d - Preliminary Development Agreement United Properties-Park Nicollet Page 5 St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2216 Attn: EDA Executive Director (b) As to the City: 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2216 Attn: City Manager (c) As to the Developer: 3500 West 80th Street, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55431 13. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf and its seal to be duly affixed hereto and the Developer has caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4d - Preliminary Development Agreement United Properties-Park Nicollet Page 6 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: _______________________________ Mayor By: _______________________________ City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4d - Preliminary Development Agreement United Properties-Park Nicollet Page 7 UNITED PROPERTIES LLC By: ________________________________ Its ___________________________ St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4d - Preliminary Development Agreement United Properties-Park Nicollet Page 8 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY PID: 0602824310017 County Address:* 3515 BELT LINE BLVD City Address:* 3515 Belt Line Blvd Zip: 55416 School Dist: 0283 Owner Change: 1/1/1901 000 Block: 000 Addition #: 52360 Display PID: 06-028-24-31-0017 Subdivision: Westmoreland Park Metes/Bounds: BLK 1 AND THAT PART OF BLK 2 LYING SELY OF BELT LINE BLVD ALSO THAT PART OF BLK 7 LYING NELY OF MONTEREY DR EX ST St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4d - Preliminary Development Agreement United Properties-Park Nicollet Page 9 EXHIBIT B TO PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN UNITED PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT, THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DEVELOPER Review existing files regarding soils and environmental conditions of the Property. Complete refinements to the preliminary concept site plan for the southern portion of the Property including: proposed subdivision, location of improvements, development design, intensity issues, parking options (ramp and surface), use mix, traffic management, pedestrian and transit linkages, integration of green space, and preliminary elevation drawings of the project. Evaluate long term market viability of the proposed Development beyond current proposed lessee. Evaluate market viability of other possible uses for the north portion of the Property. Prepare proposed project construction schedule based on site control assumptions or other factors identified by Developer or the Authority. Initiate discussions with City Planning and Zoning staff to advance any necessary approvals. Coordinate with the City’s environmental consultant on how best to properly prepare the entire Property for development (share cost with Authority). Work with the Authority to prepare a Voluntary Remediation Action Plan (VRAP) for the entire property and submit it to the MPCA for approval. (Developer’s expense). Submit an escrow payment to the City to pay for a Traffic Impact Study relative to the proposed Development if required. Initiate discussions with City engineering staff re: traffic/transportation issues associated with the site. CITY OR AUTHORITY Provide Developer access to all reports or materials on file with the Authority regarding planning and zoning matters, soils, environmental, and title conditions of the Property. Have an ALTA survey of the Property prepared (at Authority expense). Explore any necessary changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance to allow for the proposed Development. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4d - Preliminary Development Agreement United Properties-Park Nicollet Page 10 Prepare a list of all the anticipated Planning and Zoning-related approvals necessary to enable the proposed Development to be constructed along with a corresponding schedule of required approvals. Determine what, if any, wetland regulations may impact the Property. Explore what street right of ways may need to be vacated on the Property. Retain an environmental consultant to better determine the environmental impacts present on the Property and the City’s obligations relative to its appropriate cleanup (share cost with Developer). Cooperate with the Developer in the filing of a VRAP for the entire Property. Commence any work needed to clear title to the Property. Have a limited appraisal conducted of the Property (at Authority’s expense). Retain a traffic consultant (at Developer’s expense) and have a Traffic Impact Study conducted if necessary. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4e - Special Assessment Service Line Repair 2515 Pennsylvania Page 1 4e. Motion to approve the attached resolution establishing a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 2515 Pennsylvania Avenue. BACKGROUND: Jeanette Marquardt, owner of the single family residence at 2515 Pennsylvania Avenue, has requested the City to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for their home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy. ANALYSIS: The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City staff. The Jeanette Marquardt hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the sewer service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $5,055.00. The initial source of funds to pay for this improvement is the Sewer Utility Fund. Attachments: Resolution Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Fred Christiansen, Director of Finance Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4e - Special Assessment Service Line Repair 2515 Pennsylvania Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 06-103 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REPAIR AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT 2515 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE WHEREAS, , the Property Owners at 2515 Pennsylvania Avenue have petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the single family residence located at 2515 Pennsylvania Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Property Owners have 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 Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the Property Owners requesting the approval and special assessment for the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted. 2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted. 3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $5,055.00. 4. The total special assessment against the property has been determined to be $5,055.00. 5. 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. 6. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of the 20 year Treasury bill rate on November 1, 2006 plus 1%. 7. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 19, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4f - Special Assessment Service Line Repair 3377 Library Ln Page 1 4f. Motion to approve the attached resolution establishing a special assessment for the repair of the water service line at 3377 Library Lane BACKGROUND: Katherine Manske, owner of the single family residence at 3377 Library Lane has requested the City to authorize the repair of the water service line for their home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy. ANALYSIS: The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City staff. Katherine Manske hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the water service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $5,100.00. The initial source of funds to pay for this improvement is the Water Utility Fund. Attachments: Resolution Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Fred Christiansen, Director of Finance Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4f - Special Assessment Service Line Repair 3377 Library Ln Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 06-104 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REPAIR AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT 3377 LIBRARY LANE WHEREAS, , the Property Owners at 3377 Library Lane have petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for the single family residence located at 3377 Library Lane, and WHEREAS, the Property Owners have 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 Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the Property Owners requesting the approval and special assessment for the water service line repair is hereby accepted. 2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted. 3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $5,100.00. 4. The total special assessment against the property has been determined to be $5,100.00. 5. 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. 6. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of the 20 year Treasury bill rate on November 1, 2006 plus 1%. 7. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 19, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4g - Special Assessment Service Line Repair 4053 Quentin Page 1 4g. Motion to approve the attached resolution establishing a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 4053 Quentin Avenue BACKGROUND: Ron Hansen, owner of the single family residence at 4053 Quentin Avenue, has requested the City to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for their home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy. ANALYSIS: The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City staff. Ron Hansen hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the sewer service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $1,995.00. The initial source of funds to pay for this improvement is the Sewer Utility Fund Attachments: Resolution Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Fred Christiansen, Director of Finance Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4g - Special Assessment Service Line Repair 4053 Quentin Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 06-105 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REPAIR AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT 4053 QUENTIN AVENUE WHEREAS, , the Property Owner at 4053 Quentin Avenue has petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the single family residence located at 4053 Quentin Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Property Owners have 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 Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the Property Owners requesting the approval and special assessment for the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted. 2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted. 3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $1,995.00 4. The total special assessment against the property has been determined to be $1,995.00. 5. 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. 6. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of the 20 year Treasury bill rate on November 1, 2006 plus 1%. 7. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 19, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4h - Junior High Athletic Field Improvements Page 1 4h. Motion to adjust the CIP schedule to contribute $40,000 in 2007 towards a joint project with the School District to improve the fields at the Junior High School. BACKGROUND: The 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) reflects money in two years (2007 and 2009) for planning and retrofitting the fields at the Junior High/Lamplighter Park. The St. Louis Park School District staff notified us mid-May that they have money to spend in 2006 on some field improvements. They are asking the city to contribute money towards the improvements. The field improvements would be completed in three phases with the first phase starting this year. Why would the City contribution financially towards the fields? The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission and staff have discussed the poor condition of these fields for several years. Although the outside grounds at the Junior High are used by the students during the day, the community uses the fields on evenings and weekends. The Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for scheduling the fields after the school day. Mainly youth athletic associations (i.e. soccer, football, softball, baseball) utilize the fields that the city schedules. Because the fields are used heavily by the community, the city has participated in cost sharing of improvements on the site in the past. Lamplighter Park, which is city property, is located north of the Junior High site. The city and school district have a history of jointly sharing the site in an attempt to make good use of the space. Proposed changes in the CIP to accommodate the Improvements Our 5-year CIP reflects a total of $120,000 to be spent for improvements at the Junior High site. Staff has been unsure of which year the improvements would be made, so the money in the CIP reflects an estimate of when the district might have money available to spend on their outside fields. The school district has asked the city to partner on improvements that would affect approximately 1/3 of the site in 2006. The area affected would be the northeast part of their property (near Pennsylvania Avenue). The plan is to construct a trail from the school to Pennsylvania Avenue, create two ball fields by removing and replacing six inches of dirt, and adding drain tile to the area. This construction would start in July if they can secure funding. The area would be used for baseball and softball in the spring and summer and soccer and football in the fall. The construction cost for this first phase is estimated to be $215,000. The city is asked to contribute $40,000 towards phase one. The soccer association has authorized $50,000 to be spent on this improvement with the remaining $125,000 to be funded by the school district. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4h - Junior High Athletic Field Improvements Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: At their May meeting, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission voted to recommend to Staff and the Council that the CIP schedule be adjusted to accommodate this request. Staff is also recommending that we contribute $40,000 in 2007 towards this joint project. At this time, staff is not recommending that we spend more than the total of $120,000 previously budgeted over 5 years for this project. The school district staff are working on a plan to address the remaining 2/3 of the property. At that time, it is anticipated they would ask the city to contribute to those improvements. Contributing $40,000 now would leave $80,000 for future years if the Council would like to continue partnering with the school district on field improvements. Staff will ask the school district to hold public meetings with the neighborhood regarding this proposal. Due to the fact that the community need and demand for this outdoor space at the Junior High school is high, staff believes this to be a good investment. Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4i - Resolution Set Public Hearing Roitenberg Assisted Living Project Refunding Bonds Page 1 4i. Motion to Set Public Hearing for Private Activity Refunding Bonds - 3610 Phillips Parkway BACKGROUND: Sholom Community Alliance is requesting issuance of Private Activity Refunding Bonds by the City for the purpose of refinancing the Roitenberg Family Assisted Living Residence located at 3610 Phillips Parkway. Consideration of issuance of private activity bonds requires a public hearing before the City Council. The purpose of this agenda item is to set July 10, 2006 as the hearing date for City Council Consideration of issuing bonds. Attached is a resolution prepared by the City’s bond counsel, Kennedy & Graven which calls for the hearing and sets the hearing time and date. Considering that the City approved private activity bonds for this project in 2001, and that issuance of these bonds does not constitute a financial obligation for the City itself, it is expected that it would be very appropriate to honor Sholom Community Alliance’s request for refunding the bonds. The applicant will work with the City’s bond counsel (Kennedy & Graven) and the Finance Department to evaluate the consistency of their request with the City’s policies and to prepare the necessary documents. Setting the hearing date starts the process of consideration of approval for the bonds. Sholom Community Alliance, LLC has proposed that the City issue its Revenue Refunding Bonds for this project in the approximate principal amount, not to exceed $13,500,000. These funds are considered “pass-through” or “conduit financing” because the bonds are issued by the City but the repayment of the debt is the responsibility and obligation of the private party (in this case Sholom Community Alliance), not the City. The City does receive annual payments of 1/8th of one percent of the outstanding bonds as a fee for issuance of private activity bonds. This fee is charged on all similar bond issues The City’s Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing guidelines also require that non-rated bonds be sold to institutional or private investors with minimum denominations of at least $100,000, unless the Council waives that requirement because the project is of a level of merit and public purpose to justify the departure. The Council did approve such a waiver for the original bonds in 2001, and will be requested to approve a similar waiver for the refunding bonds. Essentially, Sholom Community Alliance is seeking to refinance the debt on their facility. The original private activity revenue bonds or “conduit financing” was approved by the City Council in May 2001 in the amount of $15,000,000. The bonds made possible construction of the Roitenberg Family Assisted Living Residence, a 76-unit multifamily assisted living housing development built by Sholom Community Alliance. The housing project consists of fifty-two units of conventional assisted living units and twenty-four special care units. The facility is a single four-story building of approximately 84,000 square feet. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4i - Resolution Set Public Hearing Roitenberg Assisted Living Project Refunding Bonds Page 2 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 06-106 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”) as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Act”) authorizes the City to issue revenue bonds to finance a multifamily housing development. 1.02. In 2001, the City issued the following: (i) Revenue Bonds (Roitenberg Family Assisted Living Residence Project), Series 2001A, in the principal amount of $10,000,000 (the “Series 2001A Bonds”); (ii) Revenue Bonds (Roitenberg Family Assisted Living Residence Project), Series 2001B, Extendable Rate Adjustable Securities (EXTRAS), in the principal amount of $1,800,000 (the “Series 2001B Bonds”); and (iii) Revenue Bonds (Roitenberg Family Assisted Living Residence Project), Series 2001C, Extendable Rate Adjustable Securities (EXTRAS), in the principal amount of $3,200,000 (the “Series 2001C Bonds”, and, together with the Series 2001A Bonds and the Series 2001B Bonds, the “Prior Bonds”). At the request of Sholom Community Alliance, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”) and Sholom Community Alliance, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the “Alliance”), the Prior Bonds were issued to finance the acquisition, development, construction, and equipping by the Company of a 76-unit multifamily housing development (24 units of which are special care units) located at 3610 Phillips Parkway in the City to be operated as an assisted-living and memory-loss facility for seniors (the “Project”). The Project has been completed and is currently in use. 1.04. The Company has proposed that the City issue its Revenue Refunding Bonds (Roitenberg Family Assisted Living Project), Series 2006 (the “Bonds”), in the approximate principal amount not to exceed $13,500,000, to refund the Prior Bonds and refinance the Project under the Act. 1.05. Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations promulgated thereunder, requires that prior to the issuance of the Bonds, this Council approve the Bonds after conducting a public hearing thereon. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4i - Resolution Set Public Hearing Roitenberg Assisted Living Project Refunding Bonds Page 3 Section 2. Public Hearing. 2.01. The City Council shall meet at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, July 10, 2006, to conduct a public hearing on the issuance of the Bonds as requested by the Company. 2.02. The City Manager is authorized and directed to publish notice of the hearing in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A in a newspaper of general circulation in the City once, at least fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the public hearing. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 19, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 4St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4i - Resolution Set Public Hearing Roitenberg Assisted Living Project Refunding Bonds Page 4 EXHIBIT A CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C, AS AMENDED, TO REFINANCE A MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), will hold a public hearing on Monday, July 10, 2006, on or after 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard in the City, to consider the issuance of revenue refunding bonds (the “Bonds”), under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Act”). The Bonds are proposed to be issued to refinance a 76-unit multifamily housing development (24 units of which are special care units) located at 3610 Phillips Parkway in the City which is operated as an assisted-living and memory-loss facility for seniors (the “Project”). The Project is currently owned and operated by Sholom Community Alliance, LLC a Delaware nonprofit limited liability company, the sole member of which is Sholom Community Alliance, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. The Project was originally financed with the proceeds of the following obligations of the City: (i) Revenue Bonds (Roitenberg Family Assisted Living Residence Project), Series 2001A, in the principal amount of $10,000,000 (the “Series 2001A Bonds”); (ii) Revenue Bonds (Roitenberg Family Assisted Living Residence Project), Series 2001B, Extendable Rate Adjustable Securities (EXTRAS), in the principal amount of $1,800,000 (the “Series 2001B Bonds”); and (iii) Revenue Bonds (Roitenberg Family Assisted Living Residence Project), Series 2001C, Extendable Rate Adjustable Securities (EXTRAS), in the principal amount of $3,200,000 (the “Series 2001C Bonds”, and, together with the Series 2001A Bonds and the Series 2001B Bonds, the “Prior Bonds”). Following the public hearing, the Council will consider adoption of a resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds to refund the Prior Bonds and refinance the Project. The aggregate face amount of the Bonds proposed to be issued to refinance the Project is presently estimated not to exceed $13,500,000. The Bonds will be issued by the City and will be limited obligations of the City payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof. The Bonds will not be general or moral obligations of the City. The Bonds will not be secured by or payable from any assets, revenues, or other property of the City (except the interests of the City in the Project) and will not be secured by or payable from any revenues derived from any application of the taxing powers of the City. All persons desiring to be heard during this public hearing will be afforded an opportunity to do so. Dated: [date of publication] BY ORDER OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SA140-87 (JU) 265681v.2 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4j - Approve Vision SLP Action Team Chairs Page 1 4j. Motion to Appoint Vision Action Group Chairs Kristin Berns, Brad Bakken, George Hagemann, Steve George, Sue Santa, Nancy Lapakko, Bill Kenzie, Tsehai Wodajo and Neil Anderson to their respective St. Louis Park Vision Action Groups. BACKGROUND: City Council has asked staff to bring the names of the St. Louis Park Vision Action Group chairs back to a Council meeting so that they can be formally appointed by Council. These volunteers are enthusiastic community leaders who are knowledgeable about their action group areas. For your convenience, staff has provided the following chart of the proposed chairpersons and their respective action groups. Staff anticipates action groups could start meeting as early as the week of June 26th. Chair SLP Action Group Kristin Berns Environment Brad Bakken Transportation George Hagemenn Sidewalks and Trails Steve George Gathering Places Sue Santa Community Events Nancy Lapakko Housing Bill Kenzie Arts and Culture Tsehai Wodajo – Co-Chair Diversity Neil Anderson – Co-Chair Diversity RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Council make a motion to appoint Vision Action Group chairs Kristin Berns, Brad Bakken, George Hagemann, Steve George, Sue Santa, Nancy Lapakko, Bill Kenzie, Tsehai Wodajo and Neil Anderson to their respective St. Louis Park Vision Action Groups. Prepared by: Bridget Gothberg, Organization Development Coordinator Approved by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4k - Resolution Ordering Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Duke Property Page 1 4k. Motion to adopt Resolution Ordering an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Duke Realty property located in the southwest corner of Highways 394 and 100. BACKGROUND: As discussed at the City Council Study Session of April 3, 2006, Duke Realty is planning to redevelop apportion of the approximately 43.5 acres located in the southwest corner of Highways 394 and 100. The amount of development expected triggers the need for an environmental review. In this case, it will be an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). This is a substitute review allowed by State law that can be used when an EIS is required. AUARs are more flexible in the development approach and can be completed in a compact time frame. The AUAR process does not replace or overrule any of the normal Comprehensive Plan or zoning ordinance required hearings, project reviews, or other city approvals. It simply is a vehicle for identifying and evaluating any and all potential project environmental impacts. The City of St. Louis Park is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this review, and as such is required to officially “order” the AUAR. Some of the redevelopment property is located within the City of Golden Valley. We will be working with Golden Valley during the review process. DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS: Attached is a memo explaining the five development scenarios that will be analyzed in the AUAR. The five scenarios may or may not reflect what ultimately is approved by the City and built. The alternative scenarios were chosen to reflect the range of potential development possibilities on this site. In particular, the scenarios are included to reflect the maximum amount of development that could be envisioned for this site. The goal is to make sure the “worst” case is evaluated. The concept for the site is still under development; it generally locates the office buildings on the east side of the site near Highway 100, with the retail on the west side along Park Place Boulevard. Condominiums would be located above a portion of the commercial uses. Refinements to the site plan are being developed; we expect to review them with the City Council in mid-summer. PROCESS: The AUAR will take approximately 4 months to complete. A consultant will be hired to complete the review and Duke Realty will pay for the consultant cost. Within the next 4-6 weeks we expect to provide the surrounding neighbors with information regarding the AUAR via written materials and/or neighborhood meetings. Following the preparation of the draft AUAR, it will formally be presented (approximately Oct. – Nov. timeframe) to the neighborhoods, the City of Golden Valley and the City of St. Louis Park. There is a 30-day comment period after which the document is finalized and adopted by the City. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4k - Resolution Ordering Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Duke Property Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution Ordering an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Duke Realty property located in the southwest corner of Highways 394 and 100. Attachment: Resolution General Project Description Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4k - Resolution Ordering Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Duke Property Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 06-107 RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR) FOR THE PROPOSED DUKE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAYS 394 and 100 WHEREAS, Duke Development is proposing to redevelop approximately 35 acres of land, and WHEREAS, an environmental review is required by State Law, and WHEREAS, an AUAR is an acceptable substitute form of environmental review, and WHEREAS, several development scenarios have been prepared for the review, and WHEREAS, a portion of the property is located within the City of Golden Valley, and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this environmental review. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park hereby orders the preparation of an AUAR for the 35 acre Duke Development site located on the southwest corner of Highways 394 and 100. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council June 19, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4k - Resolution Ordering Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Duke Property Page 4 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City is St. Louis Park, Minnesota, is beginning the process of completing an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for a proposed mixed-use development. The approximately 43.5-arce project site is located at the southwest quadrant of Interstate I-394 and Highway 100 in the cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. The project site is bordered by Interstate 394 on the north, Highway 100 on the east, Park Place Boulevard on the west, and Gamble Drive on the south. There are five redevelopment scenarios or alternatives being considered for this site. One alternative is comprised entirely of office space. The other four alternatives include office space, retail space and condominium units. One of the alternatives includes a hotel. Each scenario is described in the alternatives description section. At the greatest magnitude, the proposed project includes the construction of up to 1,200,000 square feet (SF) of office space; up to 425,000 SF of retail space; up to 300 condo units totaling 420,000 SF (located over retail space); and associated parking structures and surface parking totaling up to 7,375 parking spaces. A 125,000 SF hotel with 125 rooms may also be constructed in lieu of some of the condo units (likely located above the office space). The proposed project would total up to a maximum of 2,045,000 SF of redevelopment. The project site is currently a mixed use development. The project site contains two mid-rise office buildings and adjacent parking structures that will remain on the site. A large warehouse, tennis center, several small office buildings, and surface parking lots are proposed for removal as part of the redevelopment. ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION Alternative 1 – Duke Master Plan Scenario Alternative 1 includes the construction of 1,000,000 square feet (SF) of office space (9 to 18 stories); 400,000 SF of retail space (1 to 2 stories); 250 condo units totaling 350,000 SF (4 to 6 stories); and associated parking structures and surface parking totaling up to 6,375 parking spaces. Alternative 1 would total 1,750,000 SF of redevelopment. Alternative 1 Square Feet Parking Stalls Office 1,000,000 up to 5,000 Retail 400,000 2,000 Condo Units (250) 350,000 375 Total 1,750,000 6,375 Alternative 2 – Maximum Build Scenario Alternative 2 includes the construction of 1,200,000 square feet (SF) of office space (12 to 24 stories); 425,000 SF of retail space (1 to 2 stories); 300 condo units totaling 420,000 SF (4 to 6 stories); and associated parking structures and surface parking totaling up to 7,375 parking spaces. Alternative 2 would total 2,045,000 SF of redevelopment. Alternative 2 Square Feet Parking Stalls Office 1,200,000 4,800 Retail 425,000 2,125 Condo Units (300) 420,000 450 Total 2,045,000 7,375 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4k - Resolution Ordering Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Duke Property Page 5 Alternative 3 – Minimum Build Scenario Alternative 3 includes the construction of 900,000 square feet (SF) of office space (9 to 18 stories); 350,000 SF of retail space (1 to 2 stories); 200 condo units totaling 280,000 SF (3 to 5 stories); and associated parking structures and surface parking totaling up to 5,650 parking spaces. Alternative 3 would total 1,530,000 SF of redevelopment. Alternative 3 Square Feet Parking Stalls Office 900,000 Up to 4,500 Retail 350,000 1,750 Condo Units (200) 280,000 300 Total 1,530,000 6,550 Alternative 4 – Hotel Scenario Alternative 4 includes the construction of 1,000,000 square feet (SF) of office space (9 to 18 stories); 400,000 SF of retail space (1 to 2 stories); 125 condo units totaling 175,000 SF( 2 to 4 stories); 175,000 SF hotel with 125 rooms (up to 6 stories) and associated parking structures and surface parking totaling up to 6,313 parking spaces. Alternative 4 would total 1,700,000 SF of redevelopment. Alternative 4 Square Feet Parking Stalls Office 1,000,000 4,000 Retail 400,000 2,000 Condo Units (125) 175,000 188 Hotel Rooms (125) 125,000 125 Total 1,700,000 6,313 Alternative 5 – Comprehensive Plan Scenario Alternative 5 includes the construction of 2,000,000 square feet (SF) of office space with associated parking structures and surface parking totaling 8,000 parking spaces (4 spaces required for every 1,000 SF of office space). Alternative 5 would total 2,000,000 SF of redevelopment. Alternative 2 Square Feet Parking Stalls Office 2,000,000 8,000 Total 2,000,000 8,000 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4l - Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2006 Page 1 OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA May 17, 2006 -- 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Adam Fulton, Cindy Walsh, Nancy Sells 1. Call to order - Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of April 26, 2006 and May 3, 2006 Commissioner Kramer moved approval of the minutes of April 26, 2006. Commissioner Person seconded the motion and the motion passed 7-0. Commissioner Johnston- Madison moved approval of the minutes of May 3, 2006. Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion and the motion passed 6-0-1 (Morris abstained). 3. Hearings: A. Westwood Hills Nature Center – Conditional Use Permit for fill/grading/excavation Location: 8300 Franklin Avenue Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 06-43-CUP Associate Planner Adam Fulton presented the staff report. Commissioner Robertson asked if other sites had been considered. Director of Parks and Recreation Cindy Walsh said neighbors requested the playground equipment be located as close as possible to the immediate neighborhood. Commissioner Morris asked about the mechanism to convert a city park area. Ms. Walsh said Westdale Park was basically a wetland and it was converted to a park years ago. The City has struggled to maintain a park there. Ms. Walsh said St. Louis Park will maintain the trail connection from the neighborhood into the Westwood Hills Nature Center. Commissioner Morris asked if staff at Westwood Hills Nature Center have been involved with the decision regarding excavating the soils and its impact on the ecosystem of the nature center. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4l - Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2006 Page 2 Ms. Walsh said nature center staff has been very involved. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about parking, commenting that it is quite a trek from the previous park. Ms. Walsh said if needed, the parking lot could be expanded. Ms. Walsh said summer camps and school groups make up the largest percentage of registered users. Many users are walk-ins. Chair Carper opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, Chair Carper closed the public hearing. Commissioner Morris said for the record and as an issue for staff he has been reading the Comprehensive Plan designation for parks and open spaces and it clearly designates certain parks for certain types of activities. It has a listing for special-use parks, which is Westwood Hills Nature Center. A playground is a neighborhood park function and Commissioner Morris said he questions the playground and picnic shelter, which he thinks would violate the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Morris asked if staff compared this use for its conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning and Zoning Supervisor Meg McMonigal said she thinks this would not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. She said the designation is parks and open space. Commissioner Morris said the Comprehensive Plan for parks and open spaces is categorized specifically delineating which type of activity occurs in which type of park. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the residents she spoke with tend to favor the change. She said Westdale Park was pretty dismal. Commissioner Robertson said this is an intermingling of uses and the playground would detract from the nature center. He said he is ambivalent about the shelter. He said it is the wrong mix and a neighborhood park should be developed elsewhere. Ms. Walsh said the ideas for this came from the nature center naturalists. The shelter, designed like a three-season porch, would be used as an educational area. Ms. Walsh said the playground will blend in with the surroundings. She added that the Comprehensive Plan list indicates what was in use at the time the Plan was written. Commissioner Morris said the City needs to better define what parks, open space and wetlands are and not casually use them for other purposes. Ms. Walsh said she will share Commissioner Morris’ comments with the City’s Park and Recreation Commission. Chair Carper said the Comprehensive Plan should not be overridden merely for convenience. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4l - Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2006 Page 3 In reference to Commissioner Kramer’s question about a five and ten year scope and potential uses, Ms. Walsh responded that the plans were approved by the City Council in its 5-year Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if the park list in the Comprehensive Plan is updated periodically. Ms. McMonigal said the list regards functions and categories to help plan for the future. She said it is a tool, not a definition of what is allowed or not allowed. Mr. Fulton said the proposal is for a Conditional Use Permit for excavation, not a Conditional Use Permit for the use. Commissioner Person made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for excavation. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-2. (Commissioners Morris and Robertson opposed). B. Junior High Addition – Variance Location: 1650 Texas Avenue South Applicant: Parkway Development, LLC Case No.: 06-16-VAR Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report. She noted that on March 13, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested Preliminary Plat and Variances for the Jr. High Addition. She explained that since that time, an additional variance was identified for the width of one of the proposed lots. The entire request will be forward to the City Council together. Applicant Joshua Aaron presented two handouts to the Commission of the proposed plans and supporting exhibits to show a hardship. According to Mr. Aaron, the hardship is that the lot lines were established prior to the current alignment of the street, consequently, there is no logical relationship to the street, however, the front yard widths are measured parallel to the street. Mr. Aaron read from the City Housing Summit report, describing bedroom sizes promoted by the report. He said for his requests staff focused on the lot size, not the uniqueness of the property in the neighborhood. He discussed hardship. He showed an aerial of the property. He said requirements for lot size are based on perfect conditions. He discussed variances which have been granted in the area. He said a precedent has already been established that the hardship exists. He said each variance is unique. Mr. Aaron referenced the storm drain and the fact that two services were provided to the property. Chair Carper opened the public hearing. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4l - Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2006 Page 4 Diane Newmark-Sztainer, 8007 West 18th Street, distributed and read letters from Gerri and Stan Maisel of 8015 W. 18th St., and Chris and Kathleen Clonts of 1821 Texas opposing the variance. Ms. Newmark-Sztainer said she hopes the existing home remains. Ms. McMonigal noted that staff had received the letter from Chris and Kathleen Clonts and had distributed it to the Commission. Philip Carter, 1801 Texas Avenue, is a 40-year resident and he opposes the variance. He said the new owner didn’t try to sell the property, but demolished the interior. He discussed the proposal’s driveway and possible winter driving problems, small backyards, and extra tall houses. Chair Carper closed the public hearing. Commissioner Robertson said Mr. Aaron has retained his firm for another project, therefore, he will refrain from making any comments on this item and will not be voting. Commissioner Kramer mentioned that the height proposed is within requirements. He added that a bigger and taller house could be built there. Commissioner Morris said he supports this variance because, if there were no other issues with this lot, this would have been a minor variance, i.e., to come closer to compliance the applicant would technically jog the side yard line where it meets the front yard line to make it 75 feet, add 1.5 feet to the northerly property, and now the applicant is just 3.5 feet out of compliance, which is less than 5% of the frontage requirement. Commissioner Johnston-Madison agrees with Commissioner Morris. Chair Carper said he objects to granting a variance. Commissioner Morris made a motion to approve the variance for the front yard width. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-2-1. (Commissioners Carper and Person opposed. Commissioner Robertson abstained.) 4. Other Business A. Hill Lane - Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit Location: 2221 Hill Lane Applicant: James A.R. Johnson Case No.: 06-27-S and 06-28-CUP Chair Carper said the public hearing for this item has been held. Ms. McMonigal noted that updated plans with corrected lot area calculations are attached to the staff report. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4l - Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2006 Page 5 Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if anything can be changed between preliminary and final plat approval. Ms. McMonigal stated that no changes are anticipated, although it is possible. Small items may change. If changes are substantial, approval must be given by the City Council. Ms. McMonigal said the Planning Commission doesn’t typically look at final plats. Commissioner Morris asked if the recommendation can be amended to say the Commission approves the preliminary plat. Ms. McMonigal replied yes. Chair Carper asked about surety. Ms. McMonigal said typically that would be handled at the building permit stage. Commissioner Morris said he recognizes the concerns associated with this request, but on the technical portion of what the Planning Commission decides, the plat meets every requirement. He said the project will require a major excavation due to an extensive slope but it is not the Planning Commission’s responsibility to secure a construction activity. Commissioner Morris said this project would meet the Zoning Code and meet the neighborhood plan, which does not state build only on large lots or certain styles of homes, therefore, the concerns about the planning and zoning use in the neighborhood are being met by the applicant. He will support the staff recommendations. Commissioner Morris said there is a 3-way stop at the nearby intersection. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the proposal meets the zoning requirements but she is not comfortable with the CUP for excavation. She is concerned about the stability of the lot to the east. Commissioner Person said he agrees with Commissioner Morris, i.e., the Planning Commission would be hard pressed not to approve the plat. He agrees with Commissioner Johnston-Madison that the excavation to make this lot buildable will be extreme and will likely exceed 400 cubic yards as it will gouge into the side of the slope excessively. The applicant said the retaining walls would be no more than four feet high, however, Commissioner Person said in spots he thinks they could be as high as six feet. Commissioner Person said he favors the plat but opposes the CUP. Applicant Jim Johnson, said he lives in St. Louis Park about five months out of the year. Mr. Johnson introduced his architect, Vern Swedberg, of SSB Architecture. They discussed new renderings of the retaining walls. Mr. Swedberg said the size of the proposed residence has been reconfigured, i.e., it has been moved away from the adjacent property so there would be 12 feet between the property line and the proposed residence. He said stone retaining walls are proposed which would work with the gentle grade line of the property. Commissioner Morris asked if it would be appropriate to split the CUP or condition the CUP to allow excavation of over 400 cubic yards on lot 2 but hold off on approval for lot St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 4l - Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 2006 Page 6 3 until a more site specific excavation plan is presented. Ms. McMonigal said the City must act on an application within 120 days unless the applicant agrees to withdraw or extend it. Chair Carper said he is not in favor of the plat personally, but said it appears to meet the requirements. He said two houses would be more acceptable than three houses. He said he believes additions for a surety need to be made to the Conditional Use Permit to protect the existing neighbor. Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Morris seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-2. (Commissioners Johnston-Madison and Timian opposed.) Chair Carper discussed an amendment about surety for a motion for the CUP. Commissioner Morris said he supports a surety that would be determined by staff. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she wants the CUP to be delayed until the actual builder of this property has a final plan. Commissioner Robertson moved approval of the CUP with the Chair’s amendment for surety to protect the neighbor. Commissioner Morris seconded the motion. The motion failed 3-4 with Commissioners Robertson, Carper and Morris voting in favor and Commissioners Kramer, Timian, Johnston-Madison, and Person opposing. Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to deny the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Timian seconded the motion. The motion to deny passed 5-2 with Commissioners Carper, Kramer, Johnston-Madison, Person and Timian in favor of denial and Commissioners Morris and Robertson opposed to denial. This item is tentatively scheduled for Council on June 19th. 5. Communications Ms. McMonigal reported that there will be a meeting and study session for the Planning Commission on June 7th. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Minutes prepared by, Respectfully submitted, Linda Samson Nancy Sells Recording Secretary Administrative Secretary St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 5a - Housing Authority Commissioner Reappointment Page 1 5a. Reappointment of Citizen Representative to the St. Louis Park Housing Authority Recommended Action: Motion to reappoint citizen representative to the St. Louis Park Housing Authority. BACKGROUND: Catherine Courtney is the chair of the St. Louis Park Housing Authority and she was first appointed on June 2, 1997. Her term expires on June 30, 2006. Ms. Courtney has served the Housing Authority well and staff supports her request for reappointment. Terms for the Housing Authority are for five years; if reappointed, Ms. Courtney’s term would expire on June 30, 2011. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council make a motion to:  Reappoint a citizen representative, Catherine Courtney, to serve on the St. Louis Park Housing Authority until June 30, 2011. Prepared By: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8a - 2221 Hill Lane Subdivision And CUP Page 1 8a. 2221 Hill Lane Plat and CUP for Excavation Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a Resolution approving the Preliminary and Final Plat, subject to conditions as recommended by Staff. Motion to adopt a Resolution denying the Conditional Use Permit. Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a combined Preliminary and Final Plat and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for excavation. The applicant is proposing to subdivide a single 42,097 square foot lot into three conforming residential lots. The existing house would remain on a 24,095 square foot lot. Two additional lots of 9,001 square feet would also be created. In order to build two new houses, over 400 cubic yards of excavation would be required for the smaller lots. It is for this reason that the applicant has also requested a CUP. BACKGROUND: The applicant first approached the city about subdividing the lot at 2221 Hill Lane South in mid- 2005. After all application materials had been compiled, the applicant held a public neighborhood meeting in January of 2006. Over 25 residents attended the meeting. Several concerns were raised, and are discussed below. SUBDIVISION ANALYSIS: Surrounding Neighborhood The neighbors in proximity to the property at 2221 Hill Lane reside on lots that are of varying sizes, but generally larger than the minimum required in the R-1 zoning district. The area features curvilinear streets and cul de sacs. A railroad corridor runs to the north of Hill Lane behind several of the lots on the northern side of the cul-de-sac. To the southwest of the property is Benilde-St. Margaret’s School, and to the southeast is Twin Lake. Property in the general area of 2221 Hill Lane is also zoned R-1. Although the proposed lots will be smaller than some of the surrounding lots, they meet the minimum lot area requirement of the R-1 Zoning District. The lots surrounding 2221 Hill Lane are of a variety of sizes, ranging from approximately 9,000 square feet to over 55,000 square feet in size. Topography The proposed new lots fall steeply from north to south. At the northernmost point on the two new lots, the elevation is 914 feet. At the southernmost point, the elevation is 890 feet. The existing grade varies across the lot, and is greater than 3:1 in some places. The maximum slope permitted by the subdivision ordinance after grading is 3:1. The plans submitted by the applicant meet this requirement subsequent to the completion of grading on the site. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8a - 2221 Hill Lane Subdivision And CUP Page 2 Soil Analysis As required by the Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant completed soil borings at the site. Staff requested the soil borings because of the topography of the site and the potential for erosion. The report indicates a lack of topsoil, likely because of the grade. It also finds that some engineered stabilization may be necessary to provide a stable building site. The soil report recommends that a soils engineer examine the excavation to verify that any soils unsuitable for construction purposes are removed. It will be the responsibility of the contractor building the homes to ensure that no negative effects occur during the construction process. Stormwater While on-site storage of stormwater is required for larger subdivisions, stormwater storage is not required for the construction of individual single family dwellings. The City Engineer has indicated that the existing stormwater system serving this part of the city is adequate for the construction of two new homes. Stormwater will continue to follow a similar path relative to its historical pattern, and no negative effects resulting from the stormwater flow are anticipated. Further, none of the stormwater generated from the proposed houses is anticipated to flow onto neighboring properties. The applicant will be required to obtain any necessary permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Those permits which will apply to this subdivision include an erosion control permit and a stormwater management permit. Easements The Code requires a 10’ easement around all new property boundaries for the purposes of utilities and drainage. The applicant has provided the easements required by the Subdivision Code. Park and Trail Dedication The applicant will be required to pay both a park and a trail dedication fee for each of the two new lots. The park dedication fee is $1,500 per lot and the trail dedication fee is $225 per new lot. ZONING ANALYSIS: Proposed Use: The existing use of the lot is a single family residential dwelling. After subdivision, the proposed use is for three single family dwellings - the existing home and two new single family dwellings. Single family dwellings are a permitted use in the R-1 Single-Family Zoning District. Lot Area: The original lot is 42,097 square feet in size. The minimum required lot size in the R-1 Single Family Zoning District is 9,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing to split the property into the following three lots:  Lot 1 – Existing Single Family Dwelling Unit – 24,095 square feet.  Lot 2 – Proposed New Single Family Dwelling Unit – 9,001 square feet.  Lot 3 – Proposed New Single Family Dwelling Unit – 9,001 square feet. Lot Width: The existing lot has double frontage. It faces South Hill Lane on the north and Parkwoods Road on the south. Because it has frontage on both streets, it is possible to subdivide the property and continue to meet the lot width requirements. Lot width is measured at the required front setback line. The minimum lot width in the R-1 Zoning District is 75 feet. Lot widths at the setback line are as follows: St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8a - 2221 Hill Lane Subdivision And CUP Page 3  Lot 1 – Greater than 100 feet of frontage on South Hill Lane and its terminating cul- de-sac.  Lot 2 – Greater than 90 feet of frontage on South Hill Lane and Parkwoods Road.  Lot 3 – Greater than 90 feet of frontage on Parkwoods Road. Setback Requirements: Setback requirements are as follows for each of the following lots:  Front – 30 feet or equal to the closest house on the block, if it is greater than 30 feet. (The closest house on the block is approximately 28 feet from the property line, so the 30 foot requirement applies).  Sides – 9 feet on one side, 6 feet on the other side.  Rear – 25 feet. The existing house meets the setback requirements. The applicant has included potential building locations on the plat drawing, and demonstrated that a large house could be built on each of the two proposed lots and continue to meet the setback requirements of the R-1 Zoning District. Driveway Requirements: The Zoning Code, Section 36-162, requires that a driveway be constructed of an approved paving surface. Further, the code specifies that no more than 30 percent of the front yard area may be used for parking and driveway purposes and that the average width of a driveway may not exceed 22 feet. The Zoning Code does not include a provision regulating a maximum slope for driveways. Off-Street Parking Requirements: Single family dwellings are required by the Zoning Code to provide a minimum of two off-street parking spaces per dwelling units. The applicant has demonstrated an ability to meet this requirement of the zoning code through the provision of tuck-under two car garages on each new lot. The existing house features an attached two car garage. Maximum Height: The maximum height of structures in the R-1 Zoning District is 30 feet or three stories, whichever is less. For the new lots, height will be measured from the finished grade level of the structure to the mid-point of the roof. The applicant has demonstrated an ability to construct homes within the height requirements of the Zoning Code. Landscaping: The applicant is required to submit a tree replacement plan as part of the application for subdivision. As part of the replacement plan, the applicant has indicated that the construction will require the removal of 290 caliper inches of significant trees. There are 735 caliper inches of significant trees on the site. Based on the formula in the Zoning Code, the applicant is therefore required to replace 172 caliper inches of trees on-site. If the applicant (or ultimate developer of the site) is unable to replace 172 caliper inches on-site, the applicant will be required to pay the City $90 per each caliper inch not replaced on-site. The applicant has included a preliminary landscaping plan for the site, but because single-family homes are granted an exemption (Sec. 36-364 (b)) from the most extensive portions of the landscaping ordinance, the most applicable landscape standards will be provided through the tree replacement ordinance (Sec. 36-81). St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8a - 2221 Hill Lane Subdivision And CUP Page 4 Conditional Use Permit (CUP): The applicant has requested a CUP for excavation of over 400 cubic yards of material from the site. The excavation will be required to create building pads for the proposed construction; however, the excavation does not have to be completed prior to the sale of the lots. To meet the conditions required to obtain this Conditional Use Permit, the applicant has provided:  Site plan showing finished grade of the land; and  Narrative discussing the effects of excavation on community and adjacent land; and  Soil boring report, indicating the type of material to be removed; and  Explanations regarding:  Time period of excavation  Safety of site and surrounding area during excavation  Control of material on-site and during transit  Routes of trucks moving to and from the site Information provided by the applicant indicates an ability to comply with the requirements for a CUP for excavation. The route proposed for the removal of material, as shown on the attached map, would follow Parkwoods Road to the West until it reaches the Highway 100 Frontage Road, and would subsequently follow Highway 100 to its destination. The conditions included in the potential approval of the CUP (see attached resolution) include details regarding the time of operation and a time limit within which the work must be completed (12 months from date of approval). Additionally, the applicant will be required to provide a surety (typically a Letter of Credit). The surety is permitted by the ordinance to ensure that the work is performed in the manner described in the plan and conditional use permit; it is also required to ensure that regular street cleaning is completed during the construction period so that no negative impacts occur in the public right-of-way. Neighborhood Concerns: Residents of the neighborhood surrounding 2221 Hill Lane have raised several concerns relating to the proposed subdivision. Concerns addressed above include the maximum height of the proposed structures, the potential for erosion due to the slope of the site, and engineering issues related to the excavation of soils from the site. Residents expressed concerns about the loss of trees and changes in the character of the neighborhood if the proposed subdivision is approved and 2 new homes are allowed to be built on the new lots. During the neighborhood meeting, several neighbors raised an additional concern regarding the applicant’s proposal and its relation to the railroad tracks to the north of Hill Lane. Though the railroad tracks are separated by several hundred feet from the applicant’s property, the concern was that vibrations resulting from passing trains would increase as a result of the proposed excavation. The City Engineer has reviewed that concern and determined the proposed houses are located a sufficient distance from the existing rail line to ensure that no negative impacts occur. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8a - 2221 Hill Lane Subdivision And CUP Page 5 Planning Commission: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal for 2221 Hill Lane on April 26 and May 17, 2006. At the public hearing on April 26, numerous neighbors again voiced their concerns regarding the applicant’s proposal. The concerns were very specific, including the potential for erosion and excessive height of the proposed retaining walls, the obstruction of view from surrounding homes and the loss of economic value to their property. The Planning Commission made a recommendation of approval for the Preliminary Plat at the May 17 meeting. They found that the proposed 3-lot subdivision met the requirements of the R-1 Zoning District and the city’s Subdivision Ordinance. At the same time, the Commission recommended denial of the Conditional Use Permit, based on the fact that no final building designs have been submitted, and exact grading cannot be determined without specific plans. In the future when the developer is ready to build homes on one or both lots they may need to reapply for an excavation CUP if the excavation exceeds 400 cubic yards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends a motion to adopt a Resolution approving the Preliminary and Final Plat, subject to the condition of the Resolution. The Planning Commission recommends adoption of a Resolution of denial for the Conditional Use Permit for excavation. ALTERNATE COUNCIL ACTION: The Subdivision Code, Section 26-160, “Minimum Design Features” states: “The design features set forth in this article are minimum requirements. The city may impose additional or more stringent requirements concerning lot size, streets and overall design as deemed appropriate or considering the property being subdivided.” While the proposed plat meets the minimum standards of the R-1 zoning district and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the plat, both the Planning Commission and many residents have expressed concerns that the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. The immediate neighborhood surrounding 2221 Hill Lane is wooded, with varied terrain, curving streets and lots of varied sizes. While 9,000 square feet is the R-1 district minimum lot size, most of the lots in the immediate area are much larger than the minimum. The larger lots allow for more trees and natural vegetation. It also makes it possible to accommodate structures on the varied topography of the area without extensive retaining walls. It is reasonable to conclude that a subdivision with lots that just meet the minimum size requirements are out of character with the varied topography and natural character of the surrounding area, and that larger lots would be more consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8a - 2221 Hill Lane Subdivision And CUP Page 6 A minimum lot size of 12,500 to 14,500 square feet would be more consistent with the typical lots in the immediate vicinity of 2221 Hill Lane. Larger lots would make it easier to accommodate the steep slopes on this property, make it possible to retain more natural vegetation and/or plant more trees. If the City Council concludes that a minimum lot size greater than 9,000 sq ft is more appropriate for the proposed plat, the Council should direct staff to prepare a resolution making findings of fact and denying the proposed 3 lot plat or alternatively approving a two lot subdivision involving the combination of the proposed two new lots into one lot. The 120-day deadline for Council action on this proposal is July 18, 2006. Attachments: Resolution approving the Preliminary and Final Plat, as submitted Resolution denying the application for Conditional Use Permit Resolution approving the application for Conditional Use Permit Planning Commission Minutes, Excerpts, 4/26 & 5/17, 2006. Location map (supplement) Route map for excavation (supplement) Preliminary and Final Plat (supplement) Landscape plan (supplement) Tree removal documentation (supplement) Stormwater plan (supplement) Proposed structure plans (supplement) Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8a - 2221 Hill Lane Subdivision And CUP Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. 06-______ RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF LA MARIPOSA BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. James A.R. Johnson, owner and subdivider of the land proposed to be platted as La Mariposa has submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and al l proceedings have been duly had thereunder. 2. The proposed final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit: Lot 8 and that part of Lot 7 lying Southeasterly of the Northwesterly 30 feet thereof, WESTRIDGE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota Conclusion 1. The proposed preliminary and final plat of La Mariposa is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk subject to the following conditions: a. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. b. Park dedication fees must be received by the City prior to filing a final plat. c. Trail dedication fees must be received by the City prior to filing the final plat. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8a - 2221 Hill Lane Subdivision And CUP Page 8 d. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $1000 to insure that a Mylar copy of the final plat is provided. e. Applicant shall submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of tree replacement, landscaping and repair/cleaning of public streets and utilities. f. Applicant shall reimburse City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents as required in the Plat approval. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled. 4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 19, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8a - 2221 Hill Lane Subdivision And CUP Page 9 RESOLUTION NO. 06-_________ RESOLUTION OF DENIAL A RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS REGARDING THE APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-79 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT EXCAVATION FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 2221 HILL LANE SOUTH WHEREAS James A.R. Johnson 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 within a R-1 Single Familly Residential District located at 2221 Hill Lane having the following legal description: Lot 8 and that part of Lot 7 lying Southeasterly of the Northwesterly 30 feet thereof, WESTRIDGE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, on April 26, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony from the public, reviewed the application, and on a vote of 6-0 voted to table the item until May 17, 2006; and WHEREAS, on May 17, 2006, the Planning Commission moved approval of the Conditional Use Permit with an amendment for surety to protect the neighbor. The motion failed on a vote of 3-4. A motion was subsequently made to deny the Conditional Use Permit and the motion to deny passed on a vote of 5-2; and WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 06-28-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing and the record of decision for this case. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park makes the following findings: 1. The proposed Conditional Use Permit for excavation is premature, as no specific plans are available for the excavation. The Conditional Use Permit cannot be granted until specific plans are available. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: The applicant’s request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit excavation for property at 2221 Hill Lane South is hereby denied based on the findings set forth above. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 19, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8a - 2221 Hill Lane Subdivision And CUP Page 10 RESOLUTION NO. 06-_____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-79 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT EXCAVATION FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 2221 HILL LANE SOUTH BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. James A.R. Johnson 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 within a R-1 Single Family Residential District located at 2221 Hill Lane for the legal description as follows, to-wit: Lot 8 and that part of Lot 7 lying Southeasterly of the Northwesterly 30 feet thereof, WESTRIDGE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 06-28-CUP) and the effect of the proposed excavation 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. 3. The Council has determined that the proposed excavation 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 is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The contents of Planning Case File 06-28-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 excavation 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. Fire lanes shall be in accordance with the Official Exhibits. 3. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met: a. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant and owner. b. A pre-excavation conference shall be held with the appropriate development, construction and city representatives. c. All necessary permits must be obtained. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8a - 2221 Hill Lane Subdivision And CUP Page 11 4. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions during excavation: a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times. c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of excavation on surrounding properties. 5. Trucks removing excavated material from the applicant’s property shall travel only west of Hill Lane South on Parkwoods Road and along Trunk Highway 100 and its associated frontage roads. 6. Any changes to this Conditional Use Permit, including the use of over 400 cubic yards of fill on the site, shall require a major amendment in order to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of existing residents. 7. The applicant shall pay an administrative fine of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. 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. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit. Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 19, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8a - 2221 Hill Lane Subdivision And CUP Page 12 Excerpts: Planning Commission meeting, 4/26/06 B. Hill Lane - Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit Location: 2221 Hill Lane Applicant: James A.R. Johnson Case No.: 06-27-S and 06-28-CUP Mr. Fulton presented the staff report. Chair Carper asked about the driveway not following the lot line. Ms. McMonigal said the proposed driveway leaves the lot and crosses the right- of-way to South Hill Lane, which is allowed. Mr. Fulton said driveways are required to be 50 feet from an intersection. Chair Carper asked about any requirements to avoid storm drains. Ms. McMonigal said the City Engineer would have to take a look at it and approve the driveway location. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if there was any discussion regarding retaining walls on these two lots. Mr. Fulton said there was some discussion; if a retaining wall is higher than four feet, it would have to be reviewed by the building official within the City, shorter retaining walls would require zoning approval. Commissioner Robertson asked if there is any indication how many caliper inches the applicant may be wishing to replace. Mr. Fulton said the landscape plan provided by the applicant is preliminary and indicated replacing a substantial number of them. Norm Bjorness, Jr., is counsel for the applicant, James Johnson. Mr. Bjorness said Mr. Johnson’s proposal fits the criteria for constructing two single-family residences on the two development lots. Mr. Johnson agrees to the conditions in the staff report. Mr. Bjorness said only five new homes have been constructed in the Lake Forest neighborhood since 1992. Chair Carper opened the public hearing. Kay Ronngren, 2205 South Hill Lane, read a letter opposing the proposal dated April 26, 2006 from Sandra Stanley, 2205 South Hill Lane. The letter was distributed to the Planning Commission. Ellen McGratton, 4636 Cedarwood Road, said she supports Ms. Stanley’s letter. The wooded areas and large lots make the neighborhood attractive. At most, said Ms. McGratton, the applicant could be allowed to divide his lot into two and have one tasteful home and the trees. Sharon Segal, 2211 Parklands Road, asked that the Planning Commission not recommend in favor of the subdivision. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8a - 2221 Hill Lane Subdivision And CUP Page 13 Joy Peterson, 2301 Westridge Lane, is concerned about subdividing and developing this deep, wooded area. She is also concerned about the drainage issues created by the planned buildings on the hill. Steve Grossman, 2300 Westridge Lane, said his concerns are the curves, speeding, kids and their bikes. Mr. Grossman’s neighbor, a young boy named Elliot, said driveway access is dangerous and biking is dangerous. Elliot read a petition opposing the proposal. Joan Solomon, 2317 Westridge Lane, said she lives in St. Louis Park because of the beautiful land. She said the City needs to go back to the plan in St. Louis Park and keep St. Louis Park the way it is. Mary Kay Stranik, 4711 Cedarwood Road, said her concerns are the excavation of dirt, more cement and housing on the property, the flow of the water on a steep hill, train vibration, safety, and the character of the neighborhood changing by becoming crowded with homes. Ms. Stranik asked what will become of the value of homes. She hopes for one house as opposed to two. Commissioner Morris remarked that the City’s subdivision ordinance requires new buildings to have sidewalks and he doesn’t see one on the plan. Would a variance be required not to put in a sidewalk? Ms. McMonigal said she will check with the City Attorney. Mr. Fulton will ask the applicant if he is willing to put in a sidewalk. Cindy Bauman, 2300 Parkwoods Road, said she doesn’t want move up housing to become move out housing. Ms. Bauman said the City needs to look at an overall development plan for the neighborhood. Sidewalks should be installed, especially on a blind curve. She thinks trees should be replaced rather than having a cash in lieu payment. Ms. Bauman asked if the subdivision is approved, please approve only two lots not three. Terry Christianson, 2224 South Hill Lane, agrees with the previous speakers about dividing the lot into two parcels rather than three. Mr. Christianson thinks older residents will subdivide and move out. He doesn’t want to see that happen. Betty Globus Goodman, 2211 South Hill Lane, thinks this is just the beginning of development. She thanked the Planning Commission and Adam Fulton for their help and assistance. Ms. Goodman is concerned about erosion, retaining walls becoming defective, and the height of the homes. She said dividing the property into three lots doesn’t seem to be consistent with the vision St. Louis Park has for its residents. Chair Carper asked if the developer has talked to her about the development as she is the adjoining neighbor. Ms. Goodman said no one has talked to her about the development. Patricia Green, 2336 Parkwoods Road, would like to welcome everyone to the neighborhood. She said the neighbors can’t say no to move-up in our neighborhood. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8a - 2221 Hill Lane Subdivision And CUP Page 14 Nathan Curland, 4707 Cedarwood Road, distributed a drawing to show what the rest of the neighborhood looks like. Mr. Curland is not opposed to development but prefers subdividing it into two parcels, not three. Graham Candler, 4636 Cedarwood Road, said a nice neighborhood should be continued. Mr. Candler hopes a precedent is not started with this proposal. Sharon Abelson, 4340 Cedarwood Road, is president of the Lake Forest Neighborhood Association. Ms. Abelson said no one contacted her to say they favor this project. She said the natural areas of the neighborhood are the biggest selling points. They would like to see restrictions placed on development in Lake Forest and they plan to pursue this further. Stan Jurgenson, 2309 Westridge Lange, said train noise at this location would increase when the buffer hill is gone. Mr. Jurgenson said he is appalled that a non-resident developer can come into the community and say a few more lots will be developed. He doesn’t want to see large lots divided. Mr. Jurgenson said perhaps the code is no longer appropriate and should be changed. Tom Hess, 2300 Parkwoods Road, said it appears the plans are unfinished. Ms. McMonigal said the applicant is requesting a subdivision and no housing plans are proposed at this time. Mr. Hess said retaining walls do not stop erosion or creep. He is a soils engineer and he would like to see the plans for the retaining wall. Mr. Hess suggested the applicant be required to post bond for the retaining wall. Vern Swedborg, architect for Mr. Johnson, said he was commissioned to provide house plans to illustrate that the sites are buildable and have not proposed retaining walls that encroach on adjacent neighboring property. He said no retaining wall is higher than four feet. The driveways are proposed with a turn around on the site to avoid backing up on the street. Mr. Swedborg said they can handle the safety issues. He said Mr. Johnson will live in one of the houses. Commissioner Robertson said the excavation should be part of the actual construction process and only part of the conditional use process. Tom Hordahl, surveyor, said a final plat has been drawn. Commissioner Morris said the total square footage is 80 square feet short, and he asked which lot is 80 square feet short. Mr. Fulton said the error is in favor of the applicant, and the minimum requirements are met. The CAD technician for Mr. Hordahl said he prepared the documents. There were many revisions and a simple error occurred. Graham Candler said Ward Johnson also owns 4634 Cedarwood Lane. Ms. Goodman said she was not at the neighborhood meeting due in part to short notice. She said that Ward Johnson doesn’t speak to her. She said the Johnson homes are occupied only for short periods of time. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8a - 2221 Hill Lane Subdivision And CUP Page 15 Ms. McMonigal said the final house plans will be reviewed when they are submitted for a building permit. The City Engineer has determined these lots would be buildable. Mr. Fulton said the City Engineer and the building official have reviewed the soils reports and they determined the soils are appropriate to be built upon. Cindy Baumann, 2300 Parkswood Road, said the planned route for excavation might be hampered by the closure of Parkswood Road due to a water main replacement this summer. Mark Naummacker, 4711 Cedarwood Road, is concerned about setting a precedent. Ms. McMonigal said it wouldn’t be a precedent because the current code allows what is being requested. Mark Globus, 2211 South Hill Lane, said he would like to ask that someone make a motion or a friendly amendment that a bond be posted as the soil and the retaining wall issue relate together. Mr. Globus said it is a challenging development site. Ms. Abelson asked if a CUP can be approved without plans. Ms. McMonigal said the applicant would have to return with building plans prior to a final grading plan. Ms. Abelson asked if the City has seen the final plat. Ms. McMonigal said the Planning Commission acts on the preliminary and Council will need to see the final plat. The Planning Commission is a recommending body. Chair Carper closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she is divided about this type of development. She said there are too many questions and she would like to see the item tabled. She wants the Commission to go out to look at the lot. Commissioner Robertson said he respects Commissioner Johnston-Madison’s stand and he is open to looking at the request further if there is no tight timeframe. He added that zoning does allow the proposal. He said he is comfortable with the proposed retaining walls. He said the Commission should start to have some serious discussion about protecting large lot areas that are not protected by R-1 zoning. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the discussion should be a priority. Commissioner Morris said he supports Commissioner Johnston-Madison’s desire to hold the item over for further discussion. He said that the request is allowed by current zoning. Commissioner Morris suggested that the neighborhood review its Plan-By-Neighborhood section in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Johnston-Madison moved to table the item until May 17th. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Timian. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8a - 2221 Hill Lane Subdivision And CUP Page 16 Ms. McMonigal asked if the Planning Commission would like staff to research or add to the report prior to the 17th. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she will email her questions to Ms. McMonigal prior to the 17th. Chair Carper would like verification of the actual lot measurements to be certain the math is accurate, and he would like to know what can be done for the adjacent property owner in the event of damage. Commissioner Johnston-Madison recommended that the Planning Commission meet at the lot within five days. Commissioner Morris said if a majority of the Planning Commissioners meet at the lot, it is considered a public meeting. Commissioner Johnston- Madison recommended holding a study session. Ms. McMonigal said staff will be working with all of the neighborhoods during the update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Excerpts: Planning Commission meeting, 5/17/06: 4. Other Business A. Hill Lane - Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit Location: 2221 Hill Lane Applicant: James A.R. Johnson Case No.: 06-27-S and 06-28-CUP Chair Carper said the public hearing for this item has been held. Ms. McMonigal noted that updated plans with corrected lot area calculations are attached to the staff report. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if anything can be changed between preliminary and final plat approval. Ms. McMonigal stated that no changes are anticipated, although it is possible. Small items may change. If changes are substantial, approval must be given by the City Council. Ms. McMonigal said the Planning Commission doesn’t typically look at final plats. Commissioner Morris asked if the recommendation can be amended to say the Commission approves the preliminary plat. Ms. McMonigal replied yes. Chair Carper asked about surety. Ms. McMonigal said typically that would be handled at the building permit stage. Commissioner Morris said he recognizes the concerns associated with this request, but on the technical portion of what the Planning Commission decides, the plat meets every requirement. He said the project will require a major excavation due to an extensive slope but it is not the Planning Commission’s responsibility to secure a construction activity. Commissioner Morris said this project would meet the Zoning Code and meet the neighborhood plan, which does not state build only on large lots or certain styles of homes, St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8a - 2221 Hill Lane Subdivision And CUP Page 17 therefore, the concerns about the planning and zoning use in the neighborhood are being met by the applicant. He will support the staff recommendations. Commissioner Morris said there is a 3-way stop at the nearby intersection. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the proposal meets the zoning requirements but she is not comfortable with the CUP for excavation. She is concerned about the stability of the lot to the east. Commissioner Person said he agrees with Commissioner Morris, i.e., the Planning Commission would be hard pressed not to approve the plat. He agrees with Commissioner Johnston-Madison that the excavation to make this lot buildable will be extreme and will likely exceed 400 cubic yards as it will gouge into the side of the slope excessively. The applicant said the retaining walls would be no more than four feet high, however, Commissioner Person said in spots he thinks they could be as high as six feet. Commissioner Person said he favors the plat but opposes the CUP. Applicant Jim Johnson, said he lives in St. Louis Park about five months out of the year. Mr. Johnson introduced his architect, Vern Swedberg, of SSB Architecture. They discussed new renderings of the retaining walls. Mr. Swedberg said the size of the proposed residence has been reconfigured, i.e., it has been moved away from the adjacent property so there would be 12 feet between the property line and the proposed residence. He said stone retaining walls are proposed which would work with the gentle grade line of the property. Commissioner Morris asked if it would be appropriate to split the CUP or condition the CUP to allow excavation of over 400 cubic yards on lot 2 but hold off on approval for lot 3 until a more site specific excavation plan is presented. Ms. McMonigal said the City must act on an application within 120 days unless the applicant agrees to withdraw or extend it. Chair Carper said he is not in favor of the plat personally, but said it appears to meet the requirements. He said two houses would be more acceptable than three houses. He said he believes additions for a surety need to be made to the Conditional Use Permit to protect the existing neighbor. Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Morris seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-2. (Commissioners Johnston-Madison and Timian opposed.) Chair Carper discussed an amendment about surety for a motion for the CUP. Commissioner Morris said he supports a surety that would be determined by staff. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she wants the CUP to be delayed until the actual builder of this property has a final plan. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8a - 2221 Hill Lane Subdivision And CUP Page 18 Commissioner Robertson moved approval of the CUP with the Chair’s amendment for surety to protect the neighbor. Commissioner Morris seconded the motion. The motion failed 3-4 with Commissioners Robertson, Carper and Morris voting in favor and Commissioners Kramer, Timian, Johnston-Madison, and Person opposing. Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to deny the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Timian seconded the motion. The motion to deny passed 5-2 with Commissioners Carper, Kramer, Johnston-Madison, Person and Timian in favor of denial and Commissioners Morris and Robertson opposed to denial. This item is tentatively scheduled for Council on June 19th. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8b - 1650 Texas Sub-Division And Variances Page 1 8b. Junior High Addition – Preliminary Plat with Variances to Lot Size, Lot Width and Maximum Driveway and Parking Area in Front Yard Location: 1650 Texas Avenue South Applicant: Parkway Development, LLC Case Nos.: 06-15-S and 06-16-VAR Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution of denial for the application for preliminary plat with variances to lot size, lot width, and maximum driveway and parking area in the front yard for property located at 1650 Texas Avenue South Site Area: 13,818 square feet Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential Comprehensive Plan: Residential Low Density DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Requested is approval of a Preliminary Plat to divide one existing single-family lot into two lots at 1650 Texas Avenue South. The developer would like to tear down the existing home and build two new homes. In order to subdivide the existing one lot into two, a variance to required minimum lot sizes for both lots and the lot width for one of the proposed lots is requested. The lots are proposed to be slightly over 6,900 square feet in area versus 9,000 square feet as required in the R-1 zoning district. A variance is requested to the minimum lot size requirement and one lot as proposed does not meet the minimum lot width requirement. The developer would also like to construct a semi-circle driveway to jointly serve the proposed lots and thus a variance to the maximum driveway and parking area allowed in the front yard is also requested BACKGROUND: There is an existing single family home on the site that is vacant and has been stripped of most of the interior materials. It sits on a hill that rises from the street to the home. The lot has an angled rear lot line, and is shaped this way apparently because of the history of the platting of the property in the area. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8b - 1650 Texas Sub-Division And Variances Page 2 ANALYSIS: Preliminary Plat The preliminary plat proposes two lots and dedicates a portion of the property for Texas Avenue South. The lots are evenly split in size, lot 1 is 6,915 square feet and Lot 2 is 6,909 square feet. The plat does not meet the size requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Variances Variances are requested for lot size, lot width, and maximum driveway/parking area in a front yard . The required standard and the proposed sizes for each variance request are shown in the tables below. Lot Size Variance The first variance request is to allow two lots smaller than the minimum lot size required in the R-1 zoning district. Both lots would be approximately 23% smaller than the required lot size. Size Required Variance requested Lot 1 6,915 9,000 -2,085 Lot 2 6,909 9,000 -2,091 Lot Width Variance The second variance request is to allow one lot to be narrower than the minimum lot size required in the R-1 zoning district. Lot 1 would be approximately 7% narrower that the required 75 foot minimum width. Width Required Variance requested Lot 1 70.12’ 75’ -5’ Lot 2 76.40’ 75’ none Variance for maximum driveway and parking area in a front yard - 30% The third variance is for the percent of driveway and parking area allowed in a front yard in residential districts. A maximum of 30% is allowed. Percent driveway area Maximum Allowed Variance requested Lot 1 38% 30% +8% Lot 2 36% 30% +6% St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8b - 1650 Texas Sub-Division And Variances Page 3 In order to grant variances, the city needs to find in favor of all of the following criteria: 1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this ordinance would result in a peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the zoning district in which said lot is located. Lot size and width The strict application of the ordinance would prohibit a subdivision on this property. The proposed lots do not meet the lot size or width requirements; the existing lot is simply too small to be split. Although the shape of the lot is slightly unusual, it does not result in peculiar and practical difficulties in building a home. A home can be, and is currently placed on the site while meeting the strict applications of the ordinance. There are not exceptional or undue hardships present that would require the city to deviate from its required minimum lot size and width. The lot can be developed and used in a manner customary and legally permissible within the R-1 zoning district. Lot driveway For the driveway variance, although the lot is steep and a circular driveway may be a practical way to serve a home or two homes, the driveway standards can be easily met. With two homes, the connection between the driveways could be eliminated and portions of the proposed driveway could be eliminated in order to increase the green space in the front yard, and likely meet the zoning requirement. 2. 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 said land is located. The topography on this site is similar to the other lots in the area. As the applicant notes, “a steep ridge line runs along the rear lot lines of all the lots from Texas Circle to Franklin Avenue and beyond.” Although the lot is irregularly shaped, this does not provide a reason for the city to deviate from its R-1 zoning standards. There is not a circumstance or conditions peculiar to this particular lot that would not apply to other land or structures in the immediate area or in the same zoning district. 3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The property owner has the right to use the single-family home on the lot, or rebuild a new single family home on the lot as it exists today. This preserves property rights and provides the ability to enjoy and use the property, without a variance. It appears even a circular driveway could be built without a variance to the 30% maximum requirement. This preserves property rights and provides the ability to enjoy and use the property. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8b - 1650 Texas Sub-Division And Variances Page 4 4. The granting of the 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, or endanger the public safety. Granting variances for lot size, lot width, and percentage of paved driveway and parking area in the front yard will likely not impair the supply of light and air to the adjacent properties, however it would result in a more crowded environment than exists today. It would not increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. 5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the area. Allowing two undersized lots in this R-1 neighborhood may impact the character of the neighborhood by reducing the lot standards in the R-1 zoning district. There are many more parcels of a similar size in the immediate area and in R-1 and R-2 districts throughout the City. Zoning standards, such as sizes and widths, are chosen to create a certain development pattern and spacing among homes within a particular district. If that standard is to be altered, it impacts the character of the R-1 zoning areas of the city. Allowing a circular driveway in this neighborhood may not unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood in itself, however it would decrease the green space in the front yards along Texas Avenue. 6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. Granting the variances would be contrary to the intent of the R-1 district to have a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 75 feet. As noted above, there are many parcels that could be potentially subdivided if such standards are reduced; this would be contrary to the intent of the R-1 zoning district standards. Lowering a standard should only be undertaken with a significant amount of study and consideration on a citywide basis. Granting the driveway variance would be contrary to the intent of the R-1 district to have a maximum paved area in front yards. It appears the driveway could be achieved without a variance. 7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. There is not a “demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty” associated with this lot or the proposed driveway. The lot can reasonable be used for a single-family home, as it has in the past. Denying the variance does not take anything away from the property owner, but rather would serve as a convenience to the applicant. It would increase the value of the property while decreasing the lot dimensions. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8b - 1650 Texas Sub-Division And Variances Page 5 Summary of Variance Request to Lot Size and Width The lot size requested is smaller than allowed in the R-1 zoning district, and is smaller than the minimum lot size in the R-2 zoning district. A home can be, and now is, placed on the site while meeting the strict applications of the ordinance. There is not a hardship present that indicates a reason to allow a variance from the minimum lot size and lot width in the R-1 zoning district. While the topography of the property is steep, it does not prohibit using the lot for a single family home. This lot is not different than hundreds of other lots throughout the city. Summary of Variance Request to Driveway and Parking Area While a semi-circular driveway may be desirable to the applicant, it appears that the strict application of the ordinance can be met without a variance. With one home, the driveway area would be reduced and meet the zoning requirements. With two homes, modifications to the proposed driveway area could be made to reduce the percent of overall paved surface area and meet the requirement. Preliminary Plat The preliminary plat proposes splitting one single family lot into two lots and dedicating a portion of Texas Avenue. Drainage and utility easements are shown on the plat placed around the perimeter of each lot as required. The lots are evenly split in size, Lot 1 is 6,915 square feet and Lot 2 is 6,909 square feet. The minimum lot size in the R-1 zoning district is 9,000 square feet and a variance to that standard has been requested as discussed above. As a hardship has not been identified that distinguishes this lot from many others in the area and around the city, it has been recommended that the variances to lot size be denied. Without a variance to this requirement, the proposed lots do not meet the size requirements of the R-1 zoning district, and therefore it is recommended that the plat be denied. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On March 15, and May 17, 2006 the Planning Commission held public hearings on the requests. Comments from the public hearing included the following comments: Joe Silbert, 8247 Westwood Hills Curve, is a life-long resident of St. Louis Park and a friend of Mr. Aaron’s. Mr. Silbert thinks the proposal would provide a great move-up housing opportunity and would not substantially change the character of the neighborhood—it would be a positive. Brandon Newman, 1644 Texas Avenue South, the property immediately to the north, said he is concerned about residences being closer to his home, e.g., a house on the north side of his home is just 15 feet away. Mr. Newman and his wife want their backyard to remain private; they don’t want to raise children with homes so close. Diane Newmark-Sztainer, 8007 West 18th Street, distributed and read letters from Gerri and Stan Maisel of 8015 W. 18th St., and Chris and Kathleen Clonts of 1821 Texas opposing the variance. Ms. Newmark-Sztainer said she hopes the existing home remains. Philip Carter, 1801 Texas Avenue, is a 40-year resident and he opposes the variance. He said the new owner didn’t try to sell the property, but demolished the interior. He discussed the proposal’s driveway and possible winter driving problems, small backyards, and extra tall houses. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8b - 1650 Texas Sub-Division And Variances Page 6 The Planning Commission recommended denial of the variances for lot sizes, percentage driveway and the proposed subdivision with a vote of 3-1-1. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance for lot width for Lot 1, with a vote 4-2-1, based on the minor amount of deviation from the zoning standard. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis that the proposed variances do not meet the required findings, staff recommends denial of the three variances for lot size, lot width, and required maximum paved front driveway/parking area. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the Preliminary Plat be denied, as it does not meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements for minimum lot sizes for the proposed lots, lot width for one of the proposed lots in the R-1 district. Attachments: Resolution Planning Commission minutes of 3-15-05 and 5-17-06 Location map (supplement) Application and written request from Applicant (supplement) Preliminary Plat (supplement) Lot Sketch (supplement) Additional materials submitted by applicant (supplement) Letters from neighbors (supplement) Letter from Applicant’s Attorney (supplement) Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8b - 1650 Texas Sub-Division And Variances Page 7 D R A F T RESOLUTION NO. 06-108 RESOLUTION OF DENIAL A RESOLUTION OF FINDING REGARDING THE APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH VARIANCES TO LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH AND MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREA IN FRONT YARD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AT 1650 TEXAS AVENUE SOUTH BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota 1. On February 21, 2006 Parkway Development, LLC submitted an application for approval of preliminary plat of Junior High Addition, variance for lot size to allow the subdivision of the parcel into two lots, and variance to the required maximum paved front driveway and parking area for property located in the R-1 Single Family District, at 1650 Texas Avenue South for the following legal description, to wit: Parcel 1: That part of Lot 6, “Beebe’s Out Lots,” which lies west of the west line of Texas Avenue and that part of the adjoining vacated Morton Street, as dedicated in the plat of “Beebe’s Out Lots” lying south of the extension across it of the north line of said Lot 6; all of which lies Northeasterly of a line drawn from a point 168.93 feet Northeasterly of the point of beginning of the following described line, as measured along said line, which line is described as beginning at a point in the West line of Section 5, Township 117, Range 21, distance 410.65 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Section 5; thence in a Northeasterly direction a distance of 1019.4 feet to a point 494.7 feet East of a point in the West line of said Section 5, said last mentioned point being 1319 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Section 5, drawn to the most Southerly corner of Lot 1, Block 1, “Country Club Addition of Westwood Hills.” Parcel 2: That part of the South 75 feet of Lot 7, measured along the Westerly line thereof, which lies west of the Southeasterly line of the road described in deed Doc. No. 184005 that part of the adjoining vacated Morton Street lying between the extensions across it of the North and South lines of the South 75 feet of said Lot 7, measured along the Westerly line thereof; All in Beebe’s Out Lots Parcel 3: That part of Outlot 1, which lies Northeasterly of a line described as commencing at a point in the West line of Section 5, Township 117, Range 21, distant 410.65 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Section 5 and said point being hereinafter known as Point A; thence in a Northeasterly direction a distance of 168.93 feet to the beginning of the line to be described, said 168.93 feet being measured along a St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8b - 1650 Texas Sub-Division And Variances Page 8 line which extends to a point that is 1019.4 feet from said Point A and 494.7 feet East of a point in the West line of said Section 5 said last mentioned point being 1319 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Section 5; thence Northwesterly passing through the most Southerly corner of Lot 1, Block 1, “Country Club Addition of Westwood Hills”. 2. On March 15, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony from the public, discussed the application and recommended denial of preliminary plat with variances on a vote of 3-1-1. On May 17, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the lot width variance, received testimony from the public, discussed the application and recommended approval of the variance due to its minor amount of deviation from the zoning standard. 3. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: a. The requested lot size and driveway variances do not meet the requirements of Section 36-33(d) of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the City Council to grant variances. There are no factors related to the shape, size or other extraordinary conditions on the lot which prevent a reasonable use. b. Granting of the requested variances is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. The property has a single family home on it which can be fully utilized. c. Granting of the lot size variance would be contrary to the intent and provisions of the Zoning Ordinance since, if granted, it would permit smaller lots than allowed by the R-1 zoning district standards. Granting the driveway variance would be contrary to the intent of the R-1 district to have a maximum paved area in front yards. d. There are no demonstrable or undue hardships from under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance or Minnesota Statue, and therefore, conditions necessary for granting the requested variances do not exist. e. The conditions applying to the structure or land in question are not peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the R-1 zoning district. The topography on this site is similar to the other lots in the area. f.. The proposed Preliminary Plat does not meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements for minimum lot size and lot width in the R-1 District, and therefore is not found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 4. The contents of Planning Case Files 06-15-S and 06-16-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8b - 1650 Texas Sub-Division And Variances Page 9 CONCLUSION The applicant’s requests for variances to lot size, lot width and maximum driveway and parking area in front yards, and preliminary plat approval, are hereby denied based on the findings set forth above. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 19, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8b - 1650 Texas Sub-Division And Variances Page 10 Official Minutes Planning Commission March 15, 2006 B. Junior High Addition – Preliminary Plat with Variances Location: 1650 Texas Avenue South Applicant: Parkway Development, LLC Case No.: 06-15-S and 06-16-VAR Planning and Zoning Supervisor Meg McMonigal presented the staff report. Requested is approval of a Preliminary Plat to divide one existing single-family lot into two lots at 1650 Texas Avenue South. The developer would like to tear down the existing home and build two new homes. In order to subdivide the existing one lot into two, a variance to required minimum lot size is requested. The lots are proposed to be slightly over 6,900 square feet in area versus the 9,000 square feet required in the R-1 zoning district. A variance is requested to the minimum lot size requirement. The developer would also like to construct a circular driveway to jointly serve the proposed lots. A variance to the maximum driveway and parking area allowed in the front yard is also requested Ms. McMonigal said staff recommends denial of the variances to lot size, maximum front driveway and parking area. A home can be, and is, placed on the site while meeting the strict applications of the ordinance. Therefore, there is not exceptional or undue hardship present that would require the city to deviate from its required minimum lot size. The lot can be developed and used in a manner customary and legally permissible with the R-1 zoning district. Staff is also recommending the Preliminary Plat be denied as it does not meet the zoning requirements for minimum lot size in the R-1 Zoning District. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if anything has been heard from neighbors or if there has been a neighborhood meeting regarding subdividing the lot. Ms. McMonigal said there has been no neighborhood meeting, and she has received two phone calls asking for information. Commissioner Robertson said he will not vote on this matter due to conflict, and Commissioner Kramer said he would also abstain from voting. Joshua Aaron, applicant and president of Parkway Development, said he is a 30+ year resident of St. Louis Park. Mr. Aaron said based on what he is hoping to do, the price of the homes will be in the $550,000-600,000 range. He believes the homes will fit into the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Aaron said the packet he distributed to the Planning Commission is to illustrate the hardships that exist. Mr. Aaron said there is a steep ridge, the lots are irregular, and some time ago a street had been vacated to avoid the steep ridge. The lots, he said, have become nonconforming. Mr. Aaron emphasized that he has met a hardship, i.e., showing the property is irregular in shape and is unusual. Mr. Aaron reported that when the street behind this property was vacated and Texas Avenue was realigned, it consumed 5,500 square feet. According to Mr. Aaron, the property is not one parcel, it is three separate parcels that came together. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8b - 1650 Texas Sub-Division And Variances Page 11 Mr. Aaron asked if parks are included in the R-1 district, he thought they might be included. Mr. Aaron said at the street the driveway is about 20 feet wide, however, as it travels up the hill and to the existing home, the driveway narrows to 11 feet. Mr. Aaron showed a modeling study. He said the setback for the proposed homes is about 35 feet, and the trees will be preserved. Chair Carper asked how long the applicant has owned the property. Mr. Aaron said he purchased the property in May 2005. Commissioner Timian arrived at 6:40 p.m. Commissioner Morris said he thinks the City’s subdivision ordinance would require new sidewalks. Ms. McMonigal will look into that. Commissioner Morris asked if the proposed driveway would be a cross driveway easement between both property owners so as to use either edge of the drive to go in and out. Mr. Aaron said yes. Commissioner Person asked if the house is occupied, and Mr. Aaron said no. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if feedback from neighbors had been received. Mr. Aaron said not really. Chair Carper opened the public hearing. Joe Silbert, 8247 Westwood Hills Curve, is a life-long resident of St. Louis Park and a friend of Mr. Aaron’s. Mr. Silbert thinks the proposal would provide a great move-up housing opportunity and would not substantially change the character of the neighborhood—it would be a positive. Mr. Silbert noted Mr. Aaron’s previous success, Lamplighter Park Townhomes. Brandon Newman, 1644 Texas Avenue South, the property immediately to the north, said he is concerned about residences being closer to his home, e.g., a house on the north side of his home is just 15 feet away. Mr. Newman and his wife want their backyard to remain private; they don’t want to raise children with homes so close. Mr. Aaron said the home next to Mr. Newman’s house is 19 feet away, there will be a distance of 29 feet between Mr. Aaron’s proposed home and the Newman’s. Mr. Aaron said there is heavy screening between this lot and Mr. Newman’s home. Commissioner Morris said whether the proposal is approved or not, the house adjoining Mr. Newman’s house could still be the same distance from his house. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8b - 1650 Texas Sub-Division And Variances Page 12 Chair Carper remarked that a house could be within six feet of the lot line. For the record, Chair Carper noted that a communication from the law firm of Steiner & Curtiss regarding the variance application was distributed to the Commission at the meeting. Steiner & Curtiss represents Parkway Development. The letter was given to staff by the applicant on the afternoon of March 15th. Chair Carper closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the modeling information was helpful to her. She is not so concerned about the driveway at this point, and she thinks the proposal would make a positive impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Morris doesn’t like the configuration of the driveway, a 90° angle driveway to a roadway would be safer than a 45° angle to a roadway; this configuration of two driveways creates two pedestrian crossings where there is currently one. For safety concerns, Commissioner Morris prefers one 90° angle driveway to each of the proposed houses. Commissioner Morris said he agrees with staff’s logic. Commissioner Morris said he sees no hardship for this property because it is fully functional; the right-of-way argument is not logical. Chair Carper sees no need to divide the lot; he agrees with Commissioner Morris and staff’s recommendations. Commissioner Johnston-Madison doesn’t think dividing the lot would set a precedent. She said the Planning Commission would be passing up an opportunity that it doesn’t always have when presented with a lot split. She said this proposal would be an advantage to the neighborhood rather than a problem to the neighborhood. Ms. McMonigal remarked that staff receives subdivision requests for single family lots all of the time. This will not be the last time a request like this will be made. Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend denial of the variance for lot size to allow the subdivision of the parcel into two lots, denial of the variance to the required maximum paved front driveway and parking area, and denial of the Preliminary Plat as it does not meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements for minimum lot size in the R-1 district. Commissioner Person seconded the motion. The motion to deny passed 3-1-1. (Johnston-Madison opposed, Timian abstained). St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8b - 1650 Texas Sub-Division And Variances Page 13 Official Minutes Planning Commission May 17, 2006 B. Junior High Addition – Variance Location: 1650 Texas Avenue South Applicant: Parkway Development, LLC Case No.: 06-16-VAR Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report. She noted that on March 13, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested Preliminary Plat and Variances for the Jr. High Addition. She explained that since that time, an additional variance was identified for the width of one of the proposed lots. The entire request will be forward to the City Council together. Applicant Joshua Aaron presented two handouts to the Commission of the proposed plans and supporting exhibits to show a hardship. According to Mr. Aaron, the hardship is that the lot lines were established prior to the current alignment of the street, consequently, there is no logical relationship to the street, however, the front yard widths are measured parallel to the street. Mr. Aaron read from the City Housing Summit report, describing bedroom sizes promoted by the report. He said for his requests staff focused on the lot size, not the uniqueness of the property in the neighborhood. He discussed hardship. He showed an aerial of the property. He said requirements for lot size are based on perfect conditions. He discussed variances which have been granted in the area. He said a precedent has already been established that the hardship exists. He said each variance is unique. Mr. Aaron referenced the storm drain and the fact that two services were provided to the property. Chair Carper opened the public hearing. Diane Newmark-Sztainer, 8007 West 18th Street, distributed and read letters from Gerri and Stan Maisel of 8015 W. 18th St., and Chris and Kathleen Clonts of 1821 Texas opposing the variance. Ms. Newmark-Sztainer said she hopes the existing home remains. Ms. McMonigal noted that staff had received the letter from Chris and Kathleen Clonts and had distributed it to the Commission. Philip Carter, 1801 Texas Avenue, is a 40-year resident and he opposes the variance. He said the new owner didn’t try to sell the property, but demolished the interior. He discussed the proposal’s driveway and possible winter driving problems, small backyards, and extra tall houses. Chair Carper closed the public hearing. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8b - 1650 Texas Sub-Division And Variances Page 14 Commissioner Robertson said Mr. Aaron has retained his firm for another project, therefore, he will refrain from making any comments on this item and will not be voting. Commissioner Kramer mentioned that the height proposed is within requirements. He added that a bigger and taller house could be built there. Commissioner Morris said he supports this variance because, if there were no other issues with this lot, this would have been a minor variance, i.e., to come closer to compliance the applicant would technically jog the side yard line where it meets the front yard line to make it 75 feet, add 1.5 feet to the northerly property, and now the applicant is just 3.5 feet out of compliance, which is less than 5% of the frontage requirement. Commissioner Johnston-Madison agrees with Commissioner Morris. Chair Carper said he objects to granting a variance. Commissioner Morris made a motion to approve the variance for the front yard width. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-2-1. (Commissioners Carper and Person opposed. Commissioner Robertson abstained.) St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8c - First Reading Of An Interim Ordinance Page 1 8c. Interim Ordinance – First Reading of an Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting the Subdivision of Property Located in the R-1 Single-Family Residence District Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the First Reading of Interim Ordinance for a period extending to August 1, 2007 and set second reading for July 10, 2006. BACKGROUND: At the May 22, 2006 City Council Study Session the Council discussed the possibility of creating a new zoning district for larger lot residential development and adopting an “Interim Ordinance.” Council directed Staff to bring an “Interim Ordinance” forward for the consideration. Recent applications for subdivisions have prompted a request to consider a larger lot zoning district for areas of the city where larger lots may prevail. We have received two subdivision applications and have one additional application pending in the R-1 zoning district. The proposed Interim Ordinance would allow the City to deny these requests until the proposed study is completed (does not include the Hill Lane subdivision). PROPOSAL: Proposed is an “Interim Ordinance” or moratorium which would put a hold on consideration of subdivisions in the R-1 zoning district. Under state law, the City is allowed to adopt such an ordinance in order to study a particular issue. The proposed ordinance was drafted by the City Attorney and is attached for your consideration Study on this issue would include analysis of the R-1zoning areas of the city, in particular those with larger lots. Standards such as lot size, lot width, lot coverage and setbacks will be studied in areas that have larger than required lot sizes. TIMING: It is anticipated the Planning Staff will analyze information and bring forth recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. We expect to provide the Council with the study by mid-September. If a new ordinance is proposed, an additional 2-3 months will be required for adoption. Because of State law requirements make it difficult to extend the Interim Ordinance, the City Attorney has advised adopting it for a one year period, with the ability to lift it at any time. The Ordinance could be lifted if a new zoning district is created or the study is completed. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends adopting the attached ordinance and directing staff to prepare a study related to large lot, R-1 zoned areas of the City. Attachment: Resolution Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8c - First Reading Of An Interim Ordinance Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. _________-06 OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN INTERIM ORDINANCE TEMPORARILY PROHIBITING THE SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Background. 1.01. Authority. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355, Subd. 4., the City is authorized to establish interim ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit any use or development in all or a part of the City while the City is conducting studies, or has authorized a study to be conducted, or has scheduled a hearing to consider adoption or amendment of the comprehensive plan or official zoning controls. The City declares that this Interim Ordinance is established pursuant to the aforementioned statute. 1.02. Findings and Purpose. There is concern that the City’s current Official Controls do not adequately address issues relating to lot size, lot configuration, design standards and other Official Controls in the R-1 Single-Family Residence District. As a result of these important land use and zoning issues, the City planning staff should conduct a study for the purpose of consideration of possible amendments to the City’s Official Controls to address these issues. The City finds that this Interim Ordinance must be adopted to protect the planning process while this study is conducted. 1.03. Planning Study. The areas within the City zoned R-1 Single-Family Residence District are hereby declared to be collectively an interim planning study area with respect to Official Controls in the district. The City Council is directing the City planning staff to commence a study of the City’s Official Controls relating to the R-1 District and to propose such amendments to the Official Controls that the planning staff deems necessary. SECTION 2. Definitions. The following terms when used in this ordinance shall mean: Official Controls: Ordinances and regulations which control the physical development of the City or any part thereof or any detail thereof and implement the general objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, including ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision controls, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, building codes, and official maps. Plat: “Plat” means the drawing or map prepared for filing of record pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 505 and containing all elements and requirements set forth in applicable local regulations adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.358 and Minnesota Statutes Chapter 505. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8c - First Reading Of An Interim Ordinance Page 3 Subdivision: The separation of an area, parcel, or tract of land under single ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, lots, or long-term leasehold interests where the creation of the leasehold interest necessitates the creation of streets, roads, or alleys, for residential, commercial, industrial, or other use or any combination thereof, except those separations: A. Where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots, or interests will be 20 acres or larger in size and 500 feet in width for residential uses and five acres or larger in size for commercial and industrial uses; B. Creating cemetery lots; C. Resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary. SECTION 3. Prohibition. Pending the completion of the above referenced planning study and the adoption of appropriate Official Controls by the City Council, no subdivision or plat of property zoned R-1 Single-Family Residence District shall be processed or approved and no application for such approvals shall be accepted. SECTION 4. Exemptions. This ordinance shall not apply to the final plat approval of a subdivision that has been given preliminary plat approval prior to the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 5. Enforcement. The City may enforce this ordinance by injunction or any other appropriate civil remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction. SECTION 6. Effective Date and Duration. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication and shall remain in effect until the effective date of any Official Controls contemplated hereunder which are adopted by the City Council or August 1, 2007, whichever occurs first. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 19, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: City Clerk City Attorney St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8d - Regional Trail Crossing Improvements Page 1 8d. Consider Regional Trail Crossing Improvements This report requests that the City Council approve staff recommended improvements to Regional Trail Crossings of City Streets Recommended Action: Motion to approve the staff recommended regional trail crossing improvements described in the staff report BACKGOUND: The attached memo from Mike Rardin dated May 26, 2006 provides relevant background information and possible changes which could be considered for the SWLRT Regional Trail crossings on Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue. On Thursday, June 1, City staff implemented the “immediate” actions at both crossings as described in the memo (removed the white crosswalk pavement markings and increased size of trail signs so all trail users must now stop and yield to vehicles). On June 1 staff made arrangements for a traffic consultant to evaluate these two (2) crossings to determine if they can be converted to pedestrian crossings and, if so, how that could be done (signals, medians, etc.). Finally, city forces installed a temporary paved trail on the east side of Wooddale Avenue from Highway 7 to W. 36th Street so pedestrians desiring to use the trail may safely cross Wooddale Avenue at either W. 36th Street or Highway 7. In addition to the above two (2) crossings, there are four (4) trail crossings on the “Hutch Spur” Regional Trail located at W. 36th Street, W. 34th Street, W. 31st Street, and Virginia Avenue. These crossings are signed as “Trail Crossings”, but also have white crosswalk pavement markings. As such, bicyclists are required to stop and yield to vehicles and vehicles are required to stop and yield to pedestrians. The above was reviewed with the City Council at the Study Session of June 12. Council discussed options, safety, and long term improvements at these crossing locations and provided input to staff. Staff was directed to prepare an action item for Council consideration based on this input. Problem Statement: Safety at “midblock trail crossings” is a concern. The marking of midblock trail crossings with crosswalk pavement markings leads to confusion over right of way between vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists and thus raises concerns over the safety of all trail users. Regardless of who has the right of way, when accidents happen pedestrians and bicyclists always lose to vehicles. At this time safety does not appear to be a significant concern where volumes of vehicles or trail users (or both) are low; with low being difficult to quantify. Other factors that affect midblock trail crossing safety are: 1. Uniformity of trail crossing signing and marking. 2. Vehicle driver sight distances. 3. Driver distractions. 4. Crossing width. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8d - Regional Trail Crossing Improvements Page 2 EVALUATION: In general the following actions can be taken to increase trail user safety at midblock trail crossings: 1. Eliminate confusion over user right of way (have either a trail crossing or a pedestrian crossing). 2. Maximize signage and markings. 3. Minimize crossing widths. 4. Provide medians (safety havens) 5. Signalize crossings. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the above discussion, staff is recommending Council approve the following changes at the Regional Trail Crossings in the city: 1. Beltline Boulevard a. Remove the white crosswalk pavement markings (previously completed). b. Narrow the traffic lanes and add a median (safe haven) with appropriate warning signs and markings. c. Study the feasibility of converting the trail crossing to a pedestrian crossing. d. Support the Park District trail/street grade separation project funded for 2010. 2. Wooddale Avenue a. Remove the white crosswalk pavement markings (previously completed). b. Close the existing trail crossing and relocate it south to the pedestrian crossing on the north side of W36th Street. c. Study the feasibility of converting the trail crossing to a pedestrian crossing. d. Develop a future project to grade separate the Regional Trail from Wooddale Avenue. 3. “Hutch Spur” Crossings (4) a. Remove the white crosswalk pavement markings. b. Revise trail signs as follows: • Increase the trail stop signs to 24” • Add “Cross Traffic Does Not Stop” plaque beneath the trail stop sign • Replace the educational signs with larger signs saying “ALL TRAIL USERS MUST STOP AND YIELD”. 4. All Regional Trail Crossings (6) a. Install black on white educational signs along the trail approximately 100 feet before each street stating THIS CROSSING IS NOT A CROSSWALK STATE LAW REQUIRES ALL TRAIL USERS TO STOP AND YIELD TO VEHICLES St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8d - Regional Trail Crossing Improvements Page 3 SUMMARY: Staff has increased public education efforts aimed at improving trail crossing safety. In addition, Three Rivers Park District intends to: 1. Continue a Park District public safety presence aimed at public education and trail stop sign enforcement. 2. Develop and implement a trail user safety education program. 3. Monitor trail crossings at Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue to assess the effectiveness of the recent crossing changes made by the City. Attachments: Mike Rardin Memo dated 5/26/06 Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8d - Regional Trail Crossing Improvements Page 4 Public Works Department 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 (952) 924-2555 Fax: (952) 924-2663 TO: Tom Harmening, City Manager FROM: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director DATE: May 26, 2006 SUBJECT: SW Regional Trail - Crossing Improvements (final) Wooddale Ave and Beltline Blvd INTRODUCTION: This memo provides background information and proposed changes to the SW Regional Trail crossings on Wooddale Ave and Beltline Blvd. These changes are being proposed as a result of safety concerns at these two trail crossings. There is a very high volume of both trail users and vehicle traffic at both of these crossings. In addition, there appears to be confusion with both trail users and vehicle operators over right of way requirements at these crossings. These crossings were installed as part of a multi-year regional trail project by the Three Rivers Park District about 2000. It appears these crossings were installed as a part of the project to provide for convenient midblock trail crossings. It also appears the original intent at these crossings was for trail users to stop and yield to vehicles on the roadway. BACKGROUND: Since the SW Regional Trail was constructed, trail usage along with vehicle traffic at these two crossings has increased to the point where safety of trail users at these crossings is a concern. Late last year additional trail signs and trail pavement markings were installed in an attempt to increase crossing safety by enhancing educational and enforcement efforts - aimed primarily at trail users. It does not appear those efforts have had any significant impact on safety at these two crossings. The main problems appear to be high volumes of trail users and vehicle traffic, wide midblock street crossings, and confusion over right of way. To clarify current state statute and regulations: vehicles are required to stop and yield to pedestrians at crosswalks; trail users are required to stop and yield to vehicles at trail crossings. These crossings were intended to be and are signed as trail crossings, but they also have crosswalk pavement markings which legally establish them as crosswalks. It appears that bicyclists are required to yield to vehicles on the roadway while vehicles on the roadway are required to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalks. This is confusing to trail users and vehicle operators. EVALUATION: The situation at both crossings appears unacceptable and should be changed. In general, remedies to this would be to eliminate the crossings; relocate them to a safer location; or, revise them to provide for positive stop and right of way controls. Specifically, the following options have been identified for consideration: St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8d - Regional Trail Crossing Improvements Page 5 BELTLINE BLVD. 1. close the existing crossing for use 2. provide for a grade separated facility (currently funded for 2010) 3. relocation of the existing crossing: a. north to County Road 25, or b. south to Park Glen Road 4. convert the existing crossing to a trail crossing by removing the crosswalk markings which would then provide vehicles with clear right of way over all trail users 5. convert the existing crossing to a pedestrian crossing which would then provide pedestrians with clear right of way over vehicle traffic a. install a signed and marked crosswalk; or, b. install a pedestrian activated traffic signal WOODDALE AVE. 1. close the existing crossing for use 2. provide for a grade separated facility (requested but not funded) 3. relocation of the existing crossing: a. north to Hwy 7, or b. south to W36th Street 4. convert the existing crossing to a trail crossing by removing the crosswalk markings which would then provide vehicles with clear right of way over all trail users The city is the legal authority for these street crossings and has the power to decide and act in the manner it deems in the best interests of the public with regard to the situation described and options provided above. In doing so, the City has the discretion to consider such environmental, social, economic and/or financial impacts it deems warranted under the circumstances. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the immediate actions (in terms of days) described below be taken at the earliest opportunity and the short term (in terms of months) and long term (in terms of years) actions be considered for approval by the City Council. BELTLINE BLVD. Immediate (days) – convert the existing crossing to a trail crossing (as originally intended) which would then provide vehicle traffic with clear right of way over all trail users crossing the street. To do so would entail: 1. removal of the white crosswalk pavement markings 2. replacement of the 18”x18” trail “stop” signs with 24”x24” stop signs 3. installation of a “Cross Traffic Does Not Stop” plaque (R1-X2) beneath the 24” trail stop sign 4. replacement of the black on white trail educational signs with larger black on white educational signs stating “ALL TRAIL USERS MUST STOP AND YIELD” St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 061906 - 8d - Regional Trail Crossing Improvements Page 6 Short Term (months) – consider: 1. the possibility of improving the street crossing as follows • narrow the traffic lanes to 11 feet wide • installation of a 6 foot wide median through the area with a 14 foot gap at the trail location • installation of a white stop “bar” and a “stop” pavement marking for trail users in the median area • installation of advance “street narrows” warning signs • installation of reflectorized warning posts on the median along with painting the median yellow 2. studying the feasibility of converting the existing crossing to a pedestrian crossing which would then provide pedestrians with clear right of way over vehicle traffic. This could possibly be accomplished with the installation of a signed and marked crosswalk or a pedestrian activated traffic signal. Long Term (years) – support the Three Rivers Park District proposal/project intended to grade separate the Regional Trail from Beltline Blvd. WOODDALE AVE. Immediate (days) – convert the existing crossing to a trail crossing (as originally intended) which would then provide vehicle traffic with clear right of way over all trail users crossing the street. To do so would entail: 1. removal of the white crosswalk pavement markings 2. replacement of the 18”x18” trail “stop” signs with 24”x24” stop signs 3. installation of a “Cross Traffic Does Not Stop” plaque (R1-X2) beneath the 24” trail stop sign 4. replacement of the small black on white trail educational signs with larger signs stating “ALL TRAIL USERS MUST STOP AND YIELD” Short Term (months) – close the existing crossing and relocate it north to the signalized pedestrian crossing at Hwy 7 and construct an 8 foot wide bituminous surfaced trail on the east side of Wooddale Ave from Hwy 7 to W36th Street. Long Term (years) – support efforts to develop and fund a project to grade separate the Regional Trail from Wooddale Ave. SUMMARY: Based on the safety concerns at these two trail crossings, staff is proposing the “immediate” actions described above be taken at both crossings at the earliest opportunity. A staff report will be prepared for Council to consider the proposed short and long term actions during June. In addition to the actions proposed above, staff is determining ways to partner with Three Rivers Park District to improve enforcement at these (and all other) trail crossings along with increased educational efforts directed not only at trail users, but also at our city residents.