HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/07/17 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
July 17, 2006
7:30 PM
5:30 p.m. Box Lunch
6:00 p.m. Study Session
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Keep America Beautiful Grant
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes of May 22, 2006
3b. Study Session Minutes of June 5, 2006
3c. City Council Minutes of June 19, 2006
3d. Study Session Minutes of June 26, 2006
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
Action: Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items listed on
the consent calendar
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to
move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to
approve those items remaining on the consent calendar).
5. Boards and Commissions
6. Public Hearings
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. Highway 7 Corporate Center – Conditional Use Permit and Variances
Location: 7003 Lake Street, 6651 Highway 7, 3625 and 3629 Hampshire Avenue
Case No.: 06-47-CUP & 06-48-VAR
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow
more than 50% office use in the IP Industrial Park
District, subject to conditions
Motion to approve front yard building setback variance
Motion to approve a subdivision variance waiving the
sidewalk requirement along the east side of Monitor Street
Motion to approve a parking lot internal landscaping
variance, subject to conditions
9. Communications
10. Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL
MEETING OF July 17, 2006
SECTION 4: CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Resolution Final Payment Park Construction, Inc. (Lamplighter Pond 20001800)
4b. Resolution Final Payment Ettel and Franz – St. Louis Park Police Station Re-Roof
4c. Resolution for Minor Amendment to Brookside School PUD
4d. Motion to approve the issuance of a Taxable TIF Revenue Note, Series 2006A, in an
original aggregate principal amount not to exceed $1,725,000 to facilitate the
development of the first phase of the Hoigaard Village mixed-use project.
4e.
Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Penn Contracting, Inc. the lowest responsible
bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of
$199,485.00 for the Parkwoods Road Watermain Replacement – City Project No.
2006-1900
4f. Motion to approve the attached resolution establishing a special assessment for the
repair of the sewer service line at 3304 Zarthan Avenue South.
4g. Housing Authority Minutes of May 10, 2006 for Filing
4h. BOZA Minutes of May 25, 2006 for Filing
4i. Vendor Claims for Filing
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 2a - Keep America Beautiful Grant
Page 1
2a. Keep America Beautiful Grant
PURPOSE:
To provide the City Council with information on the Keep America Beautiful Grant awarded to
the city and the proposed St. Louis Park Green Business Program. A representative of Waste
Management will be presenting the grant dollars to the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park was nominated by Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc. and granted
$3,000 from Keep America Beautiful, Inc. In 2005 Waste Management staff, Mayor Jacobs and
city staff met with Everett Bass from the Waste Management Corporate office. Mr. Bass thought
the grant would be a good fit for the city and nominated St. Louis Park. Keep America
Beautiful, Inc., working in partnership with Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc., is providing
$3,000 grants to twenty communities to help tackle key community improvement issues.
"Think Green" grants may be used to implement or continue educational and environmental
stewardship initiatives. Past projects have included environmental education, illegal dumping
issues, tree re-planting, recycling events and e-cycling.
NEW INITIATIVE:
Staff is developing a program to focus on environmental stewardship in the business community.
This program is modeled after a similar program at Dakota Valley Recycling (cities of Apple
Valley, Burnsville and Eagan). The St. Louis Park Green Business Program is designed to
recognize local businesses that make environmentally friendly choices in managing their
resources, such as recycling waste, reducing packaging or reuse of materials.
Incentives for applicants are education and publicity such as a listing on a membership roll on
the City’s web site, ads in the Sun Sailor, council recognition, and a plaque at an awards
function. Application criteria have been determined by staff and the application form is being
developed by City Image. The application will be mailed in July to all businesses. The
application will be in the Sun Sailor on August 17, 2006 and available on the city web site. In
September staff will evaluate applications on an individual basis for each business to determine
whether the business is an environmental steward based on the application submitted.
Businesses will be notified in October if they qualify as a St. Louis Park Green Business.
After the initial application process, the applications will be ongoing with no deadline. The
membership roll of awardees will be ever-increasing. Annually, around America Recycles Day
(November 15), the City will advertise the Green Business members and the new businesses.
The program should be sustainable through staff support and other resources.
Prepared by: Sarah Hellekson, Public Works Administrative Specialist
Scott Merkley, Public Works Administrative Coordinator
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3a - Study Session Minutes Of May 22, 2006
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
May 22, 2006
The meeting convened at 6:26 p.m.
Councilmembers present: John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran
Paprocki, Susan Sanger, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening); Community Development Director (Mr. Locke);
Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt); Planning & Zoning Supervisor (Ms.
McMonigal); Management Assistant (Ms. Honold); City Clerk (Ms. Stroth); City Attorney (Mr.
Knutson) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson).
Charter Commission Members present:
Lynne Carper, Steve Fillbrandt, Marilyn Hoeft, Jim de Lambert, Brian Fiderlein, Tessia Gardner,
Linda Jennings, Jan Loftus, John Orenstein
Guests present: Tony Solgard from FairVote Minnesota; Roger Knutson from Campbell
Knutson; Mike Gair from McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. (MFRA); Duane Spiegle, Vice
President Real Estate Park Nicollet; Ben Oehler, Chairman of EDI Major Gifts Campaign; Carol
Tappen, EDI Director of Operations; Joel Jahraus, Department Chairman and Medical Director
of EDI; John Herman, Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer; C. Bowman,
Park Nicollet Foundation; Mick Johnson, President of Park Nicollet Foundation and Senior Vice
President; Jim Brimeyer, Political Advisory Committee; Katie Walker, Southwest Study
Manager; Kathie Dotie, from KLD Consulting and Public Outreach Coordinator from Southwest
Transitway, and Larry Pobuda, United Properties
1. Instant Run-Off Voting (Joint Meeting with Charter Commission)
Tony Solgard, president of FairVote Minnesota, presented information on Instant Runoff Voting
(IRV).
There was discussion regarding the question: Is IRV authorized in statute. Mr. Knutson of
Campbell Knutson said no city wants to risk spoiling an election, and thinks a declaratory
judgment action would not suffice. Mr. Knutson suggested the City should obtain an opinion
from the attorney general’s office before changing the Charter. In Mr. Knutson’s opinion,
implementing IRV for local elections would likely involve a legal challenge by the State and/or
the candidate who loses the election.
Councilmember Carver said he thinks it would be worthwhile to pursue IRV. Councilmember
Carver called attention to the report in the Council’s packet called Non-Partisan Municipal
Election Results. He said for the benefit of less than 1,000 who came out to vote, the City spent
$20,000 to run the 2005 Primary election for Ward 1 and Ward 4. Councilmember Carver said
from a cost perspective, IRV is worthwhile.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3a - Study Session Minutes Of May 22, 2006
Page 2
City Clerk Nancy Stroth remarked that municipal primaries are regulated by City Charter and
occur whenever three or more candidates file for office.
Councilmember Sanger said perhaps the current amount of 15 signatures required for the
nomination petition should be increased.
Mayor Jacobs said the consequences to change from the current voting method to IRV could be
catastrophic, he would be uncomfortable changing to IRV until there is clear statutory authority
to do so.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested the Charter Commission look at Councilmember Sanger’s
suggestion to require more signatures to get on the ballot as an alternative method and to
consider eliminating primaries, and to study the legality and associated costs of IRV.
Councilmember Sanger said a formal recommendation from the Charter Commission to the
Council is not necessary; she doesn’t want this to go to a referendum.
Management Assistant Marcia Honold asked for direction. Councilmember Carver suggested
the timing be controlled by the next legislative session, i.e., introduce IRV to the legislators. A
complete study would probably need to be done by the end of this year.
2. Bass Lake Site Concept Development Plans (Park Nicollet)
Community Development Coordinator Kevin Locke said the goal tonight is not to pick a site
plan or development proposal but to show what could be done on the Bass Lake site. Consultant
Mike Gair, with MFRA, presented 10 exhibits depicting various development scenarios.
Larry Pobuda, a United Properties representative, presented site plans on EDI and parking
options A-E, and many of the scenarios were similar to those Mr. Gair presented.
Councilmember Sanger asked how many acres would EDI and its ramp take up. Mr. Pobuda
said EDI would cover about three acres on the northern portion of the site.
Mayor Jacobs said an ends discussion is needed for tonight, not a specific design. City Manager
Tom Harmening said the site plans suggest possibilities only. Mr. Harmening asked Council if
they think this is a good location for an EDI.
Councilmember Sanger said the staff report seemed to suggest that single-family housing would
not be feasible due soil contaminants. She would like to know more about the soil issues.
Economic Development Coordinator Greg Hunt said this was a dump site. It contains ash
material and general rubbish he said. A 2003 study showed there is about 70,000 cubic yards of
debris, elevated levels of a number of heavy metals, and some petroleum products as well.
Mr. Locke is intrigued by an integration of an arts center and an EDI. He noted that
environmental standards for residential uses are much more stringent than for non-residential
uses. There would not be cost effective options for single family homes.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3a - Study Session Minutes Of May 22, 2006
Page 3
Councilmember Carver thinks a guiding principle needs to be a shared parking idea, and that
should direct what occurs at this site. He likes the multi-use scenario, the hotel + EDI + heart
center. He continues to favor an arts center or performing arts center. Councilmember Carver
thinks an EDI does fit here. He said there may be an opportunity to go higher here, in terms of
building heights. Councilmember Carver doesn’t care for any of the residential that was shown
because it doesn’t fit.
Councilmember Finkelstein agrees with Councilmember Carver’s comments. Councilmember
Finkelstein is concerned about the ownership interest and he mentioned a put option. Mayor
Jacobs said one of the guiding principles should be not only shared parking but also to maximize
the benefit to the buildings to be built on that space, i.e., EDI.
Councilmember Paprocki asked about move up housing on the Bass Lake site. Aside from the
soils issues, he took issue with the statement on page four of the staff report: “the Bass Lake site
is not considered a strong single family residential site. This is primarily due to the site’s
isolation from other single family homes.”
Councilmember Sanger said the environmental problems are a concern but other forms of move
up housing can be considered, perhaps a high-rise condominium building. She agrees with the
concept of shared parking. Councilmember Sanger said retaining public access should be
maintained and there are other institutional uses to consider.
Councilmember Omodt also agrees with many of Councilmember Carver’s comments. He
thinks it would be a bad site for single-family homes; he strongly favors working with Park
Nicollet.
Councilmember Basill said his reservation now is with the contamination, and does not think this
site is a good use for single-family homes. He said Council owes Park Nicollet some type of
direction. Councilmember Basill said a parking ramp would probably be needed or perhaps
underground parking.
Mr. Harmening said no one is being asked to make a decision tonight. Mr. Harmening asked if
the Council wants staff to work seriously with EDI and put together a deal, and if so, the next
step would be to come up with a preliminary development agreement. Councilmember Sanger
asked if the entire site would be sold to United Properties, and what controls would Council have
over the remaining 1/3 of the site. Councilmember Basill said the parking issue must be
addressed up front.
The consensus was to move forward with EDI on the site; staff will prepare a draft preliminary
development agreement for Council approval.
3. Southwest Transitway Update (Jim Brimeyer)
Jim Brimeyer represents the city on the Policy Advisory Committee for the Southwest Transit
Corridor study. He said to determine the preferred alternative would be easier than the larger
issue, which is the funding issue. Mr. Brimeyer said a funding subcommittee has been set up,
and a cost effective index (CEI) has been established.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3a - Study Session Minutes Of May 22, 2006
Page 4
Mr. Harmening asked if St. Louis Park could receive funding assistance from the Rail Authority
to help pay for a grade separate crossing at Wooddale and Highway 7. Katie Walker, Southwest
Study Manager, responded with a formula for CEI. Mr. Brimeyer will return in October.
4. Interim Ordinance—Subdivisions in the R-1 Zoning District
Planning and Zoning Supervisor Meg McMonigal presented the staff report, which suggested the
Council discuss the idea of an “Interim Ordinance” for subdivisions in the R-1 Zoning District.
It was noted that since the previous study session, when a moratorium was discussed, two new
subdivision applications had been received. For this reason, the item was brought back to the
Council tonight. A change to the suggested six month timeframe was recommended by the city
attorney, as he believes no extension would be available.
Councilmember Omodt doesn’t see a case to be made for a moratorium; he doesn’t favor a
moratorium. Councilmember Sanger favors a moratorium to study single-family lots in the R-1
district.
Ms. McMonigal said the interim ordinance would apply to subdivisions that don’t have
preliminary approval yet. Councilmember Carver asked if one is pending now that doesn’t have
preliminary approval. Ms. McMonigal replied yes. Councilmember Carver doesn’t like the
moratorium idea, an interim ordinance should be used only for study.
Councilmember Omodt said a moratorium makes a bad impression. Councilmember Carver said
it feels ex post facto. Mayor Jacobs agrees.
The next step will be to set a first reading for an interim ordinance on the Council agenda for
June 5th. The Hill Lane item will be on the Council agenda for June 19th for approval or denial of
subdivision ordinance.
5. Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Mr. Harmening and the Council discussed study session agenda planning.
No Council meeting will be held on July 3rd.
The meeting ended at 9:50 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3b - Study Session Minutes Of June 5, 2006
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
June 5, 2006
The meeting convened at 6:33 p.m.
Councilmembers present: John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran
Paprocki, Susan Sanger, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening); Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin); and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson).
1. Highway 100 Revised Layout and Options
Public Works Director Mike Rardin said MnDOT is requesting feedback regarding a Highway
100 underpass in the West 26th Street area. Mr. Rardin and the Council discussed the pros and
cons of Options 1-4. Mr. Rardin said he thinks a public information meeting could be held to get
public feedback. However, traffic data for each scenario may not be available in time for the
meeting.
Councilmember Carver commented that the idea of an underpass or a pass-through is a positive
thing in terms of the ability for pedestrian traffic or bike traffic to pass, specifically bike traffic.
Councilmembers will meet with Mr. Rardin in small groups or individually for more detailed
information.
The meeting ended at 7:15 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of June 19, 2006
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
June 19, 2006
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran
Paprocki and Susan Sanger
Councilmember C. Paul Carver was absent.
Staff present: Associate Planner (Mr. Fulton), City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney
(Mr. Jamnik), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Public Works Director (Mr.
Rardin), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-
Peterson).
2. Presentations
2a. 394 MnPass Lanes Update
John Doan, MnPass Program Director updated Council on 394 MnPass and noted it was
working safely, reliably and as intended.
Councilmember Paprocki asked about the average increase in speeds. Mr. Doan replied it
depended on which point in the corridor.
Councilmember Paprocki asked about the cost benefit of MnPass. Mr. Doan replied at its
current rate, they were self funding and able to cover operating costs.
Councilmember Basill stated he hoped if they were planning changes in the future, it
would be prioritized after the Highway 100 full-build project.
Councilmember Finkelstein expressed concerns and thought toll roads alone would solve
the transportation needs. The Legislature needed to discuss what was needed and how
they would pay for it.
3. Approval of Minutes - None
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.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of June 19, 2006
Page 2
4a. 2006 Street Sealcoat Project: 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: 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. Approve contract with URS for Environmental Review for Duke Realty Property,
authorize Mayor and City Manager to sign contract.
4d. 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. Approve Resolution No. 06-103 establishing a special assessment for the repair
of the sewer service line at 2515 Pennsylvania Avenue.
4f. Approve Resolution No. 06-104 establishing a special assessment for the repair
of the water service line at 3377 Library Lane
4g. Approve Resolution No. 06-105 establishing a special assessment for the repair of
the sewer service line at 4053 Quentin Avenue
4h. 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. Approve Resolution No. 06-106 to set Public Hearing for Private Activity
Refunding Bonds - 3610 Phillips Parkway
4j. 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. Adopt Resolution No. 06-107 ordering an Alternative Urban Areawide Review
(AUAR) for the Duke Realty property located in the southwest corner of
Highways 394 and 100.
4l. Accept Planning Commission Minutes of May 17, 2006
4m. Accept Vendor Claims for filing (supplement)
It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Paprocki, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 6-0.
5. Boards and Commissions
5a. Housing Authority Commissioner Reappointment
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to
reappoint a citizen representative, Catherine Courtney, to serve on the St. Louis Park
Housing Authority until June 30, 2011.
6. Public Hearings - None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of June 19, 2006
Page 3
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. 2221 Hill Lane Plat and CUP for Excavation
Mr. Fulton presented the staff report.
Norm Bjorness, counsel for James Johnson, stated when Mr. Johnson bought the
property, it was possible to subdivide the lots. He went through the process and wanted
to build two move-up homes that would fit with the neighborhood. They complied with
the subdivision requirements and believed they had addressed the CUP. Neighbors
concerns regarding the site conditions would be addressed through contractor liability
coverage.
Vern Swedborg, project architect, reviewed the design objectives and features of the
proposed homes. The proposal was to build move-up housing. He showed designs of
what homes built at the maximums could look like.
Ellen McGrattan, 4636 Cedarwood, stated allowing the proposed subdivision would take
away from neighbors’ property value. An alternate lot subdivision with one house in the
middle of the lot would be a better alternative.
Mary Kay Stranik, 4711 Cedarwood Rd, indicated concern about the excavation, the
vibrations from the railroad tracks, the flow of water into the neighboring properties,
safety at the driveways, the character of the neighborhood, and retaining larger lot sizes.
Nathan Curland, 4707 Cedarwood Rd, was concerned about the proposed lots sizes and
drainage.
Sandra Stanley, 2205 S. Hill Ln., agreed with Ms. Stranik’s points and was concerned
with the soil removal, retaining walls and the effect it would have when trains cause
vibrations.
Bette Globus Goodman, 2211 S. Hill Ln., stated she was concerned with the proposal
because her property abutted Mr. Johnson’s. Two surveyors told her they would need to
put in retaining walls to keep the land secure. She was concerned about loss of
vegetation, land values and safety. If lot sizes were increased it would impact her
directly. She felt two homes were not appropriate for the size of lot.
Councilmember Sanger asked how close the home would be to her house? Ms. Globus
Goodman replied the house would be 12 feet from the property line.
Sharon Abelson, 4340 Cedarwood Rd, President of the Lake Forest Neighborhood Assn,
indicated the average lot size in the neighborhood was over 18,600 sq. ft. and some over
60,000 sq. ft. Many are wooded and undeveloped areas, which made the neighborhood
special and added to property values. Residents were concerned about crowded housing,
about the CUP, the uncertainty of the final plans and about excavation.
Joy Peterson, 2301 Westridge Ln., stated she shared the concerns that had been
expressed, including drainage issues. She was concerned about construction techniques,
soil removal, vibrations and if the damage happened at a later date or over time, who
would be responsible for the damages.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of June 19, 2006
Page 4
Cindy Baumann, 2300 Parkwoods Rd, indicated many of the lots could be subdivided in
this area and there could ultimately be many houses in a neighborhood not set up for it.
She suggested the developer put in place restrictive covenants on how the lots be built
upon the future. She wanted to see changes in the ordinance.
Sharon Segal, 2211 Parklands Rd, indicated she lived in one of the new homes built in
the last few years and was attracted to the neighborhood because of the open space.
Move up housing wasn’t about how much money someone can pour into a house in the
smallest amount of space, it was about having space.
Mark Globus, 2211 S. Hill Rd, stated he was concerned the developer was squeezing into
the minimum lot size. His mother’s land abutted the proposed development and he
requested a bond be posted during the development process to assure the retaining walls
were built to quality standards. The damage would likely happen down the road. If there
was an issue, the bond could be utilized. He suggested only one house be built.
Ward Johnson, 2200 S Hill Ln., distributed a packet of information with photos of
neighboring homes built in the last ten years and property tax information. Two homes
could generate $10,000/year each in taxes, which would benefit the City and the schools.
Of the 197 lots in the neighborhood, 23 would qualify for a potential lot division. Only
11% of the lots could be subdivided. Of the eight newer homes in the neighborhood, the
landscaping had grown and made the homes fit with the neighborhood. Three
consecutive Park Perspectives contained articles about the need for housing.
Bob Andrews, 2324 Parkwoods Rd, stated that 23 lots being subdivided would be quite a
bit. Residents could also combine side lots to form a new lot. A lot of money is being
put into this neighborhood and if the neighborhood loses faith, people won’t keep putting
money into their homes.
Dr. Lorraine Boyle, 4007 Cedarwood Rd, commented she was not in favor of the
subdivision and did not think it was in the best interest of the neighborhood to subdivide.
She was concerned about her neighbor’s loss in value.
Councilmember Sanger stated she received an outpouring of information from the
neighborhood, the biggest concerns was the character of the neighborhood. It wasn’t just
an issue of square footage, it was how close the homes were. City Council had been
talking about the need for move up housing, but they wanted houses to fit within the
neighborhood. Other concerns was the land being excavated, parcels being steep and
impact on the stability of the soil. Third, were safety issues and the blind curve. The
homes would start at ten feet above the road and would tower over homes across the
street and make it out of character with the neighborhood. She would not be opposed to a
subdivision that would permit one new home. Subdivision Ordinance 26-160, permits
the Council to consider other factors in a subdivision proposal, and they could require
larger lot sizes. That would accomplish one new move up house and permit the property
owner to sell a portion and still retain the character of the neighborhood.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger to direct staff to prepare a resolution making
findings of fact and denying the proposed three lot plat and alternatively approving a two
lot subdivision involving the combination of the proposed two new lots into one lot.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of June 19, 2006
Page 5
Councilmember Sanger expressed a concern that the alternative subdivision into two lots
rather than three was not considered when it first came before the Planning Commission
who recommended approval because they were told they had no option.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked about the amount of discretion Council had. Mr.
Jamnik replied the Council had limited discretion in this area of land use. Courts have
generally indicated in open area subdivisions if an applicant met the minimum standards,
approval must be granted. There are slightly different facts here with infill and a replat
where the character of the community is established by an existing plat. Splitting
existing lots calls into it the Ordinance provision 26-160.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked about the city’s right to place restrictive covenants on
where the houses are located. Mr. Jamnik replied they were not restricted covenants,
they would be terms and conditions of the approval and within the City’s discretion.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked about posting bonds to ensure the retaining wall
doesn’t cause problems. Mr. Jamnik replied the security features are standard elements
of the subdivision ordinance, they don’t last past the warranty period (2 years) and
eventually become released. Infrastructure elements would be limited and only
potentially be a special term and condition on the retaining walls if the Council wanted
that and would be part of the final plans.
Councilmember Omodt asked Mr. Jamnik to talk about the applicant’s rights. Mr.
Jamnik replied the City Council establishes rules and regulations in the subdivision
regulations and if a person meets the specified standards, they can do certain things.
There is some discretion in the unique circumstances to consider other elements present
and why there was a variance provision to deal with hardships.
Councilmember Omodt asked if they have the right to appeal. Mr. Jamnik replied the
Courts generally apply a limited discretion standard to the local unit of government,
particularly in this situation.
Councilmember Omodt asked about tennis courts or a large structure to park cars. Mr.
Jamnik replied the discretion would be even more limited on the part of the City.
Councilmember Omodt indicated he had seen remodeling projects that changed the
character of the neighborhood. The applicant could remodel, put in tennis courts, etc. and
remove trees, which would have the same effect. The applicant had met the checklist for
this subdivision. Mr. Jamnik replied that was correct, the one that had not been met was
provision 26-160, the minimum design features, and the Council could contemplate
unique circumstances of the neighborhood and character of the development.
Councilmember Sanger believed the lot was unique because of the very steep slope. The
situation Councilmember Omodt was talking about was not the same because there was
no subdivision. Councilmember Omodt responded the point he was arguing was that
they might remove trees and have the same effect, but with a different structure. If a
person wanted to put in a large tennis court and take out the hill and put in a retaining
wall, there would be nothing they could do about it.
Councilmember Finkelstein seconded the motion.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of June 19, 2006
Page 6
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the Council had more discretion because they were
replatting an existing area. Mr. Jamnik replied that was one of the elements they would
argue applied in this situation. It was not an open tract, they were trying to infill and
create two additional lots out of an existing lot and fit within the character of the
community.
Councilmember Basill stated the legalities of this were unclear. When splitting lots, the
character of the housing in the neighborhood should be maintained and lot sizes
comparable. The Council had a fiscal responsibility and this should be something they
had discretion over. If these were separate, they couldn’t prevent the conditional use
permit. Mr. Fulton replied the conditional use permit required excavation of at least 400
cubic yards of soil because the applicant was requesting it for two lots. The reason it may
not be required if the subdivision was approved was that each lot may be less than 400
cubic yards.
Councilmember Basill believed they needed to take a look at this from a legal perspective
and have staff provide more information on case law.
Councilmember Paprocki felt the conditional use permit wasn’t ready and he didn’t
support it. The Council had supported subdivisions that had not met the minimums and
had approved them. This proposal met the minimums and the Council was considering
not approving it. He felt they needed to live by their own ordinances. The primary reason
they were looking to deny this was the character of the neighborhood and he felt it would
be heavy handed to deny this based primarily on that, if it met all of the other
requirements.
Councilmember Omodt stated he had legal concerns and because the applicant had met
the requirements, denying this put them in jeopardy of going to court. It was his right as
a property owner to do this. This may change the look of the neighborhood, but the
applicant had done diligent work to make sure the homes maintained the flavor of the
neighborhood with the trees and topography. Denying this was out of their purview.
Councilmember Finkelstein believed they did have the discretion to deny this and
approve only one additional lot. It wasn’t the same situation as 26th and France where the
land had been previously platted for four lots. The Council had discretion not to approve
this because of the topography and character of the neighborhood. They had no
guarantees what would be done or on the type of retaining system and how it would be
done.
Mayor Jacobs asked if the Council needed to make a decision tonight. Mr. Jamnik
replied they had until July 17th for final action.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked what effect a moratorium would have if they continued
this issue. Mr. Jamnik replied none.
Councilmember Sanger asked if this were continued to the next meeting and the motion
was approved, would it go to the following Council meeting for staff to come back with
findings and beyond 120 days? Mayor Jacobs indicated there was also Council meeting
on July 17th.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of June 19, 2006
Page 7
Councilmember Basill indicated they could have both motions prepared for July 10th and
wouldn’t need to delay it to July 17th. If they approved this, what design guidelines could
they apply and what could be protected regarding the retaining walls. The character of
housing and the lot sizes were important.
Councilmember Omodt noted they had a recent delayed vote on a property issue and in
the intervening time there was more disharmony. Delaying wasn’t always the best course
of action.
Mayor Jacobs stated he would like to think about this more. He didn’t realize they had
any discretion until now. They could also discuss this at the next study session. He
asked Councilmember Sanger if they could table the motion to July 10th?
Councilmember Sanger agreed.
The motion was tabled to the July 10, 2006 City Council meeting.
Mr. Harmening clarified the Council would like background information from the City
Attorney on the discretion they had within the Code and on July 10th they would look for
direction from the Council.
Councilmember Sanger added she would like additional information if a bonding
requirement were added and asked to what extent the Council has to add a bond
requirement greater than the standard of a two-year warranty. The second was the issue
of height limitations and height measured from the street, rather than on the hill.
The motion to table passed 5-1 with Councilmember Omodt opposed.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to
table the Resolution denying the Conditional Use Permit until the July 10th, 2006 City
Council meeting.
The motion passed 6-0.
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
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report.
Joshua Aaron, Parkway Development President and owner, indicated the City was
promoting larger homes by relaxing zoning regulations. He described the current home,
the lot and the proposed plan to build two homes. There was a hardship because lot lines
were established prior to the realignment of the street. The new homes would fit with the
character of the neighborhood. No variances were requested for building height, setback
or green space.
Jerry Steiner, Attorney representing Parkway Development, stated that the proposal was
in keeping with the neighborhood. The new homes would be an improvement. The
variance standards were met with this application and Mr. Aaron was entitled to approval
of the variance. The lots would have in excess of 80 feet of frontage from the front lot
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of June 19, 2006
Page 8
line. The Minnesota Supreme Court found that the owner needed to demonstrate they had
a property with unique attributes and what was being proposed was a reasonable use of
the property under the zoning ordinance. Variances were approved for other lots in this
area. The Planning Commission found grounds to approve the variance for the setback at
the front lot line. There was the same hardship for both variances.
Stan Maisel, 8015 W 18th St, stated this property had been a home for a family for many
years. By proposing to divide this into two lots, there would not be sufficient room. He
submitted a petition signed by immediate neighbors opposing development for more than
a single home. This would not conform to the character of the neighborhood. He
expressed concerns about the circular driveway.
Chris Clonts, 1821 Texas Av. S, indicated 3,000 sq. ft. was far from a technicality. There
were some uncommon things, one being the common driveway. It was creating a twin
home or duplex that was separated, which didn’t fit with the neighborhood. When you
put two homes where one used to be, you can destroy the rhythm of the neighborhood.
Brian Sobol, Attorney representing his father, felt an oak tree would be disturbed. The
request was for almost 25% variance from the 9,000 sq. ft. lot size. The applicant was a
real estate developer who should have known what the zoning requirements were. It was
disingenuous to argue a hardship. Only one of seven criteria for a variance had been met.
He didn’t believe there would be a 29’ buffer on either side of the homes.
Councilmember Paprocki commented his main concern was the lot size variance. The
petition submitted was not signed by anyone who immediately abutted the property and
he wondered what those neighbors thought.
Philip Carter, 1801 Texas Av. S, expressed concerns about additional use of water from
two homes, polluted soil in the yard, traffic and safety of the driveway in the winter.
They had not shown a superior development and he felt it would be similar to a cluster
development. He didn’t believe the property was unique and had no hardships to have a
variance approved.
Mr. Sobol clarified his father was next to this property.
Mr. Aaron stated they could build a 60’ wide home with at 6’ setback on a 75’ lot. The
homes would be proportionate to the neighborhood. His intentions were to put an addition
on when he purchased it, but the addition would be jogged and look out of place. They
had put in a new curb cut for safety of the driveway and planned to preserve the oak tree.
Councilmember Finkelstein indicated granting a variance was an extraordinary power
and discretion given to the Council and he found it was not met because the lot size
would be 23% less than what is required in a R1 unit. The applicant was asking for two
other variances. If the Council were to grant a variance, they would need all seven
conditions to be met. There was no undue hardship, it did not meet criteria number three
and was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right.
It also did not meet criteria number seven because it was not necessary to enjoy the use of
the property.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Basill, to
adopt Resolution No. 06-108 denying the application for preliminary plat with variances
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of June 19, 2006
Page 9
to lot size, lot width, and maximum driveway and parking area in the front yard for
property located at 1650 Texas Avenue South.
Councilmember Basill agreed with Councilmember Finkelstein and did not see the
hardship.
Councilmember Sanger agreed reasonable use could be made of this land without
granting any variances and did not support the variance request. She felt that Mr.
Steiner’s argument did not hold up and was saying because it was irregularly shaped that
was grounds for the Council to grant a variance. The issue was not the irregular shape,
the issue was not enough square footage by a significant amount.
Councilmember Omodt indicated the variance asked for was too much change. He
appreciated the work Mr. Aaron put into this, but the variance was too large.
Councilmember Paprocki stated he was a proponent for building move up housing, but he
had a problem with the size variance and felt the attitude of the neighbors showed that
they did not want this.
The motion passed 6-0.
8c. Interim Ordinance – First Reading of an Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting
the Subdivision of Property Located in the R-1 Single-Family Residence
District
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report.
Ellen McGrattan, 4636 Cedarwood, felt a study of lot size was worthwhile and she
moved to her neighborhood because of move up housing and move up lots.
Mark Kay Stranik, 4711 Cedarwood Rd, agreed with Ms. McGrattan.
Sharon Abelson, 4340 Cedarwood Rd, stated there were 200 lots in the Lake Forest
neighborhood and 198 houses, with average lot sizes over 18,000 sq. ft. Some lots could
potentially be divided a number of times. She would like to see a higher square footage
minimum for lots in this neighborhood.
Bette Globus Goodman, 2211 S. Hill Ln, indicated this ordinance would affect her
financially because she had 15-20,000 sq. ft. of property she would like to sell at some
point. She applied for a lot subdivision to preserve part of her estate.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if she had already applied for a subdivision? Ms.
Globus Goodman replied yes. She had been told if she divided her property it would be
buildable. She and her husband purchased an additional lot with their home, but did not
want to develop it. If lot size was increased substantially, she would not be able to
develop the property, which would make the investment worthless.
Mark Globus, 2211 S. Hill Ln, stated his stepfather purchased the property specifically
because there was a developable plat. There was an application to divide the property at
that time. This would be a substantial taking. His mother had no plans to develop this,
his stepfather left it as part of the estate. They were trying to preserve their future rights.
A precedent had been set with the 9,000 sq. ft. requirement.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of June 19, 2006
Page 10
Dede Karr, 2231 S. Hill Ln, indicated she was opposed to the change in lot size because
she had additional land that could be subdivided and would be part of her retirement
planning. They presently fulfilled all of the requirements and had almost 10,000 sq. feet.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if she had applied for subdivision? Ms. Karr replied
yes, it was being held while the moratorium was being pursued. Ms. McMonigal added
the two speakers had both submitted subdivision applications and they were on either
side of the Hill subdivision that Mr. Johnson proposed.
Mayor Jacobs asked if they passed this moratorium, what effect it would have on them?
Ms. McMonigal replied the City had the ability to deny the application until the
moratorium was lifted.
Councilmember Sanger stated if a moratorium passed, it would have no impact on Mr.
Johnson’s proposal, but would impact any other subdivision requests, including the two
they just heard. Ms. McMonigal stated they had 120 days to act on the subdivision
applications and if they came up before the moratorium was lifted, the City should act to
deny or approve the applications.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked what would happen if they had a moratorium for all
subdivisions that had not already been filed, Mr. Jamnik referred to page three, section
four of the draft ordinance, the ordinance would not apply to the final plat approval of a
subdivision that had been given preliminary plat approval prior to the effective date of the
ordinance. That was consistent with State Statute. No interim ordinance may halt, delay
or impede a subdivision that has been given preliminary approval.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked for the status of the three proposals. Ms. McMonigal
replied the Hill Lane subdivision had not received preliminary approval, however the
120-day period would run out before this ordinance could take effect. The other two had
submitted applications within the last week. If this ordinance becomes effective on
August 4, the City would not have to act by that time on the other two requests.
Cindy Baumann, 2300 Parkwoods Rd., believed the fact that two more subdivision
applications had been submitted illustrated why this moratorium was appropriate. The
moratorium was to allow the City to react to what the neighborhood was saying and they
wanted the neighborhood to stay the way it was into the future. She urged the Council to
put the moratorium into effect before many lot subdivision requests come in.
Bob Andrews, 2324 Parklands, agreed with Ms. Baumann that there was evidence that
people were going to subdivide lots, which would create damage. They did not know
what would come out of the moratorium and study. The ordinance was needed.
Councilmember Omodt spoke against the moratorium because it would be the whole city,
not just one neighborhood. This was saying the City’s current official controls didn’t
adequately address issues related to lot size, lot configuration, design standards and other
quality controls. Those processes were in place and they exercised that earlier by not
granting a variance. The Council had a lot of discretion in some instances, not in others.
He could see the same standard being applied to someone who didn’t like height in a
commercial building or affordable housing in one part of the City, so they do a
moratorium.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of June 19, 2006
Page 11
Councilmember Sanger stated she brought this up and it was not intended to change the
standards for R1 housing throughout the City. The moratorium was to look at whether
they should make changes, what kinds of changes in R1 areas and potentially create a
new district with larger lot size standards. A couple of areas needed a different zoning
district with larger lots to maintain the character, integrity and overall value of the
neighborhood. It didn’t need to be done in the whole city. The purpose of a moratorium
was to look at the issues, decide what changes are needed and create new zoning
standards. The Council had done so well talking about move up housing, it was now
being used to justify putting houses in places where they might not be appropriate. This
was a way to mitigate some of the excesses being created out of the good spirit of
creating move up housing.
Councilmember Finkelstein felt the moratorium made sense and this needed to be
studied. If they didn’t do this now, there may be a rush of further developments and
subdivisions. They weren’t taking away anyone’s property right at this point, they just
wanted to determine if it made sense.
Councilmember Omodt believed this did affect the whole City. They were specifically
talking about two neighborhoods. This was brought up as a reaction to something in one
neighborhood and he felt it was an overreaction. The Council talking about move up
affordable housing was reflective of what citizens were talking about. They had to look
out for the whole city. He disagreed with the moratorium and called the question.
Councilmember Sanger stated she did not make the suggestion in response to a particular
subdivision. She had been trying to protect neighborhoods, which was part of the reason
for a moratorium, figuring out where it made sense.
Councilmember Finkelstein added this was something they had talked about during the
26th and France debate when they discussed the need to protect vistas. Even if the
moratorium passed, it was not the first time it had been utilized in this City or in other
cities. There is a tension between the need for infill development versus people wanting
to protect the character of their neighborhoods. It didn’t hurt to study it.
Councilmember Omodt stated this had been talked about at only one study session and it
came up after Mr. Johnson’s subdivision.
Councilmember Basill asked for clarification that this would apply to all R1 properties in
the City. Ms. McMonigal replied yes.
Councilmember Basill indicated he was unsure about this and thought there was an
outpouring of support and unanimity from the neighborhood. He heard a different conflict
now and was not sure this was in the best interest of all residents and may adversely affect
some long-term residents that had done this as part of their estate planning. There needed
to be more discussion about the moratorium and how it would affect people.
Councilmember Paprocki stated this was people who had property with value and wanted
to get value out of that property. He suggested they didn’t draw this out if those residents
wanted to do something, they had clear direction on what was available.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of June 19, 2006
Page 12
Mayor Jacobs stated he generally didn’t like moratoriums and hadn’t made any decisions
on what changes should be implemented in the subdivision ordinance or to the minimum
lot size and asked what other information was needed. Councilmember Basill replied
initially they were concerned with developers purchasing lots. Now there were people
doing estate planning, who had intended to do projects after many years. It made this a
much greater decision. There may also be some areas zoned R3 that should be
considered. He would like to see how many lots there were in the area that could
possibly subdivide, look at the effect on people and the neighborhoods.
Councilmember Finkelstein believed it made sense to have a moratorium, but agreed they
should delay this and get more information. He would also like to have more information
on the pending applications.
Councilmember Sanger indicated any time they make changes in a zoning law it could
have impacts, positive or negative on property owners. She believed it was appropriate
and made sense to have a moratorium to consider some neighborhoods where different
zoning ordinance was protective of larger lots would be appropriate. There may be lots
in the R3 zoning, but she didn’t think that took away from the value of this moratorium.
Councilmember Omodt asked why they were doing a moratorium for the whole City
when they were talking about specific neighborhoods? It seemed they were talking about
only one neighborhood.
Councilmember Sanger believed the reason they were doing a moratorium citywide
would be to give them enough time to figure out which neighborhoods were appropriate.
That was the process outlined at study session.
Councilmember Basill added he would also like to know which neighborhoods and
pending applicants would be affected by a moratorium.
Councilmember Finkelstein added he would like information if there had been “semi
formal” applications in the past and more information on when they had the previous
moratorium.
Councilmember Basill requested historic data in the past 24 months and how many
people had done this in the R1 district.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to continue
discussion on the ordinance to the June 26, 2006 Study Session, or the first study session
in July.
The motion passed 6-0.
8d. Consider Regional Trail Crossing Improvements
Mr. Harmening stated the Council came to some conclusion on the direction they wanted
staff to take. There were some changes regarding the Wooddale crossing. The
recommendations were not different from what they discussed previously. There is a
memorandum from Three Rivers Park District questioning whether 36th Street is the best
signal light to use for the crossing of Wooddale versus Highway 7.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of June 19, 2006
Page 13
Mr. Rardin noted the e-mail from Three Rivers Park District contained staff comments
for consideration. The official stance of the Park District was that the City was the road
authority and it would support where it crossed Wooddale. They point out that the
Council was specifically interested in realigning the trail through that area and it didn’t
come up to Wooddale. It would require a new crossing over the railroad. The Park
District believed that would take a long time.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Basill, to
approve the staff recommended regional trail crossing improvements described in the
report.
Councilmember Basill made a friendly amendment that staff explore curb cuts in the area
of Wooddale Avenue at 36th Street.
Councilmember Basill stated if they went up to 36th, people need to get off their bike to go
down the curb, which was a concern for small children. Mr. Rardin replied the
intersection at W 36th Street now was not appropriate and the City had to make
improvements. There are no pedestrian crossing indicators. The City will make
improvements, including a crosswalk, curb cuts and pedestrian indicators, which were easy
to do. The Park District had concerns about the angle of the intersection and other things.
Councilmember Sanger stated they had a safety problem with trail crossings at both
Beltline and Wooddale, but she was unsure if the proposals would resolve the issue. They
had spent years trying to teach drivers to stop at the crosswalk. To go to a system where
they are supposed to stop at crosswalks, but not at trail crossings added confusion and the
potential of making it less safe. It made sense to put up correct signage, put medians in
for safe refuge and have a system of lights to provide advance warning to drivers. They
would then have a system where bicyclists and pedestrians have a safe way to cross trails
and be in keeping with city policies. She would not support this because they hadn’t
struck the right balance between the users of the trails versus the users of the roadways.
Councilmember Omodt indicated there had been two incidents of bicyclists interacting
with a car. They need to defer to safety and it was much easier to educate people through
signage and physical means on a trail because there were less of them. This was a good
way to get started. The optimal solution would be to have separated grade crossings or
signalized crossings and because that was not possible, this was the way they should go.
The City should provide education through all avenues possible to make sure people
using the trails were aware.
Councilmember Paprocki stated they needed to do due diligence. He wasn’t happy with
all of the recommendations, but would be in favor of this.
Councilmember Basill believed some people would question why they had to go to 36th
Street. It wasn’t the optimal solution and he agreed there were better solutions, but short
term this would be safer and worth the inconvenience. Doing nothing was not being a
good steward for the residents.
Councilmember Finkelstein agreed this would make it safer.
Councilmember Sanger clarified she was not suggesting they do nothing and agreed there
was a safety problem that needed to be addressed. She was suggesting a different
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of June 19, 2006
Page 14
approach, which took into account the users of the trail and the policies they were trying
to promote. They needed to take action and also have enforcement of drivers at trail
crossings.
Mayor Jacobs stated he was not completely in favor of some of the recommendations but
he was for most and would support this.
The motion passed 5-1 with Councilmember Sanger opposed.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs thanked all those who made Parktacular a success. Councilmember stated the new
St. Louis Park Float was spectacular.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:43 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3d - Study Session Minutes Of June 26, 2006
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
June 26, 2006
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran Paprocki, Susan
Sanger, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Councilmember C. Paul Carver was absent.
Staff present: Deputy City Manager (Ms. Gohman); Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin); Utilities
Superintendent (Mr. Anderson); Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Olson); Planning and Zoning
Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal); Senior Planner (Mr. Walther); Assistant Planner (Mr. Fulton); Finance
Director (Mr. deJong); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson).
Guest present: City Attorney Joel Jamnik.
1. Interim Ordinance (Moratorium) for Subdivisions in the R-1 Zoning District
Planning and Zoning Supervisor Meg McMonigal presented the staff report. Ms. McMonigal
said staff has received two applications this week.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked what authority the City has to call for a moratorium. He asked
if a subdistrict could be created, e.g., a subdistrict to the R-1 district. City Attorney Joel Jamnik
responded yes. Councilmember Sanger asked if that could be done in just a portion of the city,
not the entire R-1. Mr. Jamnik responded that it could be done within the parameters of the
statute that would be uniform for class, however, a rider on certain parcels would be
indefensible. Mr. Jamnik said it is common to have a large lot in the R-1 district. Mr. Jamnik
said it would be difficult to say what measures could be taken absent a study.
Councilmember Finkelstein said it would make sense to study it and Councilmember Sanger
agreed. Councilmember Sanger suggested a moratorium just long enough to figure out what
might work to preserve large lot areas. She is concerned about the three new subdivision
requests received within a week and she is concerned how many more will be received prior to a
study.
Councilmember Omodt doesn’t favor a moratorium and he thinks moratorium talk spurred the
most recent applications. Councilmember Omodt believes it would be prudent to send notice to
get feedback on a moratorium. Councilmember Omodt stated that if a moratorium is done on a
neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, one or two houses in a neighborhood will not change the
total character of a neighborhood but rather it will institutionalize rich and poor neighborhoods.
Councilmember Omodt said public discussion is needed.
Councilmember Sanger said if there is a moratorium and if there is a change to larger lots, the
standard for the subdivision that would be different. Councilmember Sanger said a moratorium
would serve to consider various alternatives to lot divisions.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3d - Study Session Minutes Of June 26, 2006
Page 2
Mayor Jacobs asked what process should be used to study this. Councilmember Sanger
suggested using the data and going to the neighborhoods to get input from the residents.
Councilmember Paprocki agrees with Councilmember Omodt. Councilmember Paprocki said a
moratorium would be a powerful tool and Council needs to be careful. Councilmember Basill
said a moratorium is a big step. Councilmember Finkelstein is concerned about unintended
consequences.
Mr. Jamnik said a simple majority for an interim moratorium would be required. A decision will
wait until all Councilmembers are present at a study session. Mayor Jacobs asked how to get
notice to people—he wants residents to know what the Council is doing. Councilmember
Paprocki agreed with Mayor Jacobs. Councilmember Basill said be clear that Council is reacting
and perhaps penalizing people on something that required no Council action under current
zoning.
Deputy City Manager Nancy Gohman summarized that this item will return to a study session
when all Councilmembers are present. Councilmember Basill requested architectural standards
be discussed for subdivisions. The South Hill Lane item will be on the Council agenda for July
10th, and a study session will follow. The majority of Council doesn’t want to vote on a
moratorium on July 10th. The issue will be placed on the July 10th Study Session if all
Councilmembers are present.
Councilmember Omodt asked that notice be sent to all in the R-1 neighborhoods, i.e., Cedar
Manor, Crestview, Fernhill, and Lake Forest regarding the upcoming discussion.
Councilmember Finkelstein suggested, in addition to the property owners, letters be sent to the
neighborhood leaders, and asked staff to publish notice in the Sun Sailor, the city website, and
on the city cable TV. Councilmember Sanger said owners of properties over 18,000 square feet
should be noticed. Ms. McMonigal said perhaps send notices after the July 10th study session,
however, Councilmember Omodt disagreed because it is important to have the neighborhood
input right away.
2. Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project
Public Works Director Mike Rardin presented the staff report. Councilmember Sanger said
neighborhood meetings are needed to explain the changes, the issues and the tradeoffs to
residents. Mr. Rardin said to take part of a property, a square foot cost is determined. A range is
determined and the property owner is given the high end.
Council discussed options regarding an underpass and exits out of neighborhoods. Mr. Rardin
will craft a design/process to present to the neighborhoods. Residents will be presented with
options from MNDOT.
3. Water Utility Service Line Replacement Policy
Engineering Project Manager Jim Olson presented the staff report. The purpose of the
discussion with Council is to provide information on the possible need to replace private water
service connections to the city’s water main in conjunction with city street reconstruction
projects and to discuss funding mechanisms available to pay for the water service replacement
costs.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 3d - Study Session Minutes Of June 26, 2006
Page 3
Councilmember Finkelstein said the current method being used for small neighborhood streets
could continue to be used, however, for the big city streets he suggested using the special
assessment process (Statute 429) or the addition of a surcharge to the water utility bill (Statute
444).
Councilmember Omodt asked if the entire block could be done when the street is torn up.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the process can be redesigned for any street that is being
reconstructed. Councilmember Paprocki asked about the lifespan for the service connections.
Mr. Olson replied, for planning purposes, it is 50 years; after that the failure frequency rate
increases dramatically.
Utilities Superintendent Scott Anderson said if there are some bad water mains, he will
coordinate water main repairs with street repairs.
Councilmember Basill is leery about an additional citywide tax for service connection
replacements. Councilmember Basill said a policy discussion is needed in regard to busy roads.
Ms. Gohman asked if Council would like to pursue a controlled, proactive approach. Mr. Rardin
responded that staff is not proposing to change the ownership of the water main but rather there
are three funding options available to cover water service replacement costs.
Councilmember Finkelstein would like for staff to investigate funding options in light of large
nonprofit institutions. Councilmember Sanger suggested coming up with incentives to
encourage property owners to at least minimize future breaks.
Ms. Gohman said staff will think about funding options.
4. Employee Health Insurance Update
Ms. Gohman presented the staff report. Ms. Gohman reported that Blue Cross/Blue Shield has
provided St. Louis Park with the most favorable bid. Councilmember Finkelstein expressed
concern regarding 471.61, the recent Court of Appeals case and the duty to bargain.
5. Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Ms. Gohman and the Council discussed study session agenda planning.
The meeting ended at 8:50 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4a - Resolution Final Payment Park Construction, Inc. (Lamplighter Pond
20001800)
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 06-120
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON
LAMPLIGHTER POND STORM SEWER
CITY PROJECT NO. 20001800
CONTRACT NO. 02-05
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated January 3, 2005, Park Construction has
satisfactorily completed the Lamplighter Pond storm sewer and storm water storage
improvements, as per Contract No. 02-05.
2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the
work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $1,030,707.51
Change Order 98,503.57
Extra Work 113,484.41
Final Contract Price $1,242,695.49
Previous Payments 1,173,017.62
Balance Due $69,677.87
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 17, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4b - Resolution Final Payment-Ettel And Franz St. Louis Park Police
Station Re-Roof
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 06-121
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON
ST. LOUIS PARK POLICE STATION - REROOF
CITY PROJECT NO. 20051700
CONTRACT NO. 92-05
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated August 1, 2005, Ettel & Franz Roofing
Company has satisfactorily completed the Police Facility Reroof, as per Contract No. 92-05.
2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the
work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $204,450.00
Change Order 00
Extra Work 00
Final Contract Price $204,450.00
Previous Payments 178,174.40
Balance Due $26,275.60
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 17, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4c - Resolution For Minor Amendment To Brookside School PUD
Page 1
4c. Motion to Adopt a Resolution for a Minor Amendment to Brookside School PUD
BACKGROUND:
Master Development, the developer of Brookside School condominiums, has requested an
amendment to the PUD to eliminate a sidewalk on the site. The sidewalk would wrap around the
east side parking lot, which is in a semi-circular shape. It was to facilitate visitors as they walked
to the building, however there is not much width between the parking lot and the building. The
sidewalk would be very close to the lower level units and windows, and thus the request to
eliminate it. A sidewalk will still be constructed along Vernon Avenue the entire length of the
development to facilitate pedestrian traffic.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution allowing the sidewalk to be eliminated as a
requirement of the Brookside School PUD.
Attachments: Revised resolution
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4c - Resolution For Minor Amendment To Brookside School PUD
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO 06-122
Amends and Restates Resolution No. 05-076
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 05-76 ADOPTED
ON MAY 16, 2005 APPROVING A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE
CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED
R-4 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT
4100 VERNON AVENUE SOUTH AND 4135 WEBSTER AVENUE SOUTH
MINOR AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE ELIMINATION OF THE SIDEWALK
ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE EAST PARKING LOT.
WHEREAS, Master Development has made application to the City Council for a minor
Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) under Section 36-367 of the St.
Louis Park Ordinance code to allow a decrease in the area of the underground garage and change
exterior building materials for the 14-unit condominium building at 4100 Vernon Avenue South
and 4135 Webster Avenue South within a R-4 Multi-Family Residential Zoning District having
the following legal description:
Parcel One: Lots 10 and 11, Block 10, Suburban Homes Co.’s Addition, Hennepin
County, Minnesota (Torrens)
Parcel Two: Lot 8, Block 10, Suburban Homes Co.’s Addition, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (Torrens)
Parcel Three: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36, Block 10, Suburban
Homes Co.’s Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; EXCEPT that portion taken by the
State of Minnesota for trunk highway purposes as shown by the Final Certificate
recorded as Document No. 4040269, described as Parcel 12, S.P. 2734, being that portion
of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 10, Suburban Homes Co.’s Addition, which lies easterly
of the following described line: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Lot 6; thence
run northwesterly to a point on the north line of said Lot 4, distant 10 feet west of the
northeast corner thereof; thence run northwesterly to a point on the north line of said Lot
2, distant 25 feet west of the northeast corner thereof; thence run westerly on the north
line of said Lot 2 to its intersection with a line run parallel with and distant 60 feet west
of the east line of said Block 10, thence run northerly on said 60 foot parallel line to its
intersection with a line run parallel with and distant 22 feet south of the north line of said
Lot 1, thence run westerly on said 22-foot parallel line to its intersection with a line run
parallel with and distant 70.5 feet west of the east line of said Block 10; thence run
northerly on said 70.5 foot parallel line to the north line of said Lot 1 and there
terminating. (Abstract)
Parcel Four: Lot 29, Block 10, Suburban Homes Co.’s Addition, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (Abstract)
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4c - Resolution For Minor Amendment To Brookside School PUD
Page 3
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case
No. 05-18-PUD and the effect of the proposed minor amendment on the health, safety, and
welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the
effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the
Comprehensive Plan; and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a Preliminary and Final PUD was approved regarding the subject property
pursuant to Resolution No. 04-134 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated November 15, 2004
which contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that Preliminary and Final PUD; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution No. 04-134, to add the amendments now required, and to
consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 04-52-PUD and 05-18-PUD are hereby
entered into and made part of the public hearing and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 04-134 (document not
filed) is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a Final
Planned Unit Development to the subject property for the purpose of permitting a decrease in the
area of the underground garage and change exterior building materials for the 14-unit
condominium building within the R-4 Multi-Family Residential Zoning District at the location
described above based on the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Final PUD
official exhibits.
2. Final PUD approval and development is contingent upon developer meeting all
conditions of final approval including all Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
requirements.
3. There shall be a maximum of 41 condominium units and such development shall include
individual exterior entrances for ground floor units in Building 2 along Vernon Avenue.
4. There shall be a minimum of 60 below-ground residential parking stalls, including
tandem stalls.
5. Front yard, parking and drive aisle modifications are approved as follows:
a. Front yard of 23 feet
b. Drive aisle of 0 feet from existing building
c. Parking of 10 feet from existing building
6. Prior to signing the Final Plat, the following conditions shall be met:
a. The Environmental Coordinator shall review and find the Landscape Plan plant
species acceptable.
b. A revised plat that increases the drainage easement on Lot 1 to include the area
within the ordinary high water level shall be reflected.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4c - Resolution For Minor Amendment To Brookside School PUD
Page 4
c. Condominium association papers and other Final Plat documents shall be received
and approved by the City Attorney.
d. The applicant shall submit park and trail dedication fees in the amount of
$51,750, if cash in lieu of park dedication is approved by the Park and Recreation
Commission.
e. An easement over all sidewalks proposed on private property along Webster
Avenue and West 41st Street shall be submitted and approved by the City
Attorney.
7. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
a. The Planning and EDA Redevelopment Contracts shall be signed that address, at
a minimum, construction staging/routes/hours/duration, required completion of
improvements prior to occupancy, allowable administrative amendments,
prevention of garage space sales to non-residents, and consistency between
documents as required by the City Attorney.
b. A copy of permit from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District must be provided.
c. An erosion control permit must be secured from the City.
8. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional conditions, the
following conditions shall be met:
a. Evidence of filing the final plat shall be submitted.
b. Evidence of filing easements over all sidewalks proposed on private property
along Webster Avenue and West 41st Street shall be submitted.
c. Color samples of all materials, shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning
Administrator.
d. An Irrigation Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator.
e. A Lighting Plan, including light fixture details shall be submitted and approved
by the Zoning Administrator.
9. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with.
b. The hours of construction shall be limited as follows: All outdoor activity and
loud equipment operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 5:00
pm weekdays and 9:00 am and 5:00 pm on holidays; no such activity shall take
place on weekends. Indoor construction activity that does not involve loud
equipment shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm on
weekdays and 9:00 am and 10:00 pm on weekends and holidays.
c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding
properties.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4c - Resolution For Minor Amendment To Brookside School PUD
Page 5
10. Pursuant to Section 36-367(e)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution
of a development agreement as a condition of approval of the Final P.U.D. The
development agreement shall address those issues which the City Council deems
appropriate and necessary. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the
development agreement.
11. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on May 16, 2005 to incorporate all of
the preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
a. The Final PUD exhibits Site Plan (required to be modified to show a sidewalk
along the east parking lot), Landscape Plan, Utility Plan, Grading and Erosion
Control Plan, Parking Level Plan (School Building), Garage Plan (14-Unit
Building), 14-Unit Building Elevations are modified.
b. The Site Plan shall be modified to include a sidewalk along the west side of the
east parking lot.
c. The minimum number of below-ground residential parking stalls, including
tandem stalls, may be reduced from 60 to 56.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750
per violation of any condition of this approval.
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit.
Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 17, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4d - Resolution Hoigaard Village TIF Note
Page 1
4d. Motion to approve the issuance of a Taxable TIF Revenue Note, Series 2006A, in an
original aggregate principal amount not to exceed $1,725,000 to facilitate the
development of the first phase of the Hoigaard Village mixed-use project.
BACKGROUND:
On July 10, 2006 the City’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) approved the issuance of a
Taxable TIF Revenue Note in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $1,725,000 to
facilitate the development of the first phase of the Hoigaard Village mixed-use project. This
action also requires City Council approval.
Section 2.01 of the Enabling Resolution that established the City’s Economic Development
Authority contains provisions limiting the powers granted to the EDA. The first of these limiting
provisions states that “the sale of all bonds or obligations issued by the EDA must be approved by
the City Council before issuance.” Thus, before the EDA is permitted to issue any “bonds or
obligations” the City Council must adopt a resolution approving the issuance of these bonds or
obligations.
The Hoigaard Note is a taxable tax increment revenue obligation being issued to third parties by
the EDA to assist Union Land II (the “Redeveloper”) with various site improvement costs
authorized pursuant to the Redevelopment Contract between the EDA and the Redeveloper,
dated March 6, 2006. Because the Hoigaard Note is being “sold” to third parties (rather than
issued to the Redeveloper as a pay-as-you-go reimbursement of qualified costs), it is a true “bond
or obligation” under the Enabling Resolution. The sale therefore requires Council approval. .
As a reminder, this bond is considered a revenue based obligation, meaning that it is not
“backed” by the City’s taxing authority (non General Obligation based). Repayment of this
Note/Bond relies solely on the tax increment revenue that the project generates and a personal
guarantee of the Redeveloper. If tax increment revenues are not sufficient, the City is not
required to make up any shortfalls.
RECOMMENDATION:
The EDA’s legal counsel prepared the attached authorizing resolution and staff recommends its
approval as presented.
Attachments: Resolution
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: 071706 - 4d - Resolution Hoigaard Village TIF Note
Page 2
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 06-115
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF A
TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE
(HOIGAARD VILLAGE PROJECT), SERIES 2006A, IN AN
ORIGINAL AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $1,725,000
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council (“Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the “City”) as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the
“Authority”) have heretofore approved the establishment of the Elmwood Village Tax
Increment Financing District (the “TIF District”) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the
“Project”), and have adopted a tax increment financing plan for the purpose of financing
certain improvements within the Project.
1.02. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, the Authority is authorized to
issue and sell its bonds for the purpose of financing a portion of the public Redevelopment costs
of the Project. Such bonds are payable from all or any portion of revenues derived from the TIF
District and pledged to the payment of the bonds. The Authority has found and determined that it
is in the best interests of the Authority that it issue and sell its Taxable Tax Increment Revenue
Note in an original aggregate principal amount not to exceed $1,725,000 (the “Note”) for the
purpose of financing certain public redevelopment costs of the Project.
1.03. Pursuant to the Enabling Resolution Establishing an Economic Development
Authority for the City of Saint Louis Park, dated November 3, 1988 (the “Enabling Resolution”),
the sale of all bonds or obligations issued by the Authority must be approved by the Council
before issuance.
Section 2. Note Approved.
2.01. The Council hereby approves issuance of the Note in accordance with the terms
set forth in the Authority’s Resolution Awarding the Sale of, and Providing the Form, Terms,
Covenants and Directions for, the Issuance of a Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Note (Hoigaard
Village Project) in an Original Aggregate Principal Amount not to Exceed $1,725,000.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 17, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4e - Bid Tab Parkwood Road Watermain Replacement 2006-1900
Page 1
4e.
Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Penn Contracting, Inc. the lowest responsible
bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of
$199,485.00 for the Parkwoods Road Watermain Replacement – City Project No.
2006-1900
BACKGROUND:
Bids were received on June 29, 2006 for the Parkwoods Road Watermain Replacement Project.
As previously reported, Staff evaluated the water distribution system in this year’s pavement
management work area to identify any problem segments that may need replacing. None were
identified. Further evaluation outside of the pavement management area identified a problem
segment on Parkwoods Road. The water main beneath Parkwoods Road between the Hwy 100
Frontage Road and Cedarwood Road, an 1130 foot segment, has a history of 11 repairs
associated to water main breaks. As a result, Staff selected this segment for replacement in
2006.
The watermain replacement will be performed utilizing a method known as “pipe bursting”
which is a trenchless method where the water main is replaced underground. By using this
method of installation, it will be easier to maintain traffic along Parkwoods Road during
construction. It is also a quicker method to replace the water main than with the traditional open
trench method. In addition, this method will allow preservation of nearly all of the boulevard
trees and plantings which otherwise would be lost using the open trench method. And finally,
the street restoration expenses will be significantly reduced.
A total of four (4) bids were received for this project. An advertisement for bids was published
in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on June 8, 15 and 22, 2006 and in the Construction Bulletin on
June 9, 16 and 23, 2006. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
Penn Contracting, Inc. $199,485.00
Engineering and Construction Innovations, Inc. $211,090.00
Dave Perkins Contracting $220,885.00
Northdale Construction $253,655.17
Engineer’s Estimate $173,039.00
*Bid corrected upon extension
EVALUATION OF BIDS
Staff has reviewed all of the bids submitted and has tabulated the results. From the review, staff
recommends Penn Contracting, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder. Penn Contracting, Inc. Inc.
is a reputable contractor who has worked for the City before .
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4e - Bid Tab Parkwood Road Watermain Replacement 2006-1900
Page 2
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Department has budgeted $296,000 for this water main replacement. Funding will come
from the Water Utility Fund
CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE
Work is anticipated to begin in late July. The project will be substantially completed by the first
week of September, pending extended adverse weather conditions or unforeseen delays.
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: 071706 - 4f - Resolution Establishing Special Assessment For Sewer Service Repair
At 3304 Zarthan Ave S
Page 1
4f. Motion to approve the attached resolution establishing a special assessment for the
repair of the sewer service line at 3304 Zarthan Avenue South.
BACKGROUND:
John and Ann Bradley, owners of the single family residence at 3304 Zarthan Avenue South,
have 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. John and Ann Bradley 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 owners have 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 $1,700.00
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Bruce DeJong, Director of Finance
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4f - Resolution Establishing Special Assessment For Sewer Service Repair
At 3304 Zarthan Ave S
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 06-123
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REPAIR AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF
THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT 3304 ZARTHAN AVENUE
WHEREAS, , the Property Owners at 3304 Zarthan 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 3304 Zarthan 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 $1,700.00.
4. The total special assessment against the property has been determined to be $1,700.00.
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 July 17, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4g - Housing Authority Minutes Of May 10, 2006
Page 1
MINUTES
Housing Authority
St. Louis Park City Hall, Westwood Room
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Andria Daniel, Steve Fillbrandt,
Anne Mavity, Judith Moore
STAFF PRESENT: Jane Klesk, Kathy Larsen, Kevin Locke, Michele Schnitker
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for April, 2006
The April 19, 2006 minutes were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. Excess Public Land – Sale Process
Ms. Larsen provided the Commissioners with an update on the Excess Public Land
Sale Process as approved by the City Council on December 5, 2005. Ms. Larsen also
provided information on the upcoming sale of properties.
b. Public Housing Collection Loss Write-Off, Resolution No. 548
Ms. Klesk explained the annual Public Housing Collection Write-Off, totaling
$7,021.35 for Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2006. Commissioner Moore moved to
approve Resolution No. 548, Public Housing Collection Loss Write-Off, and
Commissioner Daniel seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
c. Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) Certification, Resolution No. 549
Ms. Schnitker stated that HUD established the Public Housing Assessment System
(PHAS) as a comprehensive tool that qualitatively and quantitatively measures a
housing agency based on standards that are objective and uniform. The HA received
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4g - Housing Authority Minutes Of May 10, 2006
Page 2
a PHAS score of 88% for Fiscal Year Ending 2005. Staff is anticipating a
Management Indicator score of 29 out of a possible 30 points. Commissioner
Fillbrandt moved to approve Resolution No. 549, Approving the Submission of the
Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) Management Operations Certification
for Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2006. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion,
and the motion passed 5-0.
d. Section 8 Management Program (SEMAP) Certification
Ms. Schnitker explained that SEMAP is a management assessment system utilized by
HUD to annually measure the performance, in 14 key areas, of local housing agencies
that administer the Section 8 rental assistance program. The HA received a SEMAP
score of 104% for Fiscal Year Ending 2005, and staff is projecting a score of 104%
for Fiscal Year Ending 2006. Commissioner Moore moved to approve the execution
and transmission of HUD Form 52648 SEMAP Certification. Commissioner Mavity
seconded the motion, and the motion passed 5-0.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List May – 2006
Commissioner Mavity moved for ratification of Claims List No. 5-2006, and
Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
b. Communications
Commissioner Daniel submitted a letter of resignation from her position as
Commissioner.
1. Monthly Report for May, 2006
2. Housing Manager Position
Ms. Schnitker stated a new Public Housing Manager, Shannon Bodnar, will
start work with the Housing Authority on May 22, 2006.
3. Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report)
4. Draft Financial Statements – Report
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Mavity moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Moore seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Anne Mavity, Secretary
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4h - BOZA Minutes Of May 25, 2006 For Filing
Page 1
MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2006
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals Committee conducted a regular meeting on
Thursday, May 25 , 2006, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis
Park, Minnesota.
Members Present: Chair Ryan Burt
Vice Chair James Gainsley
Commissioner Susan Bloyer (7:07 p.m.)
Commissioner Paul Roberts
Commissioner Henry Solmer
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Tara Olson, Community Development Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
Chair Burt called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. APPROVE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMITTEE MINUTES
Motion by Vice Chair Gainsley, seconded by Commissioner Solmer to approve the following
minutes as presented with one correction:
Page 1, Acting Chair Gainsley called the Meeting to Order not Acting Chair Roberts.
1) Board of Zoning Appeals Committee public hearing and regular meeting minutes dated April
27, 2006.
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Burt, Gainsley, Roberts, and Solmer. Voting No: None.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
None
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4h - BOZA Minutes Of May 25, 2006 For Filing
Page 2
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/COMMITTEE BUSINESS
A. Case No. 06-39-VAR – The request by Randy Hobbs (Residential Renewal, Inc.)
from the requirements of Section 36-164(f)(5) & (8)) to allow an addition to the
house with a 28.4 foot front yard instead of the required 39.7 feet, and a 6.8 foot side
yard instead of the required 13.3 feet for property located at 3981 Princeton Avenue
South.
Staff believes all of the criteria have been satisfied, staff recommends adoption of the attached
Resolution #09-06 approving an 11.3 foot variance to the required 39.7 foot front yard and a 6.5
foot variance to the required 13.3 foot interior side yard with the condition that the addition be
constructed in accordance to the attached site plan and elevation exhibits.
Commissioner Bloyer reviewed the applicants narratives and questioned Narrative C stating, if
this house were sitting any place else in this neighborhood we would not need this variance.
Mr. Morrison stated that the applicant’s home is wider than deeper and we don’t tend to see very
many homes this wide on a 50 foot lot. The applicant’s narrative is true because typically they
would be able to build on the back of the home but since the bedroom is in the back corner of the
house they could have easily built the addition onto the back of the house.
Commissioner Solmer questioned Mr. Morrison that if the variance were to be approved would
the fireplace vent be to close to the construction.
Mr. Morrison stated the construction will be fine.
With no questions, Chair Burt opened the public hearing.
Randy Hobbs, applicant of 3981 Princeton Avenue South, informed the Commissioners that he is
a builder and he has tried to find other alternatives for placement of the addition. He would
prefer to not request a variance because he would like to keep his home as similar as possible
with the surrounding neighborhood homes.
With no questions, Chair Burt closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gainsley is in favor of granting the variance because he believes the proposed
setbacks to both the side and front are consistent with the setbacks of other homes on the block.
Commissioner Bloyer agrees with Vice Chair Gainsley and recommends approval of the
requested variance.
Commissioner Solmer mentioned to the applicant that both his neighbors homes look to be
positioned closer to the street compared to the applicants property.
Mr. Hobbs stated that both neighboring homes are closer to the street then his home.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4h - BOZA Minutes Of May 25, 2006 For Filing
Page 3
Motion by Vice Chair Gainsley, seconded by Commissioner Bloyer, to adopt Resolution #09-06,
approving a variance to allow an 11.3 foot variance to the required 39.7 foot front yard and a 6.5
foot variance to the required 13.3 foot interior side yard with the condition that the addition be
constructed in accordance to the attached site plan and elevation exhibits for property located at
3981 Princeton Avenue South.
Motion Approved. Voting Yes: Burt, Bloyer, Gainsley, Roberts, and Solmer. Voting No: None.
B. Case No. 06-40-VAR – The request by Jim & Angie Fischer from the requirements
of Section 36-164(b)(5) of the zoning Ordinance to allow an open porch with a 10.5 foot
front yard setback instead of the required 20 foot setback for property located at 1816
Jersey Avenue South.
Staff believes six of the seven required criteria have been satisfied, staff recommends adoption of
the attached Resolution #10-06 denying a 10 foot variance to the required 20 foot front yard
setback required for open covered porches.
Commissioner Bloyer stated that she reviewed staffs recommended alternatives and asked if staff
consider removing the downstairs bedroom?
Mr. Morrison stated that there would be some rearranging that is needed inside the home and
there are alternatives. At a minimum the applicant could construct a stoop which would not
require a variance.
Commissioner Solmer questioned if the home at one time had a front door or a porch.
Mr. Morrison stated that at one time the home did have a porch.
Commissioner Solmer asked if the applicants lilac hedge is planted on the city right-of-way.
Mr. Morrison stated that the hedge is on the city right-of-way.
Commissioner Bloyer stated that she notices a grade change at the point of the lilac shrubs and
questions if that area of grade change is owned by the city or the applicant?
Mr. Morrison stated that majority of the hedges are located on the public right-of-way and the
grade change is not significant enough to prohibit an addition to the home.
With no questions, Chair Burt opened the public hearing.
James Fischer, applicant of 1816 Jersey Avenue South, stated that he is concerned with staff’s
findings and would like to briefly summarize his concerns. His home was constructed in 1915
and at that time a street was constructed 34 feet along the rear of his home. When he enters his
home he has to enter the home through the rear which is a small unattractive entry way which
leads into the small kitchen and feels this is a practical difficulty.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4h - BOZA Minutes Of May 25, 2006 For Filing
Page 4
Mr. Fischer stated that staff has agreed that the entry does needs to be better defined however
they suggested this could be accomplished by constructing a side entry. He feels that a side entry
would look tacked on and not look conforming to the design of the home and a side entry would
still enter directly into the kitchen area. Mr. Fischer handed Chair Burt a site drawing (labeled as
Exhibit A and B) showing an interior site plan of the existing home. Mr Fischer stated he
understands that the porch will encroach into the front yard and is not the most desirable but
there is no other way to resolve the entry problem without using the front yard.
Mr. Fischer stated that he is willing to compromise on the size of the porch, instead of
constructing a 8 foot porch he is willing to construct a 6 foot porch which would add 2 feet to the
setback.
Vice Chair Gainsley asked the applicant if he felt the property was once a larger lot prior to
platting.
Mr. Fischer stated that he believes the property was once a several acre raspberry farm.
Mr. Morrison stated the city approved a plat years ago to subdivide the lot which in turn the
placement of the street was constructed.
Vice Chair Gainsley asked Mr. Fischer if he was aware of the property limitations when he
purchased the home.
Mr. Fischer stated he wasn’t aware of setback requirements when he purchased the home.
Commissioner Bloyer asked Mr. Fischer if there were other alternatives for an entry placement
such as the bedroom.
Mr. Fischer stated he would prefer to not remove a bedroom on the main level of the home. He
feels that staff’s recommended side entry would be impractical and cause the kitchen to be
limited on counter and cabinet space.
Commissioner Solmer understands that Mr. Fischer would like to preserve a useful flow of space
within the house but he feels that using the original front door would be more useful because of
the current placement of the rear and side parking area.
With no questions, Chair Burt closed the public hearing.
Chair Burt stated he is in favor of granting this variance. He feels granting this variance would
allow the applicants to have a front yard with a front door which will provide function to the
overall home.
Commissioner Bloyer agrees with Chair Burt that currently the home doesn’t have function or
usability and feels the way the property was platted is a hardship.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4h - BOZA Minutes Of May 25, 2006 For Filing
Page 5
Vice Chair Gainsley agrees that the platting is a hardship but the applicants were aware of the
home and property layo ut when they decided to purchase the home and is inclined to deny the
variance request.
Commissioner Roberts stated he recalls granting a variance for a fence because the applicant’s
home faced a different orientation and by granting that variance the applicant was able to
establish a front yard. He is in favor of granting this variance.
Commissioner Solmer feels the applicant has other alternatives but they are limited.
Motion by Chair Burt, seconded by Commissioner Bloyer, to adopt Resolution #10-06,
approving a variance to allow a open covered porch with 12.5 foot front yard setback instead of
the required 20 foot setback for property located at 1816 Jersey Avenue.
Motion Approved. Voting Yes: Burt, Bloyer, Gainsley, Roberts and Solmer. Voting No: None.
C. Case No. 06-41-VAR – The request by Marwan Rahal from the requirements of
Section 36-164(f)(8) of the zoning Ordinance to allow an addition to be built on the front
and back of the house at the existing side yard instead of the greater setback required for
buildings over 40 feet long for property located at 3517 Xylon Avenue South.
Mr. Morrison announced that Mr. Rahal has decided to withdraw his request.
D. Case No. 06-42-VAR – The request by Thomas & Andrea Snook from the
requirements of Section 36-164(f)(10) of the zoning Ordinance to allow a garage and living
space addition to the house with a 2.5 foot setback for the eave instead of the required 3.5
foot setback and a 3.0 foot setback for the garage instead of the required 4 foot setback
located at 3725 Huntington Avenue South.
Staff believes all of the criteria have been satisfied staff recommends adoption of the attached
Resolution approving a one foot variance to the required 4 foot side yard with the condition that
the addition be constructed in accordance to the attached site plan and elevation exhibits.
Commissioner Bloyer asked staff if the applicants would be able to construct a two car garage in
the rear yard and still maintain the required open space coverage.
Mr. Morrison stated that a 24 x 24 foot two car garage could be constructed in the rear yard and
which would allow them to maintain 25% lot coverage. However, the owners will not be able to
expand the home to provide the additional living space they are requesting.
Mr. Morrison stated that the applicants are interested in constructing additional living space
above the garage.
Vice Chair Gainsley asked staff if the distance is known between the neighboring house and the
garage.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4h - BOZA Minutes Of May 25, 2006 For Filing
Page 6
Mr. Morrison stated that the neighboring house is about 9-10 feet.
With no questions, Chair Burt opened the public hearing.
Thomas Snook, applicant of 3725 Huntington Avenue, stated that the neighboring property and
his garage are currently 12 feet apart and he is proposing to construct a garage which would bring
the distance to 10 feet. At this time he realized that his property survey was misread and will
need to amend his original request. He would like to receive a variance to allow a 2 foot setback
instead of a 3 foot setback.
Vice Chair Gainsley explained to Mr. Snook that he can’t amend his request with out proper
publishing and public notification.
Mr. Morrison explained that the applicants are still applying for a 2 foot variance because they
thought they were at 5 feet but they are actually at 4 feet and technically the legal setback for this
property is 4 feet.
Chair Burt asked staff to explain the new requested distance at the lot line.
Mr. Morrison stated that the distance shows 4 feet.
Chair Burt stated to Mr. Snook that a revised public hearing needs to be sent to the public and
asked if he would be interested in continuing his request to the June 22 meeting which will allow
proper time for notification.
Mr. Snook agreed to continue his variance request to June 22, 2006.
Motion by Vice Chair Gainsley, seconded by Chair Burt, to continue discussion at the next
regular schedule meeting on June 22, 2006.
Motion Approved. Voting Yes: Burt, Bloyer, Gainsley, Roberts and Solmer. Voting No: None.
5. Old Business
None
6. New Business
None
7. Communications
None
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 4h - BOZA Minutes Of May 25, 2006 For Filing
Page 7
8. Miscellaneous
None
9. Adjournment
Vice Chair Gainsley moved and Commissioner Bloyer seconded the motion for adjournment.
The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning appeals adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tara Olson
Community Development Secretary
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 1
8a. Highway 7 Corporate Center – Conditional Use Permit and Variances
Location: 7003 Lake Street, 6651 Highway 7, 3625 and 3629 Hampshire Avenue
Case No.: 06-47-CUP & 06-48-VAR
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow more than
50% office use in the IP Industrial Park District, subject to
conditions
Motion to approve front yard building setback variance
Motion to approve a subdivision variance waiving the sidewalk
requirement along the east side of Monitor Street
Motion to approve a parking lot internal landscaping variance,
subject to conditions
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow more than 50%
office use in an IP Industrial Park District. This CUP would only apply to Lot 1, Block 1, RER
Addition (also referred to as “North Lot” and “Highway 7 Corporate Center” in this report).
The requested variances are as follows:
Reduce the front yard building setback from 50 feet to 20 feet. This variance would only
apply to the North Lot.
Reduce Parking Lot Interior Landscaping. This variance would only apply to Lot 2,
Block 1, RER Addition (also referred to as “South Lot” and “Purple Lot” in this report).
o Reduce from 850 plant units requirement to 70 plant units
o Reduce from 595 canopy tree units requirement to 56 canopy tree units
Waive the Subdivision Ordinance requirement to construct a sidewalk along the east side
of Monitor Avenue. This variance would apply to both lots.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
Real Estate Recycling proposes a 78,500 square foot office/showroom building on the North Lot,
and a 485-stall parking lot on the South Lot.
SITE LOCATION:
Comprehensive Plan: Industrial
Zoning: Industrial Park (IP)
Site Size: 11.76 acres
North Lot: 6.96 acres
South Lot: 4.80 acres
Current Land Uses: Industrial and
commercial buildings, parking lot,
impound lot, vacant lot
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
A conditional use permit is required to allow more than 50% office use in the IP Industrial Park
District. Requirements for the conditional use are as follows:
Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial or
shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant
traffic on local residential streets.
Office floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5.
Building must meet exterior surface materials requirements.
Location
The site has direct access to Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue South via Lake Street
West/Highway 7 Frontage Road. The project will not generate significant traffic on local
residential streets.
Floor Area Ratio
If the building use is 90% office, the floor area ratio would be 0.23. This is below the maximum
0.5 floor area requirement for the conditional use permit.
Building Materials
The proposed building materials include brick, glass, 12” smooth finish reverse insulated
concrete panels, precast concrete panels, EFIS cornices, and metal canopies over the main
entrances.
Staff finds the project meets all the requirements for the Conditional Use Permit.
ZONING ANALYSIS:
Proposed Use
The IP District allows Office and Showroom uses. The proposed percentage of office requires a
Conditional Use Permit, as analyzed above.
Setbacks
The required and proposed building setbacks in the C-1 Zoning District are as follows:
Please note the Zoning Code designates the shortest side of a corner lot as the front. The shortest
side is along Monitor Street. The building will face north onto Lake Street and Highway 7.
Height
The maximum height in the IP Industrial Park Zoning District is six stories or 75 feet. The
proposed building height is 27’ 4”.
Required Yards Required by Zoning Code Provided Met?
Front (West) 50’ 20’ Variance Requested
Side (North) 25’ 115’-205’ Yes
Side (East) 20’ 36’-72’ Yes
Rear (South) 35’ 146’-170’ Yes
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 3
Parking
The total parking requirements are as follows. The table reflects the most intense potential use:
Use Zoning
Requirement
Total
Provided
Office (90%) 257 257
Warehouse (10%) 5 11
TOTAL 262 268
Access and Circulation
The North Lot (Lot 1, Block 1, RER Addition) will have three driveways onto Lake Street and
one onto Monitor Street.
The South Lot (Lot 2, Block 1, RER Addition) will have two driveways onto Monitor Street. It
will also have access via a shared driveway to Lake Street West through the North Lot. The
applicant must submit evidence of a cross access easement over the shared driveway and record
the easement with Hennepin County.
The parking lot on the South Lot must include raised islands at the end of parking rows abutting
vehicle circulation lanes for traffic control. The plan proposes paint only.
The plan includes constructing a sidewalk along Lake Street. Part of the proposed sidewalk
strays from the Lake Street right-of-way onto the applicant’s property. The proposed sidewalk
location requires an easement granting pubic access. The applicant is also requesting a variance
to waive the sidewalk requirement along Monitor Street (see Variance Analysis).
Landscaping
The plan provides the required buffer and landscaping around the perimeter of the property, and
the required parking lot landscaping for the North Lot. The plan does not provide the required
parking lot landscaping on the South Lot (see Variance Analysis).
Stormwater
The plan provides rate control in two stormwater detention areas. One is along Lake Street, and
the other is between the North and South lots. Stormwater discharges to South Oak Pond before
entering Minnehaha Creek. The plan requires Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval.
The City Engineer provided a memorandum dated June 13, 2006 with recommended changes to
the plan (attached). These recommendations are included as conditions of approval.
Lighting
The lighting plan meets City Code requirements.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 4
VARIANCE ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting variances from the Zoning Code. The variances are as follows:
Reduce the front yard building setback from 50 feet to 20 feet on the North Lot.
Waive the Subdivision Ordinance requirement to construct a sidewalk along the east side
of Monitor Avenue
Reduce the Parking Lot Landscaping on Lot 2, Block 1, RER Addition (also referred to
as South Lot and Purple Lot)
o Reduce from 850 plant units requirement to 70 plant units
o Reduce from 595 requirement to 56 canopy tree units
Criteria: Variances shall be granted provided the following evaluation criteria from the City
Code, Section 36-33 “Application and review process for conditional use permits and variances,”
can be satisfactorily answered:
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason
of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application or the terms of this chapter
would result in 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 use district in which such lot is located.
Building Setback: While the situation of the site being a corner lot is not unusual, it is
reasonable for the applicant to essentially provide the required front yard setback for the
building along Lake Street instead of Monitor Street. Staff finds this is reasonable because
the building front is oriented to Lake Street, Lake Street is the most visible portion of the
property from Highway 7, and the new Sam’s Club building is also oriented so that Monitor
Street is a side yard.
Sidewalk: There is an existing and proposed steep slope along Monitor Street. The proposed
grade will be approximately 8 feet of height over a 20-foot distance, or 40% slope, between
the building and where a sidewalk would be located. This steep slope precludes construction
of a sidewalk.
Parking Lot Landscaping: The soils on the subject property are highly impacted by lead and
other contaminants. This is an extraordinary and exceptional condition applying to the
property. The soil remediation Response Action Plan the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) approved requires lead impacted soils to be removed from green areas and
utility corridors; and, all other lead contamination areas to be beneath a pavement cap and
above the groundwater table. There is limited area on the site that meets those parameters.
The applicant is not able to provide any internal landscaping on the South Lot due to these
constraints.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property
or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or
structures in the use district in which the land is located.
The soils on the subject property are highly impacted by lead and other contaminants. It is a
former Superfund site. This unique condition does not apply to other locations in the City.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 5
3. Granting the proposed variances is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right of the applicant.
Granting the variances are necessary to allow the applicant to redevelop the property in a
manner consistent with the new Industrial land use designation and Industrial Park zoning,
work within the limitations that the contaminated soils present, and comply with the
approved MPCA Response Action Plan.
4. The granting of the proposed variances 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 public safety.
The variances will not impair 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 public safety. Relating to the sidewalk variance specifically, Monitor Street is a
dead end road, so speeds and traffic will be relatively low except during shift changes.
Methodist employees that choose to walk rather than take the shuttle to work from the Purple
Lot will exit the site at the driveway access points due to the steep slopes and immediately
cross Monitor Street to the Sam’s Club property to get to Louisiana Avenue South.
Pedestrians from Highway 7 Corporate Center will take the sidewalk on Lake Street or
similarly exit at a driveway access point and cross Monitor Street immediately to get to
Sam’s Club or Louisiana Avenue.
5. The granting of the variances will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety,
and comfort of the area.
The project is a significant environmental, economic and aesthetic improvement to the area.
The variances will not adversely impact the development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way
impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area.
6. Granting the proposed variances will not be contrary to the intent of this chapter
and the comprehensive plan.
Granting the proposed variances help Comprehensive Plan goals to address the
contamination on this property, redevelop the existing commercial properties, and expand
and protect this industrial area of the City.
Building Setback: The site provides the required buffer and landscaping required by the
ordinance despite the variances. The plan essentially provides a front yard, but does so on
the north rather than the west as required by Zoning Code.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 6
Sidewalk: Sam’s Club is providing sidewalk on the west side of Monitor Street. The C2
General Commercial Zoning District (Sam’s Club’s zoning) requires sidewalks along all
streets, but the IP Industrial Park District does not. In addition, the Sidewalk and Trails
Master Plan (1999) does not propose sidewalks on Monitor Street.
Landscaping: Landscaping is desirable in parking lots to break up the expanses of paved
areas and provide shade to vehicles parked in the lot. However, the level of soil
contamination prevents providing the landscaped areas in the parking lot. This portion of the
overall site is not very visible from Highway 7, and there will be landscaping and elevation
changes that help reduce the visual impact to the Sam’s Club property. The project is also an
improvement upon the existing parking lot conditions on the site, because it improves the
pavement surface and flood protection. Staff suggests raised islands should be included for
improved traffic control.
7. The granting of a variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant
but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The variances are necessary to alleviate the hardships and difficulties presented by the
severely chemically impacted soils and steep slopes on the property.
Staff finds the application meets all the standards to grant the variances.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Conditional Use Permit and Variances
on June 21, 2006. No one from the public submitted comments or attended the hearing.
The Commission recommended approval of all the applications. The Commission added a
condition of approval to the Landscaping Variance proposed on the South Lot that staff had not
included. The Commission recommended the plan for the South Lot include additional
landscaping, because they felt the degree of the requested variance was too great and not
consistent with the intent of the ordinance.
The applicant further explored the possibility of providing additional landscape islands within
the South Lot, but they are not certain that it will be possible due to the volume and levels of
contamination on the site.
The draft resolution related to the Landscaping Variance includes a condition of approval similar
to the Planning Commission’s recommendation, but is intended to allow staff and the applicant
flexibility in determining to what extent landscaped islands will be added to the South Lot based
upon findings during the soil remediation project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Four separate actions are necessary on this item. The Planning Commission and staff
recommendations are as follows:
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 7
A. Motion to adopt a Resolution granting a Conditional Use Permit under Section 36-243(d)(2)
of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow 50 percent or more of gross floor area office
use in the IP Industrial Park Zoning District on Lot 1, Block 1, RER Addition.
B. Motion to adopt a Resolution granting a Variance from Section 36-243(g)(4) of the
Ordinance Code relating to Zoning to permit a front yard building setback of 20 feet for
property located in the IP Industrial Park District on Lot 1, Block 1, RER Addition.
C. Motion to adopt a Resolution granting a Variance from Section 36-361(b)(3)(j) of the Zoning
Code to allow a reduction in the internal landscaping for a proposed parking lot on Lot 2,
Block 1, RER Addition.
D. Motion to adopt a Resolution granting Variances from Sections 26-153(h)(1) of the
Ordinance Code relating to subdivisions to waive the requirement for sidewalk installation
along the east side of Monitor Street for property located at for property located at 7003 Lake
Street, 6651 Highway 7, 3625 and 3629 Hampshire Avenue, and vacated Hampshire Avenue.
Attachments: Draft Resolutions
City Engineer’s Memorandum dated June 13, 2006
Sketch of the proposed building (supplement)
Site Plan and related documents (supplements)
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 8
RESOLUTION NO. 06-116
A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 36-243(D)(2) OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT 50 PERCENT OR MORE OF
GROSS FLOOR AREA OFFICE USE IN THE IP INDUSTRIAL PARK
ZONING DISTRICT ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, RER ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
FINDINGS
1. Real Estate Recycling has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use
Permit under Section 36-243(d)(2) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of
permitting 50 percent or more of gross floor area office use within the IP Industrial Park
District located on property legally described as:
Lot 1, Block 1, RER Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 06-47-CUP) and the effect of permitting 50 percent or more of gross
floor area office use within the IP Industrial Park District.
3. The Council has determined that permitting 50 percent or more of gross floor area
office use within the IP Industrial Park District will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, will not
seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The proposed use is harmonious with the
general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 06-47-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 50 percent or more of gross floor area office use within
the IP Industrial Park District on Lot 1, Block 1, RER Addition 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 Exhibit A1.2 as required by the Fire Marshal.
3. The applicant shall submit evidence of a cross access easement over the shared driveway
on the east side of the lot and record said easement with Hennepin County.
4. The applicant shall provide an easement granting pubic access over that portion of the
property where the proposed sidewalk along Lake Street crosses the property.
5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for the South Lot to include raised islands at the
end of parking rows abutting vehicle circulation lanes for traffic control.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 9
6. The Landscaping Plan shall move the location of the Black Hills Spruce trees from the
bottom of the stormwater detention area to the side slopes of this area to reduce exposure to
saturated conditions and improve the survival rate of these plantings.
7. The applicant shall comply with the City Engineer’s comments in his memorandum dated
June 13, 2006, except the construction of a sidewalk along Monitor Street.
8. The applicant shall submit a Soil Erosion Control Plan for staff review and approval prior
to issuance of building permits.
9. The applicant shall secure permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District before
the City will issue erosion control and building permits.
10. The applicant shall submit building and architectural screening materials samples and
colors to the Zoning Administrator for approval prior to issuance of building permits.
11. The applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner) must sign an
Assent Form and official exhibits prior to issuance of a building permit.
12. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee
of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval.
13. 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.
14. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee
of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval.
15. 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.
16. 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 July 17, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 10
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. 06-117
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 36-243(G)(4) OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD
BUILDING SETBACK OF 20 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE IP
INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, RER ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. Real Estate Recycling has applied for a variance from section 36-243(g)(4) of the
ordinance code relating to zoning to permit a front yard building setback of 20 feet for
property located in the IP Industrial Park District at the property legally described as:
Lot 1, Block 1, RER Addition; Hennepin County, Minnesota.
2. On June 21, 2006 the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony
from the public, discussed the application and moved approval of a front yard building
setback variance from the required 50 feet to 20 feet.
3. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in
the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive
Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to
use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably
diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which such land is located.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
7. It is reasonable for the applicant to provide the required 50-foot front yard building
setback along Lake Street, instead of Monitor Street as required by the Zoning Code.
The building front is oriented to Lake Street, Lake Street is the most visible portion of the
property from Highway 7, and the neighboring Sam’s Club building is also oriented so
that Monitor Street is a side yard.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 11
8. The soils on the subject property are highly impacted by lead and other contaminants. It
is a Superfund site. This unique condition does not apply to other locations in the City.
9. Granting the variance is necessary to allow the applicant to redevelop the property in a
manner consistent with the Industrial land use designation and Industrial Park zoning,
work within the limitations that the contaminated soils present, and comply with the
approved MPCA Response Action Plan.
10. The redevelopment project is a significant environmental, economic and aesthetic
improvement to the area. The variance will not adversely impact the development of the
neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the
surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area.
11. Granting the proposed variance helps achieve Comprehensive Plan goals to address the
contamination on this property, redevelop the existing commercial properties, and expand
and protect this area for industrial use.
13. The contents of Planning Case File 06-48-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case.
14. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or
canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the
variance is granted.
15. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be revoked and cancelled if the building
or structure for which the variance is granted is removed.
CONCLUSION
The application for the variance to permit a front yard building setback of 20 feet for property
located in the IP Industrial Park District on property legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, RER
Addition is granted based upon the finding(s) set forth above.
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 July 17, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 12
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. 06-118
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 36-361(B)(3)(J) OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE
INTERNAL LANDSCAPING OF THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT ON LOT 2, BLOCK
1, RER ADDITION.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. Real Estate Recycling has applied for a variance from Section 36-361(b)(3)(j) of the
Zoning Code to allow a reduction in the internal landscaping for a proposed parking lot
on the property legally described as follows:
Lot 2, Block 1, RER Addition; Hennepin County, Minnesota.
2. On June 21, 2006 the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony
from the public, discussed the application and moved approval of a variance for internal
landscaping of a proposed parking lot.
4. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in
the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive
Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to
use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably
diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which such land is located.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
7. The soils on the subject property are highly impacted by lead and other contaminants.
This is an extraordinary and exceptional condition applying to the property. The soil
remediation Response Action Plan the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 13
approved requires lead impacted soils to be removed from green areas and utility
corridors and all other areas to be beneath a pavement cap and above the groundwater
table. There is limited area on the site that is within those parameters. The applicant is
not able to provide the required internal landscaping on the South Lot due to these
constraints.
8. Granting the variance is necessary to allow the applicant to redevelop the property in a
manner consistent with the new Industrial land use designation and Industrial Park
zoning, work within the limitations that the contaminated soils present, and comply with
the approved MPCA Response Action Plan.
9. The project is a significant environmental, economic and aesthetic improvement to the
area. The variance will not adversely impact the development of the neighborhood,
unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or
in any other way impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area.
10. Granting the proposed variance helps achieve Comprehensive Plan goals to address the
contamination on this property, redevelop the existing commercial properties, and expand
and protect this industrial area of the City.
11. This site will not visible from Highway 7 and the proposed perimeter landscaping and
elevation changes will reduce the visual impact to neighboring properties and Monitor
Street. The project improves the existing conditions on the lot by reconstructing the lot
with improved stormwater flood protection and raised islands for improved traffic
control.
12. The contents of Planning Case File 06-48-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case.
CONCLUSION
The application for the variance from the internal landscaping requirements for the proposed
parking lot on Lot 2, Block 1, RER Addition are granted based upon the finding(s) set forth
above, with the following conditions:
1. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or
canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the
variance is granted.
2. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be revoked and cancelled if the building
or structure for which the variance is granted is removed.
3. The developer shall decrease the intensity of the variance to the extent possible by
looking at creative solutions and methods that could increase plantings and improve the
landscaping.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 14
4. The applicant shall comply with the City Engineer’s comments in his memorandum dated
June 13, 2006, except the construction of a sidewalk along Monitor Street.
5. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits
incorporated by reference herein.
6. Fire lanes shall be in accordance with Exhibit PA1.2 as required by the Fire Marshal.
7. Approval of Building and Parking Lot Permits, 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 July 17, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 15
VARIANCES
RESOLUTION NO. 06-119
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES FROM SECTIONS 26-153(H)(1) OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS TO WAIVE THE
REQUIREMENT FOR SIDEWALK INSTALLATION ON THE EAST SIDE OF
MONITOR STREET FOR PROPERTY AT 7003 LAKE STREET, 6651 HIGHWAY 7,
3625 AND 3629 HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, AND VACATED HAMPSHIRE AVENUE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. Real Estate Recycling has applied for variances from Sections 26-153(h)(1) of the
Ordinance Code relating to subdivisions to waive the requirement for sidewalk
installation along the east side of Monitor Street for property located at for property
located at 7003 Lake Street, 6651 Highway 7, 3625 and 3629 Hampshire Avenue, and
vacated Hampshire Avenue, proposed to legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, RER
Addition, and currently described as:
That portion of Hampshire Avenue platted in "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park" as
Central Avenue, which lies Southerly of the Easterly extension of the Northerly line of
Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 348, Hennepin County, Minnesota, also known as the
southerly right of way line of Lake Street, and which lies northerly of the westerly
extension of the Northerly line of Lot 3, of said Auditor's Subdivision No. 348, to the
westerly line of said vacated street and that part of the Northeasterly one-half of said
vacated street which lies northerly of a line drawn at right angles to the centerline of said
vacated street, said line intersects the Southwest corner of the Northwesterly 25 feet of
Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 348.
And
Par 1: Lot 4 except that part lying Southeasterly of a line running from a point in the
Northeasterly line of said Lot distant 367.24 feet Southeasterly, measured along said
Northeasterly line from the most Northerly corner thereof to a point in the Southwesterly
line of said Lot; distant 535.8 feet Southeasterly measured along Southwesterly line from
the most Westerly corner thereof, Auditor’s subdivision Number 348, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Par 2: Lots 1 and 2; Lot 3 except the Northerly 25 feet thereof; and that part of Lot 4
lying Southeasterly of a line running from a point in the Northeasterly line of said Lot,
distant 367.24 feet Southeasterly, measured along said Northeasterly line from the most
Northerly corner thereof to a point in the Southwesterly line of said Lot, distant 535.8
feet Southeasterly measured along said Southwesterly line from the most Westerly corner
thereof, Auditor’s Subdivision Number 348, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Par 3: Lot 5, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 348, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 16
Subject to rights of The Park Central Little League and others, if any, to the use of that
portion of the above described premises being used as a grandstand and baseball diamond
as shown in deed Dec. 1344270; (as to land in Par 2)
Subject to the right of the State of Minnesota to construct and maintain temporary snow
fences upon those portions of said lands adjacent to State Highway No. 7; (as to land in
Pars 1, 2 and 3)
Torrens Property
And
Lots 43, 44 and 46, Block 37, including adjacent half of alley vacated and Lots 47 and
48, Block 37, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park.
Also
The Southwesterly 17.5 feet of Lots 12,13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, and Southwesterly 27.5 feet
of Lots 18, 19 and 20, Block 37, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park;
Together with the Northeasterly half of vacated alley adjoining said Lots and lying
between the extension Southwesterly of the Southeasterly line of said Lot 20 and the
Westerly extension of the Northerly line of said Lot 12, except such portion as taken by
the State of Minnesota for Trunk Highway No. 7, all lying and being in Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Abstract Property
And
Lots 32 through 42 inclusive, Block 37, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park,” together with
the Westerly one-half of the alley in Block 37 vacated by Resolution filed in Book 558 of
Misc., Page 23, and in Book 607 of Misc., Page 110.
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Abstract Property
And
Lot 5, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 348
Hennepin County, Minnesota
And
That part of the Southwest half of vacated Hampshire Avenue, platted in “Rearrangement
of St. Louis Park” as Central Avenue, which lies Southerly of the Westerly extension of
the Northerly line of Lot 3, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 348 and Northerly of Lot 2, Block
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 17
51, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park,” and that part of the Northeasterly half of said
vacated street which lies Southerly of a line drawn at right angles to the centerline of said
vacated street, which line intersects at the Southwest corner of the Northwesterly 25 feet
of Lot 3, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 348, and Northerly of Lot 2, Block 51
“Rearrangement of St. Louis Park.”
Hennepin County, Minnesota
2. On June 21, 2006 the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony
from the public, discussed the application and moved approval of variances to waive the
requirement for sidewalk installation along the east side of Monitor Street.
5. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the
health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in
the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variances upon the Comprehensive
Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to
use the property in such a way that the proposed variances will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably
diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which such land is located.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
7. There is an existing and proposed steep slope along Monitor Street. The proposed grade
will be approximately 8 feet of height over a 20-foot distance, or 40% slope) between the
building where a sidewalk would be located. This steep slope precludes construction of a
sidewalk.
8. The soils on the subject property are highly impacted by lead and other contaminants. It
is a Superfund site. This unique condition does not apply to other locations in the City.
9. Granting the variances are necessary to allow the applicant to redevelop the property in a
manner consistent with the Industrial land use designation and Industrial Park zoning,
work within the limitations that the contaminated soils present, and comply with the
approved MPCA Response Action Plan.
10. Monitor Street is a dead end road, so speeds and traffic will be relatively low. Methodist
employees that choose to walk rather than take the shuttle to work from the south lot
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 18
would exit the site at the driveway access points due to the steep slopes and immediately
cross Monitor Street to the Sam’s Club property to get to Louisiana Avenue South.
Pedestrians from the north lot would take the sidewalk on Lake Street or similarly exit at
a driveway access point and cross Monitor Street immediately to get to Sam’s Club or
Louisiana Avenue.
11. The redevelopment project is a significant environmental, economic and aesthetic
improvement to the area. The variances will not adversely impact the development of the
neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the
surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area.
12. Granting the proposed variances help Comprehensive Plan goals to address the
contamination on this property, redevelop the existing commercial properties, and expand
and protect this area for industrial use.
13. The contents of Planning Case File 06-48-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case.
14. Under the Zoning Ordinance, these variances shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked,
or canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the
variance is granted.
15. Under the Zoning Ordinance, these variances shall be revoked and cancelled if the
building or structure for which the variances are granted is removed.
CONCLUSION
The application for the variances to waive the requirement for sidewalk installation along the
east side of Monitor Street for property located at for property located in the IP Industrial Park
District on property to be legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, RER Addition, are granted
based upon the finding(s) set forth above.
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 July 17, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 19
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 13, 2006
TO: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
FROM: Scott Brink, City Engineer
RE: Highway 7 Corporate Center
I have reviewed the following plan sheets, received by the City of St. Louis Park on June 5,
2006:
1. Sheet A1.2, Architectural Site Plan, prepared by Opus Architects and Engineers, dated
June 2, 2006.
2. Sheet C2.1, Sanitary Sewer and Water Plan, prepared by Opus Architects and Engineers,
dated June 2, 2006.
3. Sheet C3.0, Existing Drainage Patterns, prepared by Opus Architects and Engineers,
dated June 2, 2006.
4. Sheet C3.1, Storm Drainage Design, Northerly Half, prepared by Opus Architects and
Engineers, dated June 2, 2006.
5. Sheet C3.2, Storm Drainage Design, Southerly Half, prepared by Opus Architects and
Engineers, dated June 2, 2006.
6. Sheet L1.1, Concept Landscape Plan, prepared by Opus Architects and Engineers, dated
June 2, 2006.
General
1. The plans must be signed by a Registered Professional Engineer in Minnesota.
2. A Standard Details Sheet must be provided that shows includes standard details of the City of
St. Louis Park including but not limited to the following:
a. Standard sanitary sewer and storm sewer manhole, including castings
b. Catch basins and castings
c. Hydrant and gate valve installation
d. Watermain bends and blocking
e. Pipe installation (trenching and bedding)
f. Service details as needed.
g. Erosion control details
h. Driveway aprons and pedestrian ramps (including truncated domes (see MnDot Standard
Plate 7036))
i. Bituminous paving details, including mix specifications, typical cross section, etc. The
typical cross section shall also include proper base or demonstration that the underlying
fill material is structurally adequate to support the parking lot and driveways.
j. Concrete curb and gutter (B618)
k. Standard detail for concrete sidewalk.
l. Retaining wall details (as needed)
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 20
Sanitary Sewer and Water
1. The 8-inch watermain and 15-18” sanitary sewers will ultimately be mains owned and
operated by the City. Plan and profiles for the mains will therefore be required, and as-
built drawings shall be submitted upon final installation and acceptance. As-builts shall
be provided as reproducible hard copies and electronic (Auto-Cad).
2. A minimum cover of 7.5 feet shall be provided for all mains and services.
3. Some portions of the sanitary sewer pipe are designated as RCP pipe. All sanitary sewers
shall be PVC, SDR 26 or the appropriate designation grade for the size and depth of pipe.
4. All D.I.P. watermain pipe shall be polyethylene wrapped.
5. It is recommended that additional stubs (sanitary sewer and water), be extended to the
east in the event of any further redevelopment to the east of this property.
Stormwater
1. The distance of the sheet flow drainage across the south parking area to the detention area
is relatively lengthy, particularly for the far eastern portion of the site. It is recommended
that at least 2 additional catch basins be extended in that direction, and that additional
proposed spot elevations be provided. Concrete curb and gutter must have a minimum
gradient of at least 0.5%.
2. Maintenance of the detention areas shall be the responsibility of the property owner and
must be spelled out in a maintenance agreement.
3. The revised stormwater system must be approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District. The new system must meet the Watershed’s requirements for stormwater
quality treatment as applicable. For the detention areas, an outlet structure with
skimming device as may be required by Watershed standards shall be provided as
required.
Other Comments
1. Sanitary sewer and watermain work will require work within the public right of way. A
right of way permit from the City will therefore be required before any work in the right
of way may occur.
2. The Contractor/Owner shall continue to adhere to the requirements of NPDES and shall
obtain an Erosion Control Permit from the City. All erosion control and sedimentation
requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed district must also be adhered to.
3. Public drainage and utility easements must be provided and dedicated for all City sanitary
sewer and water mains to be installed, and for all drainage and detention areas. These
easements must be provided on the plat or dedicated separately by document. Drainage
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 071706 - 8a - Highway 7 Corporate Center Conditional Use Permit And Variances
Page 21
and utility easements must also be shown on the site grading and utility plans. Drainage
easements for detention areas must extend at least 10 feet beyond the projected 100-year
elevation. For sanitary sewer and water, the easement limits shall be located a distance of
at least 15 feet beyond the pipe centerline(s).
4. Sidewalk shall be required along Monitor Street and Lake Street as required by City
Code. Sidewalk shall be constructed to a minimum width of 6 ft. Additional sidewalk
easement as needed shall be required.
5. The Owner shall be responsible for acquiring all necessary permits and adhering to all
agency conditions as required, including the following: Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District, MPCA, MDH, MnDot, and any others as applicable. The owner shall also be
responsible for the location and coordination of all private utilities.
6. The plans must include standard construction notes typical of this type of construction.
This would include notes referring to City requirements (working hours, 48 hour
notifications for utility or street work, etc.), Gopher State One Call Requirements,
sedimentation and erosion control requirements, street sweeping, site housekeeping, etc.