Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020/01/21 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular
AGENDA JAN. 21, 2020 5:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL PHOTOS – community room 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – council chambers 1. Call to order 1a. Pledge of allegiance 1b. Roll call 2. Presentations 2a. League of MN Cities presentation 2b. Historical Society presentation of book “Places in the Park” 3. Approval of minutes 3a. City council meeting minutes of Dec. 2, 2019 3b. Study session minutes of Dec. 9, 2019 4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda. Recommended action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.) 5. Boards and commissions – None 6. Public hearings 6a. 2020 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4020-1000) Recommended action: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close public hearing. Council will be asked to take final action on this project at its Feb. 3 meeting. 6b. Public hearing Parkway Residences alley vacation Recommended action: Mayor to open the public hearing, take testimony, and then close the public hearing. The recommended action to vacate the alley is included in agenda item 8a. 7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – None Meeting of Jan. 21, 2020 City council agenda 8.Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items 8a. Parkway Residences Redevelopment Project Recommended action: •Motion to adopt Resolution approving the amendments to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Plan Map, as well as related figures, tables and text (requires 5 affirmative votes); and •Motion to adopt Resolution approving the preliminary and final plat for Manhattan Park Second Addition (requires 4 affirmative votes); and •Motion to approve First Reading of Ordinance vacating the alley between 31st Street West and the Hwy 7 Frontage Road between Glenhurst Avenue and Inglewood Avenue and set the Second Reading of an Ordinance for February 3, 2020. (requires 5 affirmative votes) •Motion to approve First Reading of Ordinance adding Section 36-268-PUD 15 to the Zoning Code and amending the Zoning Map from C-2 General Commercial and R-4 Multiple Family Residential to PUD 15, and set the second reading for February 3, 2020 (requires 4 affirmative votes) 8b. Holy Family Academy expansion Recommended action: •Motion to adopt Resolution approving the amendment to the conditional use permit subject to the conditions recommended by staff. •Motion to adopt Resolution approving the preliminary and final plat subject to the conditions recommended by staff. 8c. TS 713 – Authorize traffic control changes on Quebec Avenue at 29th Street Recommended action: Motion to approve the traffic committee recommendation to install two-way stop signs on Quebec Avenue at 29th Street. 8d. Local Option Sales Tax Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution supporting the authority to impose a local sales tax to fund a regionally significant local road improvement program in order to reduce the cost burden on St. Louis Park property tax payers. Or, as an alternative, Motion to continue studying the use of a local option sales tax over the next year and determine next steps for the 2021 legislative session. 9. Communications – None 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. Meeting of Jan. 21, 2020 City council agenda Consent calendar 4a. Adopt Resolution rescinding Resolution 00-045 and authorizing the installation of timed parking restrictions at 3381 Gorham Avenue. 4b. Adopt Resolution rescinding Resolutions 89-143, 90-10, and 92-139 and authorizing the installation of permit parking restrictions on the 3900 block of Princeton Avenue. 4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing the installation of parking restrictions on the east side of Joppa Ave. between Minnetonka Blvd. and the north County Road 25 Service Drive. 4d. Adopt Resolution authorizing the installation of parking restrictions on the south side of Wayzata Boulevard from Louisiana Avenue to Zarthan Avenue. 4e. Adopt Resolution authorizing all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street. 4f. Approve replacement of 2013 Elgin Pelican Street Sweeper. 4g. Approve the appointment of Lt. Greg Weigel as the secondary representative from the police department to the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board (MESB), 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee (TOC). Lt. Weigel would replace Deputy Chief Bryan Kruelle who was approved in October 2018 as the secondary member for the police department. 4h. Approve the 2019 Pay Equity Report. 4i. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 5512 West 25 ½ Street, St. Louis Park, Minnesota. P.I.D. 09-117-21-24-0045. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular city council meetings are carried live on civic TV cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for video on demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of city hall and on the text display on civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website. Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2020 Presentation: 2a Executive summary Title: League of Minnesota Cities presentation Recommended action: None. Representatives from the League of Minnesota Cities will be in attendance to provide a brief update and answer question on the work it does to support St. Louis Park and other member cities in Minnesota. Policy consideration: Not applicable. Summary: Members from the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC), including director Dave Unmacht and deputy director Luke Fisher, will be in attendance to brief the council on the support and advocacy efforts the LMC provides to St. Louis Park and other member cities in Minnesota. Financial or budget considerations: Membership in the LMC is accounted for in the city’s budget Strategic priority consideration: All of the strategic priorities are supported by the city’s membership in the LMC. Supporting documents: None. Prepared by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2020 Presentation: 2b Executive summary Title: Historical Society presentation of book “Places in the Park” Recommended action: A member from the St. Louis Park Historical Society will be in attendance to present their new book “Places in the Park.” Policy consideration: Not applicable. Summary: “Places in the Park,” published December 2019, tells the story of St. Louis Park through various physical aspects of the city. Topics include; land and the waters, railroads, pioneers and governance, industry and commerce, roads and highways, schools and education, town and downtown, and many more. A member from the St. Louis Park Historical Society will be in attendance to present this book to the city council and community. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: None Prepared by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2020 Minutes: 3a Unofficial minutes City council meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota Dec. 2, 2019 1. Call to order Mayor Pro Tem Rog called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Rachel Harris, Anne Mavity, Thom Miller, and Mayor Pro Tem Margaret Rog. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jake Spano Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Community Development Director (Ms. Barton), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Chief Financial Officer (Mr. Simon), Police Chief Harcey, Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Building & Energy Director (Mr. Hoffman), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Planner (Mr. Monson), City Clerk (Ms. Kennedy), City Assessor (Mr. Bultema), Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan), Transportation Engineer (Mr. Manibog), Senior Management Analyst (Ms. Solano), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). Guests: Family and friends of Officer Alcantara; St. Louis Park residents; Larry Kraft and Nadia Mohamed. 1a. Pledge of allegiance 1b. Roll call 2. Presentations 2a. Police officer oath of office Police Chief Harcey introduced new police officer Stanikka Alcantara. Ms. Kennedy administered the oath of office. Officer Alcantara thanked her family and friends for being in attendance, as well as for their support over the years. She thanked her trainers and the St. Louis Park police force, and stated she will keep striving to do her best, no matter what. Mayor Pro Tem Rog congratulated Officer Alcantara on behalf of the city council, adding she is so glad Officer Alcantara kept chasing her dreams, and it is the city’s good fortune to have her on the force. 3. Approval of minutes 3a. City council meeting minutes of Oct. 21, 2019 City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 2, 2019 It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to approve the city council meeting minutes of Oct. 21, 2019 as presented. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Spano absent). 3b. Special study session minutes of Oct. 21, 2019 It was moved by Councilmember Miller, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to approve the special study minutes of Oct. 21, 2019 as presented. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Spano absent). 3c. Joint meeting minutes of Oct. 22, 2019 It was moved by Councilmember Brausen seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to approve the joint meeting minutes of Oct. 22, 2019 as presented. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Spano absent). 3d. Study session minutes of Oct. 28, 2019 It was moved by Councilmember Harris, seconded by Councilmember Miller, to approve the study session minutes of Oct. 28, 2019 as presented. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Spano absent). 3e. City council meeting minutes of Nov. 4, 2019 It was moved by Councilmember Miller, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to approve the city council meeting minutes of Nov. 4, 2019 as presented. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Spano absent). 3f. Special city council meeting minutes of Nov. 12, 2019 It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to approve the special city council meeting minutes of Nov 12, 2019 as presented. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Spano absent). 3g. Study session minutes of Nov 12, 2019 Councilmember Brausen stated on page 1 related to future agenda items, it should read, “…for development of a strategic plan for implementation of their ambitious goal of funding and creating $3 million worth of public art at SWLTR transit station areas. He stated it would be desirable if all cities involved could make donations and that Hennepin County is also providing funding for development of this plan…” City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 2, 2019 It was moved by Councilmember Miller, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to approve the study session minutes of Nov. 12, 2019 as amended. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Spano absent). 4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar 4a. Approve for filing city disbursement claims for the period of Oct. 26 through Nov. 22, 2019. 4b. Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2576-19 related to Efficient Building Benchmarking and approve summary ordinance for publication. 4c. Enter into a joint powers agreement (JPA) with Hennepin County for contracting professional services for energy benchmarking. 4d. Adopt Resolution No. 19-150 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3712 France Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN. P.I.D. 06- 028-24-44-0140. 4e. Adopt Resolution No. 19-151 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3785 Kipling Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN. P.I.D. 06- 028-24-43-0030. 4f. Adopt Resolution No. 19-152 modifying the tax increment financing plan for the Wolfe Lake TIF District to allow for additional pooling for affordable housing. 4g. Adopt Resolution No. 19-153 modifying the tax increment financing plan for the Ellipse TIF District to allow for additional pooling for affordable housing. 4h. Adopt Resolution No. 19-154 authorizing bank signatories for the Home Remodeling Fair. 4i. Approve first reading of an ordinance to prohibit parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. for the city hall east lot and set the second reading of the ordinance for Dec. 16, 2019. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Miller, to approve the agenda as presented and items listed on the consent calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 6-0. (Mayor Spano absent) 5. Boards and commissions - none 6. Public hearings 6a. 2020 proposed budget, tax levies, and truth in taxation public hearing Mr. Simon presented the staff report and noted the budget schedule for 2019. He stated at the December 16 meeting, council will be asked to adopt the 2019 revised budget, 2020 budgets, final tax levies for city and HRA and the 2020-2029 CIP. Mr. Simon noted on Nov. 21, 2019, staff conducted their third Facebook 2020 budget overview and, earlier in the year, launched an on-line transparency tool and property City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 4 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 2, 2019 tax process video. He noted the general fund revenues, the primary operating fund of the city for services and council priorities. Mr. Simon also outlined the general fund expenditures including general government, public safety, operations and recreation, and non-departmental. Mr. Simon stated the proposed 2020 tax levy is a 4.96% increase, which has been lowered from 5.61%. He noted the tax levy allocations, along with city, county and school tax allocations. Mr. Simon added, for a median value home in St. Louis Park, there is a dollar change per month of $5.46 per month for the tax, and depending on the value of the home, could be more of less than this amount. He also noted state homeowner tax relief programs and resources. Mayor Pro Tem Rog opened the public hearing. Judith Moore, 1430 Independence Ave. S, stated she is an 82-year-old who does not like to come out in the evenings, but wanted to express her concerns about the function of assessments conducted in St. Louis Park. She stated her only home improvement since her last inspection in 2011, was a fireplace insert. Because of a 17% increase to her home value last April, she called the city, and city inspectors were sent to her home for re-evaluation. She stated the two inspectors told her if she went to the April tax meeting of the city, her taxes would not be raised. She stated this seemed like extortion to her and she wondered why these inspectors still worked for the city. Ms. Moore asked how many other residents did not attend the April meeting, because they received the same threat. Mayor Pro Tem Rog stated city staff would contact her after tonight’s meeting to discuss this issue further. Mayor Pro Tem Rog closed the public hearing. No formal action required for this item this evening, and it will return to the council at the Dec. 16, 2019 meeting. 7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – none 8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items 8a. 2019 Connect the Park – Dakota South Bikeway (4019-2000) Resolution No. 19- 155 Mr. Manibog presented the staff report. He noted answers to questions and concerns raised at the public hearing were included in the staff report this evening. Mr. Manibog noted issues to mitigate included bus turning movements for the school, along with resident parking vs. school parking vs. business parking. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 5 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 2, 2019 Councilmember Harris stated she appreciates residents and staff taking a pause to talk thru summer about this project, which results in added parking and buffered bike lanes that she is pleased to see. Councilmember Mavity stated these projects are never easy, especially when trying to retrofit a 100-year-old area for today and the future. She appreciated the time neighbors have spent looking into this and informing the council, adding she understands how hard these decisions are. She stated she will support this because it is the direction residents have asked the council to go - prioritizing walkers and bikers over cars. She added safety is the top goal for this project and she wants to understand from staff what they need from the council in order to prioritize safety. Mr. Manibog stated staff can give council an estimate for the pilot project along with more details. Councilmember Brausen stated he will be supporting this also, noting the three-block link is essential in order to create a more robust and safer bikeway. This goal is consistent with the city’s climate action goals and the community goals determined through the visioning process. He added there is strong community support for creating a more walkable city landscape. He noted this segment is essential in order to do this as it connects the city north and south, and also provides access to the high school and Central Community Center. For those who reside along this street, he apologized to them for the dislocation of parking and this new configuration of the roadway. Councilmember Brausen noted he views the public right-of-way as essential to moving walkers, bikers and cars, while parking for residents is a secondary use of the streets. He stated the parking study concludes there will still be adequate parking on the street. To those who say the council is not listening to their needs, he would state the council is listening, noting the community visioning process, public hearings, and other comments related to Connect the Park. Councilmember Brausen added comments from residents on Texas Avenue, near the middle school, have been positive and the project will fulfill the goals of safer mobility for all. He referenced resident comments about home value decreases in this area because of this project that have been unsubstantiated, stating this will be a safer system to all users. He asked residents to give the project an opportunity to succeed. Councilmember Miller stated he will oppose this and would like staff to look at more serious alternatives for this important north/south three block section. He would like to discuss this further and also table the Louisiana and Wooddale bike facilities, adding he would like to see the Dakota bike trail be more robust and separated with grading. He stated the city should put more money into this project so there will be a great biking facility along Dakota Avenue. Mayor Pro Tem Rog stated she has struggled with this decision, has done research on the project, and does not feel in a position to make this choice as it’s not the best City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 6 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 2, 2019 option. She would also like to look at a multi-use trail here, feels the street is for moving people, and should be multi-modal, and not just used for parking. Mr. Harmening stated in the future, if council wanted to look at different accommodations on Dakota Avenue, they could explore it further as an option. Mayor Pro Tem Rog stated her primary concern is for the safety of potential users. It was moved by Councilmember Harris, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt Resolution No. 19-155, accepting the project report and approving the staff recommended layout for the Dakota Avenue corridor from Minnetonka Boulevard to Lake Street, and including a pilot project to be brought back to council for review. The motion passed 4-2 (Councilmember Miller and Mayor Pro Tem Rog opposed; Mayor Spano absent). 8b. First reading of ordinance rezoning C-2 parcels to C-1 Mr. Morrison presented the staff report. Councilmember Harris stated in the Texatonka area, folks are excited about the small area plan, which will help them to buy local and be an advantage. Councilmember Brausen asked if current businesses can continue in their same location and for their same commercial uses, after the rezoning. Mr. Morrison stated yes, adding the business can be sold and operated in the same manner by the new owner. Councilmember Mavity stated she has been wanting to create a city that is walkable, while also reducing the number of big box retailers, especially along Excelsior Boulevard. She added a small area plan is also needed for west of Highway 100 along Excelsior Boulevard. Councilmember Miller agreed and added he would prefer businesses with smaller square footage. It was moved by Councilmember Miller, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending the zoning map under chapter 36 and set second reading for Dec. 16, 2019. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Spano absent). 8c. First reading Historic Walker Lake parking ordinance Mr. Morrison presented the staff report. Councilmember Harris asked how a parking stall is defined and if a business must keep all stalls existing on site, or if one might be used for bike parking. Mr. Morrison stated City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 7 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 2, 2019 the specifications are in the ordinance for parking. The dimensions are all established and not proposed to be changed, and the parking spaces will need to be maintained. Mr. Morrison stated there are numerous bike racks in the rights-of-way, and they will be scattered about the historic district. Additionally, more racks will be encouraged on private property when they can be properly designed into the site plan. Councilmember Harris asked if bike parking maps exist for this area. Mr. Morrison stated they do not, but way-finding signage is being considered for the area. The wayfinding signs may include maps that show locations of bike facilities. It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve first reading of an ordinance amending section 36-361 pertaining to off-street parking and set second reading of Dec. 16, 2019. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Spano absent). 8d. Parkway Residences EAW Resolution No. 19-156 Ms. Monson presented the staff report. Mayor Pro Tem Rog stated this redevelopment in Ward 1 is exciting and is a mixed income project, with support for those being displaced. She stated she looks forward to next steps. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to adopt Resolution No. 19-156 certifying the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) as an adequate examination of the environmental impacts and accepting the record of decision, declaring no need for an environmental impact statement for the Parkway Residences redevelopment project. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Spano absent). 8e. Off-sale intoxicating liquor resolution revision Resolution No. 19-157 Mr. Walther presented the staff report. He noted the city attorney is comfortable with staff’s proposal to extend the limit on the number of off-sale liquor licenses for another two months, to February 29, 2020. Councilmember Harris asked if any requests had been made for new licenses since the moratorium. Mr. Harmening stated there have been none. Councilmember Brausen stated he will oppose this motion, as he has consistently, adding the free market should rule this, and not the city council. It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to adopt Resolution No. 19-157 amending Resolution Nos. 17-196, 18-026, 18-71 and 18-198 limiting the number of off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses in St. Louis Park. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 3a) Page 8 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 2, 2019 The motion passed 5-1 (Councilmember Brausen opposed; Mayor Spano absent). 9. Communications Councilmember Harris noted the upcoming Texatonka small area plan open house next Tuesday, Dec. 10, in the evening. She stated details can be found on the small area plan website. Councilmember Brausen thanked staff for their proactive approach related to the first snowfall of the year, and the great job done cleaning the city streets. Councilmember Brausen also thanked staff and the city for allowing him to participate in the recent National League of Cities Summit, where council members receive professional development and training with city officials from across the nation. He added it is a wonderful opportunity to learn best practices and share with colleagues. Councilmember Hallfin stated the Holiday Train will arrive in St. Louis Park on Dec. 11 at 4 p.m., noting it is another great way to show support and appreciation for STEP, as it is one of their major fundraisers. He said STEP will accept food and monetary donations that evening, and folks can gather at the STEP building. Mayor Pro Tem Rog stated during the Holiday Train event, the Nest will be open and serving coffee and Mexico City Café will also be serving food. Mayor Pro Tem Rog noted the Ugly Sweater Dash 5K will be held Sunday, Dec. 8, at 5:30 p.m., and is a fun community event, with a raffle and gathering at Park Tavern after the run. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2020 Minutes: 3b Unofficial minutes City council study session St. Louis Park, Minnesota Dec. 9, 2019 The meeting convened at 6:10 p.m. at Wat Thai of MN Temple. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Rachel Harris, Anne Mavity, and Margaret Rog. Councilmembers absent: Steve Hallfin, Thom Miller Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Chief Financial Officer (Mr. Simon), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Community Development Director (Ms. Barton), Housing Program Coordinator (Ms. Olson), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Communications Manager (Ms. Smith), Senior Management Analyst (Ms. Solano), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). Guests: Larry Kraft (councilmember – elect); Jade Arocha, National Research Center; Michael Darger, University of MN Extension Services. 1. Future study session agenda planning and prioritization Mayor Spano thanked the staff at Wat Thai for hosting the council meeting this evening, and the Wat Thai staff also thanked the council for having their meeting at the temple. Councilmember Mavity pointed out the Jan. 13 agenda item related to Sam’s Club stating she wants the city to be in the strongest position possible to communicate their vision for the site, and not be reactive. She added this also holds true for the Wooddale and Highway 7 area. Mayor Spano and the council agreed that Mr. Kraft could participate in the study session this evening. 2. Community survey Ms. Solano introduced Ms. Arocha, senior researcher from the National Research Center. Ms. Arocha presented an overview of the National Research Center’s methodology and practices to the council. Councilmember Harris stated she has concerns about this survey to city residents overlapping with the census, during the same timeframe. Ms. Arocha stated this is the reason for doing the National Community Survey in early 2020, so as not to overlap. She noted if begun in early February, data collection and survey results could be completed by mid-May. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Title: Study session minutes of December 9, 2019 The council indicated they still had concerns, however, about this survey overlapping with the census survey in early 2020. Ms. Arocha pointed out the benchmarking tools of the survey allow for comparison among communities, which she listed out for the council. She explained some customization can be added to the surveys; however, there are cost considerations to be reviewed. Ms. Arocha noted the basic survey costs, which includes mailing to 1,700 households and is a three-part survey, is $15,700. Optional added on services and survey customization can add an additional $5,400 approximately. Mr. Harmening stated the city has budgeted $25,000 for the survey. Councilmember Mavity stated she supports benchmark surveys and defers to staff on the specifics. She stated she would like to see questions that address those that feel less connected to the community, and especially for the city’s diverse population and people of color, and then to benchmark these responses against other cities. Councilmember Mavity also stressed the importance of having questions in multiple languages, to include the many different language speakers within the community. Ms. Arocha stated this can be done but noted it can also be cost prohibitive. She stated NCR does provide a cover letter for the survey in several languages. Councilmember Rog stated she is not as enthusiastic about the survey and asked how previous surveys worked to change or update city policy. Mr. Harmening noted one example where policy changed as a result of the survey, related to property maintenance and upkeep of commercial, industrial and residential properties. Councilmember Rog stated she also has concerns about the lack of a cultural lens on questions and about the use of a cover letter that encourages folks to find an English-speaking person for help on the survey. Ms. Arocha stated NRC does not discount the importance of non-English speaking persons within the survey; however, the lowest response rates do come from diverse groups, the young and older populations, and renters. Councilmember Rog noted the city is also looking for ways to use less jargon, adding she noticed one of the survey questions was not user-friendly in this way. Ms. Arocha stated NRC will work with the council on customizing questions. However, the questions cannot be changed completely so as to be useful for benchmark purposes. She also pointed out that customization will add costs. Councilmember Brausen stated he is supportive of doing this, it makes sense, and standardization makes sense also. He trusts the professionals to design the questions and would like input on the Climate Action Plan and suggested questions that could be included. He also would like a customized question on Connect the Park, and to see how committed residents are to this program as well. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 3 Title: Study session minutes of December 9, 2019 Councilmember Mavity agreed on the Connect the Park questions, adding she is very supportive of the benchmarking. Mayor Spano added he is interested in the survey and gathering data, adding it might be helpful to gather data over time. He stated he likes the specificity of this and would want to be very clear about what the council wants to get out of the survey and collect data that is actionable. Mayor Spano added he too is concerned about the timing and overlapping with the census. It was the consensus of the council that they are interested in exploring this further and would like staff to come back with details and cost information. 3. Local options sales tax Mr. Darger from the University of MN Extension Services presented an analysis of local option sales tax at one-quarter cent and one-half cent. He noted examples and stated that St. Louis Park has 43,000 people that come into the city to work, and 25,000 who leave the city for work, while 3,000 live and work in the city. He pointed out this totals $1 billion in taxable sales for St. Louis Park, adding that most commuters into the city shop in the general merchandise area and groceries. Mr. Darger noted these are all estimates, with no real-time data, but just reasonable assumptions that were confirmed with staff. Councilmember Mavity stated this looks like a great tool to capture revenue for the city where almost one-half comes from folks outside of the city. She stated she does lean toward this sales tax and having outside folks help pay for the city’s roads and infrastructure, especially since they are utilizing these roads. Ms. Solano stated if the council wants to move forward on this, staff will need to notify the state’s tax committee by Jan. 31, then work with legislators during the 2020 session, and if passed, it will need to be brought forward to residents in a referendum within two years. Councilmember Harris asked how many roads are worked on per year. Ms. Heiser stated typically it has been one state aid project per year and in 2019, it was the Cedar Lake Road project, in 2020 it will be the Louisiana Ave Project, and in 2021 it will be Monterey and Wooddale. Ms. Heiser added these are all highly traveled roads and will need to be maintained over the next years. Mr. Harmening added funds can also be used for Connect the Park projects and other goals, such as LED lighting and roundabouts. Mr. Harmening continued the city is looking out for itself here, noting the streets that currently exist will need to be maintained and there are gaps that exist. He added the region uses these roads and the city’s taxpayers should not have to carry that tax burden. Mayor Spano stated he wants to be sure city residents - whether they are property tax payers or not –are paying for our roads; however, it is also good to look for options to defray the costs and take some of the burden off residents. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 4 Title: Study session minutes of December 9, 2019 Mayor Spano asked what happens if the state provides monies for a project, and some of the monies are not used. Mr. Harmening stated the money must go for the specific project that is identified at the time the project was voter approved. If the monies are not used, they must be reimbursed back to the state. Councilmember Harris stated she is interested in continuing to pursue this and agrees with the five proposed projects. Councilmember Mavity stated she also appreciates this option and supports it vs. imposing a much higher levy directly to residents. Councilmember Brausen added he is also in favor of doing this and spreading the cost among residents and non-residents and is in favor of the five projects as well. Councilmember Rog is not sure and while she understands the need, is concerned as this is again a car-focused issue. She is curious if there are opportunities to improve trails also for bikers and pedestrians and if so, how. Ms. Heiser stated that each of the five projects noted include both bike and pedestrian improvements and are part and parcel of each project. Ms. Deno stated the legislature has requirements but added the MSA projects are multi-modal. Mayor Spano noted he is also in favor of the idea and would like to see how other cities are doing this. Ms. Solano stated staff is already in conversations with the city’s legislative representatives. 4. Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) Use Guide Ms. Barton stated council adopted the AHTF last year and since that time, staff has been working on sourcing funding and developing a user guide. She stated tonight Ms. Schnitker would review the user guide draft with the council and discuss. Ms. Schnitker reviewed the guide with the council. Councilmember Harris asked why there is such a difference from 60% AMI for rental vs. 80% AMI for home ownership. Ms. Schnitker stated this is in order to attempt to provide a deeper affordability in rental properties. She continued, home ownership is more realistic at 80% AMI, and trying to reach it any lower than that is difficult. Mayor Spano asked if the affordable trust fund is a first resort, last resort, or another. Ms. Schnitker stated it is part of a suite of packages and is an additional funding mechanism to provide incentive. Councilmember Mavity noted the city should think about a more proactive approach on projects in St. Louis Park, such as multi-home ownership models. She continued it would be City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 5 Title: Study session minutes of December 9, 2019 helpful also to think about timing, and making sure it lines up correctly, and possibly earlier in the year. Councilmember Rog pointed out folks at the 30% affordability level may have other barriers for stable housing, and asked, since the trust fund does not allow additional funding for services, who does the city partner with. Ms. Schnitker stated the developers have experience with this, and have built relationships with service agencies, and build this into their models of affordable housing. Ms. Olson added city residents have support services through the county as well, that they are often eligible for. Councilmember Rog asked how private cash donations designated for the trust fund might pan out, adding she sees this as a great opportunity for the city to work with employers to contribute to the housing fund. Ms. Schnitker stated donations can be accepted into the trust fund. Councilmember Harris stated she appreciated the framing of the guide and is curious to see if it could be revisited every couple of years. She asked how rent ceilings differ from rent control. Ms. Schnitker stated rent ceilings are determined by the level of affordability set by HUD and cannot exceed these levels. Councilmember Brausen stated this is a really flexible tool, and targets segments that need help the most – the underserved. He asked that language be changed from “proposals that target will be preferred” to “may be preferred” – in order to create as much housing as possible. He stated he is supportive of this. Councilmember Mavity asked how much money the trust is going to have available annually. Ms. Barton stated with HRA levy and tax increment pooling, it will vary from year to year, but in 2020 there will be between $1 million to $1.5 million in the fund. Councilmember Mavity added she is not in favor of having the Housing Authority (HA) review applications. Councilmember Brausen agreed and said he does not see the need for the HA to review the applications. Ms. Schnitker stated staff was trying to be responsive to the body that represents housing in the community, but it will be up to the council on how to handle this. Councilmember Rog stated she supports the Housing Authority review, but added it warrants more discussion and the members of the Housing Authority are invested also. She likes the idea of community representative involvement and not only the city council. Mayor Spano stated while the guide discusses lead abatement, it does not address asbestos or other harmful chemicals in homes. Ms. Schnitker stated HUD oversees all lead abatement and there is criteria for that. Ms. Schnitker stated staff will revise the guide with suggestions from the council and submit it back to council for formal approval. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 6 Title: Study session minutes of December 9, 2019 Mayor Spano stated he prefers this item not be on the consent agenda when up for approval. 5. Election holiday discussion Ms. Deno stated Councilmember Miller brought this item forward for discussion by council as well as other considerations including staffing to provide election services needed for residents and information on current designated holidays for staff. Councilmember Brausen stated he is against this. Mayor Spano stated he was in favor, but now is opposed, stating the city can do other things to drive serious voter turnout. Councilmember Mavity added it seems counter to early voting. Councilmember Harris agreed, adding early voting grows each year, and she does not see a need to provide a holiday for Election Day, adding it would not guarantee more citizens would vote. Councilmember Rog stated she also is not in favor and would like to look at mail-in voting as an option for St. Louis Park. The consensus of the council was not to move forward on this item. Communications/meeting check-in (verbal) Councilmember Mavity noted the written report on 2020 draft legislative issues and priorities and stated the League of Cities has taken a stand on the 4D tax classification rate, noting that property taxes take money away from cities and she would prefer to hold on this unless and until there is a study. Councilmember Mavity added that Ryan Winkler, St. Louis Park’s MN house representative is supportive of marijuana legalization, which comes with a tax. She suggested support for this and to use the taxes for the Climate Action Plan or affordable housing. Mr. Kraft asked how effective the legislative priorities document has been and how much time is spent on it. Mayor Spano stated the council spends one meeting talking with the legislators on this, and focusing on the front page, and the rest of the document is background for staff. He noted the council needs to be intentional on about four items to present to legislators. Councilmember Harris added these four items will need to align with the strategic priorities of the city as well. Councilmember Harris stated she would support reinstating the right to vote for city residents who are out of prison. The council agreed with her on this item. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 3b) Page 7 Title: Study session minutes of December 9, 2019 Councilmember Rog added she is concerned about the Crime Free Work Group and said this has been very challenging. Mr. Harmening stated the group will finish out the process, and then present a report and recommendations to the council. Mr. Harmening noted there will be warm areas for folks if needed, at the Holiday Train on Wednesday, Dec. 11, in light of the sub-zero temperatures. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 6. 2020 draft legislative issues and priorities report 7. Accessory dwelling unit ordinance update 8. Crime/drug free rental ordinance workgroup update ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4a Executive summary Title: TS 716 – Authorize timed parking restrictions at 3381 Gorham Ave. Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution rescinding Resolution 00-045 and authorizing the installation of timed parking restrictions at 3381 Gorham Avenue. Policy consideration: The installation of parking restrictions is allowed per the city’s established regulatory authority. Summary: In October 2019, staff received a request to evaluate the timed parking restrictions at 3381 Gorham Avenue. The requestor was Perspectives Inc., who is the owner and tenant of 3381 Gorham Ave. Perspectives was having difficulties loading and unloading their school buses on their existing on-street bus loading area due to vehicles not honoring the parking restrictions. Their difficulties have increased with the opening of The Block (across the street at 7007 Walker St.), where patrons often park in the bus loading area. Since the installation of the timed parking restrictions (Resolution 00-045 from April 2000), Perspectives has increased their programming requiring more buses at times outside of their current timed parking restriction (5:30 – 6:30 p.m., Monday – Friday). In November 2019, the traffic committee reviewed the request to evaluate the timed parking at this location. The committee recommended that the timed parking restrictions should be expanded from noon – 6:30 p.m. from Monday – Friday. This allows Perspectives to load and unload their buses as usual while accounting for their expanded programming. A letter was sent to the surrounding area (93 in total) looking for comments and concerns regarding the proposed parking changes. No comments were received. Staff recommends rescinding the old resolution and adopting a new resolution to reflect the recommended timed parking restrictions. Financial or budget considerations: The cost of enacting these controls is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Resolution 00-045 – to be rescinded New resolution Location map Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Title: TS 716 – Authorize timed parking restrictions at 3381 Gorham Ave. Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution authorizing timed parking restrictions at 3381 Gorham Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park received a request to evaluate parking restrictions at 3381 Gorham Ave; and, Whereas, the traffic committee has reviewed the request and recommended the installation of timed parking restrictions on the east side of Gorham Avenue at 3381 Gorham Avenue; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 00-045 is rescinded. It is further resolved, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1.Install “No parking – noon to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday” parking restrictions on the east side of Gorham Avenue from 80 to 180 feet northwest of the north right of way line of the northeast quadrant of Walker Street at Gorham Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Jan. 21, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk TS 716 location map 3370 3356 3381 7000 3374 7007 3384 3366 3343 67267008 7015 6714 7020 3378 7010 WALKER STGORHAM AVE ´0 50 10025 Feet Legend Property lines TS 716 location City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4a) Title: TS 716 – Authorize timed parking restrictions at 3381 Gorham Ave.Page 3 Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4b Executive summary Title: TS 717 – Authorize permit parking restrictions on 3900 block of Princeton Avenue Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution rescinding Resolutions 89-143, 90-10, and 92-139 and authorizing the installation of permit parking restrictions on the 3900 block of Princeton Avenue. Policy consideration: The installation of parking restrictions is allowed per the city’s established regulatory authority. Summary: In November 2019, staff received a request to evaluate parking restrictions on the 3900 block of Princeton Avenue. The requestor explained that there had been more non- residential parking on their street, and the residential permit parking stops mid-block of their street. Later in November 2019, the traffic committee reviewed the request to evaluate the parking restrictions at this location. The committee recommended to extend the permit parking restrictions on both sides of Princeton Avenue to complete the 3900 block. A letter was sent to the surrounding area (635 in total) looking for comments and concerns regarding the proposed parking changes. Two comments were received, both of which were in favor of the proposed changes. Staff recommends rescinding the area’s previous resolutions (89-143, 90-10, and 92-139) and adopting a new resolution reflecting staff’s recommended changes and existing conditions. Financial or budget considerations: The cost of enacting these controls is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Resolution 89-143, 90-10, and 92-139 – to be rescinded New resolution Location map Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Title: TS 717 – Authorize permit parking restrictions on 3900 block of Princeton Avenue Discussion Background: In November 2019, staff received a request to evaluate parking restrictions on the 3900 block of Princeton Avenue. The requestor explained that there had been more non- residential parking on their street, and the residential permit parking stops mid-block of their street. Later in November 2019, the traffic committee reviewed the request to evaluate the parking restrictions at this location. The committee recommended to extend the permit parking restrictions on both sides of Princeton Avenue to complete the 3900 block. A letter was sent to the surrounding area (635 in total) looking for comments and concerns regarding the proposed parking changes. Two comments were received, both of which were in favor of the proposed changes. Their comments are summarized below verbatim: In support of the addition of parking restrictions (2 comments): • “We live at 3965 Princeton Avenue and just received the notice of evaluation of permit parking on our block. My wife and I are both in favor of the recommendation to extend the permit parking zone all the way to 40th Avenue, including on both sides of the street in front of our home. We frequently have vehicles of shoppers and trucks with trailers from German Auto Works parked in front of our house for a portion or most of the work day. Extending the permit parking area would limit this use and, as I said earlier, we would be in favor.” • “I agree completely with extending these parking restrictions. While SLP continues to expand businesses on Excelsior Boulevard we seem to fall short on the appropriate number of parking spots for the businesses.” To properly reflect the proposed permit parking restrictions, the previous resolutions (Res. 89- 143, 90-10, and 92-139) will be rescinded and re-written into a new resolution. The resolutions also have two other permit restricted areas, Natchez Avenue and Vallacher Avenue. These permit areas are not intended to change as a part of this traffic study. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Page 3 Title: TS 717 – Authorize permit parking restrictions on 3900 block of Princeton Avenue Resolution No. 20-____ Authorize residential permit parking restrictions on Vallacher Avenue, Princeton Avenue, and Natchez Avenue Whereas, The City of St. Louis Park received a request to evaluate the parking restrictions on the 3900 block of Princeton Avenue; and, Whereas, the traffic committee has reviewed the request and recommended extending the residential permit parking restrictions to complete the 3900 block of Princeton Avenue on both sides; and, Whereas, Resolutions 89-143, 90-10, and 92-139 all include permit parking in the area around the 3900 block of Princeton Avenue; and, Whereas, this resolution is intended to reflect the existing permit parking areas on Vallacher Avenue, Princeton Avenue, and Natchez Avenue with the addition of the 3900 block of Princeton Avenue on both sides; and, Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 89-143, 90-10, and 92-139 are rescinded. It is further resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install residential permit parking restrictions in the following areas: a. The north side of Vallacher Avenue from the east right of way line of Quentin Avenue to 140 feet east of the east right of way line of Natchez Avenue. b. The south side of Vallacher Avenue from the east right of way line of Quentin Avenue to the west right of way line of Ottawa Avenue. c. The south side of Vallacher Avenue from the east right of way line of Natchez Avenue to 140 feet east of the east right of way line of Natchez Avenue. d. Both sides of Princeton Avenue from 135 feet north of the north right of way line of Vallacher Avenue to the north right of way line of 40th Street. e. Both sides of Natchez Avenue from 110 feet north of the north right of way line of Vallacher Avenue to 130 feet south of the south right of way line of Vallacher Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Jan. 21, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk TS 717 location map 4825 3971 3944 4900 4814 3961 4921 3964 4910 4911 3980 3975 3965 4820 3914 3940 4901 4824 4811 3965 4821 4920 3976 3981 4904 3924 3934 4911 4805 3951 4915 4815 PRINCETON AVE S40TH ST W VALLAC H E R A V E ´0 50 10025 Feet Legend Property lines Existing permit parking Proposed permit parking City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4b) Title: TS 717 – Authorize permit parking restrictions on 3900 block of Princeton Avenue Page 4 Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4c Executive summary Title: TS 719 – Authorize parking restrictions on Joppa Avenue at north CR 25 Service Drive Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the installation of parking restrictions on the east side of Joppa Avenue between Minnetonka Boulevard and the north County Road 25 Service Drive. Policy consideration: The installation of parking restrictions is allowed per the city’s established regulatory authority. Summary: In October 2019, staff received a request to evaluate parking restrictions on Joppa Avenue between Minnetonka Boulevard and the north County Road 25 Service Drive. The requestor explained that trucks and other delivery vehicles would often get stuck on the street due to their restricted turning radius and existing on-street parking. In November 2019, the traffic committee reviewed the request to evaluate the parking restrictions at that location. The committee recommended to extend the existing parking restrictions on the east side of Joppa Avenue to its full length between Minnetonka Boulevard and the north County Road 25 Service Drive. Staff estimates that the new restriction would remove five on-street parking spaces. A letter was sent to the surrounding area (688 in total) looking for comments and concerns regarding the proposed parking changes. Three comments were received. Two were in favor and one was against the proposed changes. Financial or budget considerations: The cost of enacting these controls is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Resolution Location map Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Title: TS 719 – Authorize parking restrictions on Joppa Avenue at north CR 25 Service Drive Discussion Background: In October 2019, staff received a request to evaluate parking restrictions on Joppa Avenue between Minnetonka Boulevard and the north County Road 25 Service Drive. The requestor explained that trucks and other delivery vehicles would often get stuck on the street due to their restricted turning radius and existing on-street parking. In November 2019, the traffic committee reviewed the request to evaluate the parking restrictions at that location. The committee recommended to extend the existing parking restrictions on the east side of Joppa Avenue to its full length between Minnetonka Boulevard and the north County Road 25 Service Drive. Staff estimates that the new restriction would remove five on-street parking spaces. A letter was sent to the surrounding area (688 in total) looking for comments and concerns regarding the proposed parking changes. Three comments were received. Two were in favor and one was against the proposed changes. Their comments are summarized below verbatim: In support of the addition of parking restrictions (2 comments): • “I received the evaluation request for parking restrictions on Joppa Ave, and I think this is a good idea, because when cars are parked on both sides of that road, really only one car can fit through, especially in the winter when snow on the sides forces cars to park further from the curb. “ • “Nothing to add to this one, but I agree with it especially in the winter. I live on Joppa north of Minnetonka, and the parking on the east side as indicated in the letter does cause congestion mixed with traffic trying to enter the Starbucks lot. “The other letter actually got me thinking about another issue I see happening often in the area. There is a lot of traffic coming off Minnetonka Blvd it seems, trying to cut the corner and avoid the light at France Ave in the morning. They seem to come off at Inglewood then take Sunset Blvd, not sure if there is a good way to help with this, but I have noticed it adding a lot of traffic to these back streets, causing additional back up at the Sunset and France intersection. “(I live by Sunset and Joppa, so I use the Sunset and France intersection daily. It isn’t dangerous, just a little annoying, but wanted to mention in case others have complained as well.)” Against the addition of parking restrictions (1 comment): • “I do not support further parking restrictions on Joppa Avenue. There is already limited street parking available in the neighborhood. Our guests need to be able to park somewhere while visiting”. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Page 3 Title: TS 719 – Authorize parking restrictions on Joppa Avenue at north CR 25 Service Drive Resolution No. 20-____ Authorizing parking restrictions on Joppa Avenue at the north CR 25 Service Drive Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park received a request to evaluate parking restrictions on Joppa Avenue between Minnetonka Boulevard and the north County Road 25 Service Drive; and, Whereas, the traffic committee has reviewed the request and recommended the installation of parking restrictions on the east side of Joppa Avenue between Minnetonka Boulevard and the north County Road 25 Service Drive; and, Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install parking restrictions on the east side of Joppa Avenue from the south right of way line of Minnetonka Boulevard to the north right of way line of the north County Road 25 Service Drive. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Jan. 21, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk TS 719 location map 4200 42004200 4320 4212 4315 4310 4201 4310 2950 42214301 4216 4325 MINNETONKA BLVD JOPPA AVE SJOPPAAVE SCOUNT Y R O A D 2 5 COUNTY R O A D 2 5 SERVIC E D R H I G H W A Y 7 ´0 50 10025 Feet Legend Proposed parking restrictions Existing parking restrictions Property lines City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4c) Title: TS 719 – Authorize parking restrictions on Joppa Avenue at north CR 25 Service Drive Page 4 Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4d Executive summary Title: TS 720 – Authorize parking restrictions on Wayzata Boulevard from Louisiana Avenue to Zarthan Avenue Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the installation of parking restrictions on the south side of Wayzata Boulevard from Louisiana Avenue to Zarthan Avenue. Policy consideration: The installation of parking restrictions is allowed per the city’s established regulatory authority. Summary: In October 2019, staff received a request to evaluate parking restrictions on Wayzata Boulevard near Dakota Avenue. The requestor described difficulties in seeing oncoming traffic when trying to turn left onto Wayzata Boulevard due to the existing on-street parking. In November 2019, the traffic committee reviewed the request to evaluate parking restrictions on Wayzata Boulevard near Dakota Avenue. The committee also expanded the scope of the parking restriction evaluation to Wayzata Boulevard between Louisiana Avenue to Zarthan Avenue. In the past few years, many complaints have been brought to the traffic committee regarding the ability to see oncoming traffic due to on-street parking from all over this corridor. The traffic committee recommended parking restrictions on the south side of Wayzata Boulevard from Louisiana Avenue to Zarthan Avenue. A letter was sent to the surrounding area (633 in total) looking for comments and concerns regarding the proposed parking changes. Five comments were received. Four were in favor of the proposed parking restrictions and one was against. Financial or budget considerations: The cost of enacting these controls is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Resolution Location map Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Title: TS 720 – Authorize parking restrictions on Wayzata Boulevard from Louisiana Avenue to Zarthan Avenue Discussion Background: In October 2019, staff received a request to evaluate parking restrictions on Wayzata Boulevard near Dakota Avenue. The requestor described difficulties in seeing oncoming traffic when trying to turn left onto Wayzata Boulevard due to the existing on-street parking. Wayzata Boulevard at this location and across the corridor has parking restricted on the north side and parking allowed on the south side. In November 2019, the traffic committee reviewed the request to evaluate parking restrictions on Wayzata Boulevard near Dakota Avenue. The committee also expanded the scope of the parking restriction evaluation to Wayzata Boulevard between Louisiana Avenue to Zarthan Avenue. In the past few years, many complaints have been brought to the traffic committee regarding the ability to see oncoming traffic due to on-street parking from all over this corridor. The traffic committee recommended parking restrictions on the south side of Wayzata Boulevard from Louisiana Avenue to Zarthan Avenue. On Wayzata Boulevard between Louisiana and Zarthan avenues, there are 18 driveways or entrances and 6 streets where drivers or bicyclists may turn onto the street. Any restrictions put in place to free the view of one driveway (roughly 50 or more feet) would remove parking over half of the distance to the next driveway. When repeated for each of the driveways and streets on this corridor, there are few parking spaces left, and their placement is inconsistent and unexpected. For consistency, parking is proposed to be restricted completely on the south side of the road. A letter was sent to the surrounding area (633 in total) looking for comments and concerns regarding the proposed parking changes. Five comments were received. Four were in favor of the proposed parking restrictions and one was against. Their comments are summarized below verbatim: In support of the addition of parking restrictions (4 comments): • “I am all for this added parking restriction (no parking) on the south side of the road. I travel that road every day and it scary to have cars parked on the one side, especially during the winter. I see no reason to have parking there as those business have parking lots behind them up the side street. It is especially bad when lots of cars are there and other drivers try to turn onto Wayzata from Dakota and Colorado as those cars have a hard time seeing and judging on coming vehicles. I have many times nearly hit people or had to slow down and honk at them for cutting out into the road. “ • “I live on Colorado ave just south of Wayzata and I 100% support the proposed parking restriction, thank you” • “As to the proposed restriction on Louisiana Ave to Zarthan Ave. This is the best news ever!!!! I have worked at Park Place West for 18 years & it is SO DANGEROUS pulling out onto Wayzata Blvd from Dakota Ave. Trying to turn West onto Wayzata Blvd, you cannot see ANYTHING from the East!!! You have to try to gauge what vehicles you last saw cross the railroad tracks to the East, as to where they MAY be (vision blocked by City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4d) Page 3 Title: TS 720 – Authorize parking restrictions on Wayzata Boulevard from Louisiana Avenue to Zarthan Avenue parked cars) by the time the traffic is clear from the West. You have to pray you guessed correctly as to how much time you have before you pull out. It’s TERRIBLE!!!!” • “Thank God our phone calls are being addressed. Someone is going to get killed, it is so dangerous trying to get onto Wayzata Blvd with the parking on the South Side. I have seen so many close calls. The worst is between Colorado and Dakota you cannot see to the East to get on the frontage without pulling out to see around the cars. Thank you for all you do. I am so glad I am not the only one calling about this.” Against the addition of parking restrictions (1 comment): • “I drive up and down the frontage road nearly once a week or more. There are some days there are several people park on the southside of Wayzata Blvd and other days very few. I don't know who the squeaky wheel is that is complaining about sightlines and safety but it is a little bit of an overreaction. There are only a couple of side streets that may even have a little bit of sightline issue at best. If people were not so impatient and used proper driving etiquette and technique, there is no safety issue. Let's quit spending our tax dollars on frivolous situations. We don't have to spend a bunch of money for new street signs and the cost of putting them up because of one or two people. I say vote no to the proposed parking restrictions.” City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4d) Page 4 Title: TS 720 – Authorize parking restrictions on Wayzata Boulevard from Louisiana Avenue to Zarthan Avenue Resolution No. 20-____ Authorizing parking restrictions on Wayzata Boulevard from Louisiana Avenue to Zarthan Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park has received multiple requests to evaluate parking restrictions on Wayzata Boulevard from Louisiana Avenue to Zarthan Avenue; and, Whereas, the traffic committee has reviewed the corridor and recommended the installation of parking restrictions on the south side of Wayzata Boulevard from Louisiana Avenue to Zarthan Avenue; and, Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install parking restrictions on the south side of Wayzata Boulevard from the east right of way line of Louisiana Avenue to the west right of way line of Zarthan Avenue. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Jan. 21, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk TS 720 location map 0 200 400100 Feet 1400 1550 5775 1400 6301 1338 14271400 1336 1341 1400 1343 1342 6475 1361 6801 6112 6465 5901 1405 6415 1341 6003 1409 1410 1351 6401 6639 6009 6311 6401 1/2 5875 1345 6445 INTERST A T E 3 9 4 INTERS T A T E 3 9 4 WAYZATA BLVD COLORADO AVE SDAKOTA AVE S14TH ST W ZARTHANAVE SPARK PLACE BLVD TO WB I394 HAMPSHIRE AVE SSB HWY100 S TO WB I394 EB I394 TO SB HWY100 S EB I394 TO PARK PLACE BLV D ´ 1344 1338 1325 1352 1338 1356 1357 1344 1355 1354 1341 6905 7005 6475 1358 1347 6801 1350 1346 1333 1345 1336 1353 6919 1328 1351 1344 7035 1332 1333 1338 1346 6639 1349 1360 6925 7115 1342 6817 1330 1356 1348 1340JERSEY AVE SIDAHO AVE SLOUISIANAAVE S TO EBI394 KENTUCKY AVE S14TH ST W WAYZAT A BLVD INTERSTATE 394 INTERSTATE 394 HAMPSHIRE AVE SWB I394 TO LOUISIANA AVE S Legend Existing parking restrictions Proposed parking restrictions Property lines 0 200 400100 Feet ´ City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4d) Title: TS 720 – Authorize parking restrictions on Wayzata Boulevard from Louisiana Avenue to Zarthan Avenue Page 5 Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4e Executive summary Title: TS 722 – Installation of all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street (Petition) Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street. Policy consideration: Installing traffic controls is allowed per the city’s established regulatory authority. City council considers non-qualifying traffic control devices if 70 percent of properties within a 600-foot radius from the location sign a petition. Summary: Staff received a request for all-way stop signs at the intersection of Toledo Avenue and 42nd Street in April 2018. The intersection is a four-way intersection with no existing traffic controls. The city’s traffic control policy and the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) guide the installation of stop signs. The policy sets out warrant criteria that an intersection should meet in order to have stop signs installed. The stop sign criteria for traffic volume, crash history, and sightlines were not met for this intersection. The traffic committee discussed the study at the June 2018 committee meeting and did not recommend supporting the request because the intersection did not meet the thresholds for stop sign installation. Staff received a petition that meets the traffic control policy requirements. Past practice by the council has been to approve stop sign requests when such a petition is received. A letter was sent to the surrounding area (172 in total) looking for comments and concerns regarding the proposed traffic control change. Nine comments were received from residents through email and phone. Six comments were in support of adding all-way stop signs. Three comments were against adding all-way stop signs. Financial or budget considerations: The cost to install these traffic controls is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Resolution Location map Petition Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Page 2 Title: TS 722 – Installation of all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street (Petition) Discussion Background: Staff received a request for all-way stop signs at the intersection of Toledo Avenue and 42nd Street in April 2018. The intersection is a four-way intersection with no existing traffic controls. The city’s traffic control policy and the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) guide the installation of stop signs. The policy sets out warrant criteria that an intersection should meet in order to have stop signs installed. The stop sign criteria for traffic volume, crash history, and sightlines were not met for this intersection. Stop signs are installed to control conflicting traffic movements at intersections and assign who has the right of way. Multiple studies have found that stop signs do not slow down traffic except in the immediate vicinity of the intersection. Also, stop sign compliance is low when drivers believe the signs are not justified. This creates a false sense of security for other road users, especially pedestrians and bicyclists. Staff often fields resident complaints about low stop sign compliance. Installing unwarranted stop signs increases the number of locations for probable low stop sign compliance. Finally, they create traffic noise and higher CO2 emissions due to vehicles slowing down, idling, and starting back up again. Past experience has demonstrated that placing stop signs in locations where they do not meet these conditions can potentially cause an intersection to be less safe due to low compliance. Traffic study: The traffic committee discussed the study at the June 2018 committee meeting and did not recommend supporting the request because the intersection did not meet the thresholds for stop sign installation. The thresholds for stop sign installation are as follows: • Combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes entering the intersection from all approaches averages more than 2,000 a day. Result: According to our traffic counters, 558 vehicles a day entered the intersection. • Crash records indicate five or more accidents within a three-year period. Result: Crash history showed one reported accident within the last three years. • The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right of way rule if stopping or yielding. Result: The sightlines were found to be clear at this intersection with adequate ability for drivers to apply the normal right of way rule if stopping or yielding. Petition and comments: When the traffic committee does not recommend the installation of a traffic control device, residents have the opportunity to petition the city council to consider the committee’s recommendation. Per city policy, non-qualifying devices and traffic calming methods may be considered if both of the following are satisfied: City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Page 3 Title: TS 722 – Installation of all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street (Petition) • 70% of properties within a 600-foot radius from the location sign a petition or a neighborhood association supports a neighborhood study and calming strategy. • Special studies and installation of traffic calming controls (except signs) would be at residents or neighborhood cost (specifically assessed to benefitted residents or areas). The city has received the attached petition that meets the requirements listed above. Past practice by the council has been to approve stop sign requests when a petition is received that meets the requirements of the traffic control policy. A letter was sent to the surrounding area (172 in total) looking for comments and concerns regarding the proposed traffic control change. Nine comments were received from residents through email and phone. Six comments were in support of adding all-way stop signs. Three comments were against adding all-way stop signs. Their comments are summarized below verbatim: In support of the addition of all-way stop signs (6 comments): • “I live at 4212 Salem and we have a stop sign at 41st and Salem. Even with a stop sign, cars fly through the intersection and down our street at speeds higher than 35 miles per hour. There have been times where even with the stop sign, cars go right through the intersection completely ignoring the stop sign. Our neighborhood is filled with children and 41st does not have a sidewalk, the east/odd side of Salem does not have a sidewalk. The west/even side of Salem has a partial sidewalk. I have almost been hit by cars walking my children to school on 41st, I have almost been hit by cars turning at high speeds from 41st onto Salem. “Why on earth Toledo doesn't have a stop sign is mind boggling to me. I have seen near hit/miss accidents. I have watched cars fly through the intersection trying to take turns at unreasonable speeds. I have watched as children and families try to cross the street and cars DO NOT STOP for pedestrians because there is no stop sign. I have come to the point where I will not walk on Toledo/41st because it is too dangerous. I won't let my kids walk to that intersection without an adult because drivers just do not stop to look for pedestrians nor do drivers stop to look at cars coming on the other street. The neighbors in Browndale are completely fed up with the drivers that speed down the street and completely ignore pedestrians and absolutely disregard the neighborhood speed limit. It's time for a stop sign at this intersection. “As my mother told me - SAFETY FIRST, and as I tell my children - SAFETY FIRST. Please install a stop sign at this intersection and make safety your first priority”. • “Our family has lived in this neighborhood sense 1976 and has always thought there should be a sign at this location. In fact our neighbors previously tried to get a sign with no luck. “I think a sign would slow traffic down. I have seen many cars and delivery vehicles going to fast over what should be posted 20 MPH not 35 or even faster. This has been a long time coming And I look forward to stopping at the corner. Thank you for your time”. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Page 4 Title: TS 722 – Installation of all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street (Petition) • “We have only lived here for 8 months, however, I would feel MUCH more comfortable if we had a 4-way stop at that intersection. I have young drivers in my household and it’s scary that drivers fly through that intersection all the time. In the short time we’ve lived here, it’s become very clear that it is not a safe intersection. Therefore, we would highly welcome a 4-way stop!” • “Speed on our street had been a problem for as long as I have lived here. I can't tell you how many times I have yelled or signaled people to slow down. People use Toledo to get to their destinations in southern SLP or Edina. We need the stop sign to slow the traffic down. For some reason they think Toledo is a through street and as they go through the 42st intersection, never looking right or left or slowing down as they go through. I have personally witnessed two accidents at that location and have seen several near calls. I don't think it has to be a four way stop but there should at least be signs to slow the north south traffic. Not all the drivers are speeding but it only takes one to change peoples lives forever. The neighborhood has been blessed to have a lot of young kids living here. We need to slow the traffic to protect them. It's not a huge request but needs to be done. The petition should speak for it's self. The people that live here want it.” • “A few months ago, I was in a near-miss accident at that intersection. I was a passenger in a car approaching on 42nd, while a semitrailer truck was barreling down Toledo. The driver of my car was uncharacteristically distracted; it was only my scream that prompted him to screech to a halt. The truck driver, who I assume was blissfully unaware that there was no stop sign controlling the cross traffic, fortunately did the same. Just in time. “This heart-stopping moment reminded me why I have always approached that intersection, half a block from my home, with such anxiety. I discovered that I was far from alone. “When I teamed up with PJ Toutant, another neighbor and the father of three young children, to circulate a petition for the stop signs, I heard story after story from other neighbors about accidents and near misses. It took just a matter of weeks to collect enough signatures to meet the 70 percent threshold to set this process, for consideration of the stop signs, in motion. Almost everyone I spoke to was eager to support the petition and wished us luck. “I appreciate the fact that you are willing to listen to the voice of our neighborhood, which showed overwhelming support for this request. Thank you for your consideration”. • “We understand the rationale for no stop signs currently (low traffic numbers, lack of accidents in 3 years, and clear sight lines) but we have personally experienced and observed multiple near misses in the past few years. With the high number of young children in the neighborhood, we would very much like to get the stop signs installed to prevent potential future accidents rather than wait for accidents to happen to justify the installation after the fact”. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Page 5 Title: TS 722 – Installation of all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street (Petition) Against the addition of all-way stop signs (3 comments): • “We did NOT sign the petition to install these. We do not think they are needed. There are 2-way stop signs at 42nd & Salem, which are adequate. In my opinion, the petition was started by someone with unreasonable expectations about how traffic should flow through the neighborhood, and posts signs in the street between vehicles to slow traffic”. • “Hello, I have lived at 4148 Toledo for 25 years, and have never felt the need for a 4 way stop sign at this intersection. I drive through this intersection daily and don’t recall ever having an issue, especially as there is rarely another car at the intersection at the same time. The intersection is easily visible from our home, and I haven’t noticed any uptick in traffic through the years. Although I don’t feel the need for any type of stop sign, I would object less to a 2 way stop. I respect that I have neighbors who feel otherwise, but to me, a 4 way stop here feels excessive, particularly when 41st only has a 2 way, and is much more heavily traveled”. • “I have been resident of the Browndale neighborhood for 25 yrs and do not support the petition for a stop sign. I agree fully with the city assessment criteria, and see that current conditions have clearly missed the mark. “I believe the petitioners were not clear in there attempt to gain support. When I was told about the effort to install stop signs there was no mention of a 4 way stop. This was misleading and may have prompted others to sign the petition to be seen as a "good neighbor". My feeling is that if you live in the neighborhood, then you know that it is an uncontrolled intersection and should be aware of cross traffic which forces you to slow down. There are no other 4 way stop intersections in the neighborhood with the exception of Woodale Ave. So why this one? “If I remember correctly, there was also a mention of vehicles cutting through the neighborhood by the petitioners. Another misleading statement. The traffic study clearly shows the number of units that passed in a day. This street and intersection is not a "shortcut" for vehicles because it provides no benefit”. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Page 6 Title: TS 722 – Installation of all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street (Petition) Resolution No. 20-____ Installation of all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota received a request for stop signs at the intersection of Toledo Avenue and 42nd Street; and, Whereas, the traffic committee has reviewed the request and did not recommend installation of stop signs at the intersection of Toledo Avenue and 42nd Street; and, Whereas, non-qualifying traffic control devices may be considered by the city council if seventy (70) percent of residents within a six hundred (600) foot radius from the intersection petition; and, Whereas, city staff received a completed and valid petition requesting the installation of all-way stop signs at the intersection of Toledo Avenue and 42nd Street and presented the petition and traffic study to the city council; and, Whereas, St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install stop signs on all approaches to the intersection of Toledo Avenue and 42nd Street. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Jan. 21, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk TS 722 location map 4144 4228 4221 4149 4145 4149 4220 4161 4216 4159 4124 4212 4153 4216 4205 4141 4212 4129 4217 4137 4133 4128 4132 4224 4206 4153 4128 4225 4129 4132 4217 4221 4148 4145 4152 4136 4152 4141 4229 4201 4200 4160 4213 4209 4125 4156 4136 4200 4144 4213 4228 4140 4224 4220 4125 4160 4148 4156 4204 4201 42084209 4229 4157 4137 4140 4133 4205 4225 42ND ST W TOLEDO AVE SUTICA AVE SSALEM AVE S´0 50 10025 Feet Legend Proposed stop signs Existing stop signs Property lines City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Title: TS 722 – Installation of all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street (Petition)Page 7 City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Title: TS 722 – Installation of all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street (Petition)Page 8 City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Title: TS 722 – Installation of all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street (Petition)Page 9 City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Title: TS 722 – Installation of all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street (Petition)Page 10 City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Title: TS 722 – Installation of all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street (Petition)Page 11 City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Title: TS 722 – Installation of all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street (Petition)Page 12 City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Title: TS 722 – Installation of all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street (Petition)Page 13 City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Title: TS 722 – Installation of all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street (Petition)Page 14 City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Title: TS 722 – Installation of all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street (Petition)Page 15 City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Title: TS 722 – Installation of all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street (Petition)Page 16 City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4e) Title: TS 722 – Installation of all-way stop controls on Toledo Avenue at 42nd Street (Petition)Page 17 Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4f Executive summary Title: Equipment replacement – street sweeper Recommended action: Motion to approve replacement of 2013 Elgin Pelican Street Sweeper. Policy consideration: Not applicable. Summary: Our 2013 Elgin Pelican Street Sweeper is scheduled to be replaced in the 2020 capital improvement plan. This type of sweeper performs maintenance duties including general street maintenance, spring and fall leaf removal, multiple street sweepings which prevents dirt and other debris from going in the storm drains. Staff has reviewed the replacement and based on age, condition, and salvage value it is recommended to be replaced as planned. The replacement sweeper will have a tier 4 diesel system which will reduce emissions compared to the current sweeper. In addition, the new model will be dustless which will reduce the need of an additional operator, flusher truck and the use of additional water during operation. The replacement will be made via the State of Minnesota cooperative purchasing venture (state contract) with Macqueen Equipment. The replacement is part of the 2020 budget and long- range financial management plan. Since the purchase price is over the amount the city manager is authorized to approve, staff is bringing this to council for approval. Financial or budget considerations: The replacement vehicle will traded-in as staff estimates the trade-in value is in alignment with current auction results for this type of equipment. The new Elgin Pelican Sweeper is budgeted in the amount of $268,081. The purchase price is $277,288 less trade-in of $62,000 for a net purchase cost of $215,288 which is under budget. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: None Prepared by: Tom O’Donnell, fleet maintenance manger Reviewed by: Tim Simon, chief financial officer Cindy Walsh, operations & recreation director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4g Executive summary Title: 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee representative replacement Recommended action: Motion to approve the appointment of Lt. Greg Weigel as the secondary representative from the police department to the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board (MESB), 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee (TOC). Lt. Weigel would replace Deputy Chief Bryan Kruelle who was approved in October 2018 as the secondary member for the police department. Policy consideration: How will participation in this committee benefit the city? Summary: The MESB was established to oversee the 9-1-1 system in the nine county metropolitan area of Minneapolis/St. Paul. Some of its directives include providing network oversight, establishing standards and guidelines for 9-1-1 services and the region’s interoperable radio system, coordinating the 9-1-1 database to ensure the accuracy, and facilitating meetings for radio users and Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs). One of the groups facilitated is the 9-1-1 TOC which is tasked with identifying, reviewing, and recommending operating standards that are adopted by the MESB in the area of 9-1-1 and radio operations. The participation of St. Louis Park representatives allows for a single member vote on any motion brought before the 9-1-1 TOC. Additionally, these meetings provide a valuable platform for issues that are handled by this workgroup which are unique to, or specifically impact, the City of St. Louis Park. The 9-1-1 TOC is currently represented by most PSAPs in the nine county region. The appointed primary representative for St. Louis Park is Marv Solberg. Marv is the lead dispatcher for our PSAP with one of his primary responsibilities involving the review and planning for the technical elements of the dispatch center. Lt. Greg Weigel, who now oversees the PSAP effective as of 1/1/20, is the recommended secondary representative to replace Deputy Chief Bryan Kruelle. As a requirement of the 9-1-1 TOC by- laws, member appointments and replacements are only achieved through resolution by each agency’s governing body. Financial or budget considerations: There is no financial impact as the result of this replacement. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable Supporting documents: By-laws of the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee Prepared by: Bryan Kruelle, deputy police chief Reviewed by: Mike Harcey, police chief Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager BY- LAWS OF THE METROPOLITAN EMERGENCY SERVICES BOARD 9-1-1 TECHNICAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE SECTION 1: COMPOSITION There shall be a 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee composed of no more than one representative and one designated alternate representative from each primary and secondary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) in the metropolitan region. The governing body of each PSAP, by resolution, shall appoint its representative to the 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee or the governing body of each PSAP shall, by resolution, designate an appointing authority to make representative appointments. The governing body or appointing authority may also choose to appoint an alternate representative. If alternate representatives are appointed, they shall have the same voting rights as the representative for whom they are appointed to serve as an alternate. SECTION 2. CHAIR The 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee shall recommend to the Chair of the Board at the annual organizational meeting of the Board a Chair of the 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee. The Chair of the Board shall appoint the Chair of the 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee subject to the approval of the Board. The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the 911 Technical Operations Committee and perform the usual duties of a Chair. SECTION 3. VICE CHAIR The 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee shall recommend to the Chair of the Board at the annual organizational meeting of the Board a Vice Chair of the Committee. The Chair of the Board shall appoint the Vice Chair of the 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee, subject to the approval of the Board. The Vice Chair shall perform the duties of the Chair in the absence of the Chair or in the event of his or her inability or refusal to act. SECTION 4. POWER AND DUTIES The 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee shall have the following powers and duties: a.Present to the Board plans, operating standards, studies, and reports, prepared for the Board purposes and action and recommend to the Board, for adoption, such measures as are deemed necessary to enforce or carry out the powers and duties of the Board. b.Monitor the installation and operations of the regional 9-1-1 system as required by the Board. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee representative replacement Page 2 c.Prepare and submit to the Executive Director by May 1st of each year its recommendations for items to be included in the budget request to the Board for the following year. d.Perform other such duties as may be prescribed by the Board. SECTION 5. VOTING Each member of the 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee may cast one vote on any motion before the 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee. A simple majority vote of the members present shall be required to pass any motion, provided there is a quorum. Voting can be either by voice or roll call provided that a roll call vote may be called for by any member of the 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee. Absentee or proxy voting is not permitted. SECTION 6. MEETINGS The 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee may provide, by resolution, the time and place for holding regular meetings of the 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee. Notice of regular meetings of the 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee shall be given to each member of the 9-1- 1 Technical Operations Committee at least five (5) days prior to such meeting, and, in all respects, shall comply with the provisions of the open meeting law. Special meetings of the 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee may be called by the Chair provided that at least three (3) days notice be given to each member of the 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee and otherwise comply with the provisions of open meeting law. SECTION 7. QUORUM The majority of the members designated by the appointing authorities shall constitute a quorum. SECTION 8. ATTENDANCE 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee members or their alternates are expected to regularly attend the meetings. In the event that either a regular member, or their designated alternate representative, fails to attend at least 75% of the regular committee meetings held in any calendar year, that member’s appointing authority will be notified and given an opportunity to appoint a new member and/or designated alternate. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4g) Title: 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee representative replacement Page 3 Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4h Executive summary Title: 2019 Pay Equity Report Recommended action: Motion to approve the 2019 Pay Equity Report. Policy consideration: Is the city of St. Louis Park in compliance with Pay Equity parameters? Summary: The city is required to comply with the 1984 Local Government Pay Equity Act, MS 471.991-471.999 and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 3920. The report is required every three years, must include data as of December 31, 2019, and be submitted to the Minnesota Management and Budget office (MMB) by January 31, 2020. Prior to submission to MMB, the governing body of the jurisdiction must approve the report. After approval by Council, Human Resources will submit the report to MMB indicating that the Council has reviewed and approved the report. MMB will fully review our report and notify us at some point in 2020 whether we are “in compliance” or “out of compliance.” A preliminary statistical analysis of the data using the MMB Pay Equity Software shows that the City of St. Louis Park is in compliance with Pay Equity parameters. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion 2019 Pay Equity Report Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR manager Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Page 2 Title: 2019 Pay Equity Report Discussion Background: What is Pay Equity? Pay Equity is a method of eliminating discrimination against women who are paid less than men for jobs requiring comparable levels of expertise. This goes beyond the familiar idea of equal pay for equal work where men and women with the same jobs must be paid equally. A policy to establish pay equity usually means: 1) that all jobs will be evaluated and given points according to the level of knowledge and responsibility required to do the job; and 2) that salary adjustments will be made if it is discovered that women are consistently paid less than men for jobs with similar points. Which employees are included in the Pay Equity Report? Only employees who work at least 14 hours per week and 67 days per year (100 days in the case of students) are included on the attached report. Many of our seasonal, temporary, or non-benefited staff do not meet this threshold and are not included in the report. How are “job points” determined? Our compensation consultant, Dr. Saado Abboud of Keystone Compensation, has analyzed all of our positions and assigned job points based on the duties, responsibilities, minimum requirements, complexities, and unfavorable factors of each position. What pay is reported? The minimum and maximum monthly pay included in the report is the pay range applicable to each position. If a position is eligible for city-provided insurance benefits, the maximum available monthly contribution must be included in the monthly wage. For 2019, the maximum monthly benefits contribution was $1,355 per month for family coverage. Therefore, the minimum and maximum monthly salary on our report includes an additional $1,355 for benefits-eligible positions. Positions that are not benefits-eligible are indicated with a (s) on the report and do not include the additional monthly benefits contribution amount. Why are years to max salary different for positions? Our non-union compensation plan identifies seven (7) years as the goal for a new employee to reach the maximum of the pay range, provided they are hired at the minimum. Union positions have steps negotiated in the union contract that identify how many years it takes to reach maximum pay. For non-benefited staff, movement through the range is based solely on performance, therefore we are required to enter zero (0) for years to max salary and instead fill in the years of service column with the greatest number of years an employee has been in the position. What is exceptional service pay? Any employee who is eligible for additional pay beyond the range maximum must be indicated with exceptional service pay (longevity or performance pay). Our union positions of Firefighter and Fire Lieutenant are the only positions that have negotiated exceptional service pay (longevity). City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Page 3 Title: 2019 Pay Equity Report Is the city in compliance? Although we must wait until we receive official notice from MMB, our preliminary statistical analysis using their software shows that we are in compliance. Our underpayment ratio (percent of male classes below predicted pay divided by percent of female classes below predicted pay) is 85.94. Results of 80 and above are passing. Additionally, our salary range test (average number of years to max salary for male jobs divided by the average number of years to max salary for female jobs) is 94.2. Again, results of 80 and above are passing. Finally, our exceptional service pay test shows a score of 0, which is passing. Present considerations: Does Council wish to approve the 2019 Pay Equity Report? Next steps: Upon council approval, Human Resources provide notice to exclusive representatives of each bargaining group and post for all other employees for at least 90 days in accordance with MN Administrative Rules 3920.0300. Human Resources will then submit the 2019 Pay Equity Report to the Minnesota Management & Budget Department by January 31, 2020 as required. Compliance Report Jurisdiction: Contact:Phone: St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park MN 55416 2020 Case: Report Year: 1 - 2020 DATA (Private (Jur Only)) Ali Timpone atimpone@stlouispark.org(952) 928-2846 E-Mail: The statistical analysis, salary range and exceptional service pay test results are shown below. Part I is general information from your pay equity report data. Parts II, III and IV give you the test results. For more detail on each test, refer to the Guide to Pay Equity Compliance and Computer Reports. I. GENERAL JOB CLASS INFORMATION Male Classes Female Classes Balanced Classes All Job Classes # Job Classes # Employees Avg. Max Monthly Pay per employee II. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TEST A. Underpayment Ratio = Male Classes Female Classes a. # At or above Predicted Pay b. # Below Predicted Pay c. TOTAL d. % Below Predicted Pay (b divided by c = d) * *(Result is % of male classes below predicted pay divided by % of female classes below predicted pay.) B. T-test Results Degrees of Freedom (DF) = Value of T = a. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for male jobs = b. Avg. diff. in pay from predicted pay for female jobs = III. SALARY RANGE TEST =(Result is A divided by B) A. Avg. # of years to max salary for male jobs = B. Avg. # of years to max salary for female jobs = IV. EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE PAY TEST =(Result is B divided by A) A. % of male classes receiving ESP * B. % of female classes receiving ESP *(If 20% or less, test result will be 0.00) 64 55 8 127 163 76 62 301 8,668.15 7,828.78 8,375.07 85.94 50 41 14 14 64 55 21.88 25.45 237 -3.541 $26 $213 94.20 6.56 6.96 0.00 3.13 0.00 City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Title: 2019 Pay Equity Report Page 4 Job Nbr Class Title Nbr Males Nbr Females Class Type Jobs Points Min Mo Salary Max Mo Salary Yrs to Max Salary Yrs of Service Exceptional Service Pay 2020 DATACase: St. Louis ParkJob Class Data Entry Verification List 1286LGID: 1 Rec Center Attendant (s) 0 1 F 140 $1,709.00 $2,423.00 0.00 4.00 2 Police Cadet (s) 2 2 B 160 $1,709.00 $3,022.00 0.00 3.00 3 Seasonal Worker (s) 5 0 M 160 $1,709.00 $3,022.00 0.00 1.00 4 Naturalist/Programmer (s) 0 4 F 180 $1,936.00 $3,872.00 0.00 3.00 5 Weed Inspector (s) 0 1 F 180 $1,936.00 $3,872.00 0.00 1.00 6 Seasonal Supervisor (s) 2 1 B 200 $2,343.00 $4,689.00 0.00 1.00 7 Intern - Grad Level (s) 0 3 F 200 $2,343.00 $4,689.00 0.00 1.00 8 Racial Equity Outreach Asst (s 0 2 F 210 $2,343.00 $4,689.00 0.00 1.00 9 Customer Service Representativ 0 1 F 217 $5,096.00 $6,031.00 7.00 0.00 10 Custodian 1 0 M 218 $4,941.00 $5,566.00 4.00 0.00 11 Office Assistant Level 1 0 9 F 227 $5,520.00 $6,561.00 7.00 0.00 12 Accounting Clerk: AP 0 1 F 230 $5,520.00 $6,561.00 7.00 0.00 13 UB Specialist 1 1 B 230 $5,520.00 $6,561.00 7.00 0.00 14 Program Producer 1 0 M 233 $5,520.00 $6,561.00 7.00 0.00 15 Accounting Clerk: Cash 0 1 F 234 $5,520.00 $6,561.00 7.00 0.00 16 Secretary: Nature Center 0 1 F 237 $5,520.00 $6,561.00 7.00 0.00 17 Office Assistant: Fire 0 1 F 239 $5,520.00 $6,561.00 7.00 0.00 18 Head Instructor (s) 0 1 F 244 $2,889.00 $5,776.00 0.00 6.00 19 Office Assistant: Admin 1 1 B 247 $5,966.00 $7,118.00 7.00 0.00 20 Office Assistant: Housing 0 1 F 247 $5,966.00 $7,118.00 7.00 0.00 21 Permit Technician 1 2 B 247 $5,966.00 $7,118.00 7.00 0.00 22 Maintenance Technician 1 0 M 252 $5,966.00 $7,118.00 7.00 0.00 23 Help Desk Technician 0 1 F 258 $5,966.00 $7,118.00 7.00 0.00 24 Office Assistant: Engineering 0 1 F 258 $5,966.00 $7,118.00 7.00 0.00 25 Assessing Technician 0 1 F 262 $5,966.00 $7,118.00 7.00 0.00 26 Video Specialist 1 0 M 264 $5,966.00 $7,118.00 7.00 0.00 27 Public Service Worker 39 0 M 264 $5,372.00 $6,894.00 6.00 0.00 28 Graphic Designer 1 0 M 266 $5,966.00 $7,118.00 7.00 0.00 29 Office Assistant: CD 0 1 F 267 $5,966.00 $7,118.00 7.00 0.00 30 CSO Coordinator 1 0 M 268 $5,966.00 $7,118.00 7.00 0.00 31 Solid Waste Field Inspector 1 0 M 268 $5,966.00 $7,118.00 7.00 0.00 32 Dispatcher 1 7 F 276 $6,180.00 $7,289.00 5.00 0.00 33 Public Housing Specialist 0 1 F 280 $6,397.00 $7,657.00 7.00 0.00 34 Elections Specialist 0 1 F 281 $6,397.00 $7,657.00 7.00 0.00 35 Payroll Specialist 0 1 F 282 $6,397.00 $7,657.00 7.00 0.00 36 Naturalist 1 2 B 286 $6,397.00 $7,657.00 7.00 0.00 37 Solid Waste Program Specialist 0 1 F 286 $6,397.00 $7,657.00 7.00 0.00 38 Elections Specialist - Outreac 1 0 M 290 $6,397.00 $7,657.00 7.00 0.00 39 HR Technician 0 1 F 290 $6,397.00 $7,657.00 7.00 0.00 40 Property Maintenance Inspector 1 0 M 290 $6,397.00 $7,657.00 7.00 0.00 41 Wellenss and Volunteer Coordin 0 1 F 290 $6,397.00 $7,657.00 7.00 0.00 42 Engineering Info Specialist 1 0 M 291 $6,397.00 $7,657.00 7.00 0.00 43 Community Organizer 1 0 M 294 $6,397.00 $7,657.00 7.00 0.00 44 TV Coordinator 1 0 M 294 $6,397.00 $7,657.00 7.00 0.00 45 Public Works Info Systems Spec 2 0 M 295 $6,397.00 $7,657.00 7.00 0.00 46 Sr Office Assistant 0 1 F 295 $6,397.00 $7,657.00 7.00 0.00 47 IT Technician 2 0 M 299 $6,857.00 $8,233.00 7.00 0.00 48 Mechanic 4 0 M 300 $6,395.00 $7,171.00 4.00 0.00 49 Plant Operator 4 0 M 300 $6,317.00 $7,089.00 4.00 0.00 50 Firefighter 14 1 M 306 $6,851.00 $8,037.00 3.00 0.00 longevity 51 Communications Coordinator 0 1 F 310 $6,857.00 $8,233.00 7.00 0.00 52 Maintenance Mech Coord 1 0 M 315 $6,857.00 $8,233.00 7.00 0.00 53 Housing Assistance Coordinator 0 1 F 316 $6,857.00 $8,233.00 7.00 0.00 54 Associate Planner 0 1 F 317 $6,857.00 $8,233.00 7.00 0.00 55 Economic Development Specialis 0 1 F 317 $6,857.00 $8,233.00 7.00 0.00 56 Engineering Technician II 1 0 M 321 $6,857.00 $8,233.00 7.00 0.00 57 Senior Mgmt Analyst 0 1 F 321 $6,857.00 $8,233.00 7.00 0.00 58 Web Coordinator 0 1 F 321 $6,857.00 $8,233.00 7.00 0.00 1 City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Title: 2019 Pay Equity Report Page 5 Job Nbr Class Title Nbr Males Nbr Females Class Type Jobs Points Min Mo Salary Max Mo Salary Yrs to Max Salary Yrs of Service Exceptional Service Pay 2020 DATACase: St. Louis ParkJob Class Data Entry Verification List 1286LGID: 59 Accountant/Finance Analyst I 0 1 F 322 $6,857.00 $8,233.00 7.00 0.00 60 Appraiser I 2 0 M 331 $7,370.00 $8,874.00 7.00 0.00 61 Construction Codes Inspector 3 0 M 331 $7,370.00 $8,874.00 7.00 0.00 62 Project Coordinator 3 0 M 340 $7,370.00 $8,874.00 7.00 0.00 63 Recreation and Facilities Supe 0 1 F 343 $7,370.00 $8,874.00 7.00 0.00 64 Senior IT Technician 1 0 M 343 $7,370.00 $8,874.00 7.00 0.00 65 Engineering Technician III 0 1 F 347 $7,370.00 $8,874.00 7.00 0.00 66 Property Maintenance Inspector 4 0 M 347 $7,370.00 $8,874.00 7.00 0.00 67 GIS Coordinator 1 0 M 352 $7,370.00 $8,874.00 7.00 0.00 68 Planner 0 1 F 352 $7,370.00 $8,874.00 7.00 0.00 69 Records Supervisor 0 1 F 353 $7,370.00 $8,874.00 7.00 0.00 70 Accountant/Finance Analyst II 0 1 F 355 $7,370.00 $8,874.00 7.00 0.00 71 Recreation Supervisor 2 1 B 355 $7,370.00 $8,874.00 7.00 0.00 72 Assistant Zoning Administrator 1 0 M 356 $7,370.00 $8,874.00 7.00 0.00 73 Public Housing Coordinator 0 1 F 358 $7,370.00 $8,874.00 7.00 0.00 74 Senior Construction Codes Insp 4 0 M 379 $7,893.00 $9,527.00 7.00 0.00 75 Engineer: Transportaiton and P 2 0 M 385 $7,893.00 $9,527.00 7.00 0.00 76 Appraiser II 0 1 F 386 $7,893.00 $9,527.00 7.00 0.00 77 Field Supervisor 6 0 M 388 $7,601.00 $8,566.00 4.00 0.00 78 Fire Lieutenant 5 0 M 393 $8,388.00 $8,722.00 1.00 0.00 longevity 79 Police Officer 32 10 B 393 $6,555.00 $9,251.00 12.00 0.00 80 Solid Waste Manager 0 1 F 398 $7,893.00 $9,527.00 7.00 0.00 81 Water Resources Manager 1 0 M 406 $8,413.00 $10,178.00 7.00 0.00 82 Assistant Housing Supervisor 0 1 F 407 $8,413.00 $10,178.00 7.00 0.00 83 Senior Accountant 0 1 F 408 $8,413.00 $10,178.00 7.00 0.00 84 Natural Resources Coordinator 1 0 M 411 $8,413.00 $10,178.00 7.00 0.00 85 Facilities Manager 1 0 M 413 $8,413.00 $10,178.00 7.00 0.00 86 City Clerk 0 1 F 415 $8,413.00 $10,178.00 7.00 0.00 87 Fleet Manager 1 0 M 417 $8,413.00 $10,178.00 7.00 0.00 88 Nature Center Manager 1 0 M 419 $8,413.00 $10,178.00 7.00 0.00 89 Operations Manager 1 0 M 426 $8,413.00 $10,178.00 7.00 0.00 90 Appraiser III 0 1 F 428 $8,413.00 $10,178.00 7.00 0.00 91 Fire Captain 3 0 M 429 $8,413.00 $10,178.00 7.00 0.00 92 Public Works Services Manager 1 0 M 429 $8,413.00 $10,178.00 7.00 0.00 93 Sustainability Manager 0 1 F 429 $8,413.00 $10,178.00 7.00 0.00 94 Racial Equity Manager 0 1 F 430 $8,413.00 $10,178.00 7.00 0.00 95 Rec Center Manager 1 0 M 431 $8,413.00 $10,178.00 7.00 0.00 96 Property Mtce and Licensing Mg 0 1 F 448 $8,989.00 $10,897.00 7.00 0.00 97 Assistant Chief - Training 1 0 M 449 $8,989.00 $10,897.00 7.00 0.00 98 Sergeant 9 0 M 450 $10,264.00 $10,579.00 2.00 0.00 99 Economic Development Coordinat 1 0 M 463 $8,989.00 $10,897.00 7.00 0.00 100 IT Manager 1 0 M 467 $8,989.00 $10,897.00 7.00 0.00 101 HR Manager 0 1 F 470 $8,989.00 $10,897.00 7.00 0.00 102 Assistant Chief - Fire Marshal 1 0 M 481 $8,989.00 $10,897.00 7.00 0.00 103 Finance Manager 1 0 M 481 $8,989.00 $10,897.00 7.00 0.00 104 Communications & Marketing Mgr 0 1 F 482 $8,989.00 $10,897.00 7.00 0.00 105 Planning and Zoning Supervisor 1 0 M 486 $9,632.00 $11,701.00 7.00 0.00 106 Park Superintendent 1 0 M 490 $9,632.00 $11,701.00 7.00 0.00 107 Recreation Superintendent 1 0 M 490 $9,632.00 $11,701.00 7.00 0.00 108 Chief Building Official 1 0 M 499 $9,632.00 $11,701.00 7.00 0.00 109 Senior Engineering Project Man 3 0 M 499 $9,632.00 $11,701.00 7.00 0.00 110 Principal Planner 0 1 F 512 $9,632.00 $11,701.00 7.00 0.00 111 Police Lieutenant 3 0 M 528 $9,632.00 $11,701.00 7.00 0.00 112 Deputy Fire Chief 1 0 M 539 $10,046.00 $12,219.00 7.00 0.00 113 Utilities Superintendent 1 0 M 540 $10,046.00 $12,219.00 7.00 0.00 114 Housing Supervisor/Deputy Dire 0 1 F 546 $10,046.00 $12,219.00 7.00 0.00 115 City Assessor 1 0 M 550 $10,046.00 $12,219.00 7.00 0.00 116 Chief Financial Officer 1 0 M 603 $10,516.00 $12,806.00 7.00 0.00 2 City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Title: 2019 Pay Equity Report Page 6 Job Nbr Class Title Nbr Males Nbr Females Class Type Jobs Points Min Mo Salary Max Mo Salary Yrs to Max Salary Yrs of Service Exceptional Service Pay 2020 DATACase: St. Louis ParkJob Class Data Entry Verification List 1286LGID: 117 Public Works Superintendent 1 0 M 626 $10,516.00 $12,806.00 7.00 0.00 118 Deputy Police Chief 1 0 M 691 $11,014.00 $13,429.00 7.00 0.00 119 Building & Energy Director 1 0 M 716 $11,528.00 $14,071.00 7.00 0.00 120 Fire Chief 1 0 M 729 $11,528.00 $14,071.00 7.00 0.00 121 Community Development Director 0 1 F 750 $11,528.00 $14,071.00 7.00 0.00 122 Engineering Director 0 1 F 754 $11,528.00 $14,071.00 7.00 0.00 123 Chief Information Officer 1 0 M 784 $11,528.00 $14,071.00 7.00 0.00 124 HR Director/Deputy City Manage 0 1 F 810 $12,034.00 $14,704.00 7.00 0.00 125 Operations & Recreation Direct 0 1 F 810 $12,034.00 $14,704.00 7.00 0.00 126 Police Chief 1 0 M 880 $12,541.00 $15,338.00 7.00 0.00 127 City Manager 1 0 M 1,074 $16,190.00 $19,898.00 7.00 0.00 127Job Number Count: 3 City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4h) Title: 2019 Pay Equity Report Page 7 Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2020 Consent agenda item: 4i Executive summary Title: Special assessment – sewer service line repair at 5512 West 25 ½ Street Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 5512 West 25 ½ Street, St. Louis Park, Minnesota. P.I.D. 09-117-21-24-0045. Policy consideration: The proposed action is consistent with the policy previously established by the city council. Summary: Marta C. Musolf, owner of the single-family residence at 5512 West 25 ½ Street, has requested the city 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. The city requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the city council in 1996. This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by city staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the city’s special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the city to authorize the sewer service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $5,695. Financial or budget considerations: The city has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Jay Hall, utility superintendent Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, public works superintendent Beth Simonsen, accountant Tim Simon, chief financial officer Cynthia S. Walsh, director of operations and recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 4i) Page 2 Title: Special assessment – sewer service line repair at 5512 West 25 ½ Street Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 5512 West 25 ½ Street, St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 09-117-21-24-0045 Whereas, the property owner at 5512 West 25 ½ Street, has petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the single family residence located at 5512 West 25 ½ Street; and Whereas, the property owner has agreed to waive the 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 owner 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 Operations and Recreation Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted. 3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $5,695. 4. The property owner has agreed to waive the right 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. 5. The property owner has agreed to pay the city for the total cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 4.25%. 6. The property owner has 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 January 21, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2020 Public hearing: 6a Executive summary Title: 2020 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4020-1000) Recommended action: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close public hearing. Council will be asked to take final action on this project at its Feb. 3 meeting. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to pursue the pavement rehabilitation, installation of sidewalks and reduce impervious surface as a part of our annual Pavement Management Project? Summary: The engineering department has been working on the design of the 2020 Pavement Management Project. This annual project rehabilitates several miles of local residential streets. This year, the streets to be rehabilitated are in Pavement Management Area 8 (Fern Hill neighborhood). Street rehabilitation work consists of removing and replacing the existing bituminous pavement and replacing the concrete curb and gutter as needed. Other work includes sewer repairs and watermain replacement. There are no Connect the Park bikeway, trail, or sidewalk segments in this project. Consistent with the Living Streets policy, staff has evaluated the existing sidewalk network as a part of this transportation project in order to identify gaps. This has resulted in consideration of a few sidewalk gap segments as a part of this project. These sidewalk segments are identified as “gap sidewalks” in this report. In addition, several neighborhood residents have asked the city to explore the construction of sidewalks along Basswood Road and Kipling Avenue. These sidewalk segments would provide a connection to existing sidewalks on France Avenue and 26th Street. These were added to the project scope on Dec. 17, 2019, which was after Open House #1 and #2. These sidewalk segments are identified as “resident feedback sidewalks” in this report. Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city’s 2020 capital improvement plan (CIP) and will be paid for using franchise fees, utility funds, and general obligation bonds. The total cost estimate for the project is $4,940,472.40. Additional information on the breakdown of the funding can be found later in this report. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Attachment #1- Additional Resident Feedback Jan. 13 Study Session Report (p. 117-163) Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, project engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Page 2 Title: 2020 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4020-1000) Discussion Background: This year’s project will be performed in Area 8 of the city’s eight pavement management areas. It includes work in the Fern Hill neighborhood. Information regarding this project was shared with the city council in a written report at the Jan. 13 study session. The study session report, which includes recommendations for the elements to include in this project, is attached. A summary of the information in the report: •Description of the project scope •Individual evaluation sheets for each of the 8 sidewalk segments – these individual evaluation sheets contain information on the proposed sidewalk design, maintenance responsibilities, impacts (trees, retaining walls, etc.), cost, staff recommendations and resident feedback. •Proposed street widths – staff is recommending reducing the width of streets in this neighborhood in the interest of reducing speed, reducing impervious, minimizing impacts to trees, minimizing impacts to private properties, improving water quality, and creating additional green space in the right of way. •Resident feedback Feedback received from residents not able to attend the public hearing is attached or will be provided as a handout on the night of the meeting. Financial or budget considerations: The following table outlines the estimated project cost and anticipated funding sources for this project. CIP Engineer's Estimate Construction cost $4,924,416.00 $4,360,735.61 Engineering and administration $738,677.00 $579,736.79 Total $5,663,193.00 $4,940,472.40 Funding Sources Pavement management $3,047,500.00 $2,752,231.87 Watermain $1,372,256.00 $1,364,394.37 Sanitary sewer $287,500.00 $170,818.87 Stormwater $575,000.00 $365,015.72 General obligation bonds (sidewalks) $380,937.00 $288,011.57 Total $5,663,193.00 $4,940,472.40 Next steps: The proposed schedule for the project to facilitate construction completion in 2020 is as follows: Council public hearing Jan. 21, 2020 Council project approval Feb. 3, 2020 Council awards construction bids Early April 2020 Construction May to November 2020 Attachment #1 Additional Resident Feedback City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Title: 2020 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4020-1000)Page 3 Resident Feedback Sidewalk Segment #7 & #8 (Basswood Road & Kipling Avenue) City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Title: 2020 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4020-1000)Page 4 Comment Card Please record your comments and return to staff. Notice: The information you are providing is classified as public data pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Name Phone Email Date //2o Comment Z o(6e ±e @,r-ss C@ @to, - 5«ret £- a/dh, f co&zul U&nag 47b,, Gr-l Essse d Zk % re%, bra ts {acde /.s ht sty iein, tu po;) CaCone 'I MII St. Louis Park Jll «wxesor perien.e LIfE i» the Birk City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Title: 2020 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4020-1000)Page 5 1 Aaron Wiesen From: Sent:Wednesday, January 8, 2020 11:43 AM To:Margaret Rog; Aaron Wiesen Subject:proposed sidewalks on Basswood & Kipling Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ms. Rog, I attended the informational session regarding the pavement upgrades in our neighborhood. I also talked with Mr. Wiesen who reviewed the information and reasons for the changes. It is my understanding that the addition of the sidewalks was at the request of some of the people who live in the area. My home on the corner of 25th & Kipling (4237 West 25th street) would be one of the yards impacted by the addition of the sidewalk. I am opposed to the addition of the sidewalks. My reasoning is the following: All the streets north of 26th street including the streets in the Lake Forest area, do not have sidewalks. All the streets south of 26th street have sidewalks. There is a natural demarcation line at 26th street. There are sidewalks on 26th street and on France Avenue for pedestrian traffic. I see no need to add the additional sidewalks on these specific streets. There is ample room for walking on 25th street and on Basswood as it is currently configured. The addition of sidewalks would require removal of a number of large trees which would make the area less beautiful. In the winter, snow removal on the streets leads to significant snow drifts. These drifts would have to be cleared by the inhabitants to keep the sidewalks open during the winter. In general, pedestrian traffic is light on Basswood and Kipling. This traffic will not increase with the addition of sidewalks. Currently, there are only stop signs on Kipling and Basswood. There are none on 25th street. Since pedestrians would cross 25th street from Kipling to Basswood, The corner of 25th and Kipling would require a 4 way stop if sidewalks are added. One other point: Though 26th street is the main east/west corridor, 25th street and Basswood are also east/west corridors. The narrowing of Basswood, though it might save a small amount of maintenance money, would cause increased congestion on Basswood. I would think that what is appropriate for both 26th street and 25th streets, would apply to Basswood as well. Therefore, I would recommend NOT narrowing this specific street. The other streets that are scheduled to be narrowed are just fine with me. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this input. Sincerely, 4237 West 25th street. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Title: 2020 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4020-1000)Page 6 1 Aaron Wiesen From: Sent:Tuesday, January 14, 2020 4:53 PM To:Margaret Rog Cc:Aaron Wiesen; Debra Heiser Subject:Opposed to sidewalks on Basswood Rd/ 25th St Dear Councilmember Rog, I have been a St Louis Park resident since 1992, and currently (and for the past 10 years) we have lived at 4255 Basswood Rd. My husband and I have made significant improvements to our property, including adding many trees, shrubs, and raised /rock plantings and landscapes. Our property is on the corner of 25th and Basswood, so our trees landscaping on the corner and along the side of the road is visible to all the people who walk or drive through this neighborhood. we have received many, many compliments and thank‐you's from strangers and neighbors for the way we have beautified this intersection. I am opposed to adding sidewalks on my property. Please don't do this. I'm concerned that our landscaping and trees would be negatively impacted. I would be heartbroken and basically devastated if sidewalks encroached on our beautiful property. We sit outside (on our landscaped, front‐facing patio) for three seasons a year, to enjoy our trees and shrubbery. We have invested a great deal of money and sweat equity to make it so beautiful and green. I'm also opposed to sidewalks on my property, because I am concerned that we would be responsible for shoveling and maintaining the walks, and further that we would have liability if anyone were injured or for other damage from our sidewalks. My husband and I are nearly 60 years old and we live alone, so we would need to hire someone to shovel and clean the walks, and it is very difficult to keep up with drifting and ice. I love our neighborhood as it is. I love our wide, unique, beautiful avenues (and the lack of sidewalks) because it contributes to the unique nature of our neighborhood and is not like the other neighborhoods. So many families and groups walk through our lovely wide streets, and they don't walk 2x2 or single file. They walk in the quiet streets because they are so lovely and wide. They ride bicycles and run in groups. I watch our intersection and the walkers / bikers / runners every day, and I have never seen any problems. It's quiet. There is not much car traffic, and that's why it's so great. Please don't put sidewalks on our property. If you must narrow the streets, I would reluctantly accept that decision as long as it creates MORE GREEN, and NOT SIDEWALKS. (Sorry for the all caps). I'm sure you're receiving a lot of differing views from our neighborhood. But when it affects our specific plot, the stakes are much higher for us. Thank you for your consideration and for your service to our community. Sincerely, City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Title: 2020 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4020-1000)Page 7 Resident Feedback Proposed Street Width Changes on Lynn Avenue City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Title: 2020 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4020-1000)Page 8 1 Aaron Wiesen From: Sent:Tuesday, January 7, 2020 10:02 AM To:Aaron Wiesen Subject:Re: Questions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you, Aaron. I have strong reservations about narrowing 2600 Lynn. (My reservations are probably applicable to the 2700 block, as well, but I can’t speak with certainty, since I don’t live on that block.) For context, we’ve lived at 2636 Lynn since 1996 (23 years.) Our block is unique in that we have a high volume of pedestrian traffic , because our block is a cut through street for our Orthodox Jewish neighbors use our street to access the cut‐through at the dead‐end of 2700. This pathway offers them an efficient route to and from their synagogues, to which they walk on Friday nights and Saturdays. In addition to this increased foot traffic on the street (no sidewalks), most houses on our block have only a 1‐car garage. This results in a lot of street parking, which further congests the flow. Although the rationale in the document states that narrower streets can lead to reduced speeds, given the unique considerations of our block, I’m concerned that narrower streets would actually be more dangerous for the pedestrians; they would have less space and clearance when cars pass. Finally, on a personal note, narrowing the street would make it even more challenging to pull out of driveways safely and with ease. I have two examples to share. In the winter months, it is currently a challenge for me to pull out of our driveway and safely clear the neighbor’s car that is parked directly across from our driveway. Why? The snow narrows the streets. Second, we park our 3rd car on the street in front of our house. Another neighbor, also across the street, hit our car as she pulled out of her driveway, causing $1000 of damage. Since then, we try to park so it is not directly across from her driveway, but this isn’t always possible. In summary, our block is unique, because it’s a highly traveled pedestrian cut‐through and because we have a high volume of street parking. Please reconsider this decision. Has there been a research/observations of 2600 Lynn? I think this would be prudent and helpful. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Title: 2020 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4020-1000)Page 9 1 Aaron Wiesen From: Sent:Tuesday, January 7, 2020 6:49 PM To:Aaron Wiesen Subject:Narrowing 2600 Lynn block Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, Andrew. Our block captain,, did a fantastic job expressing our same concerns regarding the narrowing of our block by two feet. As it is currently, the garbage, recycling, and other various delivery/moving trucks have a hard time getting through when there are two vehicles parked on opposite sides of the road which happens very frequently, if not daily. You can drive by at different times of the day and see for yourself. Please reconsider the proposed plan to further narrow our street! Thank you, City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Title: 2020 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4020-1000)Page 10 C omment Card I Please record your comm ents and return to staff. Notice: The information you are providing is classified as public data pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Nam e Address bf kV[nn fl Phone Email Date c omment I » pg,cps6 TO gg ' J±est [Ort Du 70 7/ Cy /S no Lott [}p.hint Ou SrRsr 70 7uc 2€6 , T4© S .) 7w& hr, 7l¢ mus ts f 8Ran To &z.ch 6 ow!l., 1:-,Q\f~ i vJ ;-fl1 1 i\6 fl OJ 6l:I. fl, wt'!- I /flJ Rr6rT Cal© rNG CY'S MII St. Louis Park Jll «vesor Curi&nce LIfE i» the Birk City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Title: 2020 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4020-1000)Page 11 1 Aaron Wiesen From: Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2020 12:18 PM To:Aaron Wiesen Subject:Lynn Ave CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi. My name is and I am a resident at 2625 Lynn Ave in St Louis Park. I heard from one of my neighbors that the city is planning a road construction on Lynn Ave for this coming summer and that it will also reduce the width of the street by 2 feet. I think the idea of the reconstruction is great, it is always good to improve our streets but what I am concern with is with the reduction of the street. Even it's not the most busy street in St Louis Park, there are lots of kids playing outside in the summer. With cars and kids playing on an narrower street the risk for accidents may increase. Besides that , it just happened to me a few weeks ago,my neighbor across the street hit my car as she was pulling back her car from the driveway. If you make the street even narrower the chances this type of accidents might also increase. So my petition to the city is to reconsider it for the benefit of all the residents. Thanks for your consideration Sincerely City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Title: 2020 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4020-1000)Page 12 1 Aaron Wiesen From: Sent:Wednesday, January 8, 2020 9:40 AM To:Aaron Wiesen Subject:2600 Lynn Ave. Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Weisen, As a resident at 2632 Lynn Ave, I share concerns with my neighbors that reducing the width of our street would reduce, not increase, the safety of pedestrians. Although the city has listed additional benefits of narrowing streets, the safety of people rises far above any other consideration, such as cost or environmental impact. Many of us park at least one car in the street on our block and a high volume of pedestrians use our block to access the path from the Lynn dead end to 28th street. Residents from the surrounding blocks walk dogs to and from Fern Hill Park, many students walk home daily from Torah Academy via our block, and many residents from surrounding blocks, including children, walk down our block to reach synogoues on 28th street and Joppa ave. on Saturdays. Sidewalks would increase the safety of our families, especially our children, but if that is not a possibility, then at minimum, we need to maintain space for pedestrians to walk when there is snow on the curbs, cars parked in the street, and vehicular traffic passing through. Thank you for considering my opinion. Sincerely, 2632 Lynn Ave. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Title: 2020 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4020-1000)Page 13 Comment Card I Please record your comments and return to staff. N oti ce: The inform ati on you are providing is classified as public data pursuant to the M inne we au <#3s 3© •2/"s+ oe a Date /=Q Z --2o O {P le se Comment ~ {J'.i<W-- ~ 9 ~s QS 9t_ c h asre efe=flu e cay ot re&'ace sta-,sale> ±la ""j+#-¢ ±la ta; ct ] L,.a at#c, ts -tl , k,4rt] dloveywell <e lo&? a l@lee, (ff St. Louis Park Jll xesor Verine LIfE i» the Birk City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 6a) Title: 2020 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4020-1000)Page 14 Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2020 Public hearing: 6b Executive summary Title: Public hearing Parkway Residences alley vacation Recommended action: Mayor to open the public hearing, take testimony, and then close the public hearing. The recommended action to vacate the alley is included in agenda item 8a. Policy consideration: Is the alley needed for public purposes? Summary: The applicant petitioned the city to vacate the portion of the alley right-of-way located west of Glenhurst Avenue South and between 31st Street West and County State Aid Highway 25 Service Drive. This request is associated with several other applications related to the proposed Parkway Residences redevelopment and being considered later in this meeting agenda. For more context about the redevelopment, as well as the proposed ordinance and action to vacate the alley, please refer to city council agenda item 8a. There is a city-owned sanitary sewer lift station located on the south side of the alley that is within a separate and existing public sanitary sewer utility easement that will remain. The alley has provided access to the city facility. City staff supports vacating the alley as long as a replacement permanent access easement or agreement is provided on the north side of the lift station to continue to serve the needs of this city facility. The city does not intend to build an alley in this right of way. Financial or budget considerations: None. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Alley right-of-way vacation exhibit Prepared by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 6b) Page 2 Title: Public hearing Parkway Residences alley vacation Alley right-of-way vacation exhibit: Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2020 Action agenda item: 8a Executive summary Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project Recommended action: •Motion to adopt Resolution approving the amendments to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Plan Map, as well as related figures, tables and text (requires 5 affirmative votes); and •Motion to adopt Resolution approving the preliminary and final plat for Manhattan Park Second Addition (requires 4 affirmative votes); and •Motion to approve First Reading of Ordinance vacating the alley between 31st Street West and the Hwy 7 Frontage Road between Glenhurst Avenue and Inglewood Avenue and set the Second Reading of an Ordinance for February 3, 2020. (requires 5 affirmative votes) •Motion to approve First Reading of Ordinance adding Section 36-268-PUD 15 to the Zoning Code and amending the Zoning Map from C-2 General Commercial and R-4 Multiple Family Residential to PUD 15, and set the second reading for February 3, 2020 (requires 4 affirmative votes) Policy consideration: How does this project relate to the council’s strategic priorities? Summary: Sela Investments proposes a new development, Parkway Residences. The proposed development is located along 31st Street West near Glenhurst Avenue South and consists of four new multi-family buildings adding up to 211 new units. The project will also include the rehabilitation of three existing apartment buildings that contain 24 units for a project total of 235 residential units, including 30 affordable units to meet the inclusionary housing policy. Financial or budget considerations: There are extraordinary costs associated with the proposed redevelopment site that prevent the proposed project from being financially feasible. Consequently, the developer applied for tax increment financing assistance to defray a portion of these expenses. Staff and the Economic Development Authority’s financial consultant, Ehlers, are reviewing the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) request and will bring a recommendation to the EDA in the coming months. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion; zoning map exhibit; comprehensive plan amendment resolution; preliminary and final plat resolution; draft vacation ordinance; official exhibits; draft PUD ordinance; draft planning commission minutes; and site renderings Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 2 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project Discussion Background: Sela Investments proposes a new development, Parkway Residences. The proposed development is located along 31st Street West near Glenhurst Avenue South and consists of four new multi-family buildings adding up to 211 new units. The project will also include the rehabilitation of three existing apartment buildings that contain 24 units for a project total of 235 residential units. The development entails the removal of 12 existing buildings. Parkway Residences is immediately adjacent to Parkway 25, a 112-unit, mixed-use development with 12,000 square feet of commercial, that was constructed in 2017 by the same developer. Site information: Site area (acres): 2.5 acres Current use: Surrounding land uses: Commercial, single-family, duplex, and multi-family residential uses Neighborhood: Triangle North: Multi-family residential and right- of-way East: Multi-family residential South: Multi-family residential West: single-family and multi-family residential uses. Current 2040 land use guidance Current zoning TOD - transit oriented development RM - medium density residential C-2 general commercial R-4 multiple-family residence Proposed 2040 land use guidance Proposed zoning TOD - transit oriented development RM - medium density residential PUD planned unit development RH - high density residential City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 3 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project The Parkway Residences development is a collection of 15 properties currently consisting of single-family homes and an assortment of smaller apartment buildings along both sides of 31st Street West between Inglewood Avenue South and Glenhurst Avenue South. The development properties are not all contiguous, thus the project will be built amongst other existing buildings. The development will remove twelve of the existing buildings and will reinvest in the rehabilitation of three apartment buildings. The development consists of four new multi-family buildings creating 211 new units, plus 24 units from the rehabilitated apartment buildings for a total of 235 residential units, including 30 affordable units. The development plan segments the project into four campuses to be built in phases: west campus, north campus, southwest campus and southeast campus plus the three existing apartment buildings to remain. The north campus (Site 1 – see map above) is toward the center of the site and includes six existing residential buildings north of 31st Street West. The homes will be replaced with a 4- story, 95-unit apartment building with two-levels of underground parking. This apartment building is expected to be the first phase of the project. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 4 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project The southeast campus (Site 2 – see map above) consists of two single-family homes that will be developed as a 6-unit townhome. The townhome will be developed with all affordable 2- bedroom units as part of the city’s inclusionary housing policy requirement to provide replacement housing for the naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) existing in the project area that will be demolished as part of the project. The southwest campus (Site 3 – see map above) is at the corner of Inglewood Avenue South and 31st Street West. It includes the removal of three existing single-family homes for the construction of a 4-story, 37-unit apartment building with one level of underground parking. The southwest campus is proposed to be a later phase of the project. The west campus (Site 4 – see map above) includes an existing strip center at the southeast corner of Inglewood Avenue South and County Road 25 that will be replaced with an 11-story apartment building. The building will consist of eight-floors of residential units (73 units) with parking and lobby space in the first two floors and the top floor dedicated to amenity space. There is one-level of underground parking. The west campus would be the final phase of the development and is anticipated in 2024. The existing housing includes the three apartment buildings south of 31st Street West that will remain and be renovated (Sites 5a, 5b, and 5c). The apartments include a total of 24 units, of which 22 are considered naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) and will be required to remain affordable at 50% area median income for 25 years. The Parkway Residences development is proposed to start construction in the spring of 2020 with the 4-story, 95-unit apartment building (Site 1), the 6-unit building (Site 2), and the renovations of the three existing apartment buildings (Site 5a, 5b, and 5c). The following phases will be based on market demand and entitlements. It is expected that market demand will be supported by the project being within ½ mile of both the Beltline Station and the West Lake Station on the Southwest Light Rail (SWLRT) Corridor and based upon the success of Parkway 25. There are no changes to the alignments of the existing utilities or roadways. Inclusionary housing policy: In 2019, city council amended the inclusionary housing policy to require any residential development that requires a comprehensive plan amendment or a planned unit development rezoning, adhere to the city’s inclusionary housing policy. The policy requires a 1-to-1 replacement of all existing naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). The policy also requires the overall development provide a certain percentage of affordable units based on area median income (AMI). The required breakdown is 20% of units at 60% AMI, 10% of units at 50% AMI, or 5% of units at 30% AMI. The developer can choose what percentage of affordability they would like to provide. City council discussed the development proposal in April 2019 and expressed support of utilizing existing multi-family housing units to count toward the 1-to-1 replacement requirement for affordable housing as long as the replacement units were located near the units being removed. City council was not supportive of using other multi-family buildings in other areas of the city to meet the 1-to-1 replacement requirement. The total number of new units in the development is 211. The developer is electing to provide City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 5 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project 10% of the units at 50% AMI, which requires the creation of 22 affordable units at 50% AMI. There are 26 naturally occurring affordable housing units in existence today. Therefore, the total number of affordable units required is the greater of the two at 26 units. Parkway Residences is complying with the city’s policy by providing 24 units at 50 percent AMI located in the rehabbed buildings and 6 units at 60% AMI in the new 6-unit building located at Site 2, for a total of 30 affordable housing units. The affordable unit mix will be proportionate to the new unit mix in sizes and number of bedrooms. The developer has also agreed to pay for relocation costs for existing residents and has found and/or will assist existing residents in finding other similar units with similar or less rents in other properties. Environmental analysis: State rules, administered by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB), required an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be completed for the Parkway Residences development. An EAW is designed to disclose information about the potential negative environmental effects a proposed development may have and methods to avoid or minimize any negative impacts before for the project is permitted and built. An EAW analyzes the effects of a project on land use, zoning, geology and soils, water resources, stormwater, contamination, sensitive or endangered species, historic properties, noise, and traffic. City council approved the resolution for a record of decision and the negative declaration on December 2, 2019 demonstrating that there is not a need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Parkway Residences redevelopment. Present considerations: The applicant requests that the city: 1. Amend the Comprehensive Plan 2040 Land Use Map for the north site (Site 1) and the southwest site (Site 3) from RM – Medium Density Residential to RH – High Density Residential. 2. Approve a preliminary and final plat to combine parcels for development (Sites 1, 2, and 3). 3. Amend the zoning map and zoning ordinance to rezone the subject properties from R-4 Multiple-Family Residential to PUD – Planned Unit Development (Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4). 4. Approve an alley vacation north of 31st Street West between Site 1 and Parkway 25. Zoning analysis: Comprehensive plan amendment: The applicant requests a change to the future land use designation of portions of the development site from RM – Medium Density Residential to RH – High Density Residential for Site 1 and Site 3. Below is an excerpt from the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 6 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project A request for amending the city’s land use plan and zoning map should be evaluated from the perspective of land use planning principles and community goals. These reflect the community’s long-range vision and broad goals about what kind of community it wants to be and what makes strong neighborhoods. This amendment request is driven by a specific proposal for development. The request is for residential development at a density of approximately 75 units per acre, which is considered High Density (RH) in the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment may be evaluated independently of the development proposal against the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the subject properties. The amendment itself does not permit the proposed development but is one step in the approvals process. General Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The city’s land use plan should reflect the broad goals, policies and implementation strategies incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. These elements are the basis for evaluating the requested change. Below are some excerpts from the plan that staff identified as being applicable to this application: Livable Communities Goal #2: Promote building and site design that creates a connected, human scale, multi-modal, and safe environment for people who live and work here. A. Encourage quality design in new construction such as building orientation, scale, massing and pedestrian access. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 7 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project Residential Land Use Goal #1: Create a mix of residential land uses and housing types to increase housing choices, including affordable housing, and increase the viability of neighborhood services through redevelopment or infill development. B. Promote and support the development of medium and high-density residential land uses near commercial centers and nodes. C. Ensure that new and redeveloped medium and high-density residential land uses are located within walking distance of transit and commercial services. Housing Goal #3: Multi-family: The city is committed to promoting quality multi-family developments, both rental and owner occupied, in appropriate locations, including near transit centers, retail and employment centers and in commercial mixed-use districts. A. Promote the preservation and maintenance of existing multi-family housing stock. B. Increase densities and housing options on high-frequency transit routes and near rail stations. Housing Goal #6 Affordable Housing: The city is committed to promoting affordable housing options for low- and moderate-income households B. Continue to support the preservation of naturally-occurring affordable housing. C. Promote the inclusion of affordable housing in new developments, including those located near the Southwest Light Rail Transit Corridor and other transit nodes, retail, and employment centers and commercial mixed-use districts. Approving the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment will allow for additional housing units, including affordable units, in an area that is well served by transit and is located ½ mile from both the Beltline LRT Station and the West Lake LRT Station. The general area of the development proposal consists of a mix of small and medium scale multi-family residential buildings along 31st Street. To the west are some single-family homes, and medium scale multi- family residential uses. To the east are three single-family homes and new multi-family buildings located in Minneapolis. The proposed development would provide higher density apartment housing, including affordable units, in multiple residential buildings that fit into the scale of nearby development. The request to change the land use designations to RH – High Density Residential is consistent with the adjacent properties to the north, which are currently guided TOD – Transit-Oriented Development. Staff finds the goals and policies of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan support the reguidance of these properties to RH – High Density Residential designation. Availability of Infrastructure • Water and sewer: City engineering and operations staff have reviewed the proposed development and found the public water and sewer infrastructure in the area to be adequate to serve the proposed development. • Traffic: A traffic study was completed and is attached to this report. The study includes an analysis of how the proposed development may impact the overall number of vehicle trips in the area as well as turning movements and the level of service of nearby intersections. The study found Parkway Residences to have minimal impact to the City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 8 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project transportation network and no changes will be necessary to the surrounding street network. • Stormwater: City engineering staff finds that the development complies with stormwater requirements. The applicant will be required to obtain both city and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permits prior to construction. Impacts to surrounding properties and the physical character of the neighborhood: Removal of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the parcels will change the character of the area. However, the scale and massing of the proposed buildings is similar to the previously redeveloped sites in the area, with 4-story buildings that appear smaller along 31st Street because of an upper story step-back. Additionally, ground floor units will have individual entrances, creating a more pedestrian scaled and walkable community. Staff finds the availability of infrastructure and the surrounding properties and physical character of the neighborhood support the re-guidance of these properties to RH – High Density Residential designation. Preliminary and final plat analysis: Sela Investments seeks preliminary and final plat approval to combine six lots for the 94-unit building (Site 1), two lots for the 6-unit building (Site 2) and three lots for the 37-unit building (Site 3). Site 4 has previously been platted and no further action is necessary. Lots: The subdivision proposal will create three lots. Lot 1, Block 1, Manhattan Park Second Addition will have a lot area of 59,882 square feet or 1.375 acres. This lot will be the location of the 94 unit, 4-story residential building (Site 1). The density for this site is 74 units per acre. Lot 1, Block 2, Manhattan Park Second Addition will have a lot area of 21,609 square feet or 0.496 acres. This lot will be the location of the 37 unit, 4-story residential building (Site 3). The density for this site is 75 units per acre. Lot 1, Block 3, Manhattan Park Second Addition will have a lot area of 10,372 square feet or 0.238 acres. This lot will be the location of the 6 unit, 3-story residential building (Site 2). The density for this site is 25 units per acre. Easements: Drainage and utility easements are provided along all property lines as per the requirements of the city’s subdivision ordinance. The applicant is requesting a six-foot drainage and utility easement for Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 along 31st Street. All other easements abutting city right-of-way are ten feet in width, and easements provided along all internal property lines are five feet in width. Private access easements will be required prior to the issuance of building permits between Parkway 25 and the north campus (Site 1), and between the southeast campus (Site 2) and the existing multi-family building at 3925 31st Street. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 9 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project Park dedication: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) reviewed the park and trail dedications for the proposed development on October 23, 2019. PRAC recommended park and trail dedication fees in lieu of land. According to Hennepin County records, all of the parcels have been previously platted, and dedication fees have already been paid for all of the existing residential units. However, park and trail dedication fees will need to be collected for all new dwelling units. The 2019 fee schedule sets the residential park dedication fee at $1,500 per dwelling unit and the residential trail dedication fee at $225 per dwelling units. Staff finds the preliminary and final plat meet city requirements. Alley vacation: The redeveloper requests an alley vacation for the portion of the alley right-of- way located between Parkway 25 and Site 1. There is a city-owned lift station located on the south side of the alley located within an existing public easement. The alley has historically provided access to the city facility. City staff is supportive of vacating the alley as long as an additional permanent access easement is provided on the north side of the lift station. City council will hold a public hearing for this request (see agenda item 6b). PUD analysis: The developer requests approval of a preliminary and final Planned Unit Development (PUD). A PUD is a rezoning and zoning text amendment that establish the regulations for a specific property. The site is currently zoned R-4, Multiple Family Residential and C-2, General Commercial. The 2.69-acre site meets the minimum 2-acre requirements to request a PUD. The use of a PUD zoning for this property is recommended as it allows for conditions and requirements that fit the context and character of the individual sites and the area. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 10 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project Building and site design analysis: Parkway Residences meets the PUD ordinance goals for building and site design. The ordinance requires the city to find that the quality of building and site design proposed will substantially enhance aesthetics of the site and implement relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the following criteria shall be satisfied: (1) The design shall consider the project as a whole and shall create a unified environment within project boundaries by ensuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, aesthetically pleasing landscape and site features, and design and efficient use of utilities. Staff finds the plan meets this requirement. (2) The design of a PUD shall achieve compatibility of the project with surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed, and shall minimize the potential adverse impacts of the PUD on surrounding land uses and the potential adverse effects of the surrounding land uses on the PUD. Staff finds this criteria will be met. (3) A PUD shall comply with the City’s Green Building Policy. This criteria will be met. The development intends to use Green Communities criteria to meet the requirements of the policy. (4) The use of green roofs or white roofs and on-site renewable energy is encouraged. The development does not include green roofs, white, roofs, or on-site renewable energy. However, the buildings will meet the Green Building Policy and are being constructed with sustainable features including: a surface water management plan that utilizes a campus wide water infiltration system reducing stormwater runoff, energy modeling, efficient LED lighting, and insulated underground parking structures. Staff finds this criteria will be met. (5) A PUD shall comply with the city’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. This criteria will be met. Zoning analysis: The following table provides the development metrics. The property will be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The proposed performance and development standards, as indicated in the development plans, establish the development requirements for this property if approved. Zoning Compliance Table. Factor Required Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Met? Height None with PUD 4 stories: 54 ft 3 stories: 33 ft 4 stories: 50 ft 11 stories: 138 ft Yes Building Materials Minimum of 60% Class I materials North: 91 South: 88 East: 78 West: 74 North: 63 South: 100 East: 60 West: 67 North: 79 South: 88 East: 80 West: 60 North: 65 South: 70 East: 71 West: 69 Yes with Exception Dwelling Units Total Proposed: 211 94 6 37 73 Yes Density (units per acre TOD: 125 RH: 75 RM: 30 RH: 74 RM: 25 RH: 75 TOD: 124 Yes City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 11 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project Factor Required Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Met? Off-Street Parking Residential: 1 space per bedroom Total required: 268 Total provided: 313 Required: 119 Provided: 138 Garage: 138 Required: 12 Provided: 10 On-street: 4 Surface: 6 Required: 37 Provided: 37 Garage: 26 On-Street: 11 Required: 100 Provided: 128 Garage: 109 Surface:19 Yes Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE) Depends on size of parking lot 12 Level 1 1 Level 2 Conduit at all covered spaces None Required 2 Level 1 Conduit at all covered spaces 11 Level 1 1 Level 2 Conduit at all covered spaces Yes Bicycle Parking 1 per dwelling unit plus 1 per 10 automobile spaces: Total required: 239 Total Provided: 436 Required: 107 Provided: 182 Required: 8 Provided: 8 Required: 41 Provided: 53 Required: 83 Provided: 193 Yes Uses: Parkway Residences is a multi-phased residential development, including a combination of studio, alcove, 1 bedroom, 1 bedroom + den, and 2 bedroom uses. The breakdown of unit type by site is as follows: Unit Type Summary Building Studio Alcove 1 bed/1bath 1bed+/1bath 2bed/2bath TOTALS Site 1 21 46 4 24 95 Site 2 6 6 Site 3 5 11 21 37 Site 4 8 32 6 27 73 Total 5 40 99 10 57 211 Architectural design: The applicant is requesting composite wood be considered a class I material. Composite wood is currently not an allowed material per the zoning ordinance. However, the city is the process of reviewing the architectural material zoning code, and composite wood may be classified as either a class I or class II material for future buildings. Composite wood has been approved as a class I material for other buildings throughout the city including The Melrose Center and Bridgewater Bank Corporate Center. Staff recommends allowing composite wood as a class I material for this development. The applicant is complying to the city’s architectural material standards with a minimum of 60% class I materials on all facades of the building if composite wood is approved as a class I material. Other class I materials included in the development include brick, glass and stucco. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 12 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project Parking: The development adheres to the city’s parking ordinance; however, the applicant is requesting two on-street spaces located in front of Site 1 be counted toward the parking requirements for Site 2. Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE): The development exceeds the requirements of the city’s electric vehicle parking ordinance and is providing conduit for EVSE to all internal parking spaces. Landscaping: The development is slightly short of meeting the city’s tree replacement requirements and will need to pay the difference of $1,154 into the city’s tree fund. The project does not meet the city’s planting requirements; however, code allows for alternative landscaping measures in order to meet the intent of the ordinance including but not limited to outdoor fireplaces, outdoor space located on the roof and art. Outdoor amenities are provided in the plans including pool areas, grilling areas, and rooftop amenities, but staff will continue to work with the developer to ensure the development meets the intent of the ordinance as the outdoor spaces are further refined. Green Building Policy: The buildings will adhere to the city’s Green Building Policy and will be designed to Green Communities criteria. Sustainability features include: a surface water management plan that utilizes a campus wide water infiltration system reducing stormwater runoff, energy modeling, efficient LED lighting, and insulated underground parking structures. The development is located half a mile from both the Beltline LRT Station and West Lake Street LRT Station and has frequent bus service via Metro Transit’s #17 Route. This frequent transit service reduces the need for single-occupancy vehicles and vehicle miles traveled to reduce vehicle emissions. Neighborhood meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on October 29, 2019 at Parkway 25. Six people attended and three were residents of St. Louis Park. Questions were raised about parking locations and southwest light rail operations. No major concerns were voiced regarding the proposed development. Planning commission meeting: The planning commission met on December 18, 2019 to hold a public hearing and to review the proposed development. No public comments were made. The commission voiced their support for the development and thanked the developer for paying for relocation costs for existing tenant. The planning commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat with conditions recommended by staff, and preliminary and final planned unit development with conditions recommended by staff. Present considerations: Staff recommends the following: 1. Staff recommends approval of the Parkway Residences Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 2. Staff recommends approval of the Manhattan Park Second Addition Preliminary and Final Plat subject conditions listed in the resolution of approval City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 13 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project 3. Staff recommends approval of the Alley Vacation subject to the following conditions: a. A permanent access easement for the city’s lift station is recorded concurrently with the vacation ordinance. 4. Staff recommends approval of the Parkway Residences Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development provided the following requirements are including in the planning development contract: a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this ordinance, approved Official Exhibits, and City Code. b. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building design and 100% screened from off-site with materials consistent with the primary façade materials. c. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: i. Assent Form and Official Exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and property owner. ii. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and City representatives. iii. All necessary permits shall be obtained. d. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following conditions shall be met: i. The developer shall sign the City's Assent Form and the Official Exhibits. ii. A Planning Development Contract shall be executed between the Developer and City that addresses, at a minimum: 1. The conditions of PUD approval as applicable or appropriate. 2. Alternative landscaping requirements. 3. The installation of all public improvements including, but not limited to: sidewalks, boulevards, and the execution of necessary easements related to such improvements. 4. Easements related to electronic communication and fiber infrastructure. 5. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park in the amount of 1.25 times of the costs of all public improvements (sidewalks and boulevards), and the private site stormwater management system and landscaping. 6. The developer shall reimburse City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents as required in the final PUD approval. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 14 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project 7. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute said Planning Development Contract. iii. Final construction plans for all public improvements and private stormwater system shall be signed by a registered engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. iv. Building material samples and colors shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. e. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: i. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Friday, and between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. ii. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. iii. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. iv. The City shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in a public street. v. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the determination by the City Engineer (or designee) that appropriate safety measures have been taken to ensure motorist and pedestrian safety. vi. The developer shall install and maintain chain link security fencing that is at least six feet tall along the perimeter of the site. All gates and access points shall be locked during non-working hours. vii. Temporary electric power connections shall not adversely impact surrounding neighborhood service. f. Prior to the issuance of any permanent certificate of occupancy permit the following shall be completed: i. Public improvements, private utilities, site landscaping and irrigation, and storm water management system shall be installed in accordance with the Official Exhibits. g. All mechanical equipment shall be fully screened. Rooftop equipment may be located as indicated in the Official Exhibits so as not to be visible from off-site. h. The materials used in, and placement of, all signs shall be integrated with the building design and architecture. Next steps: City council will hold a second reading of the PUD ordinance and alley vacation in February. Staff and the EDA’s financial consultant, Ehlers, is reviewing the developer’s TIF request and will bring a recommendation to the EDA in the coming months. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 15 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project Zoning Map Amendment City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 16 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project Resolution No. 20-___ Resolution supporting the approval of an amendment to the 2040 comprehensive plan for the City of St. Louis Park under Minnesota statutes 462.351 to 462.364 for the property located at 4000, 4008, 4012, 4020, 4100, 4108, 4125, 4117 and 4105 31st Street West Whereas, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on August 5, 2019; and Whereas, the use of said Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and will promote the public health, safety and general welfare; and Whereas, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change, thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures; and Whereas, said Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of government; and Whereas, said Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the City of St. Louis Park Planning Commission and amendments made, if justified according to procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended adoption of an amendment to said Plan on December 18, 2019; and Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission; and Whereas, the contents of Planning Case File 19-29-CP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case; and Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of St. Louis Park that said Plan, as previously adopted by the City Council, is hereby amended as follows: Change the future land use designation for the properties at 4000, 4008, 4012, 4020, 4100, 4108, 4125, 4117, and 4105 31st Street West from RM – Medium Density Residential to RH – High Density Residential, and Changes to the text, tables and figures within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan document as shown in the attachments to reflect updates to city forecasts and development phasing based off of the change in land use; changes within the document are found on the following pages: 5-126 and 5-129. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 17 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project City staff are instructed to submit the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council January 21, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 18 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project 5-126: Figure 5-5. 2040 Future Land Use Map City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 19 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project 5—129: Table 5.2 2040 Future land use Plan Future Land Use Gross Acres Net Acres % Net RL - Low Density Residential 2,520.67 2,484.21 35.96% RM - Medium Density Residential 402.12 400.25 385.86 383.99 5.59% 5.56% RH – High Density Residential 214.02 215.89 205.38 207.25 2.97% 3.00% MX - Mixed Use 21.58 21.58 0.31% TOD - Transit Oriented Development 81.76 81.76 1.18% COM - Commercial 277.97 277.64 4.02% OFC - Office 232.31 215.16 3.11% BP - Business Park 103.81 103.65 1.50% IND - Industrial 244.41 206.23 2.99% CIV - Civic 216.29 210.70 3.05% PRK - Park and Open Space 916.67 557.54 8.07% ROW - Right of Way 1,517.14 1,508.78 21.84% RRR - Railroad 159.98 150.81 2.18% Water/Wetlands - 499.45 7.23% Total 6,908.74 6,908.74 100.00% City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 20 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution approving preliminary and final plat of Manhattan Park Second Addition 3917, 3921, 4000, 4008, 4012, 4020, 4100, 4108, 4125, 4117, and 4105 31st Street West Whereas, Sela Investments, LLC, owner of land proposed to be platted as Manhattan Park Second Addition has submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; and Whereas, the proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park; and Whereas, the proposed plat is situated upon lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described in “Exhibit A” attached hereto. Now therefore be it resolved the proposed preliminary and final plat of Manhattan Park Second Addition is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this ordinance, approved Official Exhibits, and City Code. 2. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building design and 100% screened from off-site with materials consistent with the primary building façade materials. 3. Prior to the City signing and releasing the final plat for filing with Hennepin County: a. A financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $1,000 shall be submitted to the City to ensure that a signed Mylar copy of the final plat is provided to the City. b. A Planning Development Contract shall be executed between the City and Developer that addresses, at a minimum: i. The installation of all public improvements including, but not limited to: sidewalks, boulevards, stormwater mains, and the execution of necessary easements related to such improvements. ii. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park in the amount of 1.25 times the estimated costs for the installation of all public improvements (sidewalks and boulevards), placement of iron City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 21 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project monuments at property corners, and the private site stormwater management system and landscaping. iii. The applicant shall reimburse City Attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents as required in the final plat approval. c. Assent Form and Official Exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and property owner. 4. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: a. The developer shall pay to the city the park dedication fee of $156,000 and trail dedication fee of $23,400 for residential uses. i. The park dedication fee of $99,000 and trail dedication fee of $14,850 for residential uses shall be paid prior to starting any land disturbing activities for Site 1. This fee shall be collected prior to permitting, except demolition permits. ii. The park dedication fee of $6,000 and trail dedication fee of $900 for residential uses shall be paid prior to starting any land disturbing activities for Site 2. This fee shall be collected prior to permitting, except demolition permits. iii. The park dedication fee of $51,000 and trail dedication fee of $7,650 for residential uses shall be paid prior to starting any land disturbing activities for Site 3. This fee shall be collected prior to permitting, except demolition permits. b. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City. c. Assent Form and Official Exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and property owner. d. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and City representatives. e. All necessary permits shall be obtained. f. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park for all public improvements (street, sidewalks, boulevards, utility, street lights, landscaping, etc.) and landscaping. 5. The on-site underground storm water management systems shall be privately-owned and privately maintained. Access to the system shall be provided to the City for clean- out and inspection purposes when warranted. Access points shall be covered by a drainage and utility easement, as provided on the final plat. 6. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. It is further resolved The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth have been fulfilled. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 22 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 26- 123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council January 21, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 23 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS SITE 1: NO. 238751. REFERENCE ADDRESS: 4000 31ST WEST, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN LOT 1, BLOCK 3, MANHATTAN PARK, ACCORDING TO RECORD PLANT THEREOF, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NO. NCS-852063-MPLS. REFERENCE ADDRESS: 4008 31ST STREET WEST, ST. LOUIS PARK MINNESOTA. PARCEL A: LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 3, “MANHATTAN PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.” (TORRENS) PARCEL B: LOT 4, BLOCK 2, MANHATTAN PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. (ABSTRACT) NO. NCS-852060-MPLS. REFERENCE ADDRESS: 4012 31ST WEST, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN LOT 5 AND THE EAST 6 FEET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 3, MANHATTAN PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. (ABSTRACT) NO. NCS-852061-MPLS. REFERENCE ADDRESS: 4020 31ST WEST, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN LOT 7 AND THAT PARK OF LOT 6 LYING WESTERLY OF THE EAST 6 FEET OF SAID LOT 6, ALL IN BLOCK 3, MANHATTAN PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF VACATED HALIFAX AVENUE ADJACENT THERETO, LYING EAST OF THE CENTERLINE THEREOF BETWEEN THE NORTH LINE OF 31ST STREET AND THE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ALLEY IN SAID BLOCK 3. (ABSTRACT) NO. NCS-852059-MPLS. REFERENCE ADDRESS: 4100 31ST WEST, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN LOT 1, BLOCK 4, “MANHATTAN PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.” AND ALL OF THE ADJOINING VACATED ALLEY DEDICATED IN SAID PLAT WHICH LIES BETWEEN THE NORTHERLY EXTENSIONS ACROSS IT OF THE EAST AND WEST LINES OF SAID LOT 1 AND THAT PART OF ADJOINING VACATED HALIFAX AVENUE DEDICATED IN SAID PLAT WHICH LIES WEST OF THE CENTER LINE OF SAID AVENUE AND BETWEEN THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PLAT AND THE EASTERLY EXTENSION ACROSS IT OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1. (TORRENS) NO. NCS-852062-MPLS. REFERENCE ADDRESS: 4008 31ST WEST, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 4, MANHATTAN PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF THE ADJOINING VACATED ALLEY DEDICATED IN SAID PLAT, LYING BETWEEN THE NORTHERLY EXTENSIONS OF THE WEST OF SAID LOT 3 AND THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 2. (ABSTRACT) SITE 2: NO. 06-028-24-11-033. REFERENCE ADDRESS: 3917 31ST STREET WEST, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 24 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project LOT 1, BLOCK 007, MANHATTAN PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. (ABSTRACT) NO. 06-028-24-11-0036. REFERENCE ADDRESS: 3921 31ST WEST, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN LOTS 12, 13, AND 14, BLOCK 007, MANHATTAN PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. (ABSTRACT) SITE 3: NO. 06-028-24-11-0026. REFERENCE ADDRESS: 4105 31ST WEST, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN BLOCK 005. WEST 38 7/10 FEET OF LOTS 1,2, AND 3 AND THAT PART OF LOTS 14, 15, AND 16 INCLUDING ADJACENT VACATED ALLEY. (ABSTRACT) NO. 06-028-24-11-0027. REFERENCE ADDRESS: 4117 31ST WEST, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN BLOCK 005. EAST 55 FEET OF WEST 110 FEET OF LOTS 14, 15, AND 16. (ABSTRACT) NO. 06-028-24-11-0028. REFERENCE ADDRESS: 4125 31ST WEST, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN BLOCK 005. WEST 55 FEET OF LOTS 14, 15, AND 16. (ABSTRACT) City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 25 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project Ordinance No. ___-20 An ordinance vacating portions of alley right-of-way 31st Street West between Glenhurst Avenue and Inglewood Avenue The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: Section 1. The petition to vacate the alley right-of-way was initiated by Sela Investments LLC. Sela Investments, LLC, is the owner of the majority of all properties abutting upon both sides of the right-of-way proposed to be vacated. The notice of said petition has been published in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor on January 9, 2020, and the City Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined that the right-of-way is not needed for public purposes, and that is it for the best interest of the public that said right-of-way be vacated. Section 2. The following described alley right-of-way as now dedicated and laid out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated: All that part of the 6.00 foot wide alley dedicated by MANHATTAN PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southerly of and adjoining the northerly line of said MANHATTAN PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., easterly of the centerline of Halifax Avenue as dedicated by said MANHATTAN PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. and westerly of the northerly extension of the easterly line of Lot 1, Block 3, said MANHATTAN PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. TOGETHER WITH All that part of the 6.00 foot wide alley dedicated by CALHOUN LAKE SIDE PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of and adjoining the southerly line of said CALHOUN LAKE SIDE PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., easterly of the southerly extension of the westerly line of Lot 16, Block 3, said CALHOUN LAKE SIDE PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., and westerly of the southerly extension of the easterly line of Lot 15, said Block 3. Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect February 28, 2020 First reading January 21, 2020 Second reading February 3, 2020 Date of publication February 13, 2020 Date ordinance takes effect February 28, 2020 City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 26 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council February 3, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 27 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project Alley right-of-way vacation exhibit: City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 28 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project Ordinance No. ___-20 Ordinance amending the St. Louis Park City Code relating to zoning by creating Section 36-268-PUD 15 as a Planned Unit Development Zoning District for the property located at 4051 Highway 7 and 3917, 3921, 4000, 4008, 4012, 4020, 4100, 4108, 4105, 4117, 4125 31st Street West. The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: Section 1. The city council has considered the advice and recommendation of the planning commission (Case No. 19-29-PUD) for amending the Zoning Ordinance Section 36-268-PUD 15. Section 2. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Transit-Oriented Development, High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential. Section 3. The Zoning Map shall be amended by reclassifying the following described lands from C-2 General Commercial to PUD 15: Lot 1, Block 1, Thomas O. Heggen’s Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Section 4. The Zoning Map shall be amended by reclassifying the following described lands from R4 Multiple Family Residence to PUD 15: Lot 1, Block 1, Manhattan Park Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Lot 1, Block 2, Manhattan Park Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Lot 1, Block 3, Manhattan Park Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Section 5. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Section 26-268 is hereby amended to add the following Planned Unit Development Zoning District: Section 36-268-PUD 15. (a) Development Plan. The property shall be divided into four zones, as indicated on the PUD Exhibit of the Official Exhibits. The zones shall be established by dividing the site into a north campus, a southeast campus, a southwest campus, and a west campus. The north campus shall be called “Site 1”, the southeast campus shall be called “Site 2”, the southwest campus shall be called “Site 3”, and the west campus shall be called “Site 4”. (1) Site 1 A. Site 1, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Manhattan Park Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, shall be developed, used, and maintained in conformance with the following Final PUD signed Official Exhibits: 1. C1.0.0 Title Sheet 2. V1.1.0 Alta/NSPS Land Title Survey City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 29 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project 3. C1.1.0 Removals Plan 4. C1.2.0 Site Plan 5. C1.3.0 Grading Plan 6. C1.4.0 Utility Plan 7. C1.5.0 Civil Details 8. C1.5.1 Civil Details 9. C1.5.2 Civil Details 10. SW1.1.0 SWPPP Existing Conditions 11. SW1.1.1 SWPPP Proposed Conditions 12. SW1.1.2 SWPP – Details 13. SW1.1.3 SWPPP – Narrative 14. SW1.1.4 SWPPP – Attachments 15. SW1.1.5 SWPPP - Attachments 16. 0.0 Cover sheet 17. 1.0 Floor Plan Level P2 18. 2.0 Floor Plan Level P1 19. 3.0 Floor Plan Level 1 20. 4.0 Floor Plan Level 2 21. 5.0 Floor Plan Level 3 22. 6.0 Floor Plan Level 4 23. 7.0 East & West Elevation 24. 8.0 North Elevation 25. 9.0 South Elevation 26. 23.0 DORA Site Plan 27. AL101A Photometric Plan West 28. AL101B Photometric Plan East 29. LS101 Landscape Layout Plan 30. LP101 Planting Plan 31. C1.2.1 Overall Site Plan 32. C1.3.1 Overall Grading Plan 33. C1.4.1 Overall Utility Plan 34. C1.4.2 Public Utility Plan and Profile 35. C.1.4.3 Public Utility Plan and Profile 36. L001 Tree Preservation Plan 37. LS100 Landscape Plan 38. LP500 Planting Details 39. LS500 Landscape Details B. Site 1 shall also conform to the following requirements: 1. Parking shall be provided off street in structured parking. i. A total of 138 parking spaces will be provided. 2. The property shall be developed with 95 residential units. 3. The maximum height shall not exceed 54 feet and four (4) stories 4. The site shall include a minimum 12 percent designed outdoor recreation area. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 30 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project (2) Site 2 A. Site 2, legally described as Lot 1, Block 3, Manhattan Park Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, shall be developed, used, and maintained in conformance with the following Final PUD signed Official Exhibits: 1. C2.0.0 Title Sheet 2. V2.1.0 Alta/NSPS Land Title Survey 3. C2.1.0 Removals Plan 4. C2.2.0 Site Plan 5. C2.3.0 Grading Plan 6. C2.4.0 Utility Plan 7. C2.5.0 Civil Details 8. C2.5.1 Civil Details 9. C2.5.2 Civil Details 10. SW2.1.0 SWPPP Existing Conditions 11. SW2.1.1 SWPPP Proposed Conditions 12. SW2.1.2 SWPP – Details 13. SW2.1.3 SWPPP – Narrative 14. SW2.1.4 SWPPP – Attachments 15. SW2.1.5 SWPPP - Attachments 16. 10.0 Floor Plans 17. 11.0 Building Elevations 18. 23.0 DORA Site Plan 19. AL102 Photometric Plan 20. LS102 Landscape Layout Plan 21. LP102 Planting Plan B. Site 2 shall also conform to the following requirements: 1. Parking shall be provided off-street in a surface lot and on-street. i. A total of 6 parking spaces will be provided in the surface lot 2. The property shall be developed with six (6) residential units. 3. The maximum height shall not exceed 33 feet and three (3) stories 4. The site shall include a minimum seven (7) percent designed outdoor recreation area. (3) Site 3 A. Site 3, legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, Manhattan Park Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, shall be developed, used, and maintained in conformance with the following Final PUD signed Official Exhibits: 1. C3.0.0 Title Sheet 2. V3.1.0 Alta/NSPS Land Title Survey 3. C3.1.0 Removals Plan 4. C3.2.0 Site Plan City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 31 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project 5. C3.3.0 Grading Plan 6. C3.4.0 Utility Plan 7. C3.5.0 Civil Details 8. C3.5.1 Civil Details 9. C3.5.2 Civil Details 10. SW3.1.0 SWPPP Existing Conditions 11. SW3.1.1 SWPPP Proposed Conditions 12. SW3.1.2 SWPP – Details 13. SW3.1.3 SWPPP – Narrative 14. SW3.1.4 SWPPP – Attachments 15. SW3.1.5 SWPPP - Attachments 16. 12.0 Floor Plan Level 1 17. 13.0 Floor Plan Level 2 18. 14.0 Floor Plan Level 3 19. 15.0 Floor Plan Level 4 20. 15.2 Floor Plan Roof Deck 21. 16.0 Elevation – North 22. 17.0 Elevation – South 23. 18.0 Elevation – East & West 24. 23.0 DORA Site Plan 25. AL103 Photometric Plan 26. LS103 Landscape Layout Plan 27. LS103 Layout Plan 28. LP103 Planting Plan B. Site 3 shall also conform to the following requirements: 1. Parking shall be provided off-street in structured parking and on-street. i. A total of 26 parking spaces will be provided in structured parking. 2. The property shall be developed with 37 residential units. 3. The maximum height shall not exceed 50 feet and four (4) stories 4. The site shall include a minimum 12 percent designed outdoor recreation area. (4) Site 4 A. Site 4, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Thomas O. Heggen’s Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, shall be developed, used, and maintained in conformance with the following Final PUD signed Official Exhibits: 1. C4.0.0 Title Sheet 2. V4.1.0 Alta/NSPS Land Title Survey 3. C4.1.0 Removals Plan 4. C4.2.0 Site Plan 5. C4.3.0 Grading Plan 6. C4.4.0 Utility Plan 7. C4.5.0 Civil Details 8. C4.5.1 Civil Details City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 32 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project 9. C4.5.2 Civil Details 10. SW4.1.0 SWPPP Existing Conditions 11. SW4.1.1 SWPPP Proposed Conditions 12. SW4.1.2 SWPP – Details 13. SW4.1.3 SWPPP – Narrative 14. SW4.1.4 SWPPP – Attachments 15. SW4.1.5 SWPPP - Attachments 16. 19.0 Floor Plan Level P1-3 17. 20.0 Floor Plan Level 4-11 18. 21.0 Building Elevations 19. 22.0 Building Elevations 20. 23.0 DORA Site Plan 21. AL104 Photometric Plan 22. LS102 Landscape Layout Plan 23. LP102 Planting Plan B. Site 4 shall also conform to the following requirements: 1. Parking shall be provided off-street in structured parking and in a surface lot. i. A total of 19 parking spaces will be provided in the surface lot ii. A total of 109 parking spaces will be provided on-street. 2. The property shall be developed with 73 residential units. 3. The maximum height shall not exceed 138 feet and eleven (11) stories 4. The site shall include a minimum 12 percent designed outdoor recreation area. (b) Uses. A. Permitted uses: The following uses are permitted in PUD 15: 1. Multiple-family dwellings. Uses associated with the multiple-family dwellings, including but not limited to, the residential office, fitness facility, mail room, assembly room or general amenity space. B. Accessory uses: Accessory uses are as follows: 1. Home occupations are permitted with the condition that they comply with all of the following conditions: i. All material or equipment shall be stored within an enclosed structure. ii. Operation of the home occupation is not apparent from the public right-of-way. iii. The activity does not involve warehousing, distribution or retail sales of merchandise produced off the site. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 33 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project iv. No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home except that a licensed group family day care facility may have one outside employee. v. No light of vibration originating from the business operation is discernible at the property line. vi. Only equipment, machinery and materials which are normally found in the home are used in the conduct of the home occupation. vii. No more than one non-illuminated wall sign limited to two square feet in area is used to identify the home occupation. viii. Space within the dwelling devoted to the home occupation does not exceed one room or ten percent of the floor area, whichever is greater. ix. No portion of the home occupation is permitted within any attached or detached accessory building. x. The structure housing the home occupation conforms to the building code; and in the case where the home occupation is day care or if there are any customers or students, the home occupation has received a certificate of occupancy. 2. Gardens. 3. Parking lots. 4. Public transit stops/shelters. 5. Outdoor seating, public address (PA) systems are prohibited. 6. Outdoor uses and outdoor storage are prohibited. 7. Accessory utility structures including: i. Small wind energy conversion system as defined in 36-4 Definitions. ii. Solar energy systems. A solar energy system with a supporting framework that is either place on, or anchored in, the ground and that is independent of any building or other structure; or that is affixed to or an integral part of a principal or accessory building, including but not limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems which are contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights, and awnings. iii. Cisterns and rainwater collection systems. (c) Special Performance Standards A. All general zoning requirements not specifically addressed in this ordinance shall be met, including but not limited to: outdoor lighting, architectural design, landscaping, parking, and screening requirements. B. All trash, garbage, waste materials, trash containers, and recycling containers shall be kept in the manner required by this Code. All trash handling and loading areas shall be screened from view within a waste enclosure. C. Signage shall be subject to the regulations found in Section 36-362 pertaining to signs. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 34 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project 1. Site 1, Site 2, and Site 3 shall be subject to the sign regulations for R-4 districts. 2. Site 4 shall be subject to the sign regulations for C-2 districts. 3. Pylon signs shall be prohibited. D. Composite wooden resin paneling a minimum of seven (7) millimeters thick shall be considered a Class I material. E. Awnings. 1. Awnings shall be constructed of heavy canvas fabric, metal and/or glass. Plastic and vinyl awnings are prohibited. 2. Backlit awnings shall be prohibited. Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect February 28, 2020 Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council February 3, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney First reading January 21, 2020 Second reading February 3, 2020 Date of publication February 13, 2020 Date ordinance takes effect February 28, 2020 City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 35 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project D R A F T UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA December 18, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Lynette Dumalag, Matt Eckholm, Courtney Erwin, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Jessica Kraft, Carl Robertson. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jacquelyn Kramer, Jennifer Monson, Sean Walther 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Public Hearings A. Parkway Residences: comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat, and preliminary and final planned unit development. Applicant: Sela Investments Location: West 31st Street between Glenhurst Ave and Inglewood Ave Case Nos: 19-27-CP; 19-28-S; 19-29-PUD Jennifer Monson, Planner, presented the staff report for a comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat, and preliminary and final planned unit development for the Parkway Residences development. She mentioned that the applicant is also requesting an alley vacation which will be presented to the council in January. This will be the 2nd phase of the Parkway 25 project. The Parkway Residences development is a collection of 15 properties currently consisting of single-family homes and an assortment of smaller apartment buildings along both sides of 31st Street West between Inglewood Avenue South and Glenhurst Avenue South. The development properties are not all contiguous thus the project will be built amongst other existing buildings. The development will remove twelve of the existing buildings and will reinvest in the rehabilitation of three apartment buildings. The development consists of four new multi-family buildings creating 211 new units plus 24 units from the rehabilitated apartment buildings for a total of 235 residential units. Ms. Monson explained there will be six affordable units included at Site 2 at 60% AMI and the three rehabbed buildings will include 24 units all affordable at 50% AMI. Ms. Monson reviewed the site plans, site access, vehicular parking, bicycle parking, and electric vehicle parking requirements for each of the four development sites. Ms. Monson stated 211 trees are required and 108 will be provided by the developer, therefore the developer will pay $1,154 into the tree fund. She noted alternative landscaping will be used to meet the intent of the ordinance, including public art or site amenities. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Page 36 Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project Ms. Monson stated that staff recommends a comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat, and preliminary and final planned unit development subject to the conditions recommended by staff in the staff report. Commissioner Robertson asked if there is any plan to reguide the area as high density. Ms. Monson stated this was reviewed and staff decided this would remain medium density at this time. Commissioner Beneke asked if tenants will be able to find other living arrangements. Ms. Monson stated the developer is paying relocation costs and is trying to find similar units in a similar location with the same or better rental rates for existing tenants that are being relocated. Chair Eckholm noted the properties directly south of France and asked if there was any discussion with Met Council for a trail connection here in order to connect the two planned SWLRT stations. Ms. Monson stated the path connection is on the south side of the corridor, so a bridge would need to be constructed, and a bridge is already being built at Beltline. However, she added, discussions are taking place for a sidewalk and multi-use trail which could be on the south side of CSAH 25 to connect the development to the Beltline and West Lake stations. Chair Eckholm opened the public hearing. The Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnston-Madison thanked the developer and staff for this thorough plan and complimented the developer in regard to what they will do for folks in naturally occurring affordable housing properties, adding this should be an expectation of all developers on future projects. Chair Eckholm agreed and the developer is doing right by them and this should be an expectation of all developers. Commissioner Robertson stated this is a large and complex project, which has been discussed thoroughly by the commission. It has been worked on with staff for a long time and all issues have been vetted early in the process. He agreed with his fellow commissioners and stated it will be an asset for St. Louis Park. Commission Erwin asked if those residents being displaced will be given first rights to units if they meet the requirements. The owner stated yes, that is correct. Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of the Parkway Residences: comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat, and preliminary and final planned unit development, subject to conditions recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnston-Madison. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. 31st Street Masterplan 14 Aerial view looking Northwest SITE ANALYSIS - SITE AERIAL VIEW City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project Page 37 31st Street Masterplan 15 Aerial view looking Southeast SITE ANALYSIS - SITE AERIAL VIEW City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment project Page 38 Centerline of vacated Halifax AveWesterly Extensionof the Southerly Lineof the Alley in Block 3,MANHATTAN PARK,MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.N00°44'44"E 134.01S89°48'26"E 446.97S00°49'34"W 134.01N89°48'26"W 446.78SanitaryLift StationEasementper Doc No.3917875Northeast Corner ofLot 1, Block 7,MANHATTAN PARK,MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.A Point in North Line of Block7,MANHATTAN PARK,MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. distant102.36 feet West of NE Cornerof Lot 1.SE Corner of Lot 12, Block 7,MANHATTAN PARK,MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.West Line of the East 43 feet of theWest 124 Feet of Lots 12, 13 and14, Block 7, MANHATTAN PARK,MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.N89°48'26"W 86.20S00°49'25"W 120.10S89°48'26"E 86.54N00°39'42"E 120.09S89°48'26"E 179.99S00°44'44"W 120.10N89°48'26"W 179.91N00°42'19"E 120.09East Line of the West38.7 feet of Lots 1, 2,and 3, Block 5,MANHATTAN PARK,MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.112131102.36West Line of Lots 12,13, and 14, Block 7,MANHATTAN PARK,MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.38.83S66°39'35"E 152.63S22°16' 5 8 " E 6 4. 9 3 South Line of Lot 3, Block 7, MANHATTANPARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.North Line of31st Street WestEasterly Extensionof the Southerly LineLot 1, Block 4,MANHATTAN PARK,MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.West line of Lot 3,Block 4,MANHATTAN PARK,MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. andits northerly extensionEast Line of Lot 2 &West Line of Lot 1,Block 4,MANHATTAN PARK,MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. andtheir northerly extensionsEast line of Lot 1,Block 4,MANHATTAN PARK,MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. andits northerly extensionEast Line Lot 1, Block 3, MANHATTANPARK,MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.and its northerly extensionA Point in the South Line of Lot 3, Block 7,MANHATTAN PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.,distant 38.83 feet Easterly of the SE Cornerof Lot 12, Block 7, MANHATTAN PARK,MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.North Line of Block 7,MANHATTAN PARK,MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.North Plat LineMANHATTAN PARK,MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.Found 1/2 InchOpen Iron PipeFound SpikeFound 1/2 InchIron Pipew/Cap No. 23677Found 1/2 InchIron Pipew/Cap No. 9235Found 1/2 InchIron Pipew/Cap No. 9235Found 1/2 InchIron Pipew/Broken CapMANHATTAN PARK SECOND ADDITIONNBearings are based on the east line of Lot 1,Block 3, MANHATTAN PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.having an assumed bearing of S00°49'34"WFound Iron Monument (see map for type)1/2 inch by 14 Iron Monument Set Marked "RLS 44565"80204002040SCALE IN FEETC.R. DOC. NOR.T. DOC. NOSHEET 2 OF 2Being 5 feet in width and adjoining lot lines, unless otherwiseindicated, and 10 feet in width and adjoining right of way linesunless otherwise indicated, as shown on the plat.DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS:NOT TO SCALE105510City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment projectPage 39 /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ 723$5$3(7 %5,&.35(),1,6+('0(7$/6816+$'(35(),1,6+('0(7$/%$/&21<*/$66*8$5'5$,/7<3&20326,7(:,1'2:6<67(07<3678&&20(7$/3$1(/&20326,7(:22'(15(6,13$1(/%5,&.0(7$/3$1(/&20326,7(:22'(15(6,13$1(/35(),1,6+('0(7$/%$/&21<*/$66*8$5'5$,/&20326,7(:,1'2:6<67(035(),1,6+('0(7$/6816+$'(35(),1,6+('6725()52176<67(0%5,&.0(7$/3$1(/&20326,7(:,1'2:6<67(06/,',1*'2257<3,&$/$7$//%$/&21,(6 &RS\ULJKW '-5$UFKLWHFWXUH,QF 6287+(/(9$7,216W/RXLV3DUN013$5.:$<3/$&( %8,/',1* 6287+(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216287+(/(9$7,210$7(5,$/&$/&8/$7,2160DWHULDO7\SH )LOOHG5HJLRQ$UHD 3HUFHQWDJH%5,&. 6) &20326,7(:22'(15(6,13$1(/ 6) */$66 6) 0(7$/3$1(/ 6) 678&&2 6) 6) &,7<5(68%0,77$/City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment projectPage 40 /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ 522)75866%($5,1* 0(7$/3$1(/35(),1,6+('6/,',1*'225&20326,7(:,1'2:35(),1,6+('0(7$/&23,1*35()$%3$,17('0(7$/%$/&21<%5,&.&20326,7(:,1'2:&20326,7(:22'(15(6,13$1(/723$5$3(7 /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ 522)75866%($5,1* 678&&2&20326,7(:,1'2:7<3&20326,7(:22'(15(6,13$1(/$/80,180'225$1')5$0(723$5$3(7 /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ 522)75866%($5,1* 0(7$/3$1(/35(),1,6+('0(7$//289(535()$%3$,17('0(7$/%$/&21<&20326,7(:,1'2:7<3678&&2%5,&.35(),1,6+('0(7$/&23,1*723$5$3(7 /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ 522)75866%($5,1* 0(7$/3$1(/678&&2&20326,7(:,1'2:35(),1,6+('0(7$//289(5%5,&.35()$%3$,17('0(7$/%$/&21<723$5$3(7 &RS\ULJKW '-5$UFKLWHFWXUH,QF%8,/',1*(/(9$7,21667/28,63$5.013$5.:$<VW6WUHHW$SDUWPHQWV &,7<5(68%0,77$/ 1257+(;7(5,25(/(9$7,21 6287+(;7(5,25(/(9$7,21 ($67(;7(5,25(/(9$7,21 :(67(;7(5,25(/(9$7,211257+(/(9$7,210$7(5,$/&$/&8/$7,2160DWHULDO7\SH $UHD 3(5&(17$*(%5,&. 6) &20326,7(:22'(15(6,13$1(/ 6) */$66 6) 0(7$/3$1(/ 6) *UDQGWRWDO 6) ($67(/(9$7,210$7(5,$/&$/&8/$7,2160DWHULDO7\SH $UHD 3(5&(17$*(%5,&. 6) */$66 6) 0(7$/3$1(/ 6) 678&&2 6) *UDQGWRWDO 6) :(67(/(9$7,210$7(5,$/&$/&8/$7,2160DWHULDO7\SH $UHD 3(5&(17$*(%5,&. 6) */$66 6) 0(7$/3$1(/ 6) 678&&2 6) *UDQGWRWDO 6) 6287+(/(9$7,210$7(5,$/&$/&8/$7,2160DWHULDO7\SH $UHD 3(5&(17$*(&20326,7(:22'(15(6,13$1(/ 6) */$66 6) 678&&2 6) *UDQGWRWDO 6) $/80,180'225$1')5$0(City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment projectPage 41 /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ 72522)6+($7+,1* 0(7$/3$1(/&20326,7(:22'(15(6,13$1(/*/$66*8$5'5$,/*/$66*8$5'5$,/*/$666/,',1*'2250(7$/3$1(/6/,',1**/$66'225%5,&.&20326,7(:,1'2:7<3%5,&.62/',(5&2856(:22'/22.3$1(/35(),1,6+('6725()52176<67(00(7$/3$1(/:22'/22.3$1(/678&&235(),1,6+('0(7$/6816+$'(678&&235()1,6+('0(7$/*8$5'5$,/&RS\ULJKW '-5$UFKLWHFWXUH,QF(/(9$7,2161257+67/28,63$5.013$5.:$<&200216 %8,/',1* &,7<5(68%0,77$/ 1257+(;7(5,25(/(9$7,211257+(/(9$7,210$7(5,$/&$/&8/$7,2160DWHULDO7\SH $UHD 3HUFHQWDJH%5,&. 6) &20326,7(:22'(15(6,13$1(/ 6) */$66 6) 0(7$/3$1(/ 6) 678&&2 6) *UDQGWRWDO 6) City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment projectPage 42 /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ 522)/(9(/ 35(),1,6+('$/80,180&857$,1:$//6<67(0*/$665$,/,1*7<30(7$/3$1(/&20326,7(:,1'2:7<36721(35(),1,6+('$/80,180&857$,1:$//6<67(029(5+($'*$5$*('2251257+1257+:(670(7$/3(5)0(7$/3$1(/0(7$/3$1(/20326,7(22'(15(6,1$1(//(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ 522)/(9(/ &20326,7(:22'(15(6,13$1(/&RS\ULJKW '-5$UFKLWHFWXUH,QF%8,/',1*(/(9$7,21667/28,63$5.013$5.:$<3/$=$ %8,/',1* &,7<5(68%0,77$/ 1257+(;7(5,25(/(9$7,21 ($67(;7(5,25(/(9$7,211257+(/(9$7,210$7(5,$/&$/&8/$7,2160DWHULDO7\SH $UHD 3(5&(17$*(&20326,7(:22'(15(6,13$1(/ 6) */$66 6) 0(7$/ 6) *UDQGWRWDO 6) ($67(/(9$7,210$7(5,$/&$/&8/$7,2160DWHULDO7\SH $UHD 3(5&(17$*(&20326,7(:22'(15(6,13$1(/ 6) */$66 6) 0(7$/ 6) 0(7$/ 6) 6721( 6) *UDQGWRWDO 6) 1257+:(67(/(9$7,210$7(5,$/&$/&8/$7,2160DWHULDO7\SH $UHD 3(5&(17$*(&20326,7(:22'(15(6,13$1(/ 6) */$66 6) 0(7$/ 6) 0(7$/ 6) 0(7$/ 6) 6721( 6) *UDQGWRWDO 6) City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment projectPage 43 City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment projectPage 44 AKEYNOTES:WALK - CONCRETEWALK - DECORATIVERETAINING WALLSTAIRS W/ CIP RETAINING WALLSTEEL LANDSCAPE EDGERTRASH & RECYCLING RECEPTACLE, AS SPECIFIEDSITE FURNISHINGSPROPOSED DOG AREA WITH FENCEELEVATED DECK W/ LOUNGE SEATINGPERGOLABIKE RACK AREALANDSCAPETURF - SOD (IRRIGATED)PLANT BEDS (IRRIGATED)GREEN ROOFOVERSTORY TREEORNAMENTAL TREEEVERGREEN TREECDBEFGHIJKFDFDFDNOPARKINGWM (per records)WM (per records)Xref ..\..\18360-DJR-3917-4009 31ST STR E E T W E S T \ A R C H \ 2 0 1 9 - 0 8 - 1 6 B U I L D I N G 2 , 3 , 4 \ d j r a r c h - 1 1 e 9 b 0 \ 1 7 - 1 1 5 3 1 s t S t r e e t - W E S T _ 1 0 S T ORY_gnorris - Floor Plan - LEVEL 1.d w gNOPARKING A200F5A200F3A200F1LOBBY2233445566BB18.0116.0117.0118.02697 SF1 BED452 SFSTUDIO11669 SF1BEDAACCDD7666 SF1 BED240 SFTRASHRECYCLINGORGANICSFDFDFDXref ..\ARCH\2019-09-30\FloorPlan-LEVE L 1 . d w gLS101LS102 LS103LS102LP101LP102LP103LP102Xref ..\ARCH\2019-11-25\FloorPlan-00-LEVELP1.dwg Xref ..\ARCH\2019-11-25\FloorPlan-01-LEVEL1.dwg File Location: N:\2019\19069_31st street west\19069_working\AUTOCAD\SHEETS\LS100 LANDSCAPE LAYOUT / Drawn by: XX / Checked by: XX40'80'20'10'0'1"=40'SCALE:01 SITE PLANSt. Louis Park, MN17-115DJRARCHITECTURE, INC333 Washington Ave N, Suite 210Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401612.676.2700 www.djr-inc.com530 N.THIRD STREETMINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401PH: 612.333.3702LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTCONFLUENCELS100LANDSCAPEPLANOVERALLPLANCity council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8a) Title: Parkway Residences redevelopment projectPage 45 Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2020 Action agenda item: 8b Executive summary Title: Holy Family Academy expansion Recommended actions: •Motion to adopt Resolution approving the amendment to the conditional use permit subject to the conditions recommended by staff. •Motion to adopt Resolution approving the preliminary and final plat subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Policy considerations: Does the project meet all zoning requirements for a conditional use permit (CUP) and preliminary and final plat? Summary: The Church of the Holy Family of St. Louis Park applied for an amendment to their conditional use permit and a preliminary and final plat for a building expansion and site improvements to Holy Family Academy (5925 West Lake Street). The 20,500 square foot building addition would include a new gymnasium, locker rooms and restrooms, four new classrooms, and parish meeting rooms. Site work includes improved stormwater treatment, a new drive aisle and off-street parking, a new playground and improved landscaping. The proposed site plan preserves the existing rectory house and much of the green space on the south side. The plat would combine five parcels into one. Four of the parcels are former single-family residence lots and were previously platted. The largest parcel on the northern portion of the site is unplatted. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission recommends charging park dedication fees on the previously unplatted parcel in lieu of parkland dedication. The proposed plat also includes right of way dedication on West Lake Street and Zarthan Avenue. Staff find that this application meets all requirements for a preliminary and final plat. Amendments to CUPs must meet general CUP requirements in the zoning code. Additionally, educational facilities with more than 20 students in the R-2 zoning district require a CUP and must meet additional conditions. Staff find that the application meets all zoning requirements for a CUP amendment in the R-2 zoning district. This project is exempt from the electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) requirements in the zoning code. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on November 19, 2019. Planning commission held a public hearing on December 18, 2019, at which time no one submitted comments. The commission unanimously recommended approval of the applications. Financial or budget considerations: The plat requires $14,402.80 in park dedication fees. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Aerial of project site, CUP amendment resolution, preliminary and final plat resolution, Resolution 12-050, neighborhood meeting minutes, project plans Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 2 Title: Holy Family Academy expansion Aerial of project site Church of the Holy Family Project site: Holy Family Academy Alabama Avenue Zarthan Avenue City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 3 Title: Holy Family Academy expansion Resolution No. 20-____ Amends and Restates Resolution No. 12-050 Resolution amending and restating Resolution No. 12-050 adopted on March 19, 2012 under section 36-164(d)(4) of the St. Louis Park ordinance code relating to zoning to approve a building expansion at Holy Family Academy located at 5925 West Lake Street Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings Whereas, Holy Family Academy has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment under Section 36-164(d)(4) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of expanding an existing educational use (Holy Family Academy) within a R-2 Single Family Residential District located at 5925 Lake Street West. Whereas, the proposed plat is situated upon lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described in “Exhibit A” attached hereto. Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case no. 19-34-CUP) and the effect of the proposed educational facility expansion on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Whereas, the Council has determined that the educational facility expansion will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and the proposed educational facility expansion is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Whereas, the Council passed Resolution No. 12-050 approving a conditional use permit regarding the subject property on March 19, 2012, which contained conditions applicable to said property. Whereas, due to proposed additions to the building, amendments to those conditions are now necessary, requiring the further amendment of the conditional use permit granted under Resolution No. 12-050. Whereas, it is the intent of this resolution to restate the conditions of the permit granted by Resolution No. 12-050, to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 4 Title: Holy Family Academy expansion Whereas, the contents of Planning Case File 19-34-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion Now therefore be it resolved that Resolution 12-050 is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends the conditional use permit to expand the Holy Family educational facility at the location described 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 maintained as required by the Fire Marshall. 3. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met: a. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by the applicant and owner. b. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and city representatives. c. All necessary permits must be obtained. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following conditions shall be met: a. The developer shall sign the City's Assent Form and the Official Exhibits. b. Final construction plans for all public improvements and private stormwater system shall be signed by a registered engineer and approved by the City Engineer. c. Submit the Met Council SAC determination letter to the Building and Energy Department. d. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park in the amount of 125% of the cost for all public improvements and private site landscaping. e. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City. 5. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, Monday through Friday, and 7:00 PM and 9:00 AM, Saturday, Sunday and Holidays. b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times. c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. d. All trucks entering and exiting the site shall follow the approved truck route, which is attached as an exhibit. e. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. f. A qualified and licensed traffic director shall be used to direct traffic if hauling occurs during school hours. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 5 Title: Holy Family Academy expansion g. The homes shall be secured at all times during the demolition process. Additional security shall be utilized to keep people off the property and prevent vandalism. h. The developer shall install and maintain chain link security fencing that is at least six feet tall along the perimeter of the site. All gates and access points shall be locked during non-working hours. i. Temporary electric power connections shall not adversely impact surrounding neighborhood service. j. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of excavation on surrounding properties. 6. The balance of the trees required for landscaping and tree replacement, but not planted with this approval shall be planted with the school expansion. A financial guarantee shall be submitted for 125% of the cost of planting all required trees and shrubs. The guarantee shall not be released until trees and shrubs are planted. 7. Screening consisting of a six foot tall fence and landscaping shall be installed along the south property line. The fence will be reduced to 3.5 feet in height where it is adjacent to a neighbor’s front yard. It shall also terminate at least five feet prior to the right-of-way. 8. All new utilities shall be buried. 9. The turf area shall be irrigated. 10. A swale shall be installed along the south property line to divert water toward Alabama Avenue. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit. 14. Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements. 15. A sign permit shall be submitted for city approval if new signs are proposed on the site. 16. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: a. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and city representatives. 17. Prior to the issuance of any permanent certificate of occupancy the public improvements, private utilities, site landscaping and irrigation, and storm water management system shall be installed in accordance with the Official Exhibits. 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 January 21, 2019. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 6 Title: Holy Family Academy expansion Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 7 Title: Holy Family Academy expansion Exhibit “A” legal descriptions Lots 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 15 and 16, Block 2, WESTLAKE PARK. AND That part of Government Lots 3 and 4, Section 16, Township 117, Range 21 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as: Commencing 445.632 feet North of the Southwest corner of Lot 3; thence East 1564.2 feet; thence North 452.05 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be hereinafter described; thence West parallel with the South line of said Lot 3 to the center line of Lake Street as now laid out and traveled; thence Northeasterly along the center line of said Lake Street to a point 1564.2 feet East of the West line of Lot 3 in Said Section 16; thence South 331 feet to the point of beginning. TO BE PLATTED AS Lot 1, Block 1, Holy Family Addition City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 8 Title: Holy Family Academy expansion Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution approving preliminary and final plat of Holy Family Addition 5925 West Lake Street Whereas, The Church of the Holy Family of St. Louis Park, owner of land proposed to be platted as Holy Family Addition has submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; and Whereas, the proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park; and Whereas, the proposed plat is situated upon lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described in “Exhibit A” attached hereto. Now therefore be it resolved the proposed preliminary and final plat of Holy Family Addition is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this ordinance, approved Official Exhibits, and City Code. 2. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building design and 100% screened from off-site with materials consistent with the primary building façade materials. 3. Prior to the City signing and releasing the final plat for filing with Hennepin County: a. A financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $1,000 shall be submitted to the City to ensure that a signed Mylar copy of the final plat is provided to the City. b. Assent Form and Official Exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and property owner. 4. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: a. The developer shall pay to the city the park dedication fee of $14,402.80. b. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City. c. Assent Form and Official Exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and property owner. d. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and City representatives. e. All necessary permits shall be obtained. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 9 Title: Holy Family Academy expansion f. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park for all public improvements (street, sidewalks, boulevards, utility, street lights, landscaping, etc.) and landscaping. 5. The on-site underground storm water management systems shall be privately-owned and privately maintained. 6. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. It is further resolved The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth have been fulfilled. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 26- 123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council January 21, 2019 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Page 10 Title: Holy Family Academy expansion Exhibit “A” legal descriptions Lots 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 15 and 16, Block 2, WESTLAKE PARK. AND That part of Government Lots 3 and 4, Section 16, Township 117, Range 21 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as: Commencing 445.632 feet North of the Southwest corner of Lot 3; thence East 1564.2 feet; thence North 452.05 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be hereinafter described; thence West parallel with the South line of said Lot 3 to the center line of Lake Street as now laid out and traveled; thence Northeasterly along the center line of said Lake Street to a point 1564.2 feet East of the West line of Lot 3 in Said Section 16; thence South 331 feet to the point of beginning. TO BE PLATTED AS Lot 1, Block 1, Holy Family Addition RESOLUTION NO. 12-050 A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-164(d)(4) OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT AN EXPANSION OF THE EDUCATIONAL FACILITY (HOLY FAMILY ACADEMY) FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 5925 LAKE STREET WEST BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. Holy Family Academy has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 36-164(d)(4) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of expanding an existing educational use (Holy Family Academy) within a R-2 Single Family Residential District located at 5925 Lake Street West for the legal description as follows, to -wit: Lots 1, 2, and 16, Block 2, WESTLAKE PARK. AND That part of Government Lots 3 and 4, Section 16, Township 117, Range 21 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, descnbed as: Commencing 445.632 feet North of the Southwest corner of Lot 3;_ thence East 1564.2 feet; thence North 452.05 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be hereinafter described; thence West parallel with the South line of said Lot 3 to the center line of Lake Street as now laid out and traveled; thence Northeasterly along the center line of said Lake Street to a point 1564.2 feet East of the West line of Lot 3 in Said Section 16; thence South 331 feet to the point of beginning. AND Lot 3, Block 2 ,WESTLAKE PARK. AND Lot 13, Block 2, WESTLAKE PARK. AND Lot 14, Block 2, WESTLAKE PARK. AND Lot 15, Block 2, WEST LAKE PARK. 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 12 -08 -CUP) and the effect of the proposed educational facility expansion on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Council has determined that the educational facility expansion will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and the proposed educational facility expansion is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The contents of Planning Case File 12 -08 -CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Title: Holy Family Academy expansion Page 11 Resolution No. 12-050 -2- Conclusion The Conditional Use Permit to permit to expand the Holy Family educational facility at the location described is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: 0 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits incorporated by reference herein. 2. Fire lanes shall be maintained as required by the Fire Marshall. 3. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met: a. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by the applicant and owner. b. All necessary permits must be obtained. 4. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, Monday through Fnday, and 7:00 PM and 9:00 AM, Saturday, Sunday and Holidays. b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times. c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. d. All trucks entering and exiting the site shall follow the approved truck route, which is attached as an exhibit. e. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. f. A qualified and licensed traffic director shall be used to direct traffic if hauling occurs during school hours. g. The homes shall be secured at all times during the demolition process. Additional secunty shall be utilized to keep people off the property and prevent vandalism. h. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of excavation on surrounding properties. 5. The balance of the trees required for landscaping and tree replacement, but not planted with this approval shall be planted with the school expansion. A financial guarantee shall be submitted for 125% of the cost of planting all required trees and shrubs. The guarantee shall not be released until trees and shrubs are planted. 6. Screening consisting of a six foot tall fence and landscaping shall be installed along the south property line. The fence will be reduced to 3.5 feet in height where it is adjacent to a neighbor's front yard. It shall also terminate at least five feet prior to the right-of-way. 7. All new utilities shall be buried. 8. The turf area shall be irrigated. 9. A swale shall be installed along the south property line to divert water toward Alabama Avenue. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit. 13. Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Title: Holy Family Academy expansion Page 12 The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin Co Rea ter of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for Ad ministr.. r luPP City Manager Attest: City Clerk Adopt- s y the City Council March 19, 2012 Mayo City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Title: Holy Family Academy expansion Page 13 Holy Family’s Neighborhood Open House 7pm, November 19, 2019 Attendees: Fr. Joseph Johnson Jim Grogan Tom Burns Carolyn Burns Bernie Grutsch Marilyn Grutsch Jan Loftus Jessica Rhyner Rob Reitz Dale Klickhammer Betty Rockwell Katie Dirks Jan Ahlmquist Jack Almquist David Norton Katie Norton The evening began with the presentation of the plan as outlined in the neighborhood mailing. This mentioned our hoped-for construction timeline of April to December and plans for school carpool during the last weeks of this academic year. Concerns raised: -Water run-off: making sure to grade the field and use whatever other means to avoid negative impact to the residents on Alabama Avenue—which is certainly our intention; recognition was given that a large part of the water problem stems from run-off from Lake Street and not our property and frustrated hopes that the city would have done more for drainage on Alabama -Traffic: whereas there was mention of the afternoon line-up for carpool, the biggest concern was from residents on Alabama Avenue that traffic not turn left as they exit our driveway; apparently there used to be a right-turn only sign at the end of our driveway that is no longer there—we are happy to communicate with our school families about this concern and place a new sign; there was more energy around the general concern about traffic in the neighborhood, especially the ineffective stop sign at Lake and Zarthan -Lighting: making sure that we don’t have large floodlights increasing light pollution in a residential neighborhood; we assured them that we only wish to have enough light for security and to do so in a respectful and discreet manner; we hope to add a security fence that will be a more effective way to reduce incidents and danger of vandalism Additionally, several representatives of Holy Family went door-to-door to the houses in the near vicinity of our property to inquire about concerns. Nancy Bahnsun wanted good fence/landscape screening as they are immediately adjacent on the Alabama Avenue side. She inquired if the higher privacy fence could be continued all the way rather than being lowered as it gets closer to the street. She also mentioned water issues in her garage from snow-melt/water-runoff. The other neighbors were satisfied with the informational mailings we have provided and did not bring forward any other concerns. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Title: Holy Family Academy expansion Page 14 LOUCKSSHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETSBEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISEINDICATED AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, ANDBEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISEINDICATED, AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAYLINES, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT.DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARESHOWN THUS: (NOT TO SCALE)BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE CENTER LINE OFLAKE STREET HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 47DEGREES 01 MINUTES 24 SECONDS EAST.DENOTES FOUND 1/2 INCH IRON MONUMENT,UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEDDENOTES 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRONMONUMENT SET, MARKED "LS 48988"SCALE IN FEET040NDENOTES "PK NAIL" SET( P) DENOTES DATA PER PLAT OF ________(M) DENOTES MEASURED DATAR.T. DOC. NO. _____________________SECTION 16 BREAKDOWN DETAILNO SCALENSection 16, Township 117, Range 21Hennepin County, MinnesotaCity council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Title: Holy Family Academy expansionPage 15 PROPOSED BUILDINGFFE=916.19(EQUALS ARCH 100.00')15.0'BUILDING ANDPARKING SETBACKBUILDING ANDPARKING SETBACK25.0'7.0'BUILDING ANDPARKING SETBACKBUILDING ANDPARKING SETBACK25.0'18.5'7.0'4.0'20.0'10.0'18.0' 18.0' 16.0'27.3'6.0'5.7'16.0'CONCRETE PAVEMENTTYP-SEE DETAILD412 CURB & GUTTERTYP-SEE DETAILPEDESTRIAN RAMPTYP-SEE DETAILCONCRETE SIDEWALKTYP-SEE DETAILCONCRETE STOOPCOORDINATE WITHARCHITECTURAL &STRUCTURAL PLANSMATCH EXISTINGSIDEWALKEND CURB WITH3' TAPERCONCRETE APRONTYP-SEE DETAILEND CURB WITH3' TAPERB612 CURB & GUTTERTYP-SEE DETAILHEAVY DUTYBITUMINOUS PAVEMENTTYP-SEE DETAILMATCH EXISTINGMATCH EXISTINGCURB AND SIDEWALKCONCRETE APRONTYP-SEE DETAILEND CURB WITH3' TAPEREND CURB WITH3' TAPERMATCH EXISTINGSIDEWALK16.0' 7.0'PEDESTRIAN RAMPTYP-SEE DETAILFENCE WITH ACCESS GATESAROUND PLAY AREAHEIGHT =8'TYP-SEE DETAILCONCRETE STOOPCOORDINATE WITHARCHITECTURAL &STRUCTURAL PLANSCONCRETE SIDEWALKTYP-SEE DETAILCONCRETE STOOPCOORDINATE WITHARCHITECTURAL &STRUCTURAL PLANSD412 CURB & GUTTERTYP-SEE DETAILCONCRETE PAVEMENTTYP-SEE DETAILCANOPY & COLUMNSCOORDINATE WITHARCHITECTYURAL PLANSFLAT CURBTYP-SEE DETAIL10' TAPER TO FLAT CURBRETAINING WALLTYP-SEE DETAILMATCHEXISTINGSIDEWALKPEDESTRIAN RAMPTYP-SEE DETAILMATCH EXISTINGSIDEWALKMATCH EXISTINGSIDEWALKEND CURB WITH3' TAPERCONCRETE APRONTYP-SEE DETAILCONCRETE SIDEWALKTYP-SEE DETAILFENCE WITHACCESS GATESHEIGHT=8'TYP-SEE DETAIL20'R40'RREPLACE CURB & GUTTERAFTER WATERMAININSTALLATIONMATCH EXISTINGHEAVY DUTYBITUMINOUS PAVEMENTTYP-SEE DETAILHEAVY DUTYBITUMINOUS PAVEMENTTYP-SEE DETAILMATCH EXISTINGREPLACE CURB & GUTTERAFTER STORM SEWERINSTALLATIONMATCH EXISTINGCONCRETE SIDEWALKTYP-SEE DETAILMATCH EXISTING20'R5'R5'R30'R30'R20'R5.9'5.9'CONCRETE STOOPCOORDINATE WITHARCHITECTURAL &STRUCTURAL PLANSCONCRETESIDEWALKTYP-SEE DETAILCONCRETE STAIRS AND HANDRAIL4-6" RISERS WITH 12" TREADSCOORDINATE WITHARCHITECTURAL PLANSFENCE WITHACCESS GATESHEIGHT =8'TYP-SEE DETAILEND CURB WITH3' TAPERBOLLARD (2)TYP-SEE DETAILTRASH ENCLOSURESEE ARCHITECTURAL5.0'16' SWING GATE5' ACCESS GATE5' ACCESSGATE16' SWING GATE5' ACCESSGATE5' ACCESSGATEHEAVY DUTYBITUMINOUSPAVEMENTTYP-SEE DETAILHEAVY DUTYBITUMINOUSPAVEMENTTYP-SEE DETAILLIGHT POLE-TYPSEE LIGHTING PLANPYLON SIGNPYLON SIGN8.5'121ADA PARKING SIGN (2)TYP-SEE DETAILADA "NO PARKINGACCESS AISLE" SIGNSEE DETAILTYPICAL ADA PARKINGTYP-SEE DETAIL13.0'8.5'TYP8.0'TYP8.0'TYP8.0'TYP(9) BIKE RACKS40.0'NSCALE IN FEET020 40 ISSUE DATE:19059.00HOLY FAMILY ACADEMYPARISH LIFE CENTER ADDITION5925 WEST LAKE STREETST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55418 01.00.2020REVISIONS:LOUCKS7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300Maple Grove, MN 55369763.424.5505www.loucksinc.comPLANNINGCIVIL ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREENVIRONMENTALLOUCKS PROJECT NO. 19411I hereby certify this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state ofMINNESOTADate: XX.XX.XXReg No: 53706Trevor D. Gruys12/11/2019SITE PLANC20023CIVIL LEGENDWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONSOF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITYCOMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OFLINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OFALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES,VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THECONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGEDDURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.NOTE:SEE PAVEMENT SECTIONS ON SHEET C800 FOR TYPE ANDDEPTH INFORMATION.PERVIOUS BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTCONCRETE SIDEWALKHEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTCONCRETE PAVEMENTPAVEMENT TYPESSITE NOTES1. ALL PAVING, CONCRETE CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED INACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER THE DETAIL SHEET(S) AND STATE/LOCAL JURISDICTIONREQUIREMENTS.2. ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL BE PROVIDED PER CURRENT ADA STANDARDSAND LOCAL/STATE REQUIREMENTS.3. ALL CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.4. ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.5. TYPICAL FULL SIZED PARKING STALL IS 8.5' X 18.5' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.6. ALL CURB RADII SHALL BE 5.0' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.7. BITUMINOUS IMPREGNATED FIBER BOARD TO BE PLACED AT FULL DEPTH OF CONCRETE ADJACENTTO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND BEHIND CURB ADJACENT TO DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS.8. SNOW CANNOT BE PUSHED ONTO OR ACROSS THE PUBLIC STREET. ALL PLOWED SNOW MUST STAYON SITE.9. SEE SITE ELECTRICAL PLAN FOR SITE LIGHTING.CURRENT ZONING: R-2PROPOSED ZONING: R-2PROPERTY AREA (INCLUDING ROW): 2.513 ACPROPERTY AREA: 1.955 ACDISTURBED AREA: 1.111 ACEXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA (2012): **0.956 ACEXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA: **0.742 ACPROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA: **0.939 AC**BASED ON PROPERTY AREASITE DATANOTE:EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATIONSHOWN IS FROM A BOUNDARY &TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROVIDED BYLOUCKS AND DATED NOVEMBER, 2019.SIGNAGE AND STRIPING NOTES1. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SITE SIGNAGE AND STRIPING AS SHOWN ON THISPLAN.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT ALL ACCESSIBLE STALLS, LOGOS AND CROSS HATCH LOADING AISLESWITH WHITE PAVEMENT MARKING PAINT, 4" IN WIDTH.3. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT ANY/ALL DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC ARROWS, AS SHOWN, IN WHITE PAINT.4. ALL SIGNAGE SHALL INCLUDE POST, CONCRETE FOOTING AND STEEL CASING WHERE REQUIRED.5. ALL SIGNAGE NOT PROTECTED BY CURB, LOCATED IN PARKING LOT OR OTHER PAVED AREAS TO BEPLACED IN STEEL CASING, FILLED WITH CONCRETE AND PAINTED YELLOW. REFER TO DETAIL.6. ANY/ALL STOP SIGNS TO INCLUDE A 24" WIDE PAINTED STOP BAR IN WHITE PAINT, PLACED AT THESTOP SIGN LOCATION, A MINIMUM OF 4' FROM CROSSWALK IF APPLICABLE. ALL STOP BARS SHALLEXTEND FROM DIRECTIONAL TRANSITION BETWEEN LANES TO CURB.7. ALL SIGNS TO BE PLACED 18" BEHIND BACK OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.BUILDING AND PARKING SETBACKS:FRONT (ZARTHAN AVE S) 25 FT MINIMUMREAR (ALABAMA AVE S) 25 FT MINIMUMSIDE (LAKE ST W)15 FT MINIMUMSIDE (ADJ TO RESIDENTIAL) 7 FT MINIMUMOFF-STREET PARKING AND DESIGN STANDARD REQUIREMENTS*MINIMUM REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING**:DAYCARE/ NURSERY SCHOOL 1 SPACE PER 2 EMPLOYEES PLUS1 SPACE PER 10 PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS (BASED ON TOTAL CAPACITY)ELEMENTARY/JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 2 SPACES PER CLASSROOM**PER CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK CODEMINIMUM PARKING LAYOUT DIMENSIONS (45 DEGREE PATTERN):PARKING SPACE WIDTH = 8.5 FTPARKING SPACE LENGTH = 18.5 FTMANEUVERING LANE WIDTH = 13 FTDEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDSDAYCARE/NURSERY SCHOOL = 8 STALLSELEMENTARY/JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL = 22 STALLSTOTAL PARKING REQUIRED = 30 STALLSEXISTING OFF-STREET PARKING = 9 STALLSEXISTING OFF-STREET PARKING REMOVED = - 9 STALLSPROPOSED OFF-STREET PARKING = 13 STALLSEXISTING ON-STREET PARKING= 36 STALLSTOTAL PARKING PROVIDED = 49 STALLSEXISTING ON-SITE QUEUING CAPACITY = 16 CARSPROPOSED ON-SITE QUEUING CAPACITY = 18 CARS*QUEUING CAPACITY FOR THE PROPOSED PLAN WILL USE THE DRIVE AISLE AS WELL ASTHE ANGLED PARKING STALLS. DESIGNATED PARKING STALLS WILL ONLY BE USED FORNON DROP-OFF/PICKUP HOURS. OFF-STREET PARKING CALCULATIONSEXISTING ACCESSIBLE PARKING: 2 STALLSREMOVED ACCESSIBLE PARKING: -2 STALLSPROPOSED ACCESSIBLE PARKING: 2 STALLSTOTAL 2 STALLSREQUIRED ACCESSIBLE PARKING: 1 STALL****REQUIRED MINIMUM NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE SPACES FOR 1 TO 25 STALLSACCESSIBLE PARKINGCity council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Title: Holy Family Academy expansionPage 16 City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8b) Title: Holy Family Academy expansionPage 17 Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2020 Action agenda item: 8c Executive summary Title: TS 713 – Authorize traffic control changes on Quebec Avenue at 29th Street Recommended actions: Motion to approve the traffic committee recommendation to install two-way stop signs on Quebec Avenue at 29th Street. Policy consideration: The installation of parking restrictions is allowed per the city’s established regulatory authority. Summary: Staff received a request in June 2019 to evaluate the traffic controls at the intersection of Quebec Avenue and 29th Street. This four-way intersection has one stop sign on the east approach. The traffic committee reviewed the request and recommends that a change in traffic control be made. Having one out of four approaches stop-controlled is highly unusual, not expected from a driver’s perspective, and does not follow the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In addition, the north and south approaches of the intersection are offset, resulting in a sight distance concern. As a result, the traffic committee recommends that a two-way stop-control be installed on the north-south approaches. In a routine traffic approval process, council would approve a new resolution to enact the traffic control change and rescind any resolution that conflicts with the change. However, the stop sign at this intersection was approved through ordinance in 1959. As a result, approving the traffic committee’s recommendation requires a change to the ordinance. Instead of simply changing the ordinance with new language, staff recommends rescinding the ordinance in its entirety and implementing the traffic controls included in it through resolutions. A report regarding this action was provided to the city council at the Jan. 13 study session, a link to this report is below. Staff is not asking the council to approve a resolution at this time, since it would conflict with the existing ordinance. As described in the report, this is the first of three council actions being pursued to implement this traffic change. The first reading for rescinding Ordinance 535 will be brought to council at the Feb. 3 meeting. The second reading for rescinding the ordinance and the resolution for installing the traffic controls at this intersection will be brought to the city council at the Feb. 18 council meeting. Financial or budget considerations: The cost of enacting these controls is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: TS 713 study session report – Jan. 13, 2020 (pages 72 – 116) Location map Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager TS 713 location map 2844 2906 2850 28502851 2900 2855 2900 2905 2840 2845 2931 2924 2915 2904 2831 2844 2825 2830 2850 2824 2824 2831 2854 2920 7623 2834 29102914 2835 2854 7617 2930 2844 2925 2904 2845 2825 2901 2824 2855 2851 2931 2921 2840 2924 2921 2854 2914 2834 2930 2830 2900 2910 2918 2920 2841 2834 2910 2925 2917 2841 2830 2914 2911 2840 2835 29TH ST W QUEBEC AVE SRHODE ISLAND AVE SQUEBEC AVE S´0 50 10025 Feet Legend Proposed stop sign installation Proposed stop sign removal Existing stop signs Property lines City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8c) Title: TS 713 – Authorize traffic control changes on Quebec Avenue at 29th Street2 Page 2 Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 21, 2020 Action agenda item: 8d Executive summary Title: Local Option Sales Tax Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution supporting the authority to impose a local sales tax to fund a regionally significant local road improvement program in order to reduce the cost burden on St. Louis Park property tax payers. Or, as an alternative, Motion to continue studying the use of a local option sales tax over the next year and determine next steps for the 2021 legislative session. Policy consideration: •Does the council want to pursue a local option sales tax during the 2020 legislative session to fund a regionally significant local road improvement program in order to reduce the cost burden on St. Louis Park property tax payers, understanding that final authority must be provided by referendum? •Or, does the council want to continue to study a local option sales tax during 2020, gather community input, and revisit the topic for the 2021 legislative session? Summary: Funding for needed municipal state aid road improvements is limited. Upon review of necessary projects over a ten year/plus period of time, funding falls well short of long-term needs. A local option sales tax is a possible alternative source of revenue that would reduce the financial burden on St. Louis Park property tax payers. •Local governments, except for counties, are generally prohibited by statute from imposing sales taxes. Counties are allowed by statute to impose general sales taxes to fund transportation and transit. •A local options sales tax for cities is available through special legislation for up to five projects, which must also be of regional significance. •If approved, a voter-approved referendum at a general election would be required before the implementation of the tax. This vote would need to take place within two years of passing of special legislation. •The approval of this resolution does not obligate the council to bring the topic to a referendum or implement the sales tax. Financial or budget considerations: Funding for legislative assistance is included in the budget. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Discussion Resolution Study sessions: Nov. 12, 2019 & Dec. 9, 2019 & Jan. 13, 2020 Prepared by: Maria Solano, senior management analyst Debra Heiser, engineering director and Tim Simon, chief financial officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8d) Page 2 Title: Local Option Sales Tax Discussion Local Option Sales Tax What is the process for implementing local option sales tax? Local governments, except for counties, are generally prohibited by statute from imposing sales taxes. Counties are allowed by statute to impose general sales taxes to fund transportation and transit. A local options sales tax for cities is an option that is available through special legislation and local referendum. The law was modified significantly in 2019 to emphasize projects of regional significance. The city council has taken time to discuss this item during the following study session meetings; On November 12, 2019 staff and council discussed the possibility of a local option sales tax during the 2020 budget and capital improvement plan update discussion at a study session. On December 9, 2019 staff and council met to discuss the process for a local option sales tax, review the University of Minnesota Extension’s analysis and regionally significant local road improvement projects. On January 13, 2020 at a study session, the council reviewed the proposed regionally significant local road improvement program and next steps in pursuing a local option sales tax. State statute, Minnesota Statute (M.S.) 297A.99 and M.S. 477A.016 , have very specific requirements and limitations for using a local option sales tax. In order to implement a local options sales tax a city must: • determine up to five capital projects of regional significance; • describe benefits for the regional area including non-residents and businesses; • propose a sales tax rate; • determine the amount of revenue needed; and • provide the anticipated date of when the sales tax will expire. If interested in moving ahead for this upcoming legislative session, the city council must submit a resolution to the Senate and House Tax Committees no later than January 31, 2020 if it wants legislation introduced indicating its desire to impose the tax. During the legislative session, the city would work with legislators to pass special legislation authorizing the imposition of the tax. If approved, a voter-approved referendum at a general election would be required before the implementation of the tax. This vote would need to take place within two years of passing of special legislation. A separate vote on the ballot is required for each project that was granted legislative approval. If approved, the sales tax would be administered by the Minnesota Department of Revenue. Who would the local option sales tax affect? The identified projects will result in benefits to both St. Louis Park residents and businesses and to non-resident visitors and businesses. According to the local option sales tax analysis conducted by University of Minnesota, Extension, of the $1.09 billion total taxable sales in St. Louis Park in 2017, approximately $1 billion would be subject to a local option sales tax. Of the $1 billion of taxable sales, approximately 54.8% of sales would come from non-residents and City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8d) Page 3 Title: Local Option Sales Tax 45.2% would come from St. Louis Park Residents. The proposed sales tax of 0.5% (one half of one percent) would generate approximately $5 million dollars a year. As an example, a $10 purchase is estimated to generate five cents. What would the funds of a local option sales tax be used for? The city receives an annual allocation from the state (gas tax) in the form of municipal construction funds for our state-aid eligible roads. These roads are a collection of higher volume roads that are used not only by our residents and businesses, but also by many others to travel through St. Louis Park. Our 10-year CIP has a number of state aid projects programmed. As reviewed in previous study sessions, we can issue state-aid bonds to finance the CIP through 2029, but that will use up all of our state-aid allotment through 2035. Assuming we continue to receive the (gas tax) in the future years, we would not have adequate funding to pursue additional MSA projects between at least 2029 and 2036, unless we find an alternative funding source. This is turn will have major impacts on the condition of our roads and lower the pavement rating significantly. The local option sales tax law was modified significantly in 2019 to emphasize projects of regional significance. The city must show how the proposed project benefits local and nonlocal individuals and residents. Given the importance of St. Louis Park’s municipal state-aid road system in the region and the insufficient funding from the state, staff has identified the following regional roadway improvements. It is recommended that they be packaged together as one project to be funded by local option sales tax. If approved through this process, the local option sales tax funds would be used to pay for all eligible MSA expenses for the projects. Specific roadway segments recommended for inclusion: • Cedar Lake Road (TH 169 to Kentucky Avenue) There are two segments of Cedar Lake Road included in the city’s ten-year CIP. They are programmed for construction in 2023 and 2024. The average pavement condition index for these road segments is 49. Traffic volumes on this road range from 9100 to 9600 vehicles a day. (2017) • Louisiana Avenue (I394 to Walker Street) Louisiana Avenue between Wayzata Blvd and the BNSF railroad bridge is in the CIP, scheduled for rehabilitation in 2023. In addition, staff has identified two more segments of Louisiana Avenue where the condition is deteriorating. If additional funds are secured through the sales tax, the segment from the BNSF railroad bridge to Minnetonka could be added to the CIP in 2027, and the segment from Minnetonka Boulevard to Walker Street scheduled in 2030. The average pavement condition index for these road segments is 52. Traffic volumes on this road range from 9400 to 18100 vehicles a day. (2017) • Shelard Parkway area roadways Located in the northeast corner of the city, these streets serve a diverse population and are relied on by both the cities of Plymouth and Minnetonka to access TH169 and 394. This project is currently scheduled in the CIP for 2026. The average pavement condition index for these road segments is 46. Traffic volumes on these roads range from 2400 to 3450 vehicles a day. (2017) City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8d) Page 4 Title: Local Option Sales Tax • Oxford industrial area o Meadowbrook Road (Excelsior Blvd to Oxford Street) o Oxford Street (Powell Avenue to Edgewood Road) o Edgewood Avenue (Oxford Street to Cambridge Street) o Cambridge Street (Edgewood Avenue to Alabama Avenue) o Meadowbrook Road bridge over Minnehaha Creek This project is in the CIP, scheduled for 2028 and includes the roads in and around the Louisiana LRT station area. It also includes the replacement of the deck on the Meadowbrook Road bridge over Minnehaha Creek. The average pavement condition index for these road segments is 27. Traffic volumes on these roads range from 1900 to 3450 vehicles a day. (2017) • Texas Avenue/ Minnetonka Boulevard intersection In 2017, the city reconstructed Texas Avenue between Highway 7 and 400 feet south of Minnetonka Boulevard. The new roadway includes bicycle, pedestrian and intersection improvements that have greatly increased the efficiency and safety of this road. The city’s road project stopped short of the Minnetonka Boulevard intersection. To complete the upgrade of the Texas Avenue corridor, we have requested that Hennepin County include this intersection in their CIP. Conversations with county staff indicate that it may be ten years before it would be considered. According to the county’s cost participation policy, an estimated half of the costs for this improvement would be the responsibility of the city, the other half would fall on the county to fund. Due to the regional significance of this improvement, staff is recommending that the full cost for intersection reconstruction be included for consideration for the local option sales tax, with construction programmed in 2025. The new intersection would include separate bicycle facilities, sidewalk improvements, better sightlines for drivers, signal replacement, and ADA upgrades, all of which, are much needed at this location. Traffic volumes on Minnetonka Blvd is 12400 west of the intersection and 11900 east of the intersection. Volumes counted in 2012 and 2018 respectively. On Texas Avenue the volume is 4450 north of the intersection and 8200 south of the intersection. Texas volumes counted in 2018 and 2013 respectively. The details of each individual project will be worked through during project development. Each project will be brought to the public for feedback and the city council for approvals prior to proceeding with construction. Why were these roadway segments selected? Most of the road segments recommended are already included in the ten year CIP. Segment selection is based on pavement condition and traffic volumes. In addition, these road segments carry a high volume of non-local traffic. In order to understand the regional significance of these roadways, staff analyzed travel patterns on the different corridors. The following is a summary of the percentage of the traffic on the roads that are from outside of St Louis Park. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8d) Page 5 Title: Local Option Sales Tax Percent non-local traffic* All day AM Peak PM Peak Cedar Lake Road (TH169 to Kentucky Avenue) 67% 71% 65% Louisiana Avenue corridor (I394 to Walker Street) 56% 57% 53% Shelard Parkway area roadways 87% 86% 85% Oxford industrial area 83% 83% 81% Texas Avenue/ Minnetonka Boulevard intersection 50% 49% 49% *table generated using Streetlight Data, Inc. What does this mean for pavement condition ratings? Our MSA overall average pavement condition index (PCI) at the end of our 10-year CIP will be 58. Our goal for PCI is 70. Assuming the city continues to receive the (gas tax) in future years, we would not have adequate funding to pursue additional MSA projects between at least 2029 and 2036. If we don’t find another funding source to pay for MSA street work, the average PCI is projected to be 41 in 2036. The MSA projects programmed through 2021 will be funded using state aid bonds. State aid bonds are repaid using our annual state aid allotment. Once those are paid off, the city could then use its annual state aid allotment to perform maintenance on the MSA roads not included in the local option sales tax project. This would greatly benefit our MSA roads as the pavement condition rating would increase to an overall average of 71 in 2036. How long would the local option sales last? The estimated cost to reconstruct these five roadway corridors is $37.5 million dollars. According to the study by University of Minnesota, Extension, a proposed sales tax of 0.5% (one half of one percent) would generate $5 million dollars a year. At this rate, it would take approximately 7.5 years of local option sales tax collection to raise the funds for the projects. Note, the estimated cost includes funding for the following MSA eligible improvements: • bicycle connections • pedestrian connections • bicycle and pedestrian safety enhancements • pavement rehabilitation • curb and gutter replacement • streetlight replacement • intersection geometrics and control • storm water • Engineering and administration How much would a St. Louis Park resident or business pay without a local option sales tax? The University of Minnesota, Extension study indicates a SLP resident will see an increase of $46.15 on average with the additional 0.5 percent sales tax increase. The estimate is for 7.5 years for a total of $346.13. As indicated in the U of M report the sales tax impact estimate is based on several factors including population, per capita sales, income factors etc. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8d) Page 6 Title: Local Option Sales Tax In comparison, if we issue bonds which are repaid with interest on a term of 20 years for the improvements, a median value home would see an annual increase of approximately $105.34 in property taxes and storm water rate changes, or $2,107 for a total over those 20 years of bond repayments. A $1,000,000 commercial/industrial property would see an annual increase of approximately $608.35 in property taxes and storm water rate changes, or $12,167 for a total over those 20 years of bond repayments. Please note these are conservative estimates as interest rate factors may change these estimates. What are the potential effects of a local option sales tax? Local option sales taxes have largely been implemented by greater Minnesota cities. According to University of Minnesota, Extension, Minnesota Department of Revenue records show that tax collected from a set of greater Minnesota cities with a local sales tax for at least eight years continued to see growths in sales. In 2019, metro cities including Excelsior, West St. Paul and Elk River were granted authority to collect option sales tax. Since these approvals are recent, there is limited data to compare the potential impact of such tax. In addition, other metro cities are currently considering this option. What are the next steps in the local option sales tax process? If the council wishes to proceed, a resolution supporting the authority to impose a local option sales tax would have to be adopted and submitted to the state tax committees by the deadline of January 31, 2020. The city will then work with its legislators on receiving legislative approval followed by conducting a referendum during a general election within two years of receiving authorization. The approval of this resolution does not obligate the council to implement the sales tax or undertake a referendum. City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8d) Page 7 Title: Local Option Sales Tax Resolution No. 20-____ Resolution supporting the authority to impose a local sales tax to fund a regionally significant local road improvement program providing regional benefit, to establish the duration of the tax and the revenue to be raised by the tax, and to authorize the city to issue bonds supported by the sales tax revenue Whereas, the city has identified a regionally significant local road improvement program with the following five components; • Cedar Lake Road from TH 169 to Kentucky Avenue. Estimated cost $9,140,000. • Louisiana Avenue from I394 to Walker Street. Estimated cost $16,300,000 • Shelard Parkway area roadways Estimated cost $1,940,000. • Oxford Industrial area roadways o Meadowbrook Road (Excelsior Blvd to Oxford Street) o Oxford Street (Powell Avenue to Edgewood Road) o Edgewood Avenue (Oxford Street to Cambridge Street) o Cambridge Street (Edgewood Avenue to Alabama Avenue) o Meadowbrook Road bridge over Minnehaha Creek deck replacement Estimated cost $7,620,000. • Texas Avenue/Minnetonka Boulevard intersection. Estimated cost $2,500,000 Whereas, the estimated costs for the program include the following improvements; • pavement rehabilitation • curb and gutter replacement • streetlight replacement • intersection geometrics and control • storm water • bicycle and pedestrian connections and safety enhancements • engineering and administration Whereas, the program will result in benefits to both the residents and businesses of the city of St. Louis Park and to non-resident visitors and businesses; and, Whereas, funding the program with a local sales tax will more equally distribute the cost to the users of the regionally significant local road improvement program; and, Whereas, the regionally significant local road improvement program is estimated to cost approximately $37,500,000; and, Whereas, the city estimates that a local sales tax of 0.5 percent would generate $37,500,000 over 7.5 years; and, City council meeting of January 21, 2020 (Item No. 8d) Page 8 Title: Local Option Sales Tax Whereas, the city has provided documentation of the regional significance of the program, including the share of the economic benefit to or use of each project by persons residing, or businesses located, outside of the jurisdiction; and, Whereas, the estimated local sales tax revenue and estimated time needed to raise that amount of revenue for the regionally significant local road improvement program is as follows: - For regionally significant local road improvement program, the city will collect $37,500,000 over 7.5 years. Whereas, Minn. Stat. § 297A.99 authorizes the imposition of a general sales tax if permitted by special law of the Minnesota Legislature; and, Whereas, Minn. Stat. § 297A.99 requires the City to pass a resolution authorizing such a local tax and to obtain Legislative approval prior to approval by the local voters to enact the local tax; Now therefore be it resolved 1. The city council supports the authority to impose a general local sales tax of 0.5 percent for a period of 7.5 years to fund the aforementioned program; 2. Upon approval of this resolution, the city will submit the adopted resolution and documentation of regional significance to the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate Taxes committees for approval and passage of a special law authorizing the tax, by January 31 of the year that it is seeking the special law. 3. Upon Legislative approval and passage of the special law authorizing the tax, the city will adopt a resolution accepting the new law, which will be filed with a local approval certificate to the Office of the Secretary of State before the following Legislative session. 4. The city will put a detailed ballot question on a general election ballot for local voter approval. This will be done within two years of receiving legislative authority. 5. If the ballot question passes, the city will also pass an ordinance imposing the tax and notify the commissioner of Revenue at least 90 days before the first day of the calendar quarter that the tax will be imposed. 6. Upon completion of the aforementioned requirements, the local sales tax will commence and run for 7.5 years or until a sum sufficient to fund the voter approved project(s), including related debt costs, is raised, whichever comes first. Adoption by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota this 21st day of January 2020. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council January 21, 2020 Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk