The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005/03/21 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA March 21, 2005. Board/Commission Interview – 7:00 p.m. Economic Development Authority – 7:20 p.m. Study Session – Immediately following regular meeting 1. Call to Order a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 3. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of March 7, 2005 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. Action: Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items listed on the consent calendar (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar). 5. Boards and Commissions 5a. Motion to appoint Richard Johnson as Citizen Representative to the Basset Creek Watershed Management District. 6. Public Hearings 6a Public Hearing to consider granting an On-Sale Wine and Beer License for Grand City Buffet, Inc. located at 8914 Hwy 7 Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve an on-sale wine and beer license. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. City Engineer’s Report: Local Street Rehabilitation Project – Area 1, Project No. 2004-1000 This report considers the Residential Pavement Management Project scheduled for the 2005 construction season in Area 1 of the City’s Pavement Management Program. The streets selected for work will have their existing asphalt pavement removed and then replaced with a new asphalt surface. Other work associated with the project includes drainage system repairs and replacement of a water main segment located in the 2800 block of Nevada Avenue. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 2004-1000, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids. 8b. Browndale and Nelson Park Building Improvements Consider approval of the plans and specifications and authorize staff to solicit bids for the buildings at Browndale and Nelson Parks. Recommended Action: Approve plans and specifications for the buildings at Browndale and Nelson Parks and authorize solicitation of bids for the project. 9. Communications 10. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department) at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF March 21, 2005 SECTION 4: CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 4a Motion to adopt Resolutions Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License Violations according to the recommendation of the City Manager 4b Motion to accept for filing Planning Commission Minutes February 16, 2005 4c Motion to approve agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and the City of Golden Valley for provision of Public Safety Dispatch services and authorize Mayor and City Manager to sign the agreement 4d Motion to adopt resolution accepting work on Louisiana Avenue Traffic Improvements City Project no. 00-17 Contract No. 49-04 4e Traffic Study No. 591: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing continuation of temporary permit parking in front of 3128 Idaho Avenue South 4f Motion to accept for filing Housing Authority Minutes February 9, 2005 4g Motion to accept for filing PRAC Minutes December 15, 2004 4h Motion to accept for filing Planning Commission Minutes March 2, 2005 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 3a - Council Minutes March 7, 2005 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA MARCH 7, 2005 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger and Sue Santa. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), City Engineer (Ms. Hagen), Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Olson), Environmental Health Official (Mr. Camilon), Housing Program Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson), Utilities Department (Mr. Anderson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations - None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of February 22, 2005 The minutes were approved as presented. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 4a. Adopt Resolution No. 05-039 authorizing the installation of “No Parking” restrictions for 30 feet on both sides of the driveways to 6830, 6850 and 6610 Oxford Street. Traffic Study No. 594 4b. Adopt Resolution No. 05-040 authorizing the execution of an Agency Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation providing for the Commissioner of Transportation to act as the City’s agent in accepting federal aid funds for transportation-related projects. 4c. Adopt Resolution No. 05-041 approving a Blanket Partnership Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to perform certain technical services when requested by the City. 4d. Accept Vendor Claims for filing (Supplement) St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 3a - Council Minutes March 7, 2005 Page 2 It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 6-0. 6. Public Hearings - None 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Request by Home Depot for approval of a Minor Amendment to an existing PUD for a garden center addition at 5800Cedar Lake Road. Case No 04-64-PUD Resolution No. 05-036 Ms. McGonigal presented the staff report. Steve Doms, Casco Architects and Engineers representing Home Depot, stated the only issue was the addition of the right hand turn lane which could impact the completion of this project. Home Depot was in negotiations with Costco to split the cost of this. A large amount of the traffic would turn into Costco’s parking lot. Councilmember Sanger asked the deadline for the traffic improvements? Did both improvement needs to be done before the Home Depot expansion would be approved? Ms. McGonigal replied if they were unable to complete the traffic improvements right away, they could take a financial guarantee so that they could complete them in the near future. Councilmember Sanger noted they have had a number of issues on this site, traffic congestion problems and problems for pedestrians because of the poor traffic layout. In the past there had been delays getting other traffic improvements done. She hoped the traffic improvements would be done no later than the opening of the building expansion. Mr. Doms stated that they were willing to help improve traffic, but there were a variety of other owners in the development. Having to bear the entire burden of the turn lane was something that could outweigh the benefits of a 5,000 square foot expansion, compared to the benefits of putting in a turn lane. Councilmember Sanger stated it was their call if they didn’t want to do the expansion. It was not the City’s role to get in the middle of negotiations between Home Depot and Costco. Her concern was that traffic improvements be done in a timely fashion. Councilmember Basill asked if Costco was not requesting the minor PUD, was it legal to require them to pay for part of this? Mr. Scott replied in this case they could because they all joined together into one PUD in the beginning, so because of that they did have the right to do it. Councilmember Basill also felt this was something he didn’t want City staff spending time negotiating. Home Depot was bringing forward the amendment to the PUD and should continue working with Costco on an agreement. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 3a - Council Minutes March 7, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Harmening clarified if Home Depot wanted to make the expansion, the traffic improvements had to occur. It was customary for the improvements to be done at the time that they opened their facility and if they were not, there would be a financial deposit such as a letter of credit to ensure that they were completed. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve Resolution No. 05-036 for a PUD Minor Amendment for a garden center addition to Home Depot with conditions. The motion passed 6-0. 8e. Authorization to close Brunswick Avenue South at W. 33rd Street (Canadian Pacific Railroad) Resolution No. 05-038 Mr. Olson presented the staff report. The Police commented that patrol cars would be able to approach from 32nd Street. The Fire Department indicated they would see little increase in response time. They identified full coverage of hydrants in the area with no worry of the crossing. Mike Olsen, 3216 Brunswick Av. S, stated he was opposed to the street closing which would limit accessibility to public safety vehicles, maintenance equipment, school buses and garbage trucks. Mayor Jacobs asked Mr. Olson about the responsibility of the street maintenance. Mr. Olson replied that maintenance within the track area was done by the railroad. If the City desired to perform work in that area, they are required to get permission from the railroad and required to having a flagging operation set up by the railroad. They usually waited until they could coordinate a larger project with the railway. Councilmember Sanger asked if the City would maintain the same commitment for snow plowing. Mr. Olson replied yes, it would be done in a different fashion. The City would plow initially with the large plow and then would cleanup with a smaller plow. Councilmember Sanger asked if Police would maintain the same level of surveillance of the park. Mr. Olson replied the Police would continue to patrol the area with the same frequency. Mr. Olsen indicated that the City mowed the boulevard next to the tracks and used summer help. They used a pick-up truck with a trailer to bring in the mowers. He believed that would be an issue as well. Mayor Jacobs responded that he lives on a dead-end street, which had always been plowed by 7AM. He also had a lawn service that used trailers, they used a driveway to back into the street and turn around. He asked staff if this would be an issue. Mr. Olson indicated the resident who expressed concerns about her lawn service did not have a driveway on the street. They would need to use a neighbor’s driveway to turn around. Councilmember Sanger asked if trucks backing up in the street was a problem. Mr. Olson replied Waste Management said they could back down the street or alley to pick up trash. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 3a - Council Minutes March 7, 2005 Page 4 Dung Nguyen, 3240 Brunswick Av. S, was opposed to this project because it would save the City money, but the residents would pay in the long run because of making longer trips and the cost of gas. He was also concerned about the value of his house after the creation of a dead end street. Scott Bohlsen, 3226 Brunswick Av. S, stated he was against closing the street because it would be inconvenient to access Lake St. and Highway 100. This would cause them to drive by the high school in the morning, where there was more traffic. He was also concerned about resale value of the homes because of the access. Jeff Karner, 3236 Brunswick Av. S, indicated he was also opposed to this because of the inconvenience. The people living on the North side of the crossing would be paying for the improvements at the Dakota crossing. He did not understand why they couldn’t keep the road open and also improve the Dakota crossing. Mayor Jacobs thought they could, but it that it would be a cost issue. Mr. Olson replied the crossing upgrade at Dakota would be at the expense of the City if the closure at Brunswick did not occur. Mr. Karner believed it was unfair that the people on the North had to go around for this. The metal barriers at the closing were unattractive and he hoped something better looking would be put in. Michael Cohn, 2226 Oregon Ct, asked if there were just homes affected or businesses as well. Mayor Jacobs replied just homes. Aaron Carlson, 3222 Brunswick Av. S, stated for the reasons already stated, he did not want the street closed. He asked for clarification if the only way CP Rail would do the upgrade was if they closed Brunswick. Mayor Jacobs replied that they would do the upgrade to the Dakota Avenue crossing and would pay for it, which was $50,000, with the condition that the Brunswick crossing be closed. Mr. Olson stated that it was typically done for safety reasons. This crossing is controlled by a stop sign. There had been complaints about traffic running the stop sign and concerns about pedestrian crossing. Closing the crossing would make it safer for the railway company. This was part of a program that the City worked out with the railway in 2003, where they would upgrade a crossing and close another. Mr. Carlson did not understand why the City couldn’t tell the railroad that didn’t make sense. Mayor Jacobs stated that they were not able to do much negotiating with the railroad because they fell under Federal law. Councilmember Sanger asked the residents if they felt the Dakota crossing needed the upgrade. Mike Olsen replied that he had been in the area 30-40 years and the Dakota St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 3a - Council Minutes March 7, 2005 Page 5 crossing had always looked the same. He thought maybe there was another plan for upgrading the crossings such as light rail or freight trains. Councilmember Sanger responded it couldn’t be light rail because they used different tracks. She wanted opinions on the physical status of the Dakota crossing; and if it appeared to be deteriorated. Mr. Olsen replied not more than usual, it had always been a bumpy road. Councilmember Finkelstein spoke in favor of the closure because the railroad tracks at Dakota were in desperate need of repair. They all knew of stories about cars losing rims and hubcaps. A person became stuck on the crossing in their wheelchair. This was an opportunity to get this repaired while they were fixing Brunswick for very little cost. Staff noted this would lead to less noise, it would be safer. They had reports from Police, Fire and the snowplow division that service would not be affected. They had an obligation to deal with limited resources and this was one way to utilize that. If they refused to close Brunswick, they didn’t take advantage of this offer, they may be stuck with at least a $50,000 bill. The metal gates would not be attractive and he understood the inconvenience to residents and the concern about housing prices. They could work with the neighborhood to make the gate more attractive. He suggested as part of number two of the resolution that they have a set date that CPR needed to have this done by because now all they had to do was upgrade the crossing in accordance with plans approved by the Director of Public Works, but there wasn’t a date. Knowing how the railroad worked, he hated to see them shut down the Brunswick road, get the plans in place for Dakota and not get the work done in a timely fashion. Mayor Jacobs asked if they had the ability to control when they closed the Brunswick Ave. Mr. Olson replied the closing of Brunswick would follow the upgrade of Dakota. Councilmember Basill stated that he served on the railroad task force and the closings had nothing to do with the freight flow. They made the offer citywide. He felt the railroad was doing it for safety concerns. The number of street railroad crossings they had in St. Louis Park was far higher than any other area. Councilmember Omodt indicated he was becoming more conflicted. When he was on the railroad task force, people were in favor of the closing for safety and that they would like to live on a cul-de-sac. He also worked at Roxbury Park with the Police to weed out the kids that were doing things that they shouldn’t be doing. Police thought less access would make it harder. He was the Councilmember who saw the man stuck in a wheelchair on Dakota trying to cross the tracks and could not get over. For two or three years they tried to get the railroad to upgrade the sidewalk crossings and it was very hard to do, they operated under different Federal laws. They made this offer to the City for safety reasons; fewer crossings meant it was a safer passage. He was surprised that there was this much opposition. They might need to look at this more before making a decision. Councilmember Sanger agreed with Councilmember Omodt. A couple of years ago there were several people in favor of this and some opposed. This was the first time she had St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 3a - Council Minutes March 7, 2005 Page 6 heard so many people opposed, but she could not dismiss the fact that the crossing at Dakota needed to be upgraded and the City could not afford to turn up their nose at someone else doing $50,000 of work. She felt torn about what was the right thing to do, although she was unsure what they would gain if they delayed this. Councilmember Santa stated the crossing at Dakota was a matter of great concern to many people. The crossing was degraded and dangerous. Used by teenage drivers daily and trains, the combination was frightening. She was weighing things equally and kept coming back to a very degraded crossing that was more and more dangerous to pedestrians, traffic and to trains. She asked if the railroad had given them a deadline. Mr. Olsen replied that they didn’t have a deadline. From previous experience working with the railroad, it was difficult to get on their schedule, which was why they were pursuing it. Ms. Hagen added that if they closed Brunswick, they would be looking at doing the closure as part of the pavement management project, which would start in May or June. Mayor Jacobs stated that he wouldn’t want to close Brunswick until the Dakota crossing was completed. Ms. Hagen indicated they would hold back 25-30 feet from the edge of the crossing to make sure before they went ahead with the street project. Councilmember Omodt asked if the railroad suggested any other tradeoffs on this route. Ms. Hagen replied they looked at the ones on 41st East of Brookside, but the neighborhood desired to keep that one open as well. There were also the 28th and 29th Street crossings. They paired them up on their proximity. They weren’t considering closing any others at this point. Councilmember Sanger asked if they did not approve this street closure, what could they expect in terms of the railroad improving the Dakota Avenue crossing on their own. Ms. Hagen replied it would be at their discretion and on their timeline. As long as they were able to run the train through, there would be little or no maintenance done. Councilmember Omodt suggested the Council might consider taking another look at this. Councilmember Finkelstein stated they had discussed this at the last study session and prior. There needed to be a decision and he didn’t know what pushing it back to another study session would do for the neighborhood, for getting this work started in April or about the possibility that if they delayed this further, they may be responsible for picking up the cost. The most responsible thing would be to take a vote. Mayor Jacobs indicated he was not sure what they would gain by having a study session. He could allay some of the fears that he had heard because he lived on a dead-end street and they had never had trouble getting emergency vehicles up and down the street. He also had a lawn service and they were able to get in and out, as well as the garbage and snow plowing. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 3a - Council Minutes March 7, 2005 Page 7 Councilmember Finkelstein stated this looked like the least miserable alternative in terms of what they knew was to be the problem with Dakota Avenue. Mayor Jacobs noted that the Dakota Avenue crossing was a problem and he had heard that from a number of residents and it really needed upgrading. It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution No. 05-038 authorizing the closure of Brunswick Avenue South at W. 33rd Street (Canadian Pacific Railroad) conditioned on certain CPRR concessions; and, to add in item #2 that the closing will be done after the completion of the Dakota Crossing by CPRR in 2005. Councilmember Sanger stated as a policy maker, they had to make tough decisions and that inconvenience was just barely outweighed by the need to upgrade the Dakota Avenue crossing and the significant safety concerns associated with it. She asked that they improve the aesthetics of the closing. A number of people had raised concerns regarding truck traffic and impact on city services, she didn’t believe there would be a significant impact, however it was possible she was wrong. At that point they needed to be informed if there was a problem with snow plowing or Police access, etc. Councilmember Omodt stated he came to the meeting thinking this was something the neighborhood wanted and was surprised at the number of people in attendance. He would be voting against the motion because he thought this was something they could look at again and maybe the railroad could pick something else to close. The motion passed 5-1 with Councilmember Omodt opposed. 8b. Housing Summit Goals Presented to Council for Approval Ms. Schnitker presented the staff report. Ms. Larsen reviewed the Housing Goals. Mayor Jacobs thanked the staff for their work on the Housing Summit process, as well as the many people involved in the Summit. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve Housing Goals as developed through the St. Louis Park Housing Summit and proceed with next steps for implementation. Councilmember Basill thanked staff along with Councilmember Santa and for Councilmember Sanger’s addition of the language emphasizing the need for single- family move-up housing. It was something he heard all over the community and Councilmember Sanger championed that. The motion passed 5-0. (Councilmember Omodt had stepped out of the chambers) 8c. Request of Emad Abed for a text amendment to Section 36-292 (f) of St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) relating to the floodplain overlay St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 3a - Council Minutes March 7, 2005 Page 8 district to delete the requirement that compensating storage (required when there is fill in a floodplain) be provided outside of the floodplain boundary. Case Nos. 05-04-ZA Ms. Erickson presented the staff report. Councilmember Santa referred to page three; the area where the compensating storage is proposed shall be an area outside the 100-year flood zone before development as compensating store. When she read this, it did not comply with what they had been trying to do for many years. They had spent an enormous amount of time, energy and money dealing with flooding throughout the City and getting as many properties as possible to a level where they had protection to a 125-year rain event. When she read the 100-year flood zone, it seemed they were setting up a situation where a development had a 125-year event, that other properties had been protected from, did not meet that standard and she was uncomfortable with that. Ms. Erickson replied that the Zoning Code protected to the 100-year flood, which is the State and FEMA requirement. They only regulated to the 100-year event. This did not decrease in any manner the amount of storage they had. This says that they could dig a deeper hole to compensate for the storage that they were taking by filling. Councilmember Sanger shared Councilmember Santa’s concerns. They had spent millions of dollars trying to flood proof and do corrections in this community. They were asking the Legislature for money to help do even more flood mitigation. They were talking about 100- year floods, which there were probably three of within the last few years and they would be having more issues. Why would they want anybody to be building in a flood plain? Maybe they ought to be looking at the regulations from that perspective. Mr. Harmening clarified that they might be combining the 100-year flood plain boundaries with the 125-year storm event protection that they were trying to create in their ponding basins. The 100-year flood plain boundaries related primarily to Minnehaha Creek and the elevation of the water that had been calculated based upon a 100-year flooding event (ex. a spring melting). What they had been talking about in terms of flood mitigation in some neighborhoods was 125-year storm events meaning a single storm with a heavy rainfall. They were trying to create storm water holding systems that could protect against a 125-year storm event. They couldn’t necessarily group those into the same category. They were different. Councilmember Basill stated he had concerns as well. It was coming forward because of a specific parcel. Was there another alternative instead of making a citywide change? Ms. Erickson replied that the applicant’s parcel was almost entirely all below the 100- year flood elevation. In order for anything to be built on this land, it had to be filled and there needed to be compensating storage for whatever was filled. Because there was no other place that could be filled above the 100-year flood elevation, this property could not be developed if this ordinance amendment were not approved. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if this was something that they needed to get more information on at another meeting with the City’s Consulting Engineer? He had some concerns about this and wanted to get a better understanding. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 3a - Council Minutes March 7, 2005 Page 9 Mr. Locke commented that the ordinance change did not mean they would be able to reduce the capacity to handle floodwaters. It would provide more flexibility for how they did it. If they wanted to fill in some of the flood area, the only way to do it would be to go laterally, which in some situations meant they would expand the area that was going to be wet closer to other buildings. The change allowed them to make it possible to go deeper and handle more water in a smaller area. Councilmember Finkelstein stated his concern was if they passed something like this that they might be engaging in some liability by approving plans and in the future there being a problem with the building. Mr. Locke stated that was why they talked about accepted engineering practices and why they spent time talking with the Storm Water consultant. They would be relying on the technical expertise as they dealt with the individual specifics of each project in each storm water management situation, and deal with it from a technical standpoint. Councilmember Santa stated she was struggling with the difference between a flood plain and a wetland. If it was already a wetland and had its own ecology and they dug a big hole, they would change the whole ecology and she was concerned about that. Ms. Erickson clarified they would only be allowed to dig a bigger hole in a place that was not already wet. They could not dig a bigger hole within the wetland. If they fill in a wetland, they had to replace that wetland two for one, outside of the wetland. The floodplain was different. Most wetland is in a floodplain, but not necessarily the other way around. Councilmember Sanger indicated that the ordinance didn’t say that they couldn’t dig in a wetland. Secondly, it may be dry now, but they were concerned about when it rained a lot and would not be dry. You may dig a deeper hole, but it would still overflow and there would be potential issues with wet basements or foundation issues. The person who bought this property presumably bought it knowing the characteristics of the floodplain and legal requirements. She was concerned about changing it to make it developable on this land and then they could have other unknown applications in the rest of the community Mayor Jacobs stated his concern was that deeper holes in flood plains and wetlands tend to fill in and how would they check it to make sure the hole stayed as deep as they had dug it? That would impose a lot of requirements for maintenance. Ms. Erickson replied that maintenance anyplace they were trying to retain water was an issue because there was always siltation. Whether they dug a deeper hole or stayed the status quo, they would have the same issue and over time the fill was going to decrease the storage capacity. Mayor Jacobs sensed hesitancy to go forward and thought they may benefit from additional discussion. Ms. Erickson clarified that the City was not the regulatory agency for wetlands. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was the regulatory agency. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 3a - Council Minutes March 7, 2005 Page 10 Mr. Locke reiterated that the Zoning ordinance was not the primary tool for regulating these issues. If the Council was uncomfortable and would like to know more about this, there was not problem having WSB explain it further. Councilmember Omodt stated he could not see having this explained to him by WSB changing his mind. He thought this was a bad idea and would prefer to vote it down. Mr. Harmening indicated Councilmember Basill raised a question about other options that the applicant might have. Was a variance possible? Ms. Erickson replied no, the zoning code specifically stated that no variances are allowed to the floodplain districts. Councilmember Basill stated that he was torn on this and if he had to vote without all of the information, to be cautious he would say no. He wanted to have more information and bring it back to a study session. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to defer this item to a study session for further review. Mayor Jacobs recalled discussions about the Lamplighter Park and one of the issues was how the City allowed houses to be built in the floodplain. He wanted to be sure they didn’t set themselves up for failure by building something in an area that would end up with wet basements. Was this a time sensitive issue? Ms. Erickson replied that they also had a request from the property owner for a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning change. That would be going to the Planning Commission on March 16th. Councilmember Sanger asked why they were doing it in that order? It seemed that they ought to look first at the Comp Plan and Zoning issues because if they chose not to make those changes, the issue about floodplains was a moot point. Ms. Erickson replied if this property could not be developed, they would have wasted the applicant’s money with those applications. If they didn’t bring the other forward, application fees could be returned. Councilmember Santa requested at the study session they look at other areas of the City where this may be an issue. If this was only going to affect one property, it was very different from something that could have a citywide effect. Councilmember Finkelstein requested they be provided with definitions of floodplain, wetland, 100-year flood event and 125-year storm event. Councilmember Basill asked if they had any neighborhood meetings regarding this proposal? Ms. Erickson replied they had been waiting to see if this ordinance would be approved. Councilmember Basill was concerned about the time frame, and if they were bringing something forward to the Planning Commission on March 16th, four neighborhoods would be affected by the development and they hadn’t met with the neighbors, that was concerning. Councilmember Sanger stated when she asked the question about why they were dealing with this first she understood what they meant about not wanting to waste the applicants St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 3a - Council Minutes March 7, 2005 Page 11 money, but if it were already going to the Planning Commission, it seemed that they had already started that process and the money was spent. She reiterated her question about why they didn’t do this afterward? Mayor Jacobs shared the concerns about not having neighborhood meetings yet, given the fact that there was a potential Comp Plan amendment. Ms. Erickson stated they had already asked for one extension and that was why the time had become an essential issue. They were probably at about 45 days now. Mr. Harmening noted they could extend it another 60-days. The motion passed 5-1, with Councilmember Omodt opposed. 8d. Request of City of St. Louis Park for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2000—2020, Chapter K Water Supply Plan to modify the water contingency plan to conform to Federal Homeland Security legislation and to provide stricter water conservation measures. Case No. 05-05-CP Resolution No. 05-037 Ms. Erickson presented the staff report. Councilmember Sanger asked staff to clarify for residents that they didn’t have a choice about approving this and secondly, this meant that in the summer residents would be limited to watering their lawns no more than once every other day? Ms. Erickson replied that was correct. Councilmember Sanger assumed other communities would have similar regulations? Ms. Erickson replied that was correct. Mr. Anderson stated that this gave them an opportunity to manage water better. Most water was wasted between noon and 6 PM and when the commercial and industrial areas were using more of the water. Most of the water evaporated off the lawn, at that time. Mayor Jacobs recalled a seminar where they mentioned that many times. Mr. Harmening clarified for viewers that the Council talked about the concept of more restrictive watering requirements last summer and implemented them during the latter part of the summer. This formalized their water conservation measures in St. Louis Park to be more restrictive in terms of watering gardens and lawns. Mr. Anderson emphasized one of the reasons to do this was in this past they had put it on and taken it off, etc. and this way it would be on all the time and would be easier to communicate and enforce. Councilmember Omodt noted when to communicate to residents that this was part of Homeland security and there was greater thought to this. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 3a - Council Minutes March 7, 2005 Page 12 Councilmember Finkelstein stated this would maintain an adequate water supply. Mayor Jacobs viewed it as environmentally responsible. Mr. Anderson added that they had to add a lot of reactionary steps in the contingency plan for Homeland Security. This was directly related to conservation of water, not Homeland Security. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve Resolution No. 05-037 amending the Comprehensive Plan 2000 – 2020, Chapter K. Water Supply Plan to provide changes to water emergency planning in conformance with Federal Homeland Security legislation and to incorporate stricter water conservation measures subject to Metropolitan Council review; approve summary resolution and authorize publication. Marilyn Hoeft, 7020 W 24th St, stated in the discussion of sprinkling restrictions businesses were not mentioned. She found it annoying last summer when those in the neighborhood were paying attention to the restrictions, but found that businesses were not. Mayor Jacobs replied they needed to do a better job of enforcement. Sprinkler systems were available with a rain gauge switch, was that required? Mr. Anderson replied yes. One of the difficulties they had was working with some businesses. This year they had made and effort and put it in the Business Line newsletter and communicate with them directly. They would be paying closer attention to the enforcement. They will also put it in the Sun Sailor and Park Perspective and were doing a mailing in all billing. Councilmember Basill commented in the communication that it should be mentioned that this didn’t mean people couldn’t keep their lawns up and green, they would just be good stewards when they did it by watering during the designated time so they needed less water. Mr. Anderson noted that Jim Vaughn had another lawn care seminar coming up and people could check the website for that information. The motion passed 6-0. 8f. Consider enforcement options provided in Hennepin County Ordinance #24 establishing smoke-free restaurants within the County. Mr. Camilon presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs noted that a few pages of the report were missing and asked if multi-use facilities were covered? Mr. Camilon replied in the ordinance it addressed multi-use facilities and it had a number of examples and requirements that would cover them. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 3a - Council Minutes March 7, 2005 Page 13 It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to authorize the City Manager to inform Hennepin County by letter that the City will accept enforcement responsibility of County Ordinance #24 establishing smoke-free food and beverage establishments. Councilmember Sanger added that she hoped that restaurant and bar owners would be responsible and not get into an enforcement situation. Councilmember Omodt stated he read through the report and noted a few pages of the Counties agreement were missing. They said they would partner with the County, but there was no guarantee if there was a test case that they were not going to “leave us holding the bag”. Had they budgeted anything for enforcement and lawsuits? Mr. Camilon replied nothing was budgeted. The work they anticipated would be minimal and would be done in combination with regular daily inspections of food facilities. They would handout packets of information from the State to educate people. In the event that they would be challenged or have to go to court, they could not enforce Hennepin County’s laws and they would have to give authority to the County. Mr. Scott indicated if there were a “test case” they would have the option of dismissing and not pursuing it if Hennepin County didn’t want to work together. He had spoken with Mr. Hoffman regarding the ability to enforce the ordinance and didn’t know if they had come to a conclusion. The County had determined that they had the ability to enforce it and their process was to have the City Administrator send back a letter that they had provided that they would enforce the Ordinance. They were complying with the County’s request. Councilmember Basill asked if they said they would enforce this, and issued a citation, but decided not to go forward with it because of fear of being a test case, could the County come back to them for not enforcing it? Mr. Scott replied it was his understanding that they were treating this as if it were one of their own ordinances. They would enforce it. They first suggested that they be the investigative arm and if there was a situation that was a violation, they would send it to the County who would then send it to the County Attorney’s office. That had been rejected. They would be enforcing this ordinance as if it were one of their own ordinances. Councilmember Basill asked if there was a legal problem enforcing a County ordinance? Mr. Scott replied the County made a determination that they could delegate this authority to the City by having the City Administrator, as other Cities had done, indicate that they were willing to enforce the ordinance. There was a commonality of authority to do it or they could do a joint powers agreement with the County. The County requested they do it in this fashion, as opposed to going to a more formalized joint powers agreement. That could potentially raise an issue if they issued a citation and someone raised that issue. Mr. Camilon added in their discussions, they felt they could deal with their establishments and try, short of taking them to court, to convince them. They had done this in other applications and had good success. In the event that they would have to take St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 3a - Council Minutes March 7, 2005 Page 14 court action, he agreed that they could issue the citation or formal complaints. If it got to be a big issue, they would consult with Hennepin County and try to get them involved. Councilmember Omodt stated he was uncomfortable saying that this may or may not work and maybe they should have a joint powers agreement. They couldn’t enforce a County ordinance and it seemed there were more problems than solutions. The staff report showed that they would have a partnership with the County, but he would rather see something in writing saying or a joint powers. The City Attorney said that it wasn’t a clear-cut case and they ought not push this onto their taxpayers for what should be County business. There was an unacceptable risk. He would like to know why Hopkins and Brooklyn Park took a different route. The Council didn’t have enough information because the report was missing pages. They were making decisions on things that the City Attorney admitted was not clear. Councilmember Sanger indicated that they had talked about this at a study session in the past and the County had delegated authority to enforce this. Theoretically someone might challenge this, but that was no different than other legal claims that were challenged. In a worst case scenario if they went to enforcement and Mr. Camilon was unable to use the methods he talked about to resolve it and they had a challenge, her expectation at that point the County had to step in because it was their ordinance. They were using legal hair splitting and fears to get around or to avoid the real issue, which was that second hand smoke kills people. They shouldn’t let fears over potential issues get in the way of trying to protect people’s health. Councilmember Finkelstein agreed with Councilmember Sanger. In regard to the enforcement options, if they didn’t do this, smokers would know that the City of St. Louis Park was not enforcing it. Seven out of nine cities that had this delegated authority for their food establishments, had accepted the responsibility and he thought they could do no less. If there was a problem and Hennepin County didn’t back them, they could go back to the County and get a joint powers or, as the City Attorney suggested, if it was not going to work with them enforcing the County ordinance, then they could go back and pass a city ordinance. There was a deadline of March 31st, they should do this. Councilmember Omodt stated that he didn’t think this was legal hair splitting. They had three weeks to get his done legally the way they thought it should be done. There was enough question as to the legality of this and who would pick up the tab for enforcement. He didn’t know how they could make a decision without all of the information. The City Attorney told them that this was not a clear-cut issue. Secondly, no one doubted that second hand smoke was dangerous, that was not the issue. If the City was taking on unacceptable risk, their liability needed to be thought through. They had three weeks to fix this. They could do a better job. Mayor Jacobs asked Councilmember Omodt what he suggested they do, have the City Attorney meet with the County Attorney and draft an agreement? Councilmember Omodt suggested that the Council get the full ordinance. Second, they should get a joint powers agreement. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 3a - Council Minutes March 7, 2005 Page 15 Councilmember Sanger thought Councilmember Omodt heard something differently from the City Attorney than she had. She was under the impression that what he had said was based on the County’s delegation, they did in fact have the right to enforce this. He was also saying that they might have some kind of liability and she was unsure what that liability might be. Mr. Scott stated that Hennepin County made a determination that they could delegate it in this fashion. There may be some issues about that. In his discussions with Mr. Hoffman, he was very optimistic that they would not have any enforcement situations where they would have to go to court and that they could be worked out. When he raised the issue about how “ironclad” this procedure was, Mr. Hoffman thought there might be some issues, but the likelihood that they would have enforcement was minimal. The County made a determination that they felt it could be handled in this way. In the worst-case scenario if there was an enforcement and if someone raised the issue, then it would have to be addressed at that time. He was unsure they could get more accomplished by March 31, because they were dependent on the County being willing to look at it a different way, whether it be a joint powers or a different format how they would do the enforcement. One option would be to go ahead and then direct staff to talk further to the County about the issue of making this clearer. Councilmember Finkelstein was concerned if they didn’t pass this, it could create a rippling effect and they would encourage citizens to say that they weren’t going to enforce this. Mayor Jacobs stated he was sensitive to the concerns raised by Councilmember Omodt about the fact that they didn’t have a firm understanding with the County as to how much they would back this up. He agreed with staff that he didn’t think there would be a big issue, but that was an unknown. Councilmember Santa commented that the residents of St. Louis Park were aware that Hennepin County passed an ordinance. They were aware that it went into effect at the end of March. The expectation of those who smoked and those who did not smoke was that the ordinance would be enforced. Whoever does it was unclear, but to a resident, they had the expectation that St. Louis Park would do it and ensure that all ordinances were going to be enforced. Whether they agreed with it or disagreed with it or thought it needed more clarification, April 1st, there were going to be residents and business owners looking at staff asking what they were supposed to do. Mr. Camilon was going to answer their questions. They were getting lost arguing about what the County wanted them to do and what they didn’t want to do and how that was going to happen. She cared that the citizens of St. Louis Park could depend on them to do the things that they were elected to do. Councilmember Basill added he was very concerned that there was an expectation within the community that they be fiscally responsible and he was very concerned as he listened to how this was enforced and the legalities what they could be on the hook for. The County had passed this, which he thought was good for secondhand smoke, and they weren’t going to fund it. It was up to the City to enforce what they had passed. The County was not guaranteeing they would become involved. There should be a hold harmless agreement for the legal costs because St. Louis Park would be enforcing this on St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 3a - Council Minutes March 7, 2005 Page 16 behalf of Hennepin County. A person with a medical condition could go to a location that was allowing smoking and something medically happened, the City had a resolution saying they would enforce this and they could come after the City because they did not enforce it. He was concerned about taking this over for the County and doing it at the risk of taxpayers. He was happy they passed it and that it would help limit secondhand smoke. Mayor Jacobs asked if Mr. Scott would be comfortable if they passed the motion and then had the Council direct staff to go back and talk with the County to get the guarantees they had talked about? Mr. Scott replied his suggestion was to go ahead with the motion and if they wanted to direct staff to have further discussions with the County to clarify the relationship they could do that. Mayor Jacobs stated he was OK with the motion, but would like to have more clarity with the County. He was also sensitive to Councilmember Santa’s comments about what the residents were going to expect, because they would expect that the City would enforce this. Mr. Camilon added regardless of who was going to be enforcing this, on April 1 the ordinance would be in effect and the disclosure program would no longer be in existence. He was unsure if it did become challengeable, what kind of financial costs would they be incurring. Councilmember Basill stated if they passed this and went back to the County to talk about a joint powers or hold harmless agreement, what were they going to try to change? Mr. Scott replied they could direct staff to better clarify the legal aspect of the delegation of the authority to make how it would work clear. He was unsure if the County would do anything further. There was an opinion from the County Attorney’s office that they did not have the authority to prosecute misdemeanors. He believed they could delegate that, it may just be a letter from the Administrator agreeing to the delegation. The County believed that was sufficient. The County Attorney’s office was saying that they didn’t enforce County ordinances that were misdemeanors. They could adopt the resolution tonight and direct staff to talk further with the County and they could report back. Councilmember Sanger stated it would be reasonable to assume at a minimum they would be able to provide written documentation of their legal basis for concluding that they had the right to delegate the power to the City. Councilmember Santa asked what would happen if they didn’t pass this resolution and no letter went to the County by March 31st? Mr. Harmening replied that the presumption by the County would be that they were not going to enforce the ordinance. Councilmember Santa had a bias that they did it better and while she had some concerns about putting them financially in limbo, or taking on responsibilities beyond what they should be doing, she believed they did it better and should be doing it. The expectation was that they would do it. Councilmember Basill hoped they would be held harmless of any risk that would come after the City and their taxpayers for something that the County had passed. The ultimate policy St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 3a - Council Minutes March 7, 2005 Page 17 statement was their budget and if they passed something and didn’t fund it, what were they [Hennepin County] passing? He was concerned that the County wouldn’t back them up and there was no language saying that they were a partner. If they passed this, they had to realize it was very unlikely that the County would jump in and help them fund this. Councilmember Sanger didn’t agree because and wasn’t sure that they wouldn’t back them up or at least split it. She didn’t know why they should assume that the County would just back out after all of the effort they went through to pass this in the first place. Mayor Jacobs thought rather than debating what the County may or may not do, if the City Attorney was comfortable having the addition to the motion directing him to go back and seek additional clarification, that should be part of the motion. Mayor Jacobs asked Councilmember’s Sanger if she would accept a friendly amendment that the City Attorney and City staff are directed to go back to Hennepin County and request a formalization of the relationship of enforcement of the ordinance. The County is asked to provide verification as to the legal basis by which the County was asking the City to enforce this ordinance. Councilmember Basill asked if they didn’t have time to ask that question before this was passed? Mayor Jacobs responded that they could, although this would be going into effect in three weeks. Councilmember Sanger asked if that would change his mind? Councilmember Basill replied yes, if he knew that the County was backing them. He was having no trouble supporting this because he did want the enforcement. He was having trouble with the financial risk they were putting their residents at for a County ordinance. Councilmember Sanger stated that she didn’t know that they were putting anybody at financial risk. They didn’t know now how many DWI’s they were going to have to prosecute or any other kind of enforcement. There were unknowns. They did know that their staff and City Attorney had conversations with the County Attorney’s office. It was clear that they weren’t just going to give them everything they wanted or they wouldn’t be having this discussion. If they passed this, they did have to live with a little ambiguity. She didn’t know why that was any different than any other kind of potential legal issue. Councilmember Finkelstein agreed, does it serve the public good? Does it serve the public health? If they didn’t do this, he thought it was leaving them open into an amorphous, obfuscated situation. Mr. Harmening stated whether they send a letter to the County or not, they would still get calls from residents asking why smoking was being allowed in certain restaurants. They had two options, they could follow up on that or they could tell them to call the County. His guess was that they would follow up. Practically, given their relationships with the bars and restaurants, they were going to be in an enforcement situation anyway. He initially had some concerns about the financial liability they might have or exposure St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 3a - Council Minutes March 7, 2005 Page 18 relative to prosecution of the violation. He didn’t think that was a big issue. They didn’t have to charge somebody for a violation of an ordinance, if they didn’t feel the County was there with them to back them up or help them out. They had discretion taking on financial exposure and putting their residents at risk because of that. Councilmember Basill agreed that it should be enforced, and City staff would be there. It wasn’t that much to ask to get this in writing for the County to help if an incident occurred. It was good business practice that the County supports them. Mr. Harmening stated his understanding was if this motion were passed, they were asking them to go back to the County and ask for a formalization of the relationship and also verification as to the legal basis by which the County was asking them to do the enforcement. All they were doing was sending a letter at this point, they were not signing a contract. There was nothing stopping them in two months from sending another letter to the County saying that they were not going to enforce this. In terms of the concern about liability, he didn’t know if they had any more exposure than if someone ran a stop sign and someone were killed and they would sue for not enforcing stop signs or speeding ordinances. He didn’t think the liability were any different. Councilmember Omodt asked for clarification of the motion. Mr. Harmening stated the motion would read: to authorize the City Manager to inform Hennepin County by letter that the City will accept enforcement responsibility of County Ordinance #24 establishing smoke-free food and beverage establishments and that the City Attorney and City staff are directed to go back to Hennepin County and request a formalization of the relationship of enforcement of the ordinance. The County is asked to provide verification as to the legal basis by which the County was asking the City to enforce this ordinance. Councilmember Basill made a friendly amendment to insert , “to inquire about a hold harmless agreement and sharing risks with the City”. Councilmember Sanger accepted the friendly amendment. The motion passed 6-0. 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs reminded people that study sessions are open to the public. He thanked the Torah Academy kids for meeting with the Police Department and expressing their condolences for the loss of Officer Day. St. Louis Park is in the process of St. Louis Park Reads a Book, where the community will select a book to be read. It is an opportunity to have people read more and to increase reading for St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 3a - Council Minutes March 7, 2005 Page 19 pleasure in children. A book had not been selected yet. There is a meeting in City Hall, March 9th at 3:00. The Friends of the Arts Committee is meeting March 10th at 7PM at City Hall to talk about the State of the Arts in St. Louis Park. March 15th at 7 PM there will be a meeting in City Hall to talk about the fate of Highway 100. Members of the Legislative team and MnDot staff members will be present. Councilmember Basill added that the Council unanimously approved a resolution asking that the date be moved up. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:14 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4a - Liquor License Violations Page 1 4a. Motion to adopt Resolutions Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License Violations according to the recommendation of the City Manager. Background Liquor sting operations were conducted by the St. Louis Park Police Department on December 11th of this year. Under the direction of Police officers, an 18-year-old male attempted to purchase alcoholic beverages at licensed establishments throughout the city. Three of the city’s licensed establishments sold liquor to the minor. Citations were issued in each case and have been forwarded to Hennepin County District Court for consideration of criminal penalties. Administrative Process Administrative hearings were held to consider the license violations. At those hearings the City Manager, City Clerk and Lt. Chad Kraayenbrink reviewed each violation in detail and discussed preventive measures that could be taken to ensure that future violations do not occur. At the end of each hearing a fine was set. All license holders attending the hearings signed stipulations agreeing to the facts of their case and accepting the fine imposed. All were first time violations and fines were set at $1000 for each establishment. The establishments and fines set are as follows: Licensee Name Establishment Name Address Violation Date Fine Mpls Golf Club Minneapolis Golf Club 2001 Flag Ave S Saturday, December 11, 2004 $1000 Fuddruckers, Inc. Fuddruckers 6445 Wayzata Blvd Saturday, December 11, 2004 $1000 Vescio’s of SLP Vescio’s Italian Restaurant 4001 State Hwy 7 Saturday, December 11, 2004 $1000 Council Approval If the City Council concurs with the City Manager’s recommendations, a motion to approve a resolution imposing the administrative penalty is required for each establishment. Payment of that penalty is due within 30 days of Council’s action. If the City Council disagrees with the Manager’s recommendation, a hearing will be scheduled for the Licensee to appear before the City Council for further consideration. Attached: Resolutions approving imposition of civil penalties Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, Deputy City Clerk Through: Cynthia D. Reichert, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4a - Liquor License Violations Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 05-043 A RESOLUTION IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTY FOR LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION Mpls Golf Club Minneapolis Golf Club 2001 Flag Ave S WHEREAS, a liquor license violation, sale of liquor to a minor, occurred at Minneapolis Golf Club located at 2001 Flag Ave. S. in St. Louis Park; and WHEREAS, the license holder, has stipulated that the incident occurred and was a violation of the city liquor license ordinance Sections 3-73 through – 3-75; and WHEREAS, The license holder was informed of the civil penalty process and has agreed to accept the administrative penalty as set by the City Manager and as approved by the City Council. NOW THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED, that a civil penalty of $1000 is hereby imposed on the license holder pursuant to City Code Section 3-75 payable to the City within 30 days of this action. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4a - Liquor License Violations Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 05-044 A RESOLUTION IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTY FOR LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION Fuddruckers Inc. Fuddruckers 6445 Wayzata Blvd. WHEREAS, a liquor license violation, sale of liquor to a minor, occurred at Fuddruckers Inc. located at 6445 Wayzata Blvd. in St. Louis Park; and WHEREAS, the license holder, has stipulated that the incident occurred and was a violation of the city liquor license ordinance Sections 3-73 through – 3-75; and WHEREAS, The license holder was informed of the civil penalty process and has agreed to accept the administrative penalty as set by the City Manager and as approved by the City Council. NOW THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED, that a civil penalty of $1000 is hereby imposed on the license holder pursuant to City Code Section 3-75 payable to the City within 30 days of this action. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 05-045 A RESOLUTION IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTY FOR LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATION Vescio’s Italian Restaurant Vescio’s of St. Louis Park 4001 State Hwy 7 WHEREAS, a liquor license violation, sale of liquor to a minor, occurred at Vescio’s Italian Restaurant located at 4001 State Hwy 7 in St. Louis Park; and WHEREAS, the license holder, has stipulated that the incident occurred and was a violation of the city liquor license ordinance Sections 3-73 through – 3-75; and WHEREAS, The license holder was informed of the civil penalty process and has agreed to accept the administrative penalty as set by the City Manager and as approved by the City Council. NOW THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED, that a civil penalty of $1000 is hereby imposed on the license holder pursuant to City Code Section 3-75 payable to the City within 30 days of this action. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4b - Planning Comm Minutes 2-16-05 Page 1 OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA Feb. 16, 2005--6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette STAFF PRESENT: Scott Anderson, Judie Erickson, Gary Morrison, Meg McMonigal, Nancy Sells 1. Call to Order – Roll Call Chair Carper called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of January 5, 2005 Commissioner Morris made a motion to approve the minutes of January 5, 2005. The motion passed 4-0-1 (Robertson abstained). Commissioner Timian arrived at 6:05 p.m. 3. Hearings A. Case Nos. 05-03-S and 05-02-CUP—Request by Mendota Homes Inc. for a preliminary/final plat to combine two parcels into one; and a conditional use permit to allow a 3-story, 75 unit condominium building at 3270 Gorham Ave (the old AVR site) Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, provided an introduction to the request. Erin Mathern, Sales and Development Director of Mendota Homes, reviewed the site proposal, building and logistic perspective. She explained the property was purchased from AVR in late 2004. During the time Mendota Homes had a purchase agreement with AVR they spent six months working on the design in addition to doing environmental testing and other development activities. She commented on the relatively flat topography except for the significant grade change at the east boundary of the site which provides a design challenge for the site. They feel they have accommodated that challenge in their building plan. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4b - Planning Comm Minutes 2-16-05 Page 2 Ms. Mathern went on to explain that the grade on the site will allow for two levels of underground parking, providing 174 parking spaces or roughly one space for each bedroom in the building. Ms. Mathern illustrated two points of access to the building of off Oak Leaf Drive—one on the west side of the building and one on the south side of the building. She stated that there will be 20 guest parking spaces in the front of the building. Ms. Mathern commented that part of the development plans include leveling out the grade at the east side of the building through a series of retaining walls and grade changes to allow for a flat, designed recreation area. Ms. Mathern said the building was designed with a Prairie School feel. Predominant features include a relatively low roof pitch, lots of horizontal lines, and layering of materials. 100% Class I materials will be used. Ms. Mathern spoke about the landscaping plan which includes layering of materials, prairie grasses and other perennials. She explained that the back area of the site is the designed green space. The developer is proposing a series of green rooms (series of interlocking gardens) which include seating areas and open areas. She added that the homeowners association will determine how the spaces will eventually be used. Extensive landscape buffering will be provided along the north and south side of the building. Commissioner Morris commented that the sloped north elevation appears to be inaccessible for residents. Ms. Mathern responded that it is a fairly shallow slope and could be accessed though it’s not encouraged based on the design. The design is to encourage people to come out from the building and use the designed recreation area to the east side of the building. Commissioner Morris said although it’s a nice landscaped area from the design of the building and from the accessibility to the building it won’t be viewed by residents unless they live on that side of the building. Ms. Mathern responded that was probably correct. Commissioner Morris asked if the garden would be lawn or community gardening. Ms. Mathern responded initially it would be lawns with traditional, formal plantings. The association could choose to use those areas for some kind of community gardening. Commissioner Morris said he calculates that the project meets the minimum of 12% landscaped recreational open space. But from the use that is being intended, the 12% is reduced to a single digit % that would be actually usable by residents. Ms. Mathern said she believes that their calculations for recreational space just include this designed space, not the area around the building. She said the idea was to make these pleasant places to be without the association having to add St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4b - Planning Comm Minutes 2-16-05 Page 3 additional landscaping, allowing seating areas, perhaps a barbecue area if residents chose to do that. Commissioner Morris said it appeared the only access to that area is one stairway and handicapped ramp off of Gorham and the interior corridor with one stairwell out of the building. Other than that only the tenants who live on the first floor with balconies have access to it. Everyone else has to travel through the building and down one stairwell. Ms. Mathern said that is partially correct. Because that is the back side of the building, the primary focus is on the front façade from a public perspective, and the back is a little more private space for residents to use. She went on to say that it is accessible from the first floor. Tenants on a higher floor would take the elevator down to the main floor and walk down the corridor and outside. Commissioner Robertson asked about deliveries and trash pick-up. He said it appears that a trash room is planned for the northeast corner but he doesn’t understand how it is accessed from the exterior. Ms. Mathern said normally the trash removal service would have a way to access the underground parking garage and would pull the dumpster out to the end and load it into their truck and push it back in again so that some kind of outside trash receptacle isn’t necessary. The building would have its own trash service. Commissioner Kramer commented on parking spaces, saying 174 seemed a little light. Ms. Mathern said City code requires 150 spaces. She said the developer has found in buildings like this one bedroom/one car, two bedroom/one- two cars provides a good computation for number of spaces needed. This also provides opportunity to rent a second space from someone who doesn’t have two cars. Or in the alternative, parking is available in front of the building which residents could use on a short term basis to park a second car. Commissioner Morris commented that the distance the trash receptacles would have to be moved outside the building could create a lot of noise and be very cumbersome. Ms. Mathern said that as the plans continue to come together that trash room may move and go to a trash facility at the end of the parking level closest to the exterior door. Mr. Morrison provided a staff report including history and planning of the area. He reviewed recommendations which came out of the 1998 Highway 7/Louisiana Ave. Task Force. In particular, the task force recommended that the redevelopment of the area put an emphasis on a park focus, common design theme, overall mixed use, integrate some housing goals, environmental protection, higher density near Hwy. 7, neighborhood linkages, traffic lights at Louisiana/Walker and Lake, and pedestrian paths. Mr. Morrison also reviewed site specific recommendations for the AVR property: high density residential use, St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4b - Planning Comm Minutes 2-16-05 Page 4 buildings to front towards Louisiana, and retention of Karkela Construction as transition (small property to the south of AVR). Mr. Morrison stated that staff believes that the project as proposed meets or exceeds all of those recommendations. Chair Carper asked about addressing on Gorham, though the focus of the building is on Oak Leaf. He asked if there would be a change of address. Mr. Morrison explained that 3270 Gorham is the historical address of the property. With the redevelopment of the property, the developer can choose if they want to be addressed off of Oak Leaf or Louisiana. The developer acknowledged that they would be changing the address. Commissioner Morris said he urged staff to be in charge of assigning a property address. He didn’t feel it was the choice of a developer to determine the address. Commissioner Morris said he doesn’t like the recreational area that is being proposed. He cited problems such as the 12% minimum discussed earlier, lack of accessibility to the open space, and no connectivity from guest parking or the parking garage. He commented on issues with layout, trash collection, and industrial use to the south. Commissioner Morris stated that the Commission is supposed to approve the plans before them, not the plans that are going to be changed after the Commission sees them. If there are issues that need development attention, he would like to see those issues addressed and come back to the Commission. Mr. Morrison said regarding the designed open space, Commissioner Morris was correct about the 12% area, but when the improvements are considered, the “play” area does shrink down to the landscaped area. Mr. Morrison explained that the City recently amended the code to specify designed outdoor recreational area requirement versus the standard square feet area/dwelling unit. The designed element complements the building and is also right across the street from Freedom Park. Commissioner Morris said he appreciated that viewpoint. He said he doesn’t see any function to the proposed development’s open space other than for sitting. His definition of outdoor recreational area is that it is multi-functional. Mr. Morrison said what Commissioner Morris has described is one of the biggest dilemmas developers and staff face. He said trying to get everything to fit on any site is a challenge and there is a lot to fit onto this property. He noted the Task Force recommendations for a high density development Mr. Morrison added that the park located across the road is a big bonus to the development. Commissioner Robertson said he agreed with Commissioner Morris on a number of the issues. He discussed concerns about the orientation and measuring height St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4b - Planning Comm Minutes 2-16-05 Page 5 for code requirements. He said there is no internal circulation that readily gets residents to the park across the street. He commented that there is no sidewalk that brings a pedestrian to the front of the building. Commissioner Robertson asked if the code addresses the difference between guest parking and resident parking. Mr. Morrison said 10% of the code requirement is required for guest parking which would be 15 spaces for this development. The developer is providing 20 spaces outside. Mr. Morrison said he didn’t disagree about the confusion regarding the front of the building. He said one of the first things which was done was deciding on the front. The determination of the front on properties that have frontage on three roads or more is left up to the Zoning Administrator. Staff looked at what the City is trying to accomplish on that property through the Comprehensive Plan, what the developer is asking for, and made the determination that in order to make things fit, including the Task Force recommendation for higher density, Gorham really needed to be considered the front. Mr. Morrison said it is not uncommon to have a front entry facing one street and the address facing the other direction. Commissioner Robertson commented that parking should look like parking. He said the building needs a true entry. The first level doesn’t look like parking or apartments. He said he is familiar with places where the front entry is on one street and the address on another street. He said usually that is a single family home. He said at this scale it seems to be having it both ways which makes him uncomfortable. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the architecture fits into the neighborhood, the landscaping is good, parking is good, and lots of work has gone into getting the higher density onto the unusual shaped property. She asked if the property on the north could be utilized. Ms. Mathern said they wanted to provide as much buffering as possible between residential and commercial. The recreation area is designed to be a semi-private space so they thought being able to access it from the inside of the building would be a way to keep it semi-private; a more public park-like space is available across the street. There would be an opportunity to add sidewalk on that area if not for the buffering concern and there is also some grade change—between 8 and 10 feet. So sidewalk would be leading to a dead end. She stated that this is a logistic of the site, not something that the developer created. Commissioner Timian asked if they had considered purchasing the property to the southeast. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4b - Planning Comm Minutes 2-16-05 Page 6 Ms. Mathern responded that it is her understanding that the property is not for sale and the Task Force recommended that the business remain as a transitional use. Commissioner Morris and Mr. Morrison had a discussion about Commissioner Robertson’s concern about zoning, height, address, function and the orientation of the building. Commissioner Morris said he is also uncomfortable about this. Mr. Morrison spoke about layout and the need to improve visually the resident access to the open space on the east. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she didn’t have a problem with the orientation. She asked Mr. Morrison to review the reasons the orientation was chosen. Mr. Morrison said the 1998 Hwy. 7/Louisiana Ave. Task Force recommendations regarding the AVR site included street front building(s) facing Louisiana and higher density. The only way to accomplish that kind of density in the proposal is to have Gorham as the front. He explained that with Louisiana as front, that density can’t be accomplished. Mr. Morrison commented on the way the 3300 on the Park building and the Louisiana Oaks building accommodated the additional densities requested by the City for that area. By working with the grade change off of Gorham staff believed the orientation made sense. Technically under zoning that meant Gorham had to be considered the front. In order to accomplish the goals set up by the City in the Comprehensive Plan, staff felt this made sense. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she was concerned about access from the building to the designed open space. Commissioner Kramer said he agreed with concerns raised about the green space and concerns regarding traffic. He said perhaps the Commission should move beyond the orientation question from a zoning/technical standpoint. He said he recommended using the Oak Leaf side for official purposes, such as emergency vehicles. Commissioner Timian commented on high volume traffic on Louisiana Ave. The best recreational area in the community is across from the proposed development building. He said the best way to cross Louisiana is a foot bridge some distance from the proposed building. He asked if sidewalk would run from the proposed building to the foot bridge. Mr. Morrison said sidewalk will be installed along the proposed development’s portion of Louisiana, extending along Oak Leaf and Gorham. Commissioner Timian commented on the need to discourage children from crossing Louisiana and Oak Leaf. He mentioned that figuring out ways to St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4b - Planning Comm Minutes 2-16-05 Page 7 prevent dangerous street crossing was accomplished at the Excelsior & Grand development. Mr. Morrison replied that the 35 m.p.h. speed limit, pedestrian bridge and the stop light at Walker and Louisiana were efforts to make the street safer. Commissioner Timian said he felt the City should be responsible for making changes to the street, perhaps through streetscaping. Chair Carper opened the public hearing. Don Mohs, 3240 Gorham, property owner across from the library, said he is concerned about sidewalk assessments, traffic, ball field traffic and parking, and Park Tavern overflow parking into the neighborhood. Ms. Erickson said all new developments are required to provide sidewalk next to their property lines. There is no requirement that adjoining properties complete that sidewalk. Generally if property owners request the City to install sidewalk, that probably would happen and would result in an assessment. Mr. Mohs said he was concerned that residential property owners would petition for sidewalk from the ball field to the library and the commercial property owners would be assessed. Ms. Erickson said she understood his point and commented that there is no plan to extend sidewalk at that location. She said only if Mr. Mohs’ property was redeveloped would a sidewalk be required. Mr. Mohs said when he purchased his property there was no plan for a 75-unit housing development. He added that he understood the risk he took when purchasing the property. He said he understands the grandfather law as it affects his property which is zoned R-4. Larry Karkela, 3280 Gorham, stated that several years ago he met with City staff and he was quite concerned about future development. He said he is willing to sell his property. Chair Carper closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak. Commissioner Robertson said he recommended approval of the plat, but felt there was room for improvement regarding orientation of the building and improving pedestrian access to the open space. He would like to see improvements before voting on the request. He said there is a great opportunity to have a nice entry to the central core of the building off of Gorham. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4b - Planning Comm Minutes 2-16-05 Page 8 Commissioner Morris and Mr. Morrison discussed the timetable and the impact to the developer. Commissioner Morris said he would like the issue of whether or not the way the building is oriented and addressed to provide the proposed density is a legitimate and legal planning tool. He is concerned about setting precedence. He would also like the open space area to be tweaked, including improved access. Chair Carper said he doesn’t object to the orientation. The building reflects the City’s desire for the site. It’s the proper height for Gorham, it appears to be the proper height for Oak Leaf and the Louisiana exposure, and it’s comparable to adjacent multi-family housing. Ms. Mathern said it is not a logistical possibility to the developer to provide the main entrance off of Gorham Ave. and at the same time provide the design criteria they’ve been instructed to meet by the City. She said additional access can be added to the designed recreational area. Ms. Mathern commented that the suggestion of directing traffic back to a front entrance on Gorham is a disservice to the neighborhood feedback the developer received regarding traffic. Commissioner Robertson moved to table the request to the next meeting on March 2. The motion passed on a vote of 5-1 with Chair Carper voting opposed. Commissioner Timian asked about the purchase of the additional property and whether or not two buildings could then be put on the site. B. Case No. 05-04-ZA— Request of Emad Abed for a text amendment to Section 36-292 (f) of St. Louis Park Ordinance Code (Zoning) relating to the floodplain overlay district to delete the requirement that compensating storage (required when there is fill in a floodplain) be provided outside of the floodplain boundary. Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, provided a staff report. She reviewed Federal and State regulations requiring cities to regulate floodplains. The proposed amendment addresses how the volume of flood storage is maintained when there is a proposal to fill within the floodplain boundary. Ms. Erickson stated that the proposed amendment is consistent with the DNR model ordinances. She added that the City’s surface water management consultant felt that the City’s requirement was perhaps too restrictive and the proposed amendment might be more preferable such that smaller floods would impact a smaller land area. Commissioner Robertson asked about creating ponding and slopes which must be maintained. He asked if those slopes apply to the proposed amendment. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4b - Planning Comm Minutes 2-16-05 Page 9 Ms. Erickson replied that a 3:1 ratio would be required to eliminate the possibility of erodable slopes. She added that slope maintenance is addressed in other portions of the Code. Commissioner Morris said he wanted to point out for clarification that a good system of checks and balances is in place regarding floodplain changes. In addition to the City, scrutiny of floodplain changes is also provided by other parties such as the Watershed District. Chair Carper opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of Ordinance Code text amendments to Section 36-292 of the Ordinance Code (zoning) as recommended by staff. The motion passed 6-0. C. Case No. 05-05-CP— Request of City of St. Louis Park for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2000—2020, Chapter K Water Supply Plan to change the water contingency plan to conform to Federal Homeland Security legislation and to provide stricter water conservation measures. Ms. Erickson provided a staff report. Scott Anderson, Superintendent Utilities, was available for questions. In response to a question from Commissioner Johnston-Madison regarding compliance to watering restrictions, Mr. Anderson responded that the process includes three warning notices followed by a $25.00 administrative fine. Commissioner Morris asked if people who have wells and are not connected to City water are not subject to the restrictions. Mr. Anderson responded that only customers of municipal water would be subject to the proposed rules. Mr. Anderson said very few wells remain in St. Louis Park. The golf courses are the biggest well users. Commissioner Morris said that Step 1 has been crossed out in Table K-3. Chair Carper asked why the term “Response” was appropriate for Step 1 in Table K-2. Mr. Anderson said that response could be removed from Step 1. Ms. Erickson said response items could be renumbered for clarity. Chair Carper opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, Chair Carper closed the public hearing. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4b - Planning Comm Minutes 2-16-05 Page 10 Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan 2000 – 2020, Chapter K. Water Supply Plan text amendment to provide changes to the water emergency planning to conform to Federal Homeland Security legislation and to incorporate stricter water conservation measures subject to Metropolitan Council review. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. 4. Unfinished Business 5. New Business 6. Communications Commissioners requested new copies of the updated Zoning Code. A CD version of the updated Zoning Code will also be provided to Commissioners. Commissioner Morris said he will look at the Rules of Procedure and suggest possible additions regarding e-mail communications. Ms. McMonigal and Ms. Erickson discussed the public hearing process. Staff and commissioners discussed the format and order of staff and applicant presentations. Commissioner Morris said the Rules of Procedure do specify the order of presentations under Section V, Article IV – Order of Business. Commissioner Morris said suggested changes and comments to this could be provided to him and he would provide a summary to be brought back to a meeting of the Commission. He noted that as he would be on vacation soon, he probably couldn’t provide that summary for the March 2 meeting. Ms. McMonigal suggested putting together a presentation procedure which could be discussed at the next meeting. Ms. McMonigal said all commissioner comments on format will be incorporated. Chair Carper said as chair he would follow the Rules of Procedure adopted and if staff indicated another format would be more effective for a particular presentation, the Chair could structure the meeting accordingly. Commissioners could speak to the chair if that was not effective. 7. Adjournment Commissioner Robertson adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Administrative Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4c - Dispatch Agreement with Golden Valley Page 1 4c Motion to approve agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and the City of Golden Valley for provision of Public Safety Dispatch services and authorize Mayor and City Manager to sign the agreement Background Staff met with Council on October 25, 2004, to review discussions which had taken place among the four cities (St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, Richfield and Brooklyn Center) still participating in a potential PSAP consolidation process. Additionally, staff reviewed with Council a preliminary proposal to the City of Brooklyn Center for Public Safety Dispatch services. Since October 25, 2004, the following steps have been taken: • The Golden Valley City Council has directed staff to enter into discussions with the City of St. Louis Park for purposes of drafting a new agreement for PSAP services. • The Brooklyn Center City Council directed staff at the November 8, 2004, Council meeting to accept Hennepin County’s offer to provide public safety dispatch services. • As a reminder, Richfield had indicated prior to October 25th that it was their intention to remain an independent PSAP. At the conclusion of the consolidation study process, direction had been given by St. Louis Park and Golden Valley City Councils to draft a new service agreement and continue in a partnership which has been successful for eleven years. The attached agreement was developed cooperatively between staff from St. Louis Park and Golden Valley and contains only minor changes and updates from the previous agreement. Major components of the new agreement which are unchanged from the previous agreement include the following: • Budget distribution will be 64% for St. Louis Park and 36% for Golden Valley • The initial term of the agreement will be five years • After the initial five-year term, the agreement calls for automatic one-year renewals. • After the initial five-year term, the agreement calls for one-year notification for cancellation by either City. This agreement has also been reviewed and approved by City Attorneys for both St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. Attachment: Agreement for Public Safety Dispatch Services between St. Louis Park and Golden Valley Prepared by: John Luse, Chief of Police Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4c - Dispatch Agreement with Golden Valley Page 2 AGREEMENT BETWEEN ST. LOUIS PARK AND GOLDEN VALLEY FOR PROVISION OF DISPATCH SERVICES AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER AGREEMENT, made this _______ day of_______________, 2005, by and between the City of Saint Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("St. Louis Park") and the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Golden Valley"). WHEREAS, the governmental units signatory hereto are empowered by law to provide and to contract for police, fire and emergency dispatch services, and, by virtue of their respective needs and geographic proximity, find it in their common interest and for their common benefit and the benefit of their citizens for St. Louis Park to provide dispatch services to Golden Valley utilizing the St. Louis Park Emergency Communications Center ("E.C.C."); and WHEREAS, Golden Valley desires that St. Louis Park receive and dispatch Golden Valley police, fire and emergency radio calls; and WHEREAS, St. Louis Park desires to handle such police, fire and emergency dispatch calls for Golden Valley; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is made pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 436.05, and whereas this Agreement is not made pursuant to Minn. Stat.§ 471.59 or 436.06 and should not be construed as creating a joint powers entity or a joint municipal police department; and St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4c - Dispatch Agreement with Golden Valley Page 3 WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to establish an annual fee be paid by Golden Valley to compensate St. Louis Park for the provision of dispatch services: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: I. Dispatch Services and Operation and Maintenance of the E.C.C. St. Louis Park shall operate the E.C.C. for its own use and shall provide dispatch services to Golden Valley as follows: A. St. Louis Park, by utilizing its personnel and facilities, will handle the receiving and dispatching of all police, fire and emergency calls for Golden Valley and St. Louis Park. B. St. Louis Park will supply police radio dispatch equipment and personnel to operate and maintain said radio dispatch equipment for the E.C.C. On termination of this Agreement, all equipment shall be the property of St. Louis Park, except equipment originally purchased by Golden Valley, and currently used in the E.C.C., which shall remain the property of Golden Valley. C. Personnel. The E.C.C. shall be operated by dispatchers who shall be employees of St. Louis Park. Community service officers trained to provide back-up relief may be used to supplement dispatchers. All dispatch personnel needed to staff the E.C.C. shall be hired by St. Louis Park through its normal hiring procedures. The E.C.C. shall be supervised and managed by employees of St. Louis Park who have been assigned by the St. Louis Park Police Chief to these responsibilities. The Police and Fire Chiefs for Golden Valley and St. Louis Park or their designees shall meet as needed to address St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4c - Dispatch Agreement with Golden Valley Page 4 issues concerning provision of dispatch services or operation of the E.C.C. D. Insurance. St. Louis Park and Golden Valley shall each maintain insurance coverage or equivalent pooled self-insurance coverage in the minimum amount of the liability limits established in Minn. Stat. Ch. 466, which shall protect both Cities from any and all claims that might be made against either or both Cities as a result of the operations or the services set forth herein. II. Annual Budget. St. Louis Park, in consultation with Golden Valley, shall establish an annual operating budget for dispatch services and operation and maintenance of the E.C.C. (the "Annual Budget"). St. Louis Park shall provide the preliminary Annual Budget for the next calendar year to Golden Valley on or about August 1st of each year. St. Louis Park may amend the preliminary Annual Budget from time to time. The Annual Budget shall be adopted by the St. Louis Park City Council (the "Approved Annual Budget"). III. Payment for Dispatch Services and Operation and Maintenance of the E.C.C. for 2005. Subject to the payment of any unbudgeted expenses pursuant to Paragraph VI herein, for calendar year 2005, Golden Valley shall pay St. Louis Park thirty-six percent (36%) of the Approved Annual Budget of Seven Hundred Ninety Thousand One Hundred Two and 00/100 ($790,132.00), which 36% thereof totals Two Hundred Eighty-Four Thousand Four Hundred Forty Eight and 00/100 ($284,448.00), payable in equal monthly installments of Twenty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Four and 00/100 ($23,704.00) for services provided to Golden Valley pursuant to this Agreement. St. Louis Park shall send a monthly invoice to Golden St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4c - Dispatch Agreement with Golden Valley Page 5 Valley. Golden Valley shall make payment to St. Louis Park within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. IV. Payment for Dispatch Services and Operation and Maintenance of the E.C.C. for 2006 and Subsequent Years. For calendar year 2006, and subsequent years, Golden Valley shall pay St. Louis Park, in equal monthly installments, an amount equal to thirty-six percent (36%) of the Approved Annual Budget. St. Louis Park shall invoice Golden Valley therefore on a monthly basis. Golden Valley shall make payment to St. Louis Park within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. V. 9-1-1 Funds. As additional compensation for services provided hereunder, Golden Valley shall assign to St. Louis Park all 9-1-1 funds it is entitled to receive pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 403.11. Golden Valley's 9-1-1 funds now come directly from Hennepin County to St. Louis Park. Golden Valley agrees and consents to the continuation of this arrangement. St. Louis Park shall deposit the 9-1-1 funds received from Hennepin county on behalf of Golden Valley in a separate account established for that purpose. The 9-1-1 funds so deposited shall be the sole property of St. Louis Park, and shall be used at the sole discretion of St. Louis Park, subject only to the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 403.113. The 9-1-1 funds shall not be credited towards amounts owed by Golden Valley pursuant to Section III and IV of this Agreement. VI. Unbudgeted Expenses. St. Louis Park will use its best efforts to prepare the Annual Budget to include all reasonably foreseeable expenses for provision of St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4c - Dispatch Agreement with Golden Valley Page 6 dispatch services and operation and maintenance of the E.C.C. Certain expenses are not reasonably foreseeable, such as capital expenditures due to equipment failure, unexpected need for overtime hours, implementation of recommendations made by consultants for needs which are immediate and unbudgeted, changes in required services due to new legislation, 800 megahertz migration and the like. This listing is for illustrative purposes only, and not intended as a limitation on reimbursement for unforeseen expenses. St. Louis Park will notify Golden Valley in writing of any increases to the Approved Annual Budget or of any unbudgeted or unanticipated expenses when the expenses are realized or the Budget is modified. Golden Valley acknowledges the difficulty of anticipating all true operating expenses of the E.C.C. Therefore, Golden Valley shall reimburse St. Louis Park in the amount of thirty-six percent (36%) of all expenses actually incurred by St. Louis Park for provision of dispatch services, and operation and maintenance of the E.C.C., which are not included in the Approved Annual Budget. St. Louis Park shall use its best efforts to minimize unbudgeted expenses. VII. F.C.C. Licenses. Current F.C.C. licenses held by Golden Valley and St. Louis Park shall remain the property of the license-holder. Golden Valley and St. Louis Park will fully cooperate with each other as necessary for providing for the joint use and sharing of radio frequencies. VIII. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall be for an initial term of five (5) years, commencing upon January 1, 2005, with automatic one-year renewals St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4c - Dispatch Agreement with Golden Valley Page 7 thereafter. The agreement may be terminated by either party after the initial term upon a written termination notice delivered by either party one year in advance of the effective date of the termination. IX. Indemnity. Each City shall defend and hold harmless the other City from any claims arising from any act or omission on the part of its own officers, employees, agents, contractors or representatives, including any attorney's fees and expenses incurred in defending any such claim. Nothing herein shall change or waive liability limits established under Minn. Stat. Ch. 466. X. Assignment. Neither party to this Agreement may assign its interest in the Agreement without prior written approval of the other party and subject to such conditions and provisions as the other party may deem necessary. XI. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended from time to time as the parties deem necessary. No amendment shall be effective unless agreed to in writing by the parties. XII. Entire Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement of the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral Agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous Agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4c - Dispatch Agreement with Golden Valley Page 8 XIII. Severability. If any term of this Agreement is found to be void or invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining terms of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By:___________________________________ Jeffrey W. Jacobs Its: Mayor By:__________________________________ Thomas K. Harmening Its: City Manager CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY By:___________________________________ Linda Loomis Its: Mayor By:__________________________________ Thomas Burt Its: City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4d - Final Pymt Midwest Asphalt No. 49-04 Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 05-046 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON LOUISIANA AVENUE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 00-17 CONTRACT NO. 49-04 MIDWEST ASPHALT COMPANY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated May 17, 2004, Midwest Asphalt Company has satisfactorily completed the Louisiana Avenue traffic improvements, as per Contract No. 49-04. 2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the work. 3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full. Original Contract Price $624,765.21 Change Order $51,578.54 Over run 7,017.41 Final Contract Price $683,361.16 Previous Payments ($515,729.87) Balance Due $167,631.29 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4e - TS 591 Permit Parking at 3128 Idaho Ave S Page 1 4e Traffic Study No. 591: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing continuation of temporary permit parking in front of 3128 Idaho Avenue South. Background: The City received a request in 2004 from Ms. Laurel Mickelson of 3128 Idaho Avenue South to restrict on-street parking in front of her house. Ms. Mickelson was to undergo surgery and have a caregiver stay with her for several months. Ms. Mickelson’s caregiver has limited mobility, has been issued a disabled persons parking permit, and needs accessible parking. Due to other on street parking which occurs on her street, Ms. Mickelson had requested the City install permit parking in front of her home for a period of six months. This request came before the City Council on March 15, 2004, and a resolution was passed to allow for temporary permit parking for a period of six months. Ms. Mickelson required additional surgery, and on September 15, 2004, the temporary permit parking was extended for another period of 6 months. Ms. Mickelson contacted the City again in February. The temporary permit parking in front of her house ends on March 7, 2005. Ms. Mickelson will be having one more surgery on March 11, 2005, and needs to maintain the temporary permit parking in front of her house for another six months. Staff considers the resident’s request to be valid and supports the continuation of permit parking for handicap access at 3128 Idaho Avenue South. This recommendation is based on the following: 1. The resident of the household will require a caregiver due to additional upcoming surgery. 2. The caregiver has limited mobility and has been issued a disabled persons parking permit. 3. Conflicting parking tendencies with neighbors will be eliminated. Recommendation: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution authorizing installation of temporary permit parking restrictions as described. Attachments: Map (supplement) Resolution Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator Reviewed by: Maria Hagen, City Engineer Cindy Walsh, Interim Director of Public Works Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4e - TS 591 Permit Parking at 3128 Idaho Ave S Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 05-047 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY PERMIT PARKING IN FRONT OF 3128 IDAHO AVENUE SOUTH TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 591 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota that it is in the best interest of the City to establish a parking restriction based upon permit issuance in front of 3128 Idaho Avenue South. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that parking shall not be permitted at any time unless the vehicle prominently displays a City-issued parking permit on the left rear windshield. Emergency vehicles, governmental vehicles and commercial vehicles parked at curbside while work is conducted are exempt from these restrictions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the parking restriction enacted herein shall remain in effect for a period of six months from the date of this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following controls: 1. Permit parking at 3128 Idaho Avenue South Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4f - HA Minutes Feb 9, 2005 Page 1 MINUTES Housing Authority St. Louis Park City Hall, Westwood Room St. Louis Park, Minnesota February 9, 2005 5:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Andria Daniel, Steve Fillbrandt Commissioner Judith Moore arrived at 5:06 p.m. Commissioner Anne Mavity arrived at 5:47 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Jane Klesk, Kathy Larsen, Kevin Locke, Michele Schnitker 1. Call to Order Commissioner Courtney called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes for January, 2005 The January 12, 2005 minutes were unanimously approved. 3. Hearings – None 4. Reports and Committees – None 5. Unfinished Business – None 6. New Business a. Move Up In the Park Update Ms. Larsen described several “Move Up In the Park” programs that have been recently developed and approved by City Council: Rehab Advisor, Design Service, Neighborhood Home Improvement Workshops, Remodeling Tour, Transformation Loan, and Small Homes Acquisition/Expansion Program. The programs are aimed at promoting and facilitating the expansion of existing single-family homes. b. Home Renewal Program – 1600 Hampshire Avenue South Development Agreement Ms. Larsen informed the Board that design proposals for 1600 Hampshire Ave. So. had been solicited and seven responses were received. Covenant Builders, Inc. is the builder that is being recommended for selection once reference checks have been completed. Commissioner Moore moved to approve the Home Renewal Program Development Agreement, and Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt and Moore voting in favor. c. 2005 CDBG Proposed Allocation Ms. Larsen stated that the City will receive approximately $218,739 in federal CDBG funds in 2005 through Hennepin County. The proposed allocation is $194,739 for multifamily housing rehabilitation; $15,000 for the Emergency Repair Program, and $9,000 for a social services coordinator at Hamilton House. d. Approval of Resolution No. 533 and Resolution No. 534, Certification for Streamlined 5-Year/Annual Agency Plan Ms. Schnitker explained that the HA was required to submit a different form for certification with the Agency Plan, but that new certification is very similar to the previously approved form. Commissioner Moore moved for approval of Resolution No. 533, Rescind Resolution No. 532 Related to HA Certification of Compliance with the HA Plans and Related Documents, and Commissioner Daniel seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt, and Moore voting in favor. Commissioner Daniel then moved to approve Resolution No. 534, PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulations: Board Resolution to Accompany the Standard Annual, Standard 5-Year/Annual, and Streamlined 5-Year/Annual PHA Plans. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed 4-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt, and Moore voting in favor. e. Approval of Public Housing Operating Budget for FYE 2006 – Resolution No. 535 Ms. Schnitker stated that the HA is required annually to develop and adopt an operating budget to support the operation of its Public Housing Program, Commissioner Moore moved to approve Resolution No. 535, Approval of Public Housing Budget Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2006, and Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt, and Moore voting in favor. f. TRAILS Family Self-Sufficiency Funding Update Ms. Schnitker provided an update of recent HUD funding changes in the Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) Program and possible future operational changes in the St. Louis Park TRAILS Program. g. Approval of Public Housing Utility Allowance – Resolution No. 536 Ms. Anderson explained that utility allowance schedules are updated annually, and reviewed the current gas and energy rates. Commissioner Mavity moved for approval of Resolution No. 536, Approval of Utility Allowances Scattered Site Houses, and Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt, Mavity, and Moore voting in favor. 2 7. Communications from Executive Director a. Claims List No. 2–2005 Commissioner Moore moved for ratification of Claims List No. 2-2005, and Commissioner Daniel seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt, Mavity, and Moore voting in favor. b. Communications 1. Update – Excess Public Lands Commissioner Fillbrandt provided an update on the Excess Land Task Force meeting and the committee’s tour of the properties involved. 2. Update – Housing Summit/HA Strategic Planning 3. Update – Louisiana Court 4. Monthly Report for February, 2005 5. Scattered-Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report) 6. Draft Financial Statements 8. Other 9. Adjournment Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Daniel seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt, Mavity, and Moore voting in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Anne Mavity, Secretary 3 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4g - PRAC Minutes December 15, 2004 Page 1 OFFICIAL MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 2004 at 7 P.M. REC CENTERPROGRAMMING OFFICE MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Cornwall, George Foulkes, Kirk Hawkinson, Richard Johnson, Steve Hallfin, Sarah Lindenberg, Dana Strong, and Tom Worthington MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Stacy Voelker and Cindy Walsh 1. Call to order Mr. Worthington, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 2. Adjustments to the agenda Ms. Walsh requested the removal of the Hannon Park Dedication from the Old Business section of the agenda as their application is incomplete. 3. Approval of Minutes from November 17, 2004 Mr. Hallfin advised his name is incorrectly spelled in the minutes and Ms. Voelker advised it will be corrected. Mr. Strong requested a wording change in the first sentence on page 4, item 4D. Since the exact location of the buildings in each park was not discussed, the words “and discussed where the new buildings” will be removed. Mr. Hawkinson moved to approve the minutes from the November 17, 2004 meeting with the changes noted above, Mr. Strong seconded. The motion passed 8-0. 4. New Business A. Welcome New Member, George Foulkes The members introduced themselves to Mr. Foulkes and briefed him on their background in St. Louis Park and on the Commission. Mr. Foulkes introduced himself and briefed members on his history in St. Louis Park. Mr. Worthington advised Mr. Foulkes what the Commission discusses and acts upon. B. Review Letter and Agenda for Youth Association Meeting Mr. Worthington briefed the members on the past annual Youth Association meetings. Mr. Hallfin asked that his name be added to the “Sincerely” portion of the letter in which Ms. Voelker will add. Mr. Hawkinson inquired if Children’s First could do a short skit at the meeting. Ms. Lindenberg advised she will organize the skit. Mr. Worthington indicated his notes from last year suggested getting the association members to interact more. Mr. Strong suggested having a specific discussion topic. Mr. 1 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4g - PRAC Minutes December 15, 2004 Page 2 Cornwall feels the format is too formal and suggested breaking into small groups with specific discussion topics, then coming back together. Members feel they may talk more in smaller groups. Ms. Walsh suggested discussing how to use, enforce or incorporate the Code of Conduct into their own association code. Members discussed having the association program reports, then breaking into small groups. Ms. Walsh suggested having staff and Commission members at each table to facilitate discussions. Members reviewed association mailing list and feel it’s complete. Ms. Walsh suggested having a podium in front, nametags, and round tables if they prefer to facilitate small groups. Members suggested including facility usage on the agenda but decided not to as they don’t want too many discussions in one meeting. Ms. Walsh suggested having notes taken at each table. If the Code of Conduct is a short discussion then members can bring up facility usage or find out what the biggest concern is from the association. Mr. Hallfin suggested having the Children First presentation second on the agenda so presenters don’t need to stay through meeting in which member agreed. Mr. Hawkinson feels association members like staff present which they will be. The members discussed the agenda which Ms. Voelker will make the changes discussed. Ms. Walsh advised if the application for property by Hannon Lake is complete by January 20, members will briefly meet following the Youth Sports Association meeting. 5. Old Business A. Hannon Lake Park Dedication Mike Patrick, resident of the Hannon Lake area was present. The Commission advised the item was removed from the agenda as the developers application is incomplete at the time of this meeting. B. 2005 Commission Goal Discussion Mr. Worthington commended the members on the good goal discussion at their November meeting. He asked the members to the review list and suggest changes. Members inquired if there should be a limited number of items on the list. Members discussed and feel some may not take a lot of time. The Commission members reviewed the list and commented as follows: Adult Softball Fee Review: Mr. Hallfin indicated all adult sports should be reviewed, not just softball. Mr. Hallfin offered to take the lead on researching fees and discussing with staff. Mr. Hallfin will update members in February. Annual Youth Association Meeting, City Owned Property / Excess Land and Code of Conduct will be initiated in January. Events: 5K Run: Ms. Walsh advised staff is currently working on a 5K run event with funds going to the scholarship fund. Staff hopes to hold this event in 2005. 2 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4g - PRAC Minutes December 15, 2004 Page 3 Campfire/Bonfire Event: Ms. Walsh advised of the bonfire events to be held this winter at Oak Hill Park. Mr. Hawkinson suggested sending a form to the neighborhoods for a neighborhood bonfire. Ms. Walsh indicated the Fire Department should be involved in this issue. Mr. Hallfin informed the Browndale neighborhood has bonfires and that marketing is done in the neighborhood newsletter which is distributed to everyone in the neighborhood. Ms. Walsh suggested members work with their neighborhood association and advised if newsletters are not received, perhaps the neighborhood is not organized at this point. This may be an opportunity to organize the neighborhood. Mr. Hallfin indicated events such as bonfires do bring people out. Members discussed and feel this is a neighborhood event and not a fund raising event. Drive-In Movie: Ms. Lindenberg volunteered to research the cost of a drive in movie event. Twilight Swim: Members would like to continue offering the Commissioners’ Twilight Swim and declared the event would be held on Saturday, August 6, 2005. Members discussed other options (dunk tank, movie, etc.) to include in the event but decided against other options due to the cost. Members decided these options could be included in a separate event in the Wolfe Park Amphitheater. Mr. Johnson suggested more marketing this year for the Twilight Swim and to include that donations will be accepted to support the scholarship fund. Members inquired if open skating could be part of the Twilight Swim. Ms. Walsh will verify the availability of ice. Members suggested charging admission for either skating or swimming and calling it “Dip and Skate”. Mr. Foulkes offered to assist with the event. Winter Skating: Members discussed that ice skating is available at parks and the Rec Center. Explore Park Usage / Park Data Collection: Ms. Walsh suggested members discuss what questions they would like asked on the City-wide survey. Staff will provide member with the last survey sent for them to review. Mr. Johnson would like to see demographic information to ensure our programs match the City’s’ demographics. Meeting Locations: Members want to have the monthly meetings in different locations. Some of the members commented on the echoing in the pavilions. Ms. Walsh informed the members that the pavilions were designed to be used for parties, warminghouses, the playground programming, and neighborhood events, but not for meetings. Mr. Cornwall indicated the prime usage of the building must be reviewed first. Acoustical material is available for improvements but it is prone to damage. Since January will be at Rec Center, the members would like the February meeting at the newly renovated Nature Center. Ms. Voelker will check availability. Permanent Off-Leash Dog Park: Members will participate in the task force. Promote Better Sports Attitudes / Sponsor Sports Advocate Programs: Mr. Strong volunteered to lead this goal. 3 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4g - PRAC Minutes December 15, 2004 Page 4 Staff Appreciation Breakfast: Members suggested Thursday, May 19th. Ms. Voelker will check on the availability of the Banquet Room. Tighten Relationship with Youth Sports Associations: Mr. Strong offered to lead and will bring up the topic at the January Youth Association meeting. Mr. Strong would like the associations to talk amongst themselves and would like to bring up options for them to come together. He suggested having a quarterly meeting for all associations to come together. Mr. Cornwall suggested having a Commission member attend at least one of the monthly association meetings. Members discussed and will ask association members to provide their annual and monthly meeting dates, times and locations at the January meeting. Members also suggested contacting the association president to advise they would like to attend a meeting. Mr. Cornwall asked how closely the Commission members should be involved in the CIP projects. Ms. Walsh advised the CIP projects will continue to be brought before the Commission as they arise. Mr. Cornwall suggested a Commission member attend the neighborhood meetings when a CIP item arises to become more involved with the neighborhoods. Mr. Strong agreed that each member should attend a neighborhood meeting when there’s a proposed development. C. Recruit Volunteers for Off-Leash Dog Park and City Owned Property Task Forces Ms. Walsh informed members of the two task forces that will begin meeting in 2005. Ms. Walsh advised of the interim Off-Leash Dog Park site and indicated the task force will do research by collecting data on present dog park locations and concerns that have been expressed. Members briefly discussed potential locations. Mr. Johnson inquired if the task force will pursue the Minneapolis location in which Ms. Walsh advised they may. Ms. Walsh informed the members that Wednesday was the most popular meeting date expressed by the task force applicants. Ms. Walsh suggested having the task force meet earlier in the evening on the same night as the Commission meeting or they could meet on the fourth Wednesday of the month. Members discussed and agreed on Wednesday, January at 6 p.m. as the first meeting. Ms. Walsh advised potential task force members will be contacted and asked for a Commission representative. Mr. Hawkinson and Mr. Strong decided to split the meeting responsibilities on the Off- Leash Dog Park Task Force. Mr. Cornwall offered to be back up if needed. Ms. Walsh indicated the task force members will be officially approved by the City Council at their January 3rd meeting. Ms. Walsh informed the members of the City Owned Property list. The list includes different parcels throughout the City that are being maintained but not used. There are approximately 15-20 buildable lots on that list; none were obtained through park dedication. The task force is being organized by the Housing Authority and will include one member of the Housing Authority, two members from the Planning Commission, one school member, one realtor, one Park and Recreation Advisory Commission member, and four members from neighborhood associations. Ms. Walsh advised the tentative meeting dates are January 11 and 25; February 8 and March 1. The goal of the task force is to review the parcels and make recommendations to the Council on the properties. Staff will be available for questions at each meeting. The task force will also 4 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4g - PRAC Minutes December 15, 2004 Page 5 recommend where the money goes for the parcels sold. Mr. Worthington offered to be on the task force with Mr. Johnson as the back up. 6. Communications A. Chair Mr. Worthington reminded all members of the 50th Anniversary of the City Charter celebration to be held on January 3rd at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers. B. Commissioners Ms. Lindenberg informed the Commission that her history class of 33 students is taking a trip to Brazil. The class is selling coupons to Subway and Papa Johns as a way of raising funds for the trip. Class members are visiting businesses, etc. and inquired if anyone was interested in purchasing the coupons to let her know and she will bring more coupons at the January meeting. Ms. Lindenberg indicated she will be babysitting for Community Education this Saturday from 5:30 – 11 p.m. at the high school. The cost is $15 per child to pay for pizza and a movie. C. Program Report None. D. Director’s Report Ms. Walsh reminded members of the New Year’s Eve party at Oak Hill Park on Friday, December 31 and advised there will be ribbon cutting at 6:30 p.m. for the grand opening. 7. Adjournment Moved by Mr. Hallfin and seconded by Mr. Hawkinson to adjourn. The motion passed 8-0. With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 8:32 p.m. Minutes prepared and respectfully submitted by, Stacy M. Voelker Recording Secretary 5 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4h - Planning Comm Minutes 3-2-05 Page 1 OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA March 2, 2005--6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Robert Kramer, Jerry Timian STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison, Nancy Sells 1. Call to Order – Roll Call Chair Carper called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes: None 3. Hearings: None 4. Unfinished Business A. Case Nos. 05-03-S and 05-02-CUP—Request by Mendota Homes Inc. for a preliminary/final plat to combine two parcels into one; and a conditional use permit to allow a 3-story, 75 unit condominium building at 3270 Gorham Ave (the old AVR site) (tabled from 2-16-05) Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented a staff report. A revised site plan and revised elevations were distributed. The new landscaping plan will be submitted shortly. He reviewed changes to the plans: a driveway has been moved further east and off of Oak Leaf and away from Louisiana, outdoor parking spaces have been reduced from 20 to 15, the ponds have been consolidated into one and the building entrance has been pulled out with a vestibule and covered canopy that extends to the driving area. Mr. Morrison said the sidewalk will be extended alongside the building leading to stairs up the 10 ft. retaining wall, providing access from the parking area to the outdoor recreation area. Mr. Morrison presented illustrations showing improvements to the parking level design. Elevation changes have been added to give the design more character and shadow lines. He commented on changes to the atrium area. He said the designed outdoor recreation area is intended to be a passive, semi-private St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4h - Planning Comm Minutes 3-2-05 Page 2 recreation area that is compatible with the building and complements the active recreation opportunities presented by Freedom Park across the street. Mr. Morrison reviewed concerns raised by the Planning Commission at the February 16 meeting. As regards determination of front lot line and density, Mr. Morrison referenced code language stating that if a parcel has multiple sides on more than two street frontages, the front lot line shall be determined by the zoning administrator. The City Attorney confirmed with staff that the zoning administrator can determine the front lot line for setback and height purposes. Mr. Morrison said at the beginning of the development process discussions were held about how the property relates to the neighborhood, site characteristics, and the 16-foot slope off of Gorham. Staff does believe that by determining Gorham Avenue to be the front, the proposed layout works best with the physical characteristics of the land, neighborhood, and also achieves the Comprehensive Plan goals. Mr. Morrison discussed how the applicant meets Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) criteria. He showed drawings illustrating improved internal and external access to the DORA. Mr. Morrison commented on architectural improvements made to the parking level such as removal of false windows, addition of wall deviation, and additional landscaping. Mr. Morrison reviewed the general recommendations for the area and the site as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Morris and Mr. Morrison discussed revisions made to parking following submission of the revised plans. Commissioner Morris remarked on the problem of receiving changes and revised plans at the meeting. Erin Mathern, Sales and Development Director of Mendota Homes, commented on the revisions, stating that suggestions from the Planning Commission resulted in some very positive changes for the building. Commissioner Robertson asked for clarification on the south entry steps and sidewalk. Ms. Mathern said the steps could be extended. They discussed the use of a locked single door at the south entry. Commissioner Morris thanked the developer for addressing the issues raised by the Commission. He said his comments did not relate to the site, but to planning and the Commission’s focus. He said the term park is used very broadly. He stated that he did a site visit of Freedom Park. He said there are two trees and no recreation equipment, it is basically a baseball field. He stated that the park on the other side of Louisiana has a lot of recreational facilities but access to it St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4h - Planning Comm Minutes 3-2-05 Page 3 encourages cross-walking on Louisiana. Commissioner Morris continued by saying that when looking at a difficult site which has a little bit above minimal recreational space, using those two parks as a feature that assists the development in having a smaller outdoor area is not viable. The surrounding parks are accessible but their use and their accessibility from a perspective of safety is not viable. He said the Commission needs to look outside of the development and look at the function of the particular park. Commissioner Morris spoke about the task force and the Comp Plan, saying it looks at development along Louisiana—all the way from Reddy Rents to Park Tavern to AVR and further--being high density residential. He said not doing anything with the corner commercial site isolates it forever. He said ideally the City’s Economic Development Authority should look at acquisition. It could be incorporated into the site as a stormwater pond or outdoor recreation area. Commissioner Morris said the Planning Commission plans for development, not the site, and what will be here 20 years from now. He stated that the developer has done a very good job with the limited space available. He went on to say that he believes in the short term the proposal is a good idea, but in the long term he doesn’t know that it would be incorporating the Comp Plan and the visions for the development of the corridor from Lake Street up to the commercial node. For these reasons Commissioner Morris said he was not in favor of approving the proposal. He believes the site could be better utilized with more City input. He stated that it would be a pocket development that would not transition into any other development and it is not long range planning. Commissioner Robertson said he thinks a multi-family residential complex does work in the area. He suggested that the City doesn’t really need more 1-2 bedroom residential units and he would have liked to see some 3 bedroom units. He said he agreed with Commissioner Morris’ comments about Freedom Park. Commissioner Robertson said the Karkela site doesn’t seem out of place to him, as it is close to the entry of a light industrial area. Commissioner Robertson said he likes the revised plans. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she likes the plan and the architecture. She understands Commissioner Morris’ concern about the Karkela property. Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said she understands that the developer did look at the Karkela property. Because of the configuration of that site it doesn’t add a lot of development space and value to be added to the property so it would be very difficult for a developer to acquire and incorporate into a development. In response to a question about a future Industrial Study, Ms. McMonigal responded that the City hopes to complete an inventory of industrial property by late summer. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 4h - Planning Comm Minutes 3-2-05 Page 4 Commissioner Morris asked if a variance to the set back requirement had been considered to increase the development size. Mr. Morrison said the applicant did not want to request any variances. They wanted to do what the zoning district allowed them to do. Chair Carper thanked the developer and staff for responding to the concerns of the Planning Commission in a short time period. Ms. McMonigal spoke about park planning. She said the site is unique as it has parks on both sides of it. Aside from the use, having open space and views on two sides is another important aspect and feature for the residents. She said City parks have different purposes. Louisiana Oaks Park does have extensive playground equipment. Freedom Park is an open play field. Small children would be able to use the open grass area in the proposed development. Older children could use Freedom Park for open space and games. Louisiana Oaks Park is across a major road with a pedestrian bridge. Ms. McMonigal commented that it is ideal to have park and playground equipment within ¼ - ½ mile of homes. The parks surrounding the development are very important. Commissioner Morris said he agreed with Ms. McMonigal’s comments. He said often development creates park improvement. He said he is just cautioning commissioners to consider the function and condition of a neighborhood park before deciding a DORA is reasonable. Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary/final plat and Conditional Use Permit requests subject to conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion and it passed on a vote of 3-1 (Morris opposed). 5. Communications Ms. McMonigal distributed a public hearing procedure for review. Commissioner Robertson suggested continuing a conversation on the procedure when more commissioners are present. He made two suggestions: add questions of staff at the end of Staff Presentations and add questions of applicant at the end of Applicant’s Presentation. For the March 16 meeting Commissioner Morris will prepare draft revisions for the Rules of Procedure for consideration. It was suggested that dated language referring to newspaper reporters be deleted from Section 9. 8. Adjournment - Commissioner Robertson adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 6a - Liquor License Grand Buffet Page 1 6a Public Hearing to consider granting an On-Sale Wine and Beer License for Grand City Buffet, Inc. located at 8914 Hwy 7 Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve an on-sale wine and beer license. Background: In January of 2005, the City received a request from Grand City Buffet, Inc. for a wine and beer license for Grand City Buffet located at 8914 Hwy 7. The Grand City Buffet is a buffet restaurant with seating for 150 which offers Asian and other food varieties. The restaurant meets all zoning requirements for service of wine and beer. A public hearing notice was published on March 10, 2005 and no calls have been received in response to the notice. Application: The Police Department has conducted a full investigation of the Grand City Buffet Inc and its President, Lan Feng and Vice President Zhou Young Ni, and have found nothing in the course of their investigation that would warrant denial of the license. The application and Police report are on file in the Office of the City Clerk should Councilmembers wish to review the information prior to the public hearing. Recommendation: The applicant has met all requirements for issuance of the license and staff is recommending approval. Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, Deputy City Clerk Through: Cindy Reichert, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 8a - 2005 Local Street Rehabilitation Page 1 8a. City Engineer’s Report: Local Street Rehabilitation Project – Area 1, Project No. 2004-1000 This report considers the Residential Pavement Management Project scheduled for the 2005 construction season in Area 1 of the City’s Pavement Management Program. The streets selected for work will have their existing asphalt pavement removed and then replaced with a new asphalt surface. Other work associated with the project includes drainage system repairs and replacement of a water main segment located in the 2800 block of Nevada Avenue. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 2004-1000, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids. BACKGROUND: Staff has developed a Pavement Management Program to address the problem of deteriorating streets within the city. Many of the roads are now approaching 40 years of age or more. The city’s streets are still in relatively good condition due to the fact that the streets were built well, are situated on good soils, utilize curb & gutter for drainage and have been well maintained. City maintenance crews have continually worked to keep streets in decent condition using basic maintenance strategies such as patching, crack filling and seal coating. However, as pavements age, more aggressive maintenance strategies are needed to prolong their life. The Pavement Management Program has been developed to extend pavement life and enhance system-wide performance in a cost-effective and efficient way by providing the right maintenance or repair at the right time. Using the city’s pavement management software, staff can obtain a rating of the street condition and monitor their performance. Staff can then evaluate the condition of the street and select a cost-effective treatment to extend the pavement life. ANALYSIS: The 2005 construction season will be the first year of implementing the City’s Pavement Management Program. This year’s work will be performed in Area 1 of the City’s 8 pavement management areas. The attached map identifies which streets in Area 1 have been selected for rehabilitation. Selection was based on previous condition surveys of the streets and field evaluations to determine current conditions of the pavement, curb and gutter, and the city’s underground utilities. A team of staff members was formed to select streets for inclusion in this year’s program and to recommend appropriate rehabilitation techniques. The team included members of Operations, Utilities, Engineering and the Public Works Asset Management Group. The residential streets selected this year for rehabilitation were all originally constructed in a similar fashion. The structure of most of the streets consists of a two (2) inch layer of asphalt pavement over six (6) inches of quality gravel. A few of these streets have four (4) inches of asphalt. Staff has determined that an appropriate treatment for rehabilitating the streets consists of removing all of the old asphalt pavement and replacing it with three (3) inches of new St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 8a - 2005 Local Street Rehabilitation Page 2 pavement. The thicker asphalt section is being used to provide for heavier vehicles, such as garbage trucks, and the increased volume of traffic on the streets. This will also allow for flexibility of future maintenance. For example, with a 2-inch thickness of asphalt, a typical mill and overlay is not possible because the asphalt layer is too thin. With a 3-inch thickness, 1.5 inches of asphalt can be milled off and replaced with the same thickness of new pavement. In conjunction with the pavement replacement, necessary drainage system (curb & gutter and catch basin) repairs will also be made. In areas where there is already 4 inches of asphalt, the same thickness will be replaced. The Engineering Staff has prepared plans and specifications for this year’s project. As a part of the project, staff has incorporated plans for replacement of a water main in the 2800 block of Nevada Avenue. The water main in this block had been identified for replacement due to the high number of breaks that have occurred on it. All of the private utility companies have been contacted to inform them of the City’s proposed work plan and schedule. For those companies who may have buried utilities, staff has asked them to consider replacing any aging systems prior to our paving of the streets. Centerpoint/Minnegasco has responded with possible interest in replacing some of their gas mains. Staff will continue to work with them to coordinate their work prior to City construction. PUBLIC PROCESS: Staff invited area residents and neighborhood association leaders to an open house to review the preliminary plans. Sixteen residents attended the open house on March 3, 2005. A few residents in the 2800 block of Nevada had questions about the water main replacement and what disruption there would be during construction. They were informed that they would only be without water service for a short period of time, approximately 1 to 2 hours during the daytime while their water service was being connected to the new main. Otherwise, there will be temporary water service provided to the homes in this block while the new water main is being replaced. The contractor will be responsible for providing the temporary water service. Any water shut offs at the resident’s home will be performed by City crews. Other people had questions on driveway replacement and whether the City’s contractor would be interested in doing their private work to pave new driveways. Once a contract has been awarded, staff will facilitate the communication between the contractor and interested residents. Staff also suggested that those interested in replacing their driveway contact another contractor for a price quote for comparison. It will be the resident’s responsibility to hire the contractor and pay for the work. Staff members have also met with representatives of Hennepin County library to discuss the disruptions that will occur near the library. Since the streets on both sides of the library will be under construction, the work will be staged in a fashion where only one of these roads will be under construction at a time. This will allow the other road to remain open and provide access to the library at all times. BRUNSWICK AVENUE STREET CLOSURE: One of the streets selected for pavement rehabilitation in Area 1 is Brunswick Avenue from Lake Street north to 32nd Street. The construction plans include closure of the street at the railroad crossing. This work will include St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 8a - 2005 Local Street Rehabilitation Page 3 installing new curbing at the new street dead ends, the required signage for dead end roads and landscape plantings. There will be no bollards or steel posts placed at the end of the road which some residents had concern over. Photos of the recent railroad crossing closure at 39th and Brunswick will be sent to area residents to give them an idea of what the crossing will look like when completed. Staff will ask the residents for their feedback and then respond accordingly. COST AND FUNDING: This project was included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) with an estimated cost of $1,410,668. The Engineer’s estimate at this time is $1,679,500 which includes 5% for contingencies and 8% for engineering & administration. Although the total estimated cost is greater than anticipated in the CIP, it is still within the overall multi-year budget for the program. Staff anticipates the actual bids being lower than the estimated cost due to the time of year and the substantial size of the project. All funding for this project will come from the recently established Pavement Management Fund except for the water main replacement. The estimated cost for this work is $65,500 which will be funded through the Water Utility Fund. PROJECT TIMELINE: Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated that the following schedule could be met: • Approval of Plans/Authorization to Bid by City Council March 21, 2005 • Advertise for bids April • Bid Opening April 19, 2005 • Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award contract May 2, 2005 • Construction June/July, 2004 Attachments: Resolution Map of Select Streets for Construction in Area 1 (Supplement) Prepared By: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed By: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 8a - 2005 Local Street Rehabilitation Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 05-042 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT, ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004-1000, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004-1000 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the City Engineer related to the 2005 Local Street Rehabilitation Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the 2005 Local Street Rehabilitation Program within the city is hereby accepted. 2. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 2004-1000, is hereby established. 3. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the direction of the City Engineer, are approved. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvement under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. 5. The bids shall be tabulated by the City Engineer who shall report her tabulation and recommendation to the City Council. Attest: Adopted by the City Council March 21, 2005 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 8b - Browndale and Nelson Park Building Plans and Specs Page 1 8b. Browndale and Nelson Park Building Improvements Consider approval of the plans and specifications and authorize staff to solicit bids for the buildings at Browndale and Nelson Parks. Recommended Action: Approve plans and specifications for the buildings at Browndale and Nelson Parks and authorize solicitation of bids for the project. Background: The 2005 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of new park buildings. The City has budgeted $727,000 to be spent on the demolition and construction, along with $10,000 to be spent on planning of these structures. Public Process: City staff met with residents who live near Browndale and Nelson Parks to get their ideas prior to designing the parks. The input from the residents has been included in the design of each building. The Browndale neighborhood has expressed an interest in some additional trails near the building and playground. They understand that those wishes cannot be accomplished with the money we have budgeted at this time. The neighborhood is considering some future fundraising ventures to help with the cost of the additional trails. Building Plans: The current plan incorporates the suggestions of the residents as well as some other unique design features. The buildings are proposed to be 1900 square feet with a cost estimate of approximately $340,000 each. Thus, the total for the two buildings is estimated to be in the range of $600,000 to $680,000. The layout and design of these buildings is very similar to the new building at Oak Hill Park. The construction cost of the Oak Hill building was $158 per square foot. Our estimates are based on a similar cost per square foot. Additional Improvements: In addition to the buildings, staff will be reconstructing some of the trails throughout the parks. The 2005 CIP also includes two other projects related to Browndale and Nelson Parks. At Browndale Park, there is $20,000 budgeted to reconstruct and move the basketball court and trail as a result of the building replacement. There is also $55,000 budgeted to upgrade the trail head, kiosk area, realign the parking lot and upgrade the hockey rink lighting at Nelson Park. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will work with the consultant to finalize the plans and specifications for the park buildings. Our goal is to bid the project out in April. The Council will be asked to approve the low bidder and authorize the project to begin at their May 2, 2005 council meeting. Project construction will begin in May. Demolition of the two buildings will begin in March. Recommendation: Staff recommends approving the plans and specifications for the buildings at Browndale and Nelson Parks and authorize solicitation of bids for the project. Attachments: Browndale and Nelson Park Shelter Proposed Floor Plans St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 032105 - 8b - Browndale and Nelson Park Building Plans and Specs Page 2 Prepared By: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager