HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/05/16 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
May 16, 2005 – 7:30 p.m.
6:30 p.m. Study Session – Westwood Room
7:00 p.m. EDA Meeting – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of May 2, 2005
b. City Council Study Session Minutes of April 25, 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 reappoint Steve Fillbrandt to the Housing Authority for a term to
expire June 30, 2010.
6. Public Hearings - none
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. Approval of Preliminary Layout for the Excelsior Boulevard Street Improvement
Project – Project No. 2004-0400
This report considers the approval of a design layout for the reconstruction of Excelsior
Boulevard from Xenwood Avenue to Louisiana Avenue by Hennepin County. This
approval authorizes Hennepin County to proceed with preparation of detailed construction
plans and begin right-of-way acquisition.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt attached resolution A or B approving Layout No.
2 with options, authorizing right-of-way acquisition, and imposing
permanent parking restrictions
8b. Administrative Fee for Vehicle Forfeitures
This ordinance establishes a $250.00 fee that will be charged to the vehicle owner to cover
administrative costs associated with the vehicle forfeiture process.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading of ordinance amending Chapter 16
of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code to establish an
administrative fee in certain vehicle forfeiture cases and set second
reading for June 6, 2005
8c. Request of Foundation Land LLC and Master Development LLC (St. Louis Park
School District) for a minor amendment to an approved Final PUD for Brookside
School Lofts.
Case Nos. 05-18-PUD
Lots 1-11 and 29-36 Block 10 Suburban Homes Co.’s Addition except highway
The applicant is proposing to decrease the area of the underground garage and change
building materials in the 14-unit condominium building.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve resolution approving minor amendment to
Final PUD for Brookside School Lofts
8d. Request of Emad Abed for a Comprehensive Plan land use amendment and a Zoning
map amendment for property located at 7200, 7202, 7250, 7252 Excelsior Boulevard.
(Meadowbrook Lofts) Case Nos. 04-71-CP and 04-72-Z
The applicant is requesting the City to reguide and rezone properties to allow a 6-story
condominium project. The project will also require a subdivision and PUD and may
require a variance; those applications may only be made following action on the
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning.
Recommended
Action:
ü Motion to approve resolution amending the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use from Office to RC subject
to review by the Metropolitan Council, approve summary
publication and authorize publication.
ü Motion to approve first reading of ordinance amending
zoning map to change the designation from O-Office to
RC-Residential Commercial and set second reading for
June 6, 2005.
ü
8e. Request by Darrell W. Brown for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an accessory
building larger than 800 square feet together with a variance to allow the cumulative
ground floor area of all accessory buildings to be greater than the house.
Case Nos. 05-10-CUP and 05-11-VAR,
5511 Vermont St.
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to deny the application for a variance to allow the
cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings to
exceed the ground floor area of the home.
• Motion to approve a conditional use permit to allow a
cumulative ground floor area for accessory buildings not to
exceed 1,170 square feet.
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 at least
96 hours in advance of meeting.
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL
MEETING OF May 16, 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 authorize Mayor and City Manager to sign Hennepin County
Cooperative Agreement No. A050832 which outlines use, equipment ownership and
connectivity to the countywide 800 MHz system
4b Motion to adopt a Resolution approving aConditional Use Permit to allow the
excavation and fill of over 400 cubic yards of soil at Browndale park (4525
Morningside Ave) subject to conditions included in the resolution. Case No. 05-14
CUP
4c Motion to approve a Resolution for a Minor Amendment to the existing Special
Permit to allow a 1,100 square foot outdoor dining area for the Holiday Inn Mpls.
West located at 9970 Wayzata Blvd Case Nos. 05-21-SPEtc
4d Motion to approve a Resolution for a Minor Amendment to the existing Conditional
Use Permit to allow the American Legion to occupy space currently occupied by the
VFW at the property located at 5605 36th St W.
Case Nos. 05-20-CUP
4e Motion to terminate a special permit at 6111 Excelsior Boulevard. Case Nos. 05-21-
SP
4f. Motion to follow Excess Land Task Force Summary and Preliminary
Recommendation to complete technical analysis and research, meet with
neighborhoods as appropriate and take actions needed to further evaluate the
potential to use the excess land parcels for housing..
4g Motion to adopt Resolution revising holidays recognized by the city council and
revising 2005 meeting dates
4h Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a contract with
Mobius, Inc. for professional services related to revisiting and updating Vision St.
Louis Park
4i Bid Tabulation: Motion to reject the bid for the Pedestrian Crossings and
Intersection Improvement Projects– City Project No. 1999-0900 and 2005-1300 and
recommend Staff to solicit quotes to complete the independent specialty work
4j Motion to enter into an agreement with Copeland Building Corporation in an
amount not to exceed $755,000 to replace the park buildings at Browndale and
Nelson Parks according to the 2005 CIP
4k Motion to accept vendor claims for filing (supplement)
4l Motion to accept Planning Commission Minutes of April 20, 2005 for filing
4m Motion to accept Parks and Rec Advisory Commission Minutes of March 16, 2005
for filing
4n Motion to accept Telecommunications Commissioin Minutes of February 3, 2005 for
filing.
4o Motion to accept Housing Authority Minutes of April 13, 2005
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 3a - Council Minutes May 2, 2005
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
May 2, 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, Sue Santa, and Sally Velick
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Finance Director (Ms.
McGann), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson),
Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson).
2. Presentations
a. Proclamation – National Public Works Week
Mayor Jacobs presented a proclamation to Mr. Rardin and thanked the Public Works
employees for their work.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of April 18, 2005
Councilmember Finkelstein noted on page four, the fourth paragraph, should be clarified
that “the City needed to do something about it”.
He further clarified that there was a great deal of discussion about people who moved
into this project be aware that there were mixed uses in this area and it was approved with
that knowledge.
Councilmember Basill indicated on page seven, first paragraph, should be clarified
“could see into the parking”.
The minutes were approved as corrected.
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 Motion to adopt Resolution No. 05-068 to elect to not waive the monetary limits on
municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04
4b Motion to adopt Resolution No. 05-069 rescinding Resolution No. 99-5 which
authorized permit parking at 2816 Alabama Avenue South, Traffic Study No. 596:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 3a - Council Minutes May 2, 2005
Page 2
4c Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Penn Contracting, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder
and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $84,040.00 for the
Vernon Avenue Water Main Relocation Project– City Project No. 2005-0100
4d Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. the lowest responsible
bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $176,331.55
for the 2005 Pedestrian Curb Ramps Sidewalk Improvement Project– City Project No.
2004-0100
4e Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Frattalone Paving Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and
authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $1,175,117.75 for the 2005
Street Improvements and Water Main Replacement Project– City Project No. 2004-1000
4f Removed
4g Planning Commission Minutes April 6, 2005
4h Housing Authority Minutes March 9, 2005
4i Accept Vendor Claims for filing (Supplement)
Mr. Harmening clarified on item 4d, the substance of the action didn’t change, but there was a
revised report with corrected numbers.
Mayor Jacobs also noted that the agenda had been corrected to add item 8D.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Velick, to approve the
Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings - None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. Bond Sale – 2005 General Obligation and Tax Increment Financing Bonds
Resolution No.’s 05-064 and 05-065
Ms. McGann presented the staff report.
Mark Ruff, Ehlers & Associates, reported about the bond sale. The first bond was for
public improvements in the city. Moody’s did the bond rating and remarked how well
the City had weathered the State aid cuts and were also impressed with the
redevelopment efforts. They received bids for the bonds and Legg Mason Wood Walker,
Inc. had the best true interest rate.
Mayor Jacobs thanked Ms. McGann for bringing the issue to the attention of the Council.
The timing was favorable.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 3a - Council Minutes May 2, 2005
Page 3
Mr. Ruff noted that the second bond issue was the tax increment refunding bond. They
received a slight premium. Because they were undertaking the other bond issue, it made
sense to share some of the cost with the refunding. The present value savings was about
$80,000. Legg Mason was again the winning bidder with a true interest rate of 2.9691.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked how strong a AA rating was and how they compared with
other cities? Mr. Ruff responded that very few cities had a AA1. AAA was the next step
held by cities such as Bloomington and Edina. AA1 was held by Golden Valley, Fridley and
Orono. Nationwide, St. Louis Park was in the top 5% of communities.
Councilmember Finkelstein added that was a sign of the fiscal strength of the community
and how well they spent their money. Mr. Ruff agreed and noted that Moody’s was an
objective third party that did a thorough analysis of past financial reports, looked at the
capital improvement plan and compared with other communities.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt:
Resolution No. 05-064 awarding the sale of $3,780,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series
2005A; and adopt Resolution No. 05-065 sale of General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 2005B providing for the escrowing and investment of the bond
proceeds and providing for the redemption of the bonds funded; and to approve the refunding
escrow agreement.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. Request for Conditional Use Permit by the St. Louis Park School District to
permit the excavation of more than 400 cubic yards of excavation material and
improve the Junior High School parking lot. Case No. 05-09-CUP 2025 Texas
Avenue South.
Resolution No. 05-066
Ms. McGonigal presented the staff report.
Councilmember Sanger stated concerns were expressed at Planning Commission about
visitors parking on the street. Had they provided for a proof of parking on the site so
additional spaces could be created if needed? Ms. McGonigal responded that they didn’t
show proof of parking, but they could return it to parking if needed. There were 82
parking spaces on site. They were confident parking would be adequate.
Councilmember Sanger was concerned there were also volunteers at the school. If more
spaces were required, would there be a legal impediment to require the spaces be
reconstructed? Ms. McMonigal responded it could be added as a condition.
Councilmember Velick stated that the facility had been run down and she was pleased
with the improvement.
Mayor Jacobs asked for further information on the lighting plan. The parking lot is very
dark and he was concerned about safety and security. Ms. McMonigal responded they
would be keeping the existing 25’ poles and adding some 27’ poles.
Mayor Jacobs asked if the upper lot would be a special lot for staff? Ms. McGonigal was
not sure how it would be used and why it was separate.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 3a - Council Minutes May 2, 2005
Page 4
Mayor Jacobs noted that the drive in front of the school was taken out and replaced by a
plaza, which was an improvement and much safer.
It was moved by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve
Resolution No. 05-066 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the excavation of more
than 400 cubic yards of soil from the Junior High School location, subject to conditions
recommended by staff.
The motion passed 7-0.
8c. Request of Foundation Land LLC and Master Development LLC (St. Louis
Park School District) for a minor amendment to an approved Final PUD for
Brookside School Lofts. Case Nos. 05-18-PUD
Ms. Erickson presented the staff report.
Councilmember Basill asked if this had been brought to the neighborhood or if anyone
spoke at Planning Commission? Ms. Erickson responded no.
Councilmember Basill was concerned they were making changes to lower construction
costs. They were modifying the exterior materials, when it was going to be all brick.
Ms. Erickson responded it was a combination of brick and hardy plank. They had
decreased the amount of brick on the North, West and South elevations.
Councilmember Basill stated a concern that they had reduced the useable open space,
pushed some parking onto the street and were removing a sidewalk. They were losing
plaza space and replacing it with rooftop plaza space. He would like to meet with the
developer to look at revised plans and thought they should meet with neighborhood
leadership. He was concerned that the end result would be different from what they
presented. Ms. Erickson replied that the class 1 materials were not being reduced.
Stucco was also a class 1 material.
Ms. Erickson indicated the reason staff believed this was a minor amendment was that
there was a plaza on top of the garage space and they viewed that as a substantial part of
the DORA (Designed Outdoor Recreation Areas). The plaza was moved and there was
still a fairly large plaza area.
Councilmember Finkelstein recommended that they look at changing the landscaping to
allow for more privacy. Ms. Erickson noted they met the buffer yard requirement along
the edges. They were also proposing a fence.
Mayor Jacobs stated that the concern being raised was that the rooftop plaza would be
above the ground and he was concerned about sight lines.
Councilmember Sanger asked how many parking spaces would be under the newly
constructed condo building? Ms. Erickson responded 30 spaces.
Councilmember Sanger believed people in the new condo building or the single-family
housing would not be able to easily use the rooftop plaza. It would also overlook Hwy
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 3a - Council Minutes May 2, 2005
Page 5
100, which had questionable value. She was not sure why there still couldn’t be a plaza
at ground level. Going from a peaked roof to a flat roof on the new building, they had
significantly changed the design and appearance of the building.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked when they would make the single-family lots
available? Ms. Erickson replied they were already starting to market them. She had met
with interested builders.
Councilmember Basill suggested staff meet with the neighborhood President and see if
they wanted to meet with the Board or just let the neighbors know so they were familiar
with the changes and had concerns. He was concerned about the change to stucco. After
the neighborhood meeting, the developer should come to a study session and provide
more information.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to defer the
request to allow a meeting with the neighborhood leaders, then it could return to a study
session and City Council.
The motion passed 7-0.
8d. Request of Minnetonka Boulevard Investments LLC for a Conditional Use
Permit to allow a drive-through (In-Vehicle Sales or Service) for a coffee
shop at the former Citizens Independent Bank building at 4201 Minnetonka
Boulevard. A secondary request is to terminate the existing special permit
on the property. Case Nos. 05-07-CUP
Resolution No. 05-067
Ms. Erickson presented the staff report.
Councilmember Sanger stated one of the conditions was that the basement room only be
used for storage. The room had been used in the past for neighborhood community
groups. Will that no longer be possible? Ms. Erickson replied no, the first floor area
took up all of the parking. Using the lower level would require more parking.
Councilmember Sanger couldn’t understand why they didn’t want to promote the
availability of space for community meetings. If the owner was willing to allow use of
that space, she was not sure why they would want to stop that.
Councilmember Finkelstein believed they could have meetings at non standard times.
The business community has also met there. Late afternoon or early evening shouldn’t
be a problem.
Ms. Erickson stated it wouldn’t meet the parking requirements of the zoning code to
allow it. If they wanted to open it up for another use, they would need to look at shared
parking and probably get a variance.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she supported this land use, but was concerned about
traffic implications and drivers coming Eastbound on Hwy 25 during the morning rush
hour and if they wanted to turn left to access the coffee shop. Cars would stack up on
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 3a - Council Minutes May 2, 2005
Page 6
Hwy 25, which would be hazardous. It would also be difficult for people on Joppa to
make a left turn onto Hwy 25.
Marie Cody, SRF, responded that the difference between current volumes and what was
expected with the coffee shop was an increase of about 35 Eastbound cars (in the peak
hour) making the left turn. It was a relatively short queue. The Westbound thru volume
would be considered low at the morning peak hour. The intersection would be operating
at an acceptable “A”.
Councilmember Sanger was concerned there would the potential for accidents. Ms. Cody
responded that there was a divided median where vehicles could wait for a safe gap in
traffic. The traffic on Hwy 25 would still flow freely.
Mayor Jacobs asked if they needed to have a left turn lane at the Joppa/Hwy 25
intersection? Ms. Cody replied the construction of a left or right-turn lane would make it
a safer condition. Looking at the analysis, the turn lane was not a recommendation.
Councilmember Sanger stated her other concern was with traffic going Southbound on
Joppa wanting to make a left turn onto Hwy 25. Ms. Cody stated that they looked at the
worst conditions. There was the option as exiting the drive-through and they would be
able to turn left, make a right at the signal and make a continuous right to get onto Hwy
25, which was an alternate route. If motorists began to have difficulty making the left
from Joppa, they would use the other route exiting from the drive-through.
Councilmember Sanger was concerned about apartment residents and if they wanted to
make a left turn onto Hwy 7, how would they do it? Ms. Cody responded that those
numbers were included in their figures. There would be enough space in the median area
so a car could sit in the Northbound direction and then cross over the Westbound lanes on
25 and then enough room for a motorist traveling in the opposite direction to sit side by
side. She didn’t believe that it would be a problem.
Mayor Jacobs thought they might need to revisit the idea of a turn lane.
Councilmember Santa noted that was not a city road, so they did not have authority to put
in a turn lane. She generally liked the idea, but had some concerns because that is a very
confusing intersection. She was concerned about signage and the landscaping so it did
not obstruct motorists vision. Ms. Erickson responded they did not have a sign plan, but
staff would look at the plan when building permits are issued. The ordinance required
clear zones at intersections. Staff always reviewed the landscaping.
Mr. Harmening indicated regarding use of the basement, one option could be that the
basement of the building may only be used for storage or evening neighborhood
meetings. They could also add if a parking problem developed, they had to add the proof
of parking. They wouldn’t allow it to be used for retail purposes, but if a neighborhood
wanted to use it in the evening that could be done.
Jeff Herman, Managing partner, Minnetonka Boulevard Investments, stated that they had
worked with staff on addressing green space, parking, the design and trash enclosure and
bringing the site up to code. Regarding traffic, they looked at that closely and there had
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 3a - Council Minutes May 2, 2005
Page 7
been a long history of the site operating as a bank, there were probably times when there
was quite a bit of traffic in the evening. He looked researched what kind of accidents
happened on this site due to heavy use in the evening. No one was able to find a
problem. There was a lot of signage on this site. They will work with the tenant on
submitting a signage plan for staff review. Bachman’s put together a landscape plan for
this property. He would like the basement to be used for city and neighborhood
functions. The parking was an issue addressed by staff. He was told unless he brought
forth a variance, that they would not be allowed to use it, but he would love to have
meetings in the lower level.
Councilmember Sanger asked if they could add a provision permitting them to use the
community room during the evening hours was acceptable? How late did they plan to
stay open? Mr. Herman replied that suggestion was fine. Because traffic concerns were
at the peak AM rush, afternoon would be fine. They had discussed opening at 6:30 or
7:00 AM and closing at 10:00 or 11:00 PM.
Councilmember Omodt asked who the tenant would be? Mr. Herman responded that
they were still in negotiations.
Councilmember Omodt asked if they had considered making this a kosher coffee shop?
Mr. Herman replied he would love that. The user they were working with had kosher
coffee. As long as they continued to serve it in paper products, it would not be a problem
with the Jewish community. They would need to get a better feel for the neighboring
concerns regarding the food products to know what they would like served.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
Resolution No. 05-067 granting a conditional use permit with conditions to allow a
drive-through (In-Vehicle Sales or Service) in conjunction with a coffee shop and
terminating the existing special permit approved by Resolution 88-199, with an
amendment to permit the use of the basement community room during late afternoon and
evening hours. If parking problems arise, proof of parking requirements should be
imposed.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs noted that Arbor Day was Saturday and they would be planting trees at Wooddale
and Hwy 7. The Council would also be doing a bike tour of the City on Saturday. Senior Chore
day would also be held on Saturday. Children’s First Ice Cream Social will be on May 15th at
Wolf Park from 2-5.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 3b - Study Session Minutes April 25, 2005
Page 1
OFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
April 25, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:20 p.m.
Councilmembers present: John Basill, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Paul Omodt, Phil Finkelstein,
Sally Velick and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening); Chief of Police (Mr. Luse); Police Captains (Mr.
Ortner and Mr. Dilorenzo); Police Lt’s. (Ms. Dreier and Mr. Kraayenbrink); Community
Development Director (Mr. Locke); Planning and Zoning Supv. (Ms. McMonigal); Asst Zoning
Administrator (Mr. Morrison); Planner (Mr. Fulton); City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Annual Report - Police Advisory Commission
Chair Michael Baum and Vice-Chair Linda Trummer presented the annual report of the Police
Advisory Commission to the City Council. A full report of the commission’s activities was
presented as a hand-out to the council.
Ms. Trummer reported on the past year’s activities. As a new commission, a great deal of work
had been done to determine focus and form relationships with Police Department Staff. Several
subcommittees had been formed which will continue to work in 2005. Mr. Baum continued with
information about goals for 2005 which include work on a community survey, publicity, a
citizens’ police academy, children first activities and developing community partnerships.
Council commended the commission for their good work and asked to be kept apprised of their
activities.
2. Police Department Activity Update
Chief Luse and several Police Department staff members were in attendance to provide council
with an update on programs and activities being undertaken in the Police Department. Chief
Luse began by saying that the concept of community policing had become the norm in the SLP
Department and the department organization has been successfully modified to reflect that
model. Chief Luse is hoping to be a “beta site” for a study being done by the Federal Gov’t. on
community policing.
He updated the council on policies related to high-speed chase, use of tazers, victim support, and
outreach efforts for various residential and commercial neighborhoods in the city.
Mayor Jacobs asked if efforts were being made to strengthen the presence of officers at the
Junior High level. Chief Luse and Mr. Harmening responded that discussions were in progress
with School District administrators to move toward a greater presence at the Jr. High School.
Both council and staff agreed that one of the department’s primary goals should be to provide
better education and support for that particular age level. The School Superintendent and City
Manager are working on a funding agreement to provide those services.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 3b - Study Session Minutes April 25, 2005
Page 2
Similarly, outreach activities at multi-family housing facilities such as Louisiana Court and
Meadowbrook Manor are an important part of the work of the department. The Meadowbrook
Collaborative has been operating successfully for many years, and a similar program is in the
development stage at Louisiana Courts.
Chief Luse stated that use of methamphetamines is a significant public health crisis facing our
community. Because use of the drug is highly addictive and physically devastating to users,
prevention rather than intervention after the fact is key.
Reports from each division supervisor provided council with information about structure of the
divisions and major activities assigned to each. They provided council with updates on patrol
policies, dispatch and communication issues, information system management, the crime watch
block captain program, homeland security issues and recruitment efforts.
3. Proposed Amendment to Redevelopment Contract with Aquila Senior, LLC
Representatives of the developer were present to request changes to the development contract
regarding a change from HUD to Fannie Mae as the long-term financing partner for the
development and to request a change to the contract regarding coop buyer’s assets.
Councilmember Santa stated that she had been comfortable with HUD involvement in the project
because of standards for upkeep over the life of the building.
The developer responded that both HUD and Fannie Mae have the same standards, but FM
financing of the project would allow for an earlier construction start. Their program would also
provide more flexibility for the buyer in terms of determining monthly costs.
Councilmember Finkelstein was concerned that units would not remain affordable in the future.
Mr. Hunt responded that the terms of the development contract would remain the same, and that
the units would be limited equity for the life of the TIF district.
Regarding the developer’s second request, the developer’s marketing representative stated that
changes to the system which provides income and demographic information for marketing of the
development had provided additional information that had not been available at the time the
development agreement had been approved. The new information showed that estimates of
target market assets had been low, and were much higher than originally thought. This in turn
limited significantly the number of eligible buyers in SLP
Council questioned the validity of those results and asked to see more information to support the
request.
Councilmember Sanger was concerned about contributing TIF dollars to the development when
the marketing information showed that potential buyers could afford to pay higher prices. She
had not supported approval of the development agreement and was now even more opposed to
contribution of TIF financing.
Councilmember Basill supported the request saying that use of the TIF dollars was justified in
that the use assisted the city in meeting its housing goals. The intent had been to provide TIF
financing to assist in demolition and clean-up of the site. Council’s hope to market the units to
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 3b - Study Session Minutes April 25, 2005
Page 3
residents in the neighborhood helped our city’s seniors to remain close to family and friends and
would open up single-family homes to families looking for suitable residential properties. He
did not believe the fact that our city’s seniors have been good stewards of their assets should
change the original intent of the council’s approval for the project. He would rather modify the
asset limit and serve our city’s seniors as originally intended.
Councilmember Omodt also stated that he felt he understood what the developer was requesting
and why, and he did not see a problem.
The developer expressed concern that if the asset limits were kept at the level originally
approved, that the target market would change significantly and the development would have
more appeal to seniors from a broader geographical area. Raising the asset limit would not
preclude seniors with fewer assets from relocating to the development, and would broaden the
base of SLP residents who would qualify for the limited equity program.
Councilmember Finkelstein was concerned that the data was not correct and had difficulty
believing that the assets of our residents were higher than originally thought. He wanted more
information provided prior to approval.
Councilmembers Santa, Velick and Sanger also wanted to see the data.
Mr. Harmening asked the developer what would happen if council did not approve the TIF
contribution. The developer responded that it would be difficult to move forward with the
project as proposed and they would need to consider other options.
Mayor Jacobs also wanted to see the data and did not want to make a decision at this point. He
would like staff to prepare a report with more information including pros and cons.
Mr. Hunt asked if council was generally comfortable with the issue of the financing changing
from HUD to Fannie Mae. Council agreed with that assessment.
Mr. Hunt then clarified that the proposed change to the asset limit would remove the value of the
primary residence from the formula. He suggested that if council was more comfortable with a
cap on home value that could be added to the formula as well.
Mr. Harmening summarized stating that, based on discussion, the new formula will be proposed
with a home allowance cap of $250,000 with a modest appreciation escalator attached. Next
steps would be to place the issue on an upcoming EDA agenda along with the information
council had requested.
4. Zoning Code Issues Related to Expansion of Single Family Homes
Mayor Jacobs asked to defer the item due to the late hour. Councilmember Sanger asked that
one issue, the allowance of cluster housing in the city be addressed prior to adjournment.
Councilmember Sanger was opposed to any kind of cluster housing in an R-1 district.
Councilmember Basill echoed her concerns stating that he would extend that to R-2 and R-3
districts.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 3b - Study Session Minutes April 25, 2005
Page 4
Staff was concerned about eliminating cluster housing completely due to the fact that existing
homes would be made non-conforming.
Mr. Locke offered to bring this item back to council for discussion at a later date with
modifications based on council’s concerns about cluster housing.
Mr. Harmening agreed stating that staff would study the issue further and propose amendments
more consistent with council’s values.
6. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4a - 800 MHz Radio Contract w Henn Cnty
Page 1
4a Motion to authorize Mayor and City Manager to sign Hennepin County
Cooperative Agreement No. A050832 which outlines use, equipment ownership and
connectivity to the countywide 800 MHz system.
Background:
As part of the migration of City public safety communications to the County 800 MHz radio
system, the County requires all municipalities connecting to the system to sign a cooperative
agreement. The agreement outlines system use, equipment ownership and connectivity to the
countywide 800 MHz system. It is the same contract that has been signed by all municipalities in
Hennepin County that are maintaining independent 911 centers, but using the 800MHz system.
The agreement must be in place before any connectivity from the City 911 center can be made to
the County 800MHz system.
The agreement was reviewed by Police Department staff and by City Attorney Tom Scott.
Attachments: Hennepin County Agreement No. A050832
Prepared By: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4a - 800 MHz Radio Contract w Henn Cnty
Page 2 AA Code: GOV Contract No.: A050832
Federal Tax ID No.: 41-6005519
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION AS AN INTERCONNECTED DISPATCH FACILITY ON THE COUNTYWIDE 800 MHz TRUNKED RADIO SUBSYSTEM
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN, a body politic and corporate, under the laws of the STATE OF MINNESOTA,
hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY," A-2300 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota
55487, and the City of St Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, 5005 Minnetonka
Blvd, St Louis Park, Minnesota 55416, acting by and through its duly authorized officers,
hereinafter referred to as the "CITY".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the Metropolitan Radio Board, hereinafter referred to as the
“RADIO BOARD”, entered into Agreement No. A16906 regarding the design, procurement,
construction and operation of the COUNTY’s 800 MHz trunked radio Subsystem; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and Motorola, Inc., hereinafter referred to as “MOTOROLA”,
entered into Agreement No. A20988 regarding the purchase, delivery and installation of the
countywide 800 MHz trunked radio Subsystem; and
WHEREAS, Agreement No. A20988 includes additional purchase options for dispatch
consoles, microwave radio and related services necessary to interconnect the CITY’s dispatch
center to the countywide 800 MHz trunked radio Subsystem; and
WHEREAS, certain enhancements to the coverage and capacity of the countywide 800
MHz trunked radio Subsystem are necessary to accommodate the CITY’s participation; and
WHEREAS, the CITY has elected to participate as a full participant on the countywide 800
MHz trunked radio Subsystem.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements
hereinafter set forth, the COUNTY and the CITY agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1 - PURPOSE
1.01 The purpose of this Agreement is to define the rights and obligations of the COUNTY
and the CITY with respect to the cooperative and coordinated procurement, construction,
operation and maintenance of CITY dispatch equipment to be interconnected with the
countywide 800 MHz trunked radio Subsystem, and the enhancement of the coverage and
capacity of the Subsystem to accommodate the CITY’s participation.
ARTICLE 2 - COOPERATION
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4a - 800 MHz Radio Contract w Henn Cnty
Page 3
2.01 The COUNTY and the CITY will cooperate and use their best efforts to ensure that the
various provisions of the Agreement are fulfilled. The parties agree in good faith to
undertake resolutions of disputes, if any, in an equitable and timely manner and in
accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 3 - DEFINITION OF TERMS
3.01 FIRST PHASE. "First Phase" means the initial backbone of the public safety radio
communications system which serves state and regional agencies. The First Phase does
not include Subsystems.
3.02 SUBSYSTEMS. "Subsystems" means systems identified in the Plan as Subsystems
interconnected by the First Phase backbone as part of the Initial Network and/or
subsequent phases and operated by Local Government units or regional agencies for their
own internal operations. “Subsystems” includes County/Regional Integrated Subsystems.
3.03 COUNTY SUBSYSTEM. "County Subsystem" means the Subsystem funded and
constructed by Hennepin County pursuant to Agreement No. A16906.
3.04 LOCAL GOVERNMENT. "Local Government" means any count y, home rule charter or
statutory city, or town, lying in whole or in part within the metropolitan area.
3.05 BACKBONE SYSTEM. "Backbone System" means a regionwide public safety radio
communication system that consists of a shared regionwide infrastructure, the elements
of which are identified in the regionwide public safety radio communications plan, and
Subsystems interconnected by the shared regionwide network.
3.06 INITIAL NETWORK. "Initial Network" means the portion of the Backbone System to be
constructed concurrently by Mn/DOT, the Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County and
the City of Minneapolis. The Initial Network consists of the First Phase plus the Metro
Transit Data Subsystem, Hennepin County and Minneapolis Subsystems.
3.07 ELIGIBLE USERS. "Eligible Users" means those public and private entities and individuals
eligible to hold FCC licenses in the Public Safety and Special Emergency Radio Services
as defined by 47 C.F.R. Part 90, Subparts B and C, and those entities and individuals
eligible to operate radios in the Public Safety and Special Emergency Radio Services
under the provisions of 47 C.F.R. § 90.421.
3.08 AUTHORIZED USERS. "Authorized Users" means those Eligible Users that have been
duly authorized by the RADIO BOARD to use the Backbone System.
3.09 DAY-TO-DAY USE. "Day to Day Use" means regular ongoing use of a Subsystem or the
First Phase as the primary system to support the internal operations of an Authorized
User.
3.10 ITINERANT USE. "Itinerant Use" means limited temporary use of a Subsystem or the First
Phase, other than the primary system, for roaming service or to enhance portable
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4a - 800 MHz Radio Contract w Henn Cnty
Page 4
coverage to support the internal operations of an Authorized User.
3.11 MUTUAL AID USE. "Mutual Aid Use" means limited temporary use of the First Phase for
cross-jurisdiction, cross-service, or cross-technology intercommunications required
among Eligible Users not supported within a local Subsystem.
3.12 PLAN. "Plan" or "Regionwide Public Safety Radio System Communications Plan" means
the plan adopted on September 1, 1995 by the RADIO BOARD for a regionwide public
safety communications system, including subsequent amendments upon adoption by the
RADIO BOARD.
3.13 LOCAL PLAN. "Local Plan" means the 800 MHz Communications Plan for Hennepin
County, Minnesota as Adopted by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners on
March 26, 1996 and approved by the RADIO BOARD on June 28,1996 including
subsequent amendments upon adoption by the Hennepin County Board of
Commissioners and approval by the RADIO BOARD, and the CITY’s plan as adopted by
the RADIO BOARD on February 7, 2003.
3.14 INITIAL BACKBONE. “Initial Backbone” means the public safety radio
communications system authorized by the Minnesota legislature to be funded by the sale
of Metropolitan Council general obligation bonds authorized by Minnesota Statute
473.93, Metropolitan Council revenue bonds authorized by Minnesota Statute 473.898,
and sale of state general obligation bonds and trunk highway fund appropriations
authorized by Laws 1996, Chapter 463, Section 19,
3.15 COUNTY/REGIONAL INTEGRATED SUBSYSTEM. “County/Regional Integrated
Subsystem” means a county/regional shared subsystem which (a) shares First Phase
components including sites, base stations, frequencies, antennas, microwave equipment,
and the prime controller plus additions by an Authorized User; and (b) which uses First
Phase infrastructures for day-to-day operations in its own county; and (c) is governed by
a cooperative agreement between an Authorized User and Mn/DOT.
3.16 FIRST PHASE VENDOR. “First Phase Vendor” means the vendor with whom Mn/DOT
contracts to construct the First Phase.
3.17 INITIAL NETWORK VENDOR. “Initial Network Vendor” means the vendor with
whom Mn/DOT, and the City of Minneapolis and/or Hennepin County and/or the
Metropolitan Council contracts to construct the Initial Network.
3.18 METRO TRANSIT. “Metro Transit” means a division within the Metropolitan Council,
which operates a regionwide metropolitan transit system.
ARTICLE 4 - TERM
4.01 This Agreement shall take effect upon execution by both parties hereto, and shall remain
in effect until such time as this Agreement is terminated or canceled pursuant to Articles
18 or 19 of this Agreement.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4a - 800 MHz Radio Contract w Henn Cnty
Page 5
ARTICLE 5 - SUBSYSTEM USE AND OPERATIONS
5.01 The CITY shall establish and continue an interconnection between the CITY dispatch
equipment and the Backbone System provided that the CITY complies fully with the
provisions of this Agreement and with all reasonable technical, operational, performance
and maintenance standards established or adopted by the COUNTY and/or the RADIO
BOARD.
5.02 The COUNTY, consistent with its Local Plan and the RADIO BOARD’s Plan, shall provide
the CITY with access to, and use of, talk groups, unit IDs, microwave T-1 capacity and
other system resources, on a shared basis, within the overall capacities made available to
the COUNTY by the RADIO BOARD, necessary to provide an equivalent grade of
service afforded to any and all other Authorized Users of the COUNTY Subsystem.
5.03 The CITY shall provide the services of a designated dispatch site administrator who shall
coordinate with the COUNTY’s Subsystem administrator regarding dispatch equipment
interconnection, system configuration and network management issues.
5.04 The CITY shall operate its dispatch facility on the COUNTY Subsystem in conformance
with RADIO BOARD's Plan for mutual aid usage, roaming between Subsystems,
scanning between Subsystems, telephone interconnect, SCADA, mobile data, GPS and
other uses potentially affecting systemwide performance. The CITY shall operate its
dispatch facility on the COUNTY Subsystem in conformance with the COUNTY’s
written operating procedures, protocols, priorities and standards for inter-agency
operations occurring within the COUNTY Subsystem.
5.05 The CITY may establish its own operating procedures, protocols and priorities that are
exclusive to the CITY’s internal operations provided that such CITY operating
procedures, protocols and priorities do not conflict with the RADIO BOARD Plan,
COUNTY Plan, or with any State or Federal laws, rules or regulations.
5.06 Other than those radios to be operated by CITY employees, the COUNTY shall determine
which Eligible Users may have access to the COUNTY Subsystem for Day to Day Use.
The COUNTY shall determine which Eligible Users may have access to talk groups and
encryption code groups assigned to the COUNTY, subject to terms and conditions
established by the COUNTY.
ARTICLE 6 - RESPONSIBILITY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE ENHANCEMENTS
6.01 The CITY shall issue appropriate purchase orders to the Initial Network Vendor
(MOTOROLA), any of their subcontractors, or other contractors as determined by the
CITY, for dispatch equipment and the microwave equipment necessary to interconnect
the CITY dispatch equipment to the COUNTY Subsystem. Installation of CITY’s
dispatch link microwave equipment at COUNTY’s Golden Valley site shall be subject to
prior review and approval by COUNTY.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4a - 800 MHz Radio Contract w Henn Cnty
Page 6
ARTICLE 7 - FUNDING AND OWNERSHIP OF INFRASTRUCTURE
7.01 The CITY shall fund the full cost for the CITY’s dispatch equipment and microwave link
and/or glass fiber equipment including all upstream channel bank, embassy switch, zone
controller, logging equipment and any other equipment and services necessary to
interconnect the CITY dispatch equipment to the Backbone System that is installed at a
COUNTY and/or Mn/DOT site.
7.02 The CITY shall hold title to CITY dispatching equipment purchased by the CITY that is
installed at the CITY’s dispatch site, including but not limited to, console operator
electronics and channel banks and all microwave and/or glass fiber equipment including
dish antennas, waveguide and alarm/control equipment that is purchased by the CITY
under this Agreement and is installed at the CITY’s dispatch site, and other sites, that is
necessary to interconnect the CITY’s dispatch equipment to the COUNTY Subsystem.
7.03 Mn/DOT shall hold title to that upstream equipment necessary to interconnect CITY
dispatching equipment to the First Phase that is physically integral to, or constitutes an
incremental expansion of, Mn/DOT owned First Phase equipment that is located at a
Mn/DOT site.
7.04 The entity that holds title to the equipment shall be responsible for the provisioning and
cost of maintenance and repairs of that owned equipment. The equipment owner may
enter into such agreements, as it deems necessary, with other governmental units or
private maintenance providers to accomplish maintenance and repairs.
ARTICLE 8 - SITE IMPROVEMENTS
8.01 The CITY shall be responsible for funding and staffing all necessary planning, design,
procurement and construction of any and all improvements to physical plant facilities at
the CITY’s dispatch site that are required to house and install the CITY dispatching
equipment and microwave equipment covered under this Agreement.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4a - 800 MHz Radio Contract w Henn Cnty
Page 7
ARTICLE 9 - ALLOCATION OF OPERATING COSTS
9.01 The RADIO BOARD may assess, and the CITY shall pay, reasonable user fees to recover a
portion of the actual operating and administrative costs of the Backbone System,
including future additions and changes to the First Phase. Backbone System operating
and administrative costs that may be allocated to the CITY by the RADIO BOARD are
limited to actual expenditures for the costs of operation, administration and maintenance
of the First Phase, recurring costs for site leasing, and a reasonable prorated share of
equipment costs for moves, additions, changes and replacement of shared Backbone
System equipment used by the CITY.
9.02 The RADIO BOARD is required in Agreement No. A16906 to provide to the COUNTY no
later than August 1 of each year for the upcoming calendar year a budget plan indicating
the fixed amount of user fees that will be payable by the Day to Day Users of the
COUNTY Subsystem, and the formula(s) used to establish user fees for all Authorized
Users of the Backbone System. User fees may be calculated based on a per radio flat fee,
or on actual usage factors such as traffic patterns, air time usage, and other factors
affecting system capacity and efficiency as determined by the RADIO BOARD. The
COUNTY will forward a copy of the RADIO BOARD’s budget plan to the CITY upon
written request. The RADIO BOARD may require the COUNTY to collect user fees
assessed by the RADIO BOARD to the CITY.
9.03 The CITY shall pay all operating costs associated with the CITY’s dispatch equipment, the
CITY’s microwave and/or glass fiber equipment located at the CITY’s dispatch site,
other upstream equipment at COUNTY and/or Mn/DOT sites necessary to interconnect
the CITY’s dispatch facility with the Backbone System, and reasonable prorated
operating costs allocated to the CITY by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners
for the CITY’s use of the COUNTY Subsystem. Operating costs may include but are not
limited to: antenna site rental, utilities, software upgrades, batteries, system maintenance
and repairs.
9.04 The CITY shall pay all RADIO BOARD user fees and other reasonable operating costs
allocated to the CITY as provided for herein in the form and manner prescribed by the
RADIO BOARD and/or the COUNTY.
ARTICLE 10 - MOVES, ADDITIONS AND CHANGES
10.01 The COUNTY and CITY acknowledge that the RADIO BOARD has the authority to
allocate costs for moves, additions and changes (MACs) to the Backbone System among
Authorized Users.
10.02 With respect to allocation of costs of MACs within the COUNTY Subsystem including
the CITY’s dispatch equipment and the CITY’s microwave equipment, if the MAC is
required by and/or solely benefits only one party, then that party shall be responsible for
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4a - 800 MHz Radio Contract w Henn Cnty
Page 8
payment of all costs associated with the MAC. If the MAC is required by and/or benefits
multiple parties, or is required by third party action, then the costs of the MAC shall be
allocated on a fair, equitable and reasonable manner among the benefiting and/or affected
parties.
10.03 In the event the RADIO BOARD reasonably determines that dispatch console access
port(s) used by the CITY on the master site audio switch need to be conserved to permit
future additions to the Backbone System, the CITY shall reconfigure its dispatch console
Central Electronics Bank (CEB) to permit the sharing of its CEB with another Authorized
User, provided that all costs associated with such CEB reconfiguration shall be paid for
by the new Authorized User or others and not by CITY. CITY shall not be required to
relocate its CEB if there are other technical and cost effective methods proposed by CITY
to provide the necessary conservation of audio switch port(s). The CITY reserves the
right to enter into a reasonable cooperative agreement with such new Authorized User to
define the rights, obligations, ownership, cost allocations, remedies, etc. with respect to
reconfiguring and sharing the CITY’s CEB.
ARTICLE 11 - FCC LICENSES AND ABANDONMENT OF RADIO CHANNELS
11.01 The COUNTY shall have sole responsibility and authority to hold the FCC radio station
licenses for the COUNTY Subsystem, including all end user radios authorized as Day-to-
Day Users of the COUNTY Subsystem. The CITY dispatch facility and CITY operated
end user radios shall be authorized to operate under the COUNTY’s FCC licenses. The
CITY shall operate its dispatch facility in compliance with all applicable FCC rules and
regulations and shall be responsible for any violations thereof attributable to the CITY.
11.02 The CITY shall have sole responsibility and the authority to hold the FCC radio license
for the microwave link to the COUNTY subsystem. The CITY shall operate the
microwave equipment in compliance with all applicable FCC rules and regulations and
shall be responsible for any violations.
11.03 The CITY shall initially co-license with, and subsequently transfer to the COUNTY via
license cancellation, all 800 MHz frequencies useable by the COUNTY that are licensed
to and used by the CITY for those functions that are likely to be migrated within five
years to the COUNTY’s Subsystem. The co-licensing shall occur immediately and the
transfer shall be completed as the migration occurs and regular use of the 800 MHz
frequencies by the CITY are phased out.
11.04 Other than for initial testing purposes necessary to install and certify the equipment, the
COUNTY’s operation on the co-licensed and/or transferred channels will be delayed
until such time that the CITY’s transition to the COUNTY Subsystem is underway and/or
the CITY commences discontinuation of the existing CITY system(s). The COUNTY and
CITY shall cooperate and mutually agree on the timing of channel activation by the
COUNTY to insure there is satisfactory capacity on both systems and mutual non-
interference during the transition period.
11.05 Once the CITY discontinues operation of frequencies it has co-licensed with, exchanged
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4a - 800 MHz Radio Contract w Henn Cnty
Page 9
or transferred to the COUNTY, and the COUNTY activates those channels in the
COUNTY Subsystem, the CITY shall cancel its FCC license for those frequencies.
ARTICLE 12 - INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
12.01 Each party is, and shall remain, an independent contractor with respect to all services
performed under this Agreement. Each party shall select the means, method, and manner
of performing their respective services herein. Nothing is intended or should be
construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners
between the parties hereto or as constituting either party as the agent, representative, or
employee of the other for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. Each party
represents that it has or will secure at its own expense all personnel required in
performing their respective services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of
either party or other persons engaged in the performance of any work or services under
this Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with the other party, and shall not
be considered an employee of any other party. Any and all claims that may or might
arise under the Unemployment Compensation Act, the Workers' Compensation Act of the
State of Minnesota, or any other applicable Federal or State law, rule, or regulation on
behalf of said personnel, arising out of employment or alleged employment, including,
without limitation, claims of discrimination against either party, its officers, agents,
contractors, or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the other party. Each
party shall defend, indemnify, and hold the other party, its officers, agents, and
employees harmless from any and all such claims. Such personnel or other persons shall
neither require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind
whatsoever from the other party, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and
hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Re-Employment
Insurance, disability, severance pay, or PERA.
ARTICLE 13 - INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE
13.01 Each party agrees that it shall be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof, to
the extent authorized by the law, and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other
party and the results thereof. The COUNTY's and the CITY's liability is governed by the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466.
The COUNTY and the CITY each warrant that they are able to comply with the
aforementioned indemnity requirements through an insurance or self-insurance program.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4a - 800 MHz Radio Contract w Henn Cnty
Page 10
ARTICLE 14 - DATA PRIVACY
14.01 COUNTY and CITY each agree to abide by all applicable State and Federal laws and
regulations concerning the handling and disclosure of private and confidential
information concerning individuals and/or data including but not limited to information
made non-public by such laws or regulations.
ARTICLE 15 - MINNESOTA LAWS GOVERN AND SEVERABILITY
15.01 The laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations
concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations and
performance obligations between the parties herein.
ARTICLE 16 - RECORDS AVAILABILITY
16.01 COUNTY and CITY agree that each party hereto, the State Auditor, the RADIO
BOARD, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal
business hours, and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to
and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers,
records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of either
party hereto and involve transactions relating to this Agreement.
ARTICLE 17 - MERGER AND MODIFICATION
17.01 It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained
herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between
the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement
are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. Any
alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall
only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this
Agreement signed by the parties hereto.
ARTICLE 18 - TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
18.01 The CITY shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at any time for any reason by
giving written notice to the COUNTY of such termination and specifying the effective
date therefore at twenty-four (24) months prior to the effective date of such termination.
Such termination shall require the CITY to discontinue and remove its dispatch console
connection to the COUNTY Subsystem.
18.02 The COUNTY shall have the right to terminate this Agreement when the COUNTY
Subsystem reaches the end of its useful life or is substantially replaced, whichever occurs
first. The COUNTY shall provide the CITY with at least twenty four (24) months written
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4a - 800 MHz Radio Contract w Henn Cnty
Page 11
notice prior to the effective date of such termination.
ARTICLE 19 - DEFAULT
19.01 If either party hereto shall fail to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement properl y and
timely, or if either party hereto shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, or
stipulations of this Agreement, thereupon the other party shall have the right to terminate
this Agreement if the default has not been cured within thirty (30) days from the date on
which the defaulting party received written notice specifying the default. This
Agreement may then be terminated by the non-defaulting party giving at least ten (10)
days written notice to defaulting party of such termination and specifying the effective
date thereof.
A. It is agreed that any right or remedy provided for herein shall not be considered as
the exclusive right or remedy of the non-defaulting party for any default in any
respect by the defaulting party, but such right or remedy shall be considered to be in
addition to any right or remedy hereunder or allowed by law, equity, or statute.
B. The non-defaulting party’s failure to insist upon strict performance of any covenant,
agreement, or stipulation of this Agreement or to exercise any right herein contained
shall not be a waiver or relinquishment of such covenant, agreement, stipulation, or
right, unless the non-defaulting party consents thereto in writing. Any such written
consent shall not constitute a waiver or relinquishment in the future of such
covenant, agreement, stipulation or right.
ARTICLE 20 - DISPUTE RESOLUTION
20.01 If a dispute should arise between the COUNTY and the CITY with respect to the administration of this Agreement or any of its provisions by the Hennepin County
Sheriff’s Office, COUNTY and CITY agree to attempt to settle such dispute through the following methods in the order provided below:
A. By bringing the issue to the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Dispatch Users’ Advisory
Board, or to a future committee responsible for 800 MHz Subsystem operations, and if unsuccessful
B. By bringing the issue to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, and if
unsuccessful
C. By use of a mediator mutually acceptable to both parties prior to commencement of any legal action on the part of either party with respect to this Agreement, any of its
provisions and/or its enforcement. The costs of such mediation shall be borne equally by COUNTY and CITY.
If the dispute is related to non-conformance of Metropolitan Radio Board Standards, then
compliance and conflict resolution procedures established by the Metropolitan Radio Board will be followed.
ARTICLE 21 - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4a - 800 MHz Radio Contract w Henn Cnty
Page 12
21.01 In order to coordinate the services of COUNTY with the activities of the CITY so as to
accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the following individuals or their designees
shall administer this Agreement on behalf of the COUNTY and CITY.
COUNTY: Mr. Roger R. Laurence
Communications Manager
Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office
9300 Naper Street
Minneapolis, MN 55427
CITY: Capt Kirk DiLorenzo
St Louis Park Police Department
3015 Raleigh Ave S
St Louis Park, MN 55416
ARTICLE 22 - PAPER RECYCLING
22.01 The COUNTY encourages CITY to develop and implement an office paper and
newsprint-recycling program.
ARTICLE 23 - NOTICES
23.01 Any notice, report or demand which must be given or made by a party hereto under the
terms of this Agreement or any statute or ordinance shall be in writing, and shall be sent
registered or certified mail. Notices to the COUNTY shall be sent to the County
Administrator and contract administrator at the addresses given in the opening paragraph
and contained in Article 21 to this Agreement. Notice to CITY shall be sent to the
contract administrator at the address as given in Article 21.
THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4a - 800 MHz Radio Contract w Henn Cnty
Page 13
COUNTY BOARD APPROVAL
CITY, having signed this contract, and the COUNTY having duly approved this contract on the
____ day of ______________, 2005, and pursuant to such approval, the proper COUNTY officials
having signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Approved as to form STATE OF MINNESOTA
and execution
____________________________ By: _______________________________
Assistant County Attorney Chair of Its County Board
Date: _______________________
And: ______________________________
Deputy/County Administrator
Attest: ____________________________
Deputy/Clerk of County Board CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK APPROVAL The St Louis Park City Council duly approved this Agreement on the _____ day of ______________, 2005. Approved as to form CITY OF ________________ and legality: ___________________________ By:________________________________ City Attorney Mayor And: ______________________________ City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4b - Browndale Pk CUP
Page 1
4b Motion to adopt a resolution approving aConditional Use Permit to allow
the excavation and fill of over 400 cubic yards of soil at Browndale park
(4525 Morningside Ave) subject to conditions included in the resolution.
Case No. 05-14 CUP
Zoning Designation: R-1, Single Family Residential
Comp. Plan Designation: Parks and Open Space
SITE MAP:
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Conditional Use Permit:
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is requested to excavate and fill more than 400 cubic yards of
soil for the purpose of soil correction in relation to the construction of a park shelter building. A
CUP is required for excavation and fill any time more than 400 cubic feet of soil will be
displaced. In this case, an estimated 1500 cubic feet of soil will be removed and placed on-site.
The area from which the soil was removed will be filled with granular engineered soils.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4b - Browndale Pk CUP
Page 2
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed CUP at its May
4, 2005 regular meeting. The unapproved minutes of that meeting are attached for review.
Significant portions of Browndale Park were dedicated to the City during the platting of the
Browndale Subdivision in the City’s southeast corner. The park is located in its namesake
Browndale neighborhood and is surrounded primarily by single family homes. The park is
located entirely in the R-1 Zoning District and adjoins the R-2 Zoning District along its northern
edge.
Browndale Park consists of about 7.8 acres of land. The park adjoins two parcels at its northwest
corner that are part of the City’s current excess land inventory. Neither parcel will be impacted
by the excavation or by the construction of the park shelter.
Browndale Park is used for both active and passive recreation. In addition to replacing the
existing park shelter, the proposed excavation will improve a portion of the sliding hill by
creating safer conditions for its users.
ISSUES ANALYSIS:
Staff reviewed the proposal and found that it meets the general zoning requirements. The
following is a summary of the major issues reviewed under Section 36-79, “Grading; Filling and
land reclamation; Excavation and mining”. A CUP is required to prevent any adverse impacts to
the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding community. A location map and a copy of the
building elevations are attached to the report for review.
Issues:
• Is the proposed CUP addressed in the Comprehensive Plan?
• How will the park’s use change as a result of the proposed excavation?
• How will the proposed excavation affect the surrounding properties?
• What measures will be taken to ensure erosion and sedimentation control?
• What traffic impacts are associated with the proposed excavation?
Is the proposed CUP addressed in the Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan lays out numerous implementation strategies to achieve the Plan’s
goals as they relate to parks and open space. One of these implementation strategies is to
“Systematically upgrade existing park shelters, playground structures, trails, and other park
amenities to meet the changing needs of the community.” The proposed excavation will make it
possible to construct a new park shelter that will be a considerable improvement in relation to the
existing facilities. For this reason, the proposed CUP is required to meet the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan.
How will the park change as a result of the proposed excavation?
As a result of the excavation and fill process, the soils underlying the site will be substantially
improved. At the present time, the soils are unsuitable for the construction. The engineered soils
will be suitable for construction and will positively affect the longevity of the foundation and
structure.
The sliding hill will be minimally impacted by the on-site placement of fill. The effect on the
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4b - Browndale Pk CUP
Page 3
sliding hill will be to create safer conditions for users.
The park will remain open during the excavation, fill and construction process. During this time,
a fence will be built surrounding the area under construction, and no entrance to that area will be
allowed except to persons involved in the construction process.
How will the proposed excavation affect the surrounding properties?
The proposed excavation and fill will have minimal effects upon the surrounding properties. The
number of trucks entering and leaving the site will be minimal due to the significant amount of
on-site placement of soils. Though the excavated materials will be utilized on-site, some
engineered fill will be brought to the site to provide for the foundation for the future park shelter.
It is expected that the number of trucks entering the site will not exceed seventy trucks over the
construction period. Though the excavation period has not yet been determined, it is unlikely
that it will last more than two to three weeks. It is expected that some large excavation
equipment will be required to complete the process of excavation and placement of soils. For
this reason, there may be some minor noise pollution involved with the excavation and fill
process. Any such noise will take place between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm on
weekdays, and if necessary, from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm on weekends. Noise pollution will occur
as a result of heavy equipment moving in reverse and from loud engines on the associated
equipment.
What measures will be taken to ensure erosion and sedimentation control?
To control for erosion and sedimentation, the applicant will install silt fence around the entire
perimeter of the affected site. Further, several best management practices will be used during the
proposed excavation and fill to ensure that any negative effects typically associated with such
excavation will be minimized. This will include the construction of a gravel pad to assist in the
removal of debris from the tires of any trucks or equipment prior to exiting the site and sweeping
the surrounding streets regularly throughout the excavation process.
What traffic impacts are associated with the proposed excavation?
No major traffic impacts are expected as a result of the proposed excavation and fill. It is
estimated that approximately 70 trucks over a period of 2-3 weeks will enter and depart the site.
The trucks will arrive in St. Louis Park via Highway 100, and will exit on Excelsior Boulevard.
The trucks will then proceed south on Wooddale Avenue to Morningside Road, where they will
enter Browndale Park. All excavation, fill and construction staging will take place at Browndale
Park, so none of the roads surrounding the park will be impacted.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4b - Browndale Pk CUP
Page 4
HAUL ROUTES:
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends a motion to adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit to allow
the excavation and fill of over 400 cubic yards of soil from the location described subject to
conditions included in the resolution.
Attachments:
• Location Map
• Development plans
• Unapproved Minutes, May 4, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting
• Resolution for Approval of Conditional Use Permit
Prepared by: Adam W. Fulton, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4b - Browndale Pk CUP
Page 5
Excerpts Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission – May 4, 2005
3. Hearings
A. Conditional Use Permit – excavation of soil
Location: 4525 Morningside Road – Browndale Park
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No: 05-14-CUP
Adam Fulton, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that the request is
being made to allow for the excavation of over 400 cubic yards of soil for the purpose of
constructing a park shelter building.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison commented that a lot that has been included in the City’s
excess land study is shown as part of the Browndale Park in the map provided by staff. Mr.
Fulton said the lot is not used as part of the park.
Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director, explained that park areas and open space areas are
all shown as green on City maps so sometimes there is the illusion
that open space areas are park property or part of a park. Ms. Walsh went on to say that during
the planning process for the shelter there were a number of questions from the neighborhood
about impacts to the City owned land. She said the construction at the park will not impact the
City lot.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said that to avoid confusion the park maps, including
Browndale Park, should no longer include adjacent open space lots.
Ms. Walsh said that was an excellent idea.
Chair Carper asked if the park would be closed during construction activities. He asked about
the length of construction activities.
Ms. Walsh responded that the construction area will be fenced off and the rest of the park will be
open during the duration of construction work. Demolition has already occurred, and
construction is planned throughout the summer and into early fall. She said the entire south end
of the park will be usable and not impacted by construction. The Browndale playground
program has been moved to Susan Lindgren School.
Chair Carper asked about community input on the building design and amenities.
Ms. Walsh said eight meetings have been held with the Browndale neighborhood association on
the park shelter building over the last year. The entire plan was unveiled at the association’s
annual meeting in February.
Chair Carper opened the public hearing. As no one was present who wished to speak, the Chair
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
Commissioners Bissonnette and Timian arrived at 6:15 p.m.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4b - Browndale Pk CUP
Page 6
RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 070
A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 36-79 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT THE EXCAVATION OF OVER
400 CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PARK
SHELTER BUILDING FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-1 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 4525 MORNINGSIDE ROAD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. The City of St. Louis Park has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use
Permit under Section 36-79 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of excavating
over 400 cubic yards of soil for construction of a park shelter building within a R-1 Single
Family Residential District located at 4525 Morningside Road for the legal description as
follows, to-wit:
Lots 1 through 14, Lots 26 and 27, and parts of Lots 20 through 25
and parts of Lots 15 through 18, Block 2, Tingdale’s Replat in
Browndale Park Addition, and,
Lots 1 through 5, Block 11, Browndale Park Addition, and
Lots 1 and 2, Lots 18 through 22, and the westerly 30 feet of Lots
3 and 4, Block 12, Browndale Park Addition.
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 05-14-CUP) and the effect of the proposed excavation of soil on the
health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use
on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The Council has determined that the excavation of soil will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion
nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and the proposed
excavation of soil is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 05-14-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4b - Browndale Pk CUP
Page 7
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to permit the excavation of over 400 cubic yards of soil at the
location described is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall meet the following conditions:
a. Obtain any necessary permits from other agencies.
b. Install erosion control measures on any portion of the site undergoing excavation
or used to facilitate the process of excavation.
2. The applicant shall ensure that the contract addresses dust control and repair/cleaning
of public streets.
3. Haul routes shall be as follows: Hwy 100 – Excelsior Blvd – Wooddale Ave –
Morningside Rd.
4. The hours of excavation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
on weekdays and 9:00 am and 4:00 p.m. on weekends if needed. Written notice shall
be provided to all property owners within 500 feet of Browndale Park prior to
conducting work on the weekends.
5. Upon completion of the excavation, the applicant shall install sod or seed upon any
affected portions of the site, where appropriate.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750
per violation of any condition of this approval.
Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or
structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit.
Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 16, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4c - Holiday Inn Patio
Page 1
4c Motion to approve a Resolution for a Minor Amendment to the existing Special
Permit to allow a 1,100 square foot outdoor dining area for the Holiday Inn Mpls.
West located at 9970 Wayzata Blvd. Case Nos. 05-21-SP
Site:
SITE
State Highway #394 State Highway #169Wayzata Blvd
Shelard PkwyInterchange
Tower
Background:
On May 6, 1986, the City Council approved a special permit to construct the existing 198 unit
hotel with restaurants at 9970 Wayzata Blvd. Since then, the permit had been amended twice to
construct additional parking and to construct an equipment building.
Request:
The property was recently purchased by CSM Lodging, and will be converted to a Marriott hotel.
As part of the conversion, the restaurant will be remodeled, which will include an outdoor dining
patio approximately 1,100 square feet in size. This amendment is to allow the construction of
the patio along the south side of the building which faces the freeway. The site has a surplus of
required parking which will accommodate the additional parking required by the patio.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution amending the existing special permit to
allow for the construction of an outdoor dining patio with conditions.
Attachments: Proposed Resolution
Proposed Site Plan
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4c - Holiday Inn Patio
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 072
Amends and Restates Resolution No. 96-74
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 96-
74 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OUTDOOR DINING
AREA AT 9970 WAYZATA BOULEVARD.
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, Crowne West Limited Partnership (Holiday Inn) and US West New Vector
Group, Inc. have made application to the City Council for an amendment to a continued special
permit under Section 8-6.4 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow construction of an
equipment building to an existing 198 unit hotel and Class I Restaurant located at 9970 Wayzata
Boulevard within an “O” Office District having the following legal description:
Lot 2, and that part of Lot 1 lying southerly of a line and its extensions, said line is
described as follows:
Commending at the southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence North 15 degrees 00
minutes 00 seconds West 140.00 feet, along the easterly line of said Lot 1, to the
beginning of the line to be described; thence South 80 degrees 23 minutes 33
seconds West 558.49 feet to the Westerly line of said Lot 1, and there
terminating.
All of Block 4, Shelard Park according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the
office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Abstract)
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case Nos 84-
98-SP, 86-17-SP and 96-11-CUP and the effect of the proposed construction of an equipment
building on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing
and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and
the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, a conditional use permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to
Resolution No. 86-56 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated May 6, 1986 which contained
conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now necessary,
requiring the amendment of that continued special permit; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the permit
granted by Resolution No. 96-74 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all
conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; and
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4c - Holiday Inn Patio
Page 3
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 84-94-SP, 86-17-SP, 96-11-CUP and 05-21-SP
are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for
this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 96-74 filed as document number
6615565 is hereby rescinded and replaced by this resolution which continues and amends a
continued special permit to the subject property for the purposes of permitting construction of
an outdoor dining patio to the existing hotel and restaurant within the “O” Office District at the
location described above based on the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A-Site
Plan; Exhibit B- Floor Plans, Exhibits C, D and E – Elevations, Exhibit F – Landscape
Plan, and Exhibit G – Site and Utility Plan dated March 19, 1985.
2. Use of the site shall be limited to a hotel with 198 units and 6,925 square feet of inside
restaurant and lounge space.
3. There shall be no outside storage of trash or trash containers on the site.
4. No outdoor lighting standards shall be higher than 20 feet off the ground. All such
lighting shall be directed perpendicularly to the ground, and no direct light rays shall
extend beyond the property line.
5. Signs shall be permited as allowed in the adopted Sigh Policy for Shelard Park.
6. That at the discretion of the applicant, parking may be expanded to the north to allow the
addition of from 60 to 109 spaces as shown on Exhibit H – Site Plan; Exhibit I –
Site/Utility Plan; and Exhibit J – Landscape Plan.
7. All improvements to the site shall be completed by May 15, 1987.
8. The continued special permit shall be amended pursuant to Planning Case No. 86-11-
CUP to permit construction of an equipment building subject to the following
conditions:
A. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit K –
Supplemental Site Plan; Exhibit L – Supplemental Elevations and Exhibit M –
Elevations, Roof and Floor Plans; such documents incorporated by reference
herein and modified according to the following conditions of approval.
i. The antenna shall be painted light blue to blend with the sky and reduce
their visual impact.
ii. The exterior of the equipment shall be stucco and the color of the stucco,
metal chase and air conditioners shall match the color of the principal
building.
iii. 5 evergreen trees, a minimum of 6 feet in height, shall be planted along
the east property line in locations approved by the Planning Coordinator
for screening the air conditioners from off-site views.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4c - Holiday Inn Patio
Page 4
B. All improvements shall be completed by May 20, 1997.
9. The outdoor dining patio shall be constructed in accordance with Exhibit P – Dining
Patio.
10. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee
of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval.
11. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building
or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
12. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 16, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4d - VFW
Page 1
4d Motion to approve a Resolution for a Minor Amendment to the existing Conditional
Use Permit to allow the American Legion to occupy space currently occupied by the
VFW at the property located at 5605 36th St W.
Case Nos. 05-20-CUP
Site:
Site State Highway #10036th Street West
T a r g e t
Background:
On August 5, 2002, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow more than 50%
office use for the subject property located at 5605 36th St. W. Condition 5 of that approval
states:
“Within 15 years of the date of the CUP approval, the VFW must discontinue use of the
property and the lower level of the building shall be converted to a use that is in
compliance with all aspects of the Zoning Ordinance.”
Request:
The St. Louis Park American Legion Post #282 is asking that the above condition be amended to
allow the American Legion to operate the Bar and Restaurant in place of the VFW.
If approved, the VFW presence would be reduced to an office on the lower level, and the
American Legion would occupy the rest of the space currently occupied by the VFW, including
the bar and restaurant. All conditions of the 2002 approval will continue to be in effect and
enforced. So the approved layout for the VFW will remain unchanged, except that most of the
activities will be conducted by the American Legion instead of the VFW.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4d - VFW
Page 2
Staff recommends replacing the phrase “Within 15 years of the date of the CUP approval” with a
date that is 15 years from the date of approval. This will avoid any confusion resulting from this
and future potential amendments.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the resolution amending condition #5 of the existing conditional
use permit as follows:
Within 15 years of the date of the CUP approval, By August 5, 2017, the VFW and American
Legion must discontinue use of the property and the lower level of the building shall be
converted to a use that is in compliance with all aspects of the Zoning Ordinance.
Attachments: Proposed resolution approving a minor amendment to the Conditional Use
Permit.
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4d - VFW
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 072
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW THE AMERICAN LEGION TO OPERATE IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE VFW AT 5605 36TH STREET WEST
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. ASK Properties (St. Louis Park VFW #5632) has made application to the City Council for
a Conditional Use Permit under Section 36-243(d)(2) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for
the purpose of permitting office use as 50% or more of gross floor area within the I-P Industrial
Park District located at 5605 36th Street West for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
Lots 6 to 13 inclusive, Block 46, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, according to
the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and
for said Hennepin County. Subject to a roadway easement in favor of the City of
St. Louis Park over the North 22 feet thereof.
Together with:
Lots 4 and 5, Block 46, St. Louis Park, accorded to the recorded plat thereof, Lot
4 subject to roadway easement in favor of the City of St. Louis Park over the
North 25 feet thereof. Lot 5 subject to a roadway easement in favor of the City of
St. Louis Park over the North 22 feet thereof.
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 02-33-CUP) and the effect of the proposed office use on the health,
safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on
the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The Council has determined that the office use will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor
will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and the proposed office use is in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive
Plan.
4. The contents of Planning Case File No. 02-33-CUP are hereby entered into and made part
of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
5. On April 29, 2005, the American Legion filed for an amendment to the Conditional Use
Permit to allow the American Legion to operate in conjunction with the VFW under the same
terms and conditions as was previously approved for the VFW under Resolution # 02-078.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4d - VFW
Page 4
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to permit office use as 50% or more of the gross floor area at the
location described is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following
conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used, and maintained in accordance with the official exhibits,
which shall be revised to meet the following conditions:
a. Eliminate parking on the east side of the building unless proof of ownership is
submitted or formal approval to use the spaces for parking is obtained.
b. Landscape plans as approved by the Zoning Administrator.
c. Re-stripe the lot to add 10 stalls in the west lot.
d. Include elevation plans which comply with section 36-366(b)(6)b.
2. Prior to issuance of required building, plumbing, electrical and any other required
permits, which may impose additional conditions, the landscape plan must be approved
by the Zoning Administrator and assent form and official exhibits must be signed by the
applicant and owner.
3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any office use, the VFW must
discontinue use of the upper floor of the building and the following improvements must
be complete:
a. The building must meet exterior surface materials as specified in section 36-
366(b)(6)b.
b. The billboard must be removed.
c. The landscape plan and any other required site improvements must be
implemented, or a letter of credit submitted to cover 125% of the cost of the
remaining improvements to be completed, within one year.
d. Closure of the northwest access off of West 36th Street, closest to Xenwood
Avenue.
e. The parking lot must be re-striped in accordance with the approved plan.
f. Interior improvements in accordance with permit approval.
4. Prior to installation of any new signs the applicant shall obtain sign permits.
5. Within 15 years of the date of the CUP approval, By August 5, 2017, the VFW and
American Legion must discontinue use of the property and the lower level of the building
shall be converted to a use that is in compliance with all aspects of the Zoning Ordinance.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 16, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4e - Term Special Permit at 6111 The Find
Page 1
4e Motion to terminate a special permit at 6111 Excelsior Boulevard.
Case Nos. 05-21-SP
Site:
State Highway #100E x c e ls io r B o u le v a rd
Alabama Avenue
Background:
On November 29, 1976, the City Council approved a special permit to allow an art gallery and
studio to occupy the building at 6111 Excelsior Blvd which is zoned C-2 General Commercial.
Since then, the art gallery was replaced by a retail use called “The Find”. Even though The Find
complied with the regulations of the C-2 District, it was technically illegal because the existing
special permit was never amended to replace the art gallery and studio with the new use. This
was discovered shortly after the building was destroyed by a fire.
The owners of The Find chose to rebuild the building, but not reoccupy it, so it has been sold to a
new retail use. The new use conforms to the C-2 District requirements; however, every time a
new retail use comes into the building, the special permit would have to be amended to allow the
new use.
Request:
The current owners of the property effected b y the special permit are requesting the special
permit be terminated under the provisions of Section 36-36(c)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance which
is as follows:
SITE
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4e - Term Special Permit at 6111 The Find
Page 2
Section 36-36(c)(1):
Special permit uses now permitted. Special permits issued for land uses which, under this chapter,
are now permitted uses in the zoning district in which the property is located are hereby continued
in full force and effect. The owner of property subject to a continued special permit may request
termination of the special permit by providing the city with a letter requesting termination. Upon
receipt of a letter requesting termination, the city shall issue a written termination to the applicant
which shall be recorded on the title to the property by the city. The owner of the property shall
sign an assent form provided by the city wherein the owner agrees to indemnify and hold
harmless the city for any actions or consequences arising from termination of the special permit.
Upon termination of the special permit, the land use shall be governed by the regulations of this
ordinance, and other applicable ordinances. Once a special permit is declared terminated, it may
not be reinstated.
As stated in the code provision above, once the special permit is terminated, the property will be
governed by all zoning district regulations in the same manner as the other properties zoned C-2.
This will allow tenants to change with an administrative review, rather than having to appear
before the Council for an amendment to the special permit. Tenants subject to administrative
review include all those listed in the C-2 district, including art galleries, which is currently
allowed under the special permit.
In the past, their have been some code violations, including outside storage, parking lot
maintenance/repair and signage. All violations and requirements of the existing special permit
have been resolved as a result of the sale of the property, and the parking lot is in the process of
being brought up to code with paving and concrete curb.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution terminating the existing special permit.
Attachments: Proposed resolution.
Letter from applicant.
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4e - Term Special Permit at 6111 The Find
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 05-073
A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 5647 ADOPTED ON NOVEMBER
29, 1976 AND TERMINATING THE SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED TO ALLOW AN
ART GALLERY AND STUDIO
AT 6111 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, Kevin Blazer and Bonnie Lindberg, owners of the property effected by the
special permit, have requested that the City Council terminate the special permit to allow an art
gallery and studio at 6111 Excelsior Boulevard within the C-2 General Commercial Zoning
District and having the following legal description:
All that part of Lot 1, Block 9, Brookside, lying north of the south 80 feet thereof, and the
north 40 feet of the south 80 feet of Lot 1, Block 9, Brookside.
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to the request and
the effect of the termination of the special permit on the health, safety, and welfare of the
occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on
values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan;
and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a special permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to
Resolution No. 5647 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated November 29, 1976 which
contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed zoning regulations and circumstances, termination of the
special permit to allow an art gallery and studio is now requested; and
WHEREAS, once the special permit is terminated, the above described property will
continue to be governed by the regulations of the C-2 District; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to terminate the special permit granted by
Resolution No. 5647.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 5647 (document not filed)
is hereby rescinded and replaced by this resolution which terminates the special permit.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4e - Term Special Permit at 6111 The Find
Page 4
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council ________________
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Res-Ord/2005: The Find – res terminating sp
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 1
4f. Motion to follow Excess Land Task Force Summary and Preliminary
Recommendation to complete technical analysis and research, meet with
neighborhoods as appropriate and take actions needed to further evaluate the
potential to use the excess land parcels for housing..
BACKGROUND:
At the September 13, 2004 Study Session, Council discussed strategies for increasing the number
of large homes for families in the city. Along with a variety of possible Move Up Home
Improvement Programs, Council discussed the possible use of “excess” public lands to provide
sites for new large (3+ bedrooms, 2+ bathrooms, 2+ stall garage) single family homes.
Developing a public process for identifying parcels that could be sold for the development of
larger single-family homes was discussed.
At the November 22, 2004 Study Session, Council directed staff to proceed with the Excess
Land Task Force process to address future use of excess public land. At the January 3, 2005
Council Meeting, Council approved the public process and ratified the Task Force membership
which was expanded at the January 11, 2005 City Council meeting. (Membership attachment.)
EXCESS LAND TASK FORCE PROCESS
The Task Force met five times between January and April 21, 2005, conducting the public
process as noted below:
1. On January 11, 2005 the Task Force established criteria for evaluating parcels for use as
single family home sites. (See Excess Land Task Force Criteria attachment.)
2. On January 25, 2005 the Task Force toured the properties with staff providing technical
data related to the respective parcels.
3. On March 8, 2005 the Task Force met to discuss the parcels and evaluate their usefulness
for single family home sites according the established criteria.
Preliminary recommendations were posted on the website and reported in the Park
Perspective and Sun Sailor.
4. On April 12, 2005 the Task Force and staff held an open house/public meeting to solicit
input from residents regarding the use of excess public land, design guidelines and the
potential sale process. Public comments were also received (and continue to be
received) via email, telephone calls and letters. (See Excess Land Task Force Public
Comments attachment.)
5. On April 21, 2005 the Task Force met to review and discuss public input from the
meeting and other venues and to review their preliminary recommendations regarding the
use of parcels for single family homes. (See Excess Land Task Force Summary
attachment.)
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 2
TASK FORCE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A full text of the summary and recommendations has been attached for Council review. The
Task Force noted that many important issues were raised through the public input process
including comments from the Open House, e-mails, phone calls and letters about soils
conditions, the history of the acquisition of the parcels, site buildability, storm water ponding,
flood plains, wetlands, accessibility to roads, availability of utilities and other issues. The Task
Force noted that many of these issues required technical analysis to be effectively evaluated and
all required further research. Therefore the Task Force recommends that further research of the
excess land sites be completed before the decision to sell properties is made. Before the Council
determines if parcels would be sold the task force recommends the following activities be
conducted.
1. Additional research be conducted to ensure sites are suitable for building single family
homes. This would include in-depth data gathering including:
a. conducting topographical surveys
b. clearing and securing titles (which includes reviewing historical acquisition of
parcels as appropriate)
c. conducting wetland delineation studies for specific parcels
d. conducting hydraulic analysis to determine drainage issues for specific parcels
e. conducting soil conditions (soil boring) analysis for specific parcels
2. Staff should meet with any neighbors of vacant parcels that would like to discuss issues
reqarding sites in their neighborhood.
3. Task Force ideas be considered as possible use of revenues generated from sales.
4. Design and site guidelines should be fully developed with input based on neighbors
comments, including establishing a design review committee composed of professionals
and neighborhood association representatives.
5. The potential sale process should be further developed and communicated to all residents.
Next Steps
Staff anticipates that completing the activities recommended by the Task Force could be
accomplished by August, 2005. The estimated cost of contracting for topographic surveys, soil
condition studies, wetland delineation studies, hydraulic analysis and title work is estimated to be
between $51,500 and $78,500 for all parcels. This cost could be recouped by revenues from the
sale of parcels.
Following the data gathering and analysis Council would be advised of the site findings to
provide direction regarding sale of the parcels. Staff will keep council apprised of neighborhood
meetings, development of design and site guidelines and development of the sale process during
the research phase of the process.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 3
Attachments:
Excess Land Task Force Membership
Excess Land Task Force Criteria
Excess Land Task Force Public Comments
Excess Land Task Force Summary and Recommendations (begins on page 27)
Prepared By: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 4
City of St. Louis Park
Excess Land Task Force Membership
Approved by City Council on January 3 and amended January 10, 2005
1. Parks & Recreation Commission - Tom Worthington
2. Housing Authority Board - Steve Fillbrandt
3. Planning Commission - Carl Robertson, Robert Kramer & Claudia Johnston-Madison
4. School Board - Jerry Timian
5. Cedarhurst Neighborhood Associations, Ward 1 - Louis Schoen
6. Browndale Neighborhood, Ward 2 – Joe Favour
7. Minnehaha Neighborhood, Ward 3 - John Share
8. Westwood Hills Neighborhood, Ward 4 - Dawn Plender
9. Coldwell Banker realtor and resident - Paula Spiteri
City Staff
Community Development Department
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Parks and Recreation Department
Cindy Walsh, Director
Rick Bean
Jim Vaughan
Public Works Department
Scott Merkley
Mark Hanson
Perry White
Finance Department
Brian Swanson
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 5
City of St. Louis Park
Excess Land Task Force - Criteria for Evaluating Vacant Parcels
January 11, 2005
Is this parcel a good location for single family home(s)?
1. What is current use?
2. Parcel size?
3. Number of potential lots/homes?
4. Is single family home compatible with surrounding uses, if not, what use is?
5. Are there other uses for the parcel such as; commercial use, wetland bank, or could the parcel
be combined with adjacent lot?
Is building a home on this parcel consistent with City Vision and goals?
6. Will new home(s) on lot help meet housing goals?
7. Is parcel size consistent with neighborhood development patterns? Will use fit Comp Plan
policies and direction?
8. Does it meet zoning designation?
9. Consider 1995 Parks & Recreation Task Force Recommendation where applicable.
Can home(s) be built on the parcel?
10. Is parcel partially located in a flood plain (or storm water area) that may increase
construction costs, etc.?
11. Can soil conditions and or contamination be resolved during construction?
12. Are utilities currently available? If not, can utilities be extended to lot?
13. Is there vehicular access to site? If not, could it be provided or would the potential cost
prohibit development?
14. What is environmental impact of new construction?
City Financial Considerations – Economic Viability
15. What cost to city to purchase site (where necessary)?
16. Are there additional city costs?
17. What is potential revenue generated by sale?
18. What is estimated tax generated in future if developed?
19. What is marketability of new home – will it sell?
Other considerations?
20. Is vacant parcel benefit to neighborhood?
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 6
City of St. Louis Park
Excess Land Task Force Open House/Public Meeting Comments
April 12, 2005
6:00 – 8:30 pm
Task Force Members in attendance were Louis Schoen, Steve Fillbrandt, Carl Robertson, Dawn
Plender, Joe Favour, Tom Worthington, Claudia Johnston-Madison. Staff in attendance were
Kevin Locke, Michele Schnitker, Scott Merkley, Rick Beane, Brian Swanson, Tara Olson and
Kathy Larsen
Approximately 200 people attended the public meeting on Tuesday, April 12, 2005.
• 132 residents signed in representing 129 separate addresses.
• 54 comment cards were submitted (19 interested in purchasing parcels)
• Additional input was provided on large sheets
Another 133 individuals have contacted the city via phone (68) and email (65) email messages
and written letter (3). Of these comments:
• 76 (or 58%) indicated an interest in purchasing parcels
• 20 (or 15%) opposed sale of parcels and comments are included below.
• 37 (or 27%) were miscellaneous comments, request for info on process, and input regarding
sale process.
GENERAL COMMENTS. Each number represents an individual’s comment.
1. Current SLP resident who will be displaced by the Hwy 100 project – our 4 BR house will be
torn down. Actively looking for a site to build a new house. Please consider selling (on a
fair basis) any possible lots to families to build homes.
2. I have lived in SLP for 8 years…it has been my first and holy home so far. We love it here
in SLP and I commend the city for the insight of looking a developing “move up” homes.
My single story, 2 BR, 1 ½ bath, 1 car garage has served me well…but we just started a
family and space is getting tight already. Over the past few years I have seen my friends and
neighbors move out to the suburbs…I DO NOT want to. Thank you for considering the
future growth of SLP. Please open up these parcels of land for development of “move up”
homes.
3. If you want to provide “move up” housing shouldn’t the city consider larger lots? If you
parcel the lots to match existing/neighboring lots, it seems that you are just perpetuating the
problem SLP faces of having small homes on tiny lots. I’d like to hear what the long term
plan is for making the city a more viable place for larger homes.
4. This is just a quick note to forward on my opinion about the excess land in St. Louis Park. I
read in the March 31 issue of the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor a notice about the possibility of
turning some of that land into a dog park. I want to let you know that there are many, many
dog owners in St. Louis Park who would love a dog park -- and would be willing to pay a
small yearly fee to help maintain it if a decent place were made available. I was so excited
when I heard about the "temporary" dog park going in last summer -- I ran over to check it
out, checkbook in hand to be ready to run over to City Hall to pay my fee. But after I saw
it... well, I wouldn't want to use an area like that. I know your intentions were good, but
hopefully you aren't basing the reaction to that spot on your future consideration of a dog
park. No dog owner I have spoken with would use that temporary location. I sincerely hope
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 7
you consider my opinion representative of many dog owners and tax payers in our city. We
hope we can have a dog park in St. Louis Park! It's not only a great way to exercise our dogs
-- in a safe and lawful environment -- but a wonderful way for people in the city to get to
know each other! Thank you for listening.
5. Why does city dump snow on Texas Ave. at Mtka. Blvd. vacant lot & not clean up. Actually
owned by Fine
6. I read the Sun Sailor article on potential usage of unused parcels of land in St. Louis Park.
While an off leash dog park is a "nice gesture," as I see it, the City and tax payers cannot
afford "nice gestures." My taxes are going up over $1000 for the next year and I'm getting
less services than ever. I'm all for using these parcels of land for housing. I, for one, do not
want to subsidize dogs and their owners.
7. The location of St. Louis Park makes it a demand area for home owner's, especially when
there is access to move up housing. The parcels being considered for an off leash dog park
would generate between 11 to 15 new residences. If each of these 11-15 parcels were taxed
at $2000, that would be $22,000 to $30,000 in new tax revenue. Thirty thousand dollars
would pay for an entry level teacher or keep some school programs from being cut or
discontinued.
8. If an off leash dog park wins out, I sincerely believe, users need to pay fees that would mirror
the lost tax revenue. If not enough fees are generated to reflect the property tax loses, then
the land needs to zoned residential. We need to use our resources to aid people.
9. Should build affordable housing options.
10. Is it possible to sell parcels for affordable housing – supports affordable housing
11. Infill lots are too tiny for developers to bother with – don’t you have any larger parcels?
SALE PROCESS COMMENTS:
1. As a SLP resident I strongly believe SLP City residents should have priority in purchasing
land! Please consider this.
2. Current SLP Resident. Looking to build to stay in SLP. Please make sure all sites sell to
individual people – No contractors.
3. Current SLP resident. Active community resident looking to stay in SLP. No
Developers/builders.
4. Think buying process should include a preference for current SLP residents to purchase land
first.
5. Several of the sites currently have buckthorn (the invasive bush). Removal of all buckthorn
on each site should be sale criteria.
6. As a SLP resident for almost 8 years, we hope you consider bids from SLP resident looking
to “move up” before those offers by builders/contractors, etc. who have little or not interest
in our community.
7. The meeting last night was very beneficial. I like the general guidelines for new home
construction (step-up housing, not starter houses). I do like the idea of current neighborhood
residence possibly being given a chance to buy the land. I also like the idea of submitting a
design (design competition).
8. Suggest sealed bids, agrees with design guidelines for homes, preference for residents.
9. Will these parcels be available to individual parties interested in building, or only to
Developers? When would they be available?, Would there be a bidding process?
10. If parcels are to be sold, consider a preference for residents already living in SLP. Bidding
should be fair for individuals and not favor builders- though this was not further defined.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 8
11. It would be nice to see residents of St Louis Park have first option on buying these lots for
sale. I am concerned that developers will be able to pay more for the land and offset the
increased cost in the price of the new home.
12. Please consider selling the excess land to current residents who want to stay in the city, but
are hoping to build a new home (rather than selling it to a developer).
13. I think the guidelines are great for building of the new homes.
14. Would prefer to see the land offerred to SLP residents first. If a decision is made to sell the
lots, would be good to allow at least 6 months for people to put together some plans and
identify a builder to work with.
COMMENTS RELATED TO SPECIFIC PARCELS
Parking Lots- Parcel 1, 14 & 15
Property #1 – 2914 Inglewood Avenue South (Parking Lot)
1. Upgrade lot at time of sale?
2. Keep the lots available for surrounding commercial businesses, they could jointly rent it.
3. Poor upkeep on the lot – new owner should do better than old.
Property #14 – 6534 Walker Street (Parking Lot)
1. Possible interest in purchasing lot for commercial use.
Property #15 – 3301 Gorham Avenue South (Parking Lot)
1. I thought this public parking lot was being used as excess parking for Park Frank baseball
field, for over flow parking for Park Tavern, and for the new condo development in the old
concrete plant lot.
Property #2 – 2715 Monterey Avenue South
1. Good site for development, please move forward with this.
2. Concerned about sites (i.e. Natchez) with borderline wetland.
3. Glad the city is doing this; family growth is stressing my one-car garage home.
4. It would be nice to see a “cap” on the number of parcels one person/company can purchase.
Either by dollar amount/square feet/#of parcels.
5. City residents should have priority in purchasing/building.
6. Thank you for regarding more housing options, long overdue!
7. Let quality/design of project factor into buying process.
8. Great to have some new home options.
Property #3 – 2600 Natchez Avenue South
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 9
1. Wildlife and wetland disturbance is a major concern of the neighborhood. You will be
hearing more from us!
2. Thank you for regarding more housing options, long overdue!
3. Let quality/design of project factor into buying process.
4. Great to have some new home options.
5. Good site for development, please move forward with this.
6. Concerned about sites (i.e. Natchez) with borderline wetland.
7. It would be nice to see a “cap” on the number of parcels one person/company can purchase.
Either by dollar amount/square feet/#of parcels.
8. City residents should have priority in purchasing/building.
Property #4 – Cedar Lake Road/Trunk Highway 100
1. Not high density, keep north end undeveloped, move access road?
2. Leave alley the same, don’t like the property used by Luther V.W parking, fence maintained,
lot size PUD, vacant non-buildable areas to property owners to maintain this area, MN Dot
promised/agreed usages, is this a single family legal lot size? Tree preservation.
3. This site would be great for single family detached town homes and the landscaping could be
geared to benefit both existing homes and future development.
4. Community garden
Property #5 – 2015 Louisiana Avenue South
Property #6 – 2005 Louisiana Avenue South
1. 2013 - 2015 Louisiana Ave. is a major drainage area. Most springs there is standing water in
this lot. It is the natural low point of the block.
2. My driveway and back yard abut the lots at 2015 Louisiana Ave. In the spring and when it
rains, this lot floods and has standing water. I am afraid if a builder builds a house and raises
the level of the lot that my drive will flood. I may be interested in buying the lot, but not
developing it.
Property #7 - 13th Lane West
1. Proposal to keep a green space. We value green, undeveloped spaces in our city other than
parks. A community garden would be sane and community building venture for this space.
2. Problem/concern for potential developers – the wells were never capped! Ground
water/pesticides can get in the water system due to this non-capping of the wells. We can
save money by not spraying pesticides on the city parks. There are others ways to maintain
the park through aeration/seeding.
3. Use for a community garden
4. When MNDOT removed houses they did not cap the wells.
Property #8 –Texas Avenue South/394 Frontage Road
1. While I don’t object to the development of the property, the space is connected as a
“greenway” with Westwood Nature Center. I hope that any building design take that into
consideration. We have a lot of “wildlife traffic” in our neighborhood & would hate to see
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 10
that disrupted by poor design. My other concern is traffic which can also be affected by this,
especially in the winter months & during the Jr. High start/ending times. Please keep our
neighborhood informed during the process.
Property #9 – 1608 Utah Avenue South
1. This is my play area please don’t build a house- 9 year old
2. If you decide to build a house on this lot it will break my heart (the only place to play in the
whole neighborhood)- 12 year old
3. This is a walking neighborhood. An attractive park like setting would be an asset and lovely
spot to stop and chat/sit while in a serene setting.
4. All new cities are developed allowing for areas of undeveloped land to benefit wildlife and
neighborhood communities – why does SLP want to move backward?
5. There is no neighborhood recreational lot in this neighborhood and the neighborhood
association (with the support of neighbors) would like this lot to remain available for
neighborhood use by adding benches and swings/garden area to enhance area.
6. This is a beautiful lot in a great neighborhood and a good opportunity for a beautiful new
home.
7. What about the wildlife that already use this area as a home?
8. Westwood Hills Neighborhood Association officially opposes development of a single
family home on this lot!
9. Survey submitted by WHNA with a 48% response of 100% opposition to a single family
development.
10. Development will be detrimental to the health of the pond.
11. Lot is too narrow!
12. City has not been doing any upkeep of this lot. A neighbor has mowed the grass.
13. Why is there such a desire to fill up empty spaces? Are tax dollars more important than
providing natural open spaces that neighbors can gather & enjoy? SLP is already to densely
populated.
14. How does the city justify using a property that is too small to build on if they have to
Compromise on the building codes (e.g. set back from street, smaller home that the
neighborhood should have).
15. One short bus tour to touch the dirt hardly seems adequate to make an educated assessment
of this parcel. Unless you are there in the early hours- 5:30 am or late evening hours when
the 1000’s of ducks, geese land in the pond of on the lot- you’ve missed the real value of the
habitat. The habitat that is in place, other communities would die for. Why destroy it now.
Adjoin the entire parcel to the pond as a common parcel. Allow the pond assn. along with
WW Hills neighborhood take care of it.
16. Don’t build a house in the lot. Don’t build a house in the lot this is my play area. You will
break my heart if you build a house on my lot.
17. Please notify if land at 1608 Utah Ave. is to be sold ASAP
18. If you build a house on the lot, you wont have any access to the pond some of the pond will
be filled in this is also our play area and we have lived there all our lives and grew up the
there. If you decide to build a house it will break my heart.
19. Most of the homes across the street lack backyards (too steep) the lot is currently used by
kids for golf practice, kick ball, etc. I don’t think we should have to send our kids to the Jr.
High to play kickball.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 11
20. The Westwood Hills Neighborhood conducted a survey of residents regarding the possible
sale of the 1605 Utah property. 20 Residents responded that they support the WHNA’s
proposal of a natural rain garden, benches & gazebo for neighborhood use, or to leave the lot
as it is. Not survey respondents support the recommendation of construing and selling a
single family home. Comments noted on the survey results are:
• Leave it as it is
• WHNA proposal of a natural rain garden.
• Please keep this beautiful (last few pieces of land without a house or building on it) open
& accessible to the neighborhood for use and enjoy. We were specifically told by the city
of SLP (1986) when we bought our house (across the street) 1627 Utah that this piece of
property would never be built on for housing. The land was too narrow. This was one of
the reasons we bought our home: for the natural beauty and the view & to let our child
have a place to play, watch the ducks and other animals who also share the land. (We are
destroying their habitat when we build another house on an open space). So many of the
children growing up on this street learned how to ice skate on this pond. In winter they
walk through this stretch of land. in summer they play baseball, kickball, golf, putting,
catch, Frisbee or simply fly a kite. We’ve been very fortunate to enjoy this property.
We’ve also have been very grateful to the few neighbors who have continually mowed
the grass each summer- no charge- because the city did not maintain this property. So you
can see the determined neighbors want their children to be able to play here-so please
don’t take this away. Please consider how this neighborhood chooses to enjoy this
treasure.
• WHNA Proposal of natural rain garden.
• WHNA proposal of natural rain garden.
• WHNA proposal of natural rain garden/ community vegetable garden.
• WHNA proposal of natural rain garden.
• WHNA proposal of natural rain garden/ play ground for kids & parents to get together.
• WHNA proposal of natural rain garden/ or leave it as it is.
• WHNA proposal of natural rain garden.
• WHNA Proposal of natural rain garden.
• WHNA proposal of natural rain garden.
• WHNA proposal of natural rain garden.
• WHNA proposal of natural rain garden.
• WHNA proposal of natural rain garden.
• Place to sit and relax as people walk around pond with benches.
Property #10 – 9019 Cedar Lake Road
1. Retain as open space.
Property #11 – 9258 Club Road
1. Is MNDot planning a northbound access off of Cedar Lake Road?
2. Resident will be sending a letter expressing opposition to developing this lot. Housing is a
concern, increased traffic and wetland issues. Should have a meeting where this property is
the only discussion. Building houses is a separate issue from land use. Probably should have
separate meetings
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 12
3. Dog Park would be possible if traffic is controlled.
4. FEMA declared it a flood zone-need extra insurance if mortgage.
5. Should not be sold- due to very poor access and large wetland area.
Property #12 – 2601 Pennsylvania Avenue South
1. I have major concerns of access of emergency vehicles to the property and traffic flow turn
around, especially if 4-5 houses are built on the property and houses are designed to be up
scale houses with garages. Years when there is a lot of snow and or rain fall this parcel of
land fills up with weather drainage of water is a big concern.
2. Red fox & falcona live on this parcel of land. Nature needs to be preserved their existence.
3. The neighborhood residents have knowledge of the traffic flow and baseball park activity
works. I have been to meetings regarding the dog park but did not feel our concerns were
heard. Every concern that was brought up was shot down with a comment such as “dog
owners are polite” that answer shows lack of understanding the concern & lack of showing
that the concern was heard. The second meeting should have been a follow up of the first
meeting with acknowledgement of the concerns. The person conducting did not remember
concerns brought up at the first meeting and asked for the residents to state their concerns
again. This meeting showed that the task force did not care about the resident concerns. Our
concerns are parking, traffic flow, proximity to houses, sharing space w/ baseball field,
losing nature which is housing for a red fox & a falcon. I will write up the concerns and
email to the task force.
Property #16 – 7701 Edgebrook Drive
1. Lot is deep (about 25 feet) and filled with concrete, black top and a few televisions. People
that use the park use this lot for parking so not to block alley. Only 85 feet left to building
on, how do you figure 2 lots?
2. People should know that train switching goes on at night, loud banging noises.
Property #17 – 5609 Wood Lane
1. I oppose the sale of the parcel of land on Wood Lane. It is open space on the Minnehaha
Creek
2. I live across the creek where this house would be built- trees would have to be cut down. We
bought our house for the privacy in the summer months there are no houses to be seen from,
my backyard. This house being build would be an invasion of privacy not just for me but for
many.
3. Please contact me regarding the property as process goes forward.
4. I oppose the sale of the lot on our street. It was designated as park land. Why and when was
the designation changed? It is one of the last open spaces owned by the city on Minnehaha in
our area. It needs to be preserved. What are the environmental impacts of extending the street
and building so close to the creek? Don’t cut down old trees for more pavement. Our
neighborhood would like a meeting with city official to discuss these issues.
5. Petition signed by 47 individuals stating “we are opposed to the sale of the Wood Lane
property by the city of St. Louis Park and would prefer to see it remain as open space or park
land in perpetuity.”
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 13
Property #18 – 4525 Morningside Road
1. Already considered (and used as) part of Browndale Park, which is unique for its beauty and
recreational versatility (sledding, skating, hockey and baseball)
2. This lot contains several very old, tall trees, which might not survive house construction.
3. The corner of Browndale/Morningside is a meeting ground for the neighborhood.
4. Undoubtfully this lot, because of its spectacular location, will fetch a high price, but the
residents would like it to be saved for all to share.
5. So far, over 150 people have signed a petition to spare this parkland.
6. Task Force did a great job. This lot is great for one house and would not negatively impact
the park or neighborhood.
7. This property is only 1 of 2 pieces out of the 20 lots that currently adjoins present parkland.
While it would be a great home site, the public use should come first.
8. This lot is lovely. The new sidewalk on S. Side of Morningside Rd provides nice walking
access to the park and should remain if developed. SLP resident should be given priority for
building on this lot. Lot should not be sold to a developer/contractor. This is a nice
opportunity for a larger home but should not dwarf the feel of the park & existing homes
Property #19 – 4200 Natchez Avenue South
1. The point is in the middle of the lot so whoever builds homes on the site should be aware of
this and plan accordingly.
2. Please make sure all trees on e side of lots will be protected, they are a feature of the
neighborhood. The lots are so small seems it should be sold as 1 lot not 2.
3. All the houses on the odd side of Ottawa are built on foundations supported by pilings, as it
is all peat 6’ below grade. This parcel is the same ground structure. This land was my
playground as a kid in the late 50’s, early 60’s. Do it well.
4. An important consideration today is to be interactive with neighbors with architectural issues
every one benefits from aesthetics well placed, there has been a lot of bad precedent to learn
from, with neighborhoods existing housing quality. Some what in scale with and not just the
most square footage the lot will accommodate.
5. Might be better suited for 1 house. Grove of trees on E & S side is a neighbor block feature
& should be kept. Creek drainage on E side (big elevation difference) alley on W side not
shown on picture. This lot is very low, will need lots of fill. No monster houses. This is not a
country club.
6. Please address drainage issue on this lot. A non binding vote by the Minikada Vista
neighbors of this lot should be made to see what the neighbors would like
Property #20 – 3515 Belt Line Boulevard
No comments!
Following are full text message that have been received and not incorporated in previous
comments.
Parcel # 4 - Highway 100- Cedar Lake Road
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 14
Greetings and thank you for your efforts with the public meeting tonight. It
is commendable how you and your staff are communicating these important
decisions to the entire city, and I personally thank you for your time in
allowing my neighbors and I the opportunity to participate in the discussions
and ramifications of the possible sale of vacant land.
I am writing on behalf of several neighbors in the Cedarhurst neighborhood
whose property is directly adjacent to the vacant parcel under consideration.
We are currently and collectively objecting to development of this parcel for
numerous reasons as listed below:
1- The parcel was previously with single family housing, which was
consequently demolished in partnership with MnDot to provide space in the
future for potential highway considerations. It would be a travesty to allow
a family to develop a home at this site. and then to have MnDot need the site
20 years from now. We should consider planning ahead for all of our future,
and make appropriate decisions based on the fact that at some point, this
land will be utilized and necessary as our city grows and space becomes
significantly more expensive.
2- The parcel is currently acting as a buffer to the highway and roads among
other positive attributes to the Cedarhurst neighborhood. Development on
this site would potentially drive down housing values in an already
transitionary neighborhood. The City would do far better to increase tax
revenues in the future by allowing existing homeowners to creatively and
effectively increase the size and scope of use for their respective homes by
allowing variances in the spirit of building a community and tying Cedarhurst
more closely to the upper-end neighborhoods of South Tyrol Hills and Lake
Forest.
3- The parcel allows for an unoffical "park" as neighbors utilize the parcel
for walking and exercising dogs, playing with children, and enjoying the
magnificent, large oak trees. This vacant land is the reason many of us
along Princeton Avenue feel we have value to our homes above a similar home
in a fully developed neighborhood. We also pay increased taxes over similar
homes in fully developed neighborhoods as the vacant parcel provides for this
excellent atmosphere even though we have close proximity to the highway. My
property taxes increased 21% this year, and I truly believe the vacant parcel
contributes to the value of my home and those near and adjacent to the
parcel.
4- If the parcel were to be purchased from MnDot, we are concerned that a
developer would not chose to develop single family detached housing as the
property is too close to the highway. Consequently we are concerned that the
City, in it's haste to generate revenue and wash its hands of the land would
consequently sell the parcel to a developer of high density housing, thus
severely reducing the value of all homes adjacent to the parcel.
5- This parcel allows neighbors to feel a sense of "space" in our
neighborhood as we typically do not have large lots. This feeling of space
is significant to the ovelall quality of the neighborhood, and to the long-
term value of the properties within the neighborhood.
6- Currently, the cul-de-sac of Quentin Ave. serves as overflow parking for
the Westside VW site. If development were to occur, parking restrictions
would become mandatory for the entire neighborhood, and we would all see
increased amounts of traffic and parked vehicles in the fronts of our homes.
This would be a detriment to the entire value of the homes within the
neighborhood.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 15
7- The large oak trees are irreplacable in our lifetime, and serious
consideration should be given to the benefits they provide to the entire
neighborhood by reducing noise from the highway, as well as adding the
natural beauty they possess.
In the event that MnDot does desire to sell the land to SLP, whereas SLP
would then sell for development, we all would request the sale be only for
detached, single level senior or residential housing as the property is
elevated 8-10 feet above many of us along Princeton Ave. Dwellings any
higher (taller) would damage the value of the existing housing by dwarfing
existing structures and making them visually much less appealing.
Lastly, please make available pictures from all aspects and sightlines of the
property in question for the Council's consideration. The picture at the
meeting was rather attractive, however, one should see what a potential
homeowner would look at if the property were to be developed. I do not see
the potential for higher-end housing along this protion of a very busy
highway and frontage road, and I think pictures from all angles would tell a
more realistic story.
In the event anyone from the City of Saint Louis Park would need further
information from any of the Cedarhurst Neighborhood, I would be happy to
coordinate any communication the City would find helpful in this process.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Parcels #9, 10 & 11 - 1608 Utah, 9258 Club Road, 9019 Cedar Lake Road
Attention: Task force, et al (excessland@stlouispark.org):
I was out of town and unable to attend the public meeting on 4/12/05. I have familiarized myself with
each of the task force’s proposed housing development parcels by: 1) reviewing information found on the
City’s website*; 2) personally reviewing several of the sites; and 3) discussing the meeting with a
neighbor who did attend.
In my opinion it’s a stretch to call these green spaces “excess” or suitable for “larger move-up housing”.
What I find, after reviewing the sites in question, is that most are highly suitable for leaving well enough
alone.
#11 9258 Club Road
The wooded areas in the 9258 Club Road proposal are a wonderful habitat for waterfowl, other birds and
wildlife, compliment Cedar Manor Lake, a natural extension to the adjacent park and playfield as well as a
natural buffer to Highway 169 for many in the Cedar Manor neighborhood.
#10 9019 Cedar Lake Road
This is a welcome “open space” for a view of Hannon Lake from Cedar Lake Road for commuters and
pedestrian traffic.
#9 1608 Utah
Once again, seems a bit small for anything in the “larger move-up” category… It does, however, seem like
a wonderful green space adjacent to a small pond.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 16
Some of the task force’s other proposals appear to make some sense; however because I do not live or
frequent the other areas in question, I do not know the local flow of the land. In general I am strongly in
favor of leaving open spaces open wherever they are found in this already overbuilt suburb. St. Louis
Park does its current resident’s disservice by further overdevelopment.
Sincerely,
Parcel # 9 1608 Utah Ave
4/11/05 To the City of St. Louis Park,
I am a resident of the Westwood Hills Neighborhood in St. Louis Park. I
live at xxxx Utah Ave. directly across from a piece of land 1608 Utah Ave.
which is under consideration for a property sale through the city. This
property borders a lovely pond which is home to different species of
wildlife.
My husband, son and I have lived in this home since 1986. Before
purchasing our house we contacted the City and asked if this vacant strip of
land would ever be developed in any way in the future.We were very interested
in buying this house because of the beautiful view, the wildlife and a sense
of openness that the empty space provided. Also the house we were about to
purchase had a very small backyard on a steep hill and the front yard was
also fairly small. The open lot would provide a place for our son to play, as
it had provided for the families in the neighborhood for many years. There
was not a park near by so this empty property was a huge selling point for
us.
We were told by the City that the property would not be developed
because this strip of land was ³too narrow and small for a house to be built
on and that there were city codes etc. to be followed and it did not meet
this criteria.² The realtor also confirmed this and we then proceeded to buy
our dream home.
Our next door neighbor at one point was Chris Gears, who was the Park and
Rec. manager for St. Louis Park. He too had said that this would be highly
unlikely that the land would ever be developed. Our current neighbors were
also given this information when they purchased his house.
Now nearly 20 years later we are suddenly quite surprised to be informed
that this property is being considered for a sale either for a home or a home
and a recreation space.We were also told originally that the narrow dimension
of the land would be a safety issue if developed. How can either prospects be
considered when this property is too small,too narrow and too close to the
pond! When did this shift in description so radically change?
We understand that the City is trying to keep maintenance costs down,
raise revenue and create upstart homes for people trying to expand and stay
in the Park but this property is a very unusual choice. First of all, for as
long as we have lived here I think that the City has mowed the lawn maybe a
dozen times. Our neighbor across the street has graciously mowed the lawn
summer after summer free of charge,nobody asked him to do it and no
complaints. Chris Gears and a few other neighbors also extended their good
will and cut the grass as well. This has been a very huge gift to the
neighborhood on their part and they should be commended. Also, these
neighbors have plowed a path in the snow each winter to make a way down to
the pond for people to go ice skating. The neighbors have basically
maintained the property all along, so I can¹t see where $400.00 yearly for
maintenance costs,as was quoted being spent to maintain the different
properties in question, ever went to this particular piece of land.
The reason that we care so much about this property and people have been
willing to take care of it is because it has provided this neighborhood with
so many positive things.First of all we have such a beautiful view of the
pond and the setting sun each day. Our children have all grown up playing
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 17
catch,kickball, tee ball,golf putting,frisbee,flying kites,skating on the
pond or just simply watching the ducks, turtles,an occasional group of deer
and watching the natural habitat that was here long before any of us were.
This pond is in position of a migratory pattern as well. The ducks and geese
fly from Lamplighter Lake to this pond and then on to the Nature Center lake.
By building a house here you will disrupt this process and interfere with
the natural order of things. Why is it that human beings always have the
tendency to build something on every open piece of land . I would be curious
to know how the Nature Center would view this prospect of building on this
last open space up in this neighborhood. We are devastated by this thought
and can¹t even imagine loosing our view and our wonderful play space for the
many children who live in this area . It is quickly growing and there would
be nowhere to play nearby.
We understand some of the neighbors would like to request a rain garden
or a few benches etc. This seems to be a more practical endeavor were there
to be a change here,but certainly not a house. If the City can¹t afford to
maintain a small park or rain garden maybe the neighbors could join together
to take care of it . Another option would be to simply leave it as is. We
would be willing to contribute to maintaining it either way if this was the
course taken. It would however be a generous gesture if the City could
offer some assistance since there has been very little upkeep thus far. I
understand that funding is difficult with so many budget cuts but it doesn¹t
hurt to express and ask. If assistance isn;t feasible then please let us take
the matter of maintenance into our own hands and allow us to come up with a
creative solution ourselves.I do want to express a thank you for the recent
clean up of dead branches and trees that you provided with people performing
volunteer community service work. We all appreciate this.
The people who live around the pond have an association which has covered
many costs for cleaning the pond. I feel by building a house these efforts
could be greatly jeopardized. A considerable amount of landscaping and tree
removal would have to take place in order to build a house because of the
narrow shape of the land. Building could easily disrupt and damage the
progress made so far by the association. They have put so much time and
energy into this project that it would be very disheartening.
Please consider our wishes and take them to heart.Let us also speak for
the animals who call this their playground as well. I have always considered
St.Louis Park to be very progressive in environmental issues and in the
forefront of city planning. You¹ve done a marvelous job with Wolfe Lake Park
and the new Excelsior and Grand development and many other endeavors.Please
leave this little Slice of Heaven alone and honor what was said to us 20
years ago.There is a lot of history here and a lot at stake.
Most Sincerely, Parcel # 9 – 1608 Utah (cont)
I am writing you about lot #9 at 1608 Utah. I feel this will be a terrible
mistake to build a home on the only piece of natural property in the area
that kids can play on. It is a nice lot for the natural beauty. The lot is
so narrow and small that you would need to bring in fill that would change
everything about the area. It would affect the pond as well as the drainage
system. This is the only public access to the pond – especially during the
winter when many people from the neighborhood enjoy skating. It is an area
where children often play and it would be sad to take that away from them. I
live on the pond and I’m sure people would have to go in our lawns to have
access to this beautiful area. The only other option for children to play
that is nearby is to play in the street. This area is a habitat for much
wildlife also. It enhances the entire neighborhood to leave this in it’s
natural habitat. Please reconsider this and leave the lot as is. Thank you
for your consideration in this manner.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 18
Petition Received signed by 12 neighborhood children opposing building a home on this site.
Parcel # 10 - 9258 Club Road (Cedar Manor School Site)
I am writing to express my opposition to selling the property at 9258 Club
Road for housing or an off-leash dog park.
My reasons are as follows:
1. There is no good access to the property for either use.
While you may be considering closing the frontage road on Highway 169, I
believe the neighborhood strongly opposed that step when you asked us in
2003. If you would like me to go on about why I oppose closing the frontage
road, let me know. Otherwise, I will spare you.
2. The area is a wetland.
Homes could not be built without encroaching on a wetland.
It provides drainage to Highway 169
3. The wood hosts much fast-growing greenery, which helps filter the
pollution given off by the highway.
4. The spot is unsuitable for homes.
a. It is too close to the highway. And while there are no immediate (or
even long-term) plans to widen 169, it seems inevitable that a thoroughfare
as popular as 169 will be widened in our lifetimes. It does not make sense
to build homes where it is clear they must be torn down again so soon.
b. Noise from the highway will limit their property value.
c. The swamp is shallow; in very wet years, water collects in ponds fairly
close to the highway.
5. The property is not consuming substantial City resources.
The City currently does not maintain the property. If a dog park were put
there, it would require mowing, fencing and other maintenance.
6. The swamp is an educational asset to the school.
I don't know if they still do, but when I attended Cedar Manor we had field
trips into the swamp to look at various aspects of nature.
7. The property currently has recreational value.
My point isn't that developing it would keep people from playing there, but
that no additional work need be done to reach that goal.
8. On a more emotional note, egrets are starting to settle in the swamp
and I fear that construction of homes or a dog park with disrupt them.
I confess I am annoyed to have this issue come up again. Aretz, the original
developer, did not think the property was fit to develop. In the 90’s, the
Council agreed that the property was not suitable for homes. Please just
leave this parcel alone.
Oriole Oaks All Over Again. Is the city going to renege on its promises to its citizens?
Let me start by saying that I and many of my neighbors have historically been opposed to the
development of the slightly more than 5 ½ acres of land to the north & east of Cedar Manor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 19
School. This property is identified as 9258 Club Road, and identified by the Task force as
Excess Land plot #11.
People living in the area of this property thought the matter had been put to rest when the city
and school district jointly bought the property. We were told at that time that the city & school
district bought it for three reasons: 1. To preserve this woodland for future generations of
students and neighbors; and 2. Because it was becoming too time consuming to oppose
neighborhood opposition at Planning Commission and City Council meetings and 3. The present
& potential legal costs involved in coping with the problem were greater than the cost of the
land. The city at that time had to pay an outside law firm to analyze legal issues.
The city stated recently that it is concerned about the cost of upkeep on excess open land. I am
confident that all of us residents are also concerned because much of what the city spends on
anything comes from our tax dollars.
Over the period of time in which the School District 283 and the City of SLP have owned the
property behind Cedar Manor School and next to Cedar Manor Pond, little, if any, expense can
be attributed to this property. I and my children and Grandchildren have regularly walked the
area and not much as been done or needs to be done to care for it.
• What cost is involved?
Yes, there is a 25 foot strip of land from W. 23rd Street to the property. This is between my
property and the Frontage Road. I take care of it. I mow it and trim the branches from the trees
and shrubs on it and try to keep weeds under control. I also make an effort to occasionally go
out to the curb cut off the Frontage Road and pick up junk that has been thrown there.
There is another strip of city owned land adjacent to the property in question. It lies between the
Porter and Edwards houses. For most of the years from 1962 to present, Dr. Frederick Porter
mowed that land. Since he died, his daughter Sarah Porter and/or Craig Edwards have made sure
the land was mowed and kept clean.
Over the years there have been several minor expenses when city police have been called to
investigate tree houses being used for smoking pot and using other drugs or alcohol. There were
several grass fires that the city had to come and put under control. Otherwise, a boy scout did
the only improvement made in the area.
A young man who was working to become an Eagle Scout, spent many hours raising private
money and then constructing a nature study area in the woods, which made a major
improvement. He built an array of benches for students to sit on and a platform for the teacher or
naturalist to stand on to lead the class discussion. Many of us were proud of him and the project
he completed. Occasionally my grandchildren and I have walked over there just to sit and
admire what he did and what surrounds us.
• A history lesson.
It may be necessary to have a brief history lesson about this piece of land and the Aretz
Subdivision. Why? Only one member of the city council who made the decision to buy this
property for a Nature Preserve is still on City Council. That is our honorable Mayor, Jeff Jacobs.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 20
Back quite a few years ago, the man who owned the entire area around this open land started to
develop it. He did. My wife and I bought one of the houses built as part of the Aretz
Subdivision Development. Mr. Aretz’ son-in-law Harry Jensen was contractor for most of the
houses in the area. I recall that the original developer was Henry Aretz. But, Mr. Jensen and Mr.
Aretz made a mistake. They developed all the land around the approximately 5 1/2 acres of land
and left themselves no access to the property. Then, when the city told him there was no access
to the land, and because the land was part wetland and part flood plain, the city offered to buy it.
He turned down the offer because he thought the land was worth approx. $90,000 and he would
sell for no less than that. Consequently, the city decided to assess his land at that price for tax
purposes.
Years later, as land became scarcer, Mr. Harold Aretz decided to again try to develop the
property. He contacted a contractor who was a relative and they laid out plans for building 10
single family houses on the property. Neighbors were up in arms about the loss of the beautiful
piece of natural woodland. Some told us that we need trees and open land for our healthy
existence. The state and city encourage people to replace any trees cut down. Some of us
objected to developing it because we enjoyed the wildlife in the woods. Some were fond of the
natural flora that grows there. Some enjoyed the walks through the open area. Some were
environmentalists who were opposed because development would involve infringement on both
wetland and flood plain. These neighbors organized into a 300 family neighborhood group for
the sole purpose of opposing the development. Many people who now live in the Hillcrest
Neighborhood group joined others who lived on Hillsboro, Independence, Flag, Gettysburg,
Club Road, Stanlen, plus W 22nd St, W 22nd Lane and W 23rd St. and others areas. At city
council meetings, it was not uncommon for 100 to 150 of us to show up. Other speakers
developed presentations to make at Planning Commission meetings and City Council meetings.
There is talk of organizing another 200-300 family group to fight this new development.
Dr. Frederick (Fritz) Porter was one of the leaders of the group and was chosen as one of the
speakers to present our case to the Planning Commission and later to the City Council. I was
chosen as the other speaker. Members of the group thought it would be better for us and for the
Council to have only two speakers rather than have 150 or more people up each voicing their
individual concerns and opposition.
In researching the plans, we discovered various flaws in the plans. We involved the Department
of Natural Resources who declared quite a bit of the land as wetland and flood plain. The
Minnehaha Water Shed District was involved and their opinion was that part of the property was
both wetland and floodplain. The Minnesota Department of Transportation became involved as
did our Councilman, Larry Mitchell. Councilman Jeff Jacobs and councilwoman, Gail Dorfman
were sympathetic to our concerns and desires. Lyle Hanks, then Mayor, had to remain neutral.
• All of us should agree that ethically we should protect the wetlands, flood plains and
mature trees in the city.
As you all know, Minnesota has wet years and dry years. During wet periods, water flows and
stands up to within 10 or 12 feet of the fence between TH 169 and this property. In the 43 years
since my family and I moved into this neighborhood, there were many years when the water
made it almost impossible to walk from our home up to Cedar Manor School which was at first a
1-6 elementary school. Our children attended all 6 grades there. But, in Spring and Fall, the
water often made them detour over close to the highway because the normal path was flooded.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 21
• Access is a problem.
When we bought our house at 9307 W 23rd Street, the house was next to a winding county
highway classified as Hennepin Co. 18, which wound through Hopkins on its way south. Later
the County decided to make Co. 18 a through highway to connect Wayzata Blvd ( TH 12) and I-
494. The decision was made to widen the highway and make it into a 4-lane road.
During the upgrading of Co. 18, Mr. Aretz talked the highway department into leaving a curb cut
near the beginning of the Frontage Road for access to this property. That curb cut is still there,
but it is unusable. Why? First, the state of Minnesota made a deal with Hennepin Co. and in the
process took over Co. 18 and made it into TH 169 which carries high volumes of traffic at all
times of the day. Traffic is moving 60 to 80 miles an hour on that road. The surveyors and
safety engineers from MnDot declared that the curb cut was unsafe because cars, trucks,
snowplows, ambulances, etc. coming off TH 169 are moving too fast to allow any car to pull into
that curb cut without endangering themselves and other cars exiting TH 169 onto the Frontage
Road.
Mr. Harold Aretz & his contractor who, as I recall was his son-in-law, Rick Bateson, proposed
using the 25 ft strip between our property & the Frontage Road as access. Some of our city
officials and officials from MnDot and the DNR plus our neighborhood legal advisors found
fault with the plan for a large number of reasons.
1. The 25-foot strip of land was designated in the original plan as a city street. Our
neighborhood’s attorney said this cannot be changed at this late date. Also, a city street
could not be turned over to a private property owner as a driveway and it is not wide
enough for a city street according to city standards.
2. A barrier would have to be built between the street and the Frontage Road which would
reduce the width of the street surface considerably
3. Cars going south on that 25 foot strip would be shining their lights into cars coming off
TH 169 onto the Frontage Road and vice versa. Too dangerous.
4. It is too narrow for fire trucks, ambulances, construction vehicles, snow plows, etc.
5. It would be too narrow for safe two-way traffic.
6. It would be a major problem for a fire truck to make the turn from W 23rd Street onto that
narrow strip. Can you picture a large ladder fire truck trying to make a turn from W. 23rd
St onto a 25-foot lane?
7. It would delay ambulance access to many homes on the property.
8. Even if a car could access the property via that narrow strip other complications would
result.
To access any houses, thousands of yards of fill would have to be dumped onto the flood plain
because a roadway would have to be built along TH 169. This would infringe on the flood plain.
Water that normally flowed into this area of the flood plain would have to go somewhere else,
opening up potential lawsuits against the city and any person who bought and tried to develop
the property. It might also cause flooding to homes already existing on surrounding streets. In
addition, such destruction of flood plain is against our City goal of protecting our environment.
Such a roadway would cross over the Storm Sewer which runs under TH 169 and under the flood
plain to bring water from the West side of 169 into Cedar Manor Pond and on south into Hannon
Lake and eventually into the aquifer and/or into Minnehaha Creek. Heavy construction
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 22
equipment, snow plows, ambulances, etc. might crush the storm sewer, so some type of structure
or bridge would probably have to be built to protect that large culvert.
• Another legal complication seems apparent.
When the city and the school district bought this piece of property, Harold Aretz and Rick
Bateson were told that the land was unbuildable. The price agreed upon was based on this belief.
If the city and School District #283 should decide to sell the property at a price higher than that
which was paid to the Aretz family, the family would have cause for filing a lawsuit based on the
argument that the City of St Louis Park falsely claimed the property was unbuildable for the
purpose of purchasing it at an unreasonably low cost for the purpose of holding it until the value
of land went up. Some of us who were present at the City Council meetings back then would be
asked to testify on behalf of the Artez family. Whether actual records of council meetings show
such details, there are some of us who are still not victims of Alzheimer’s Disease who can
remember proceedings. It might be worthwhile to contact the man who was Mayor of St Louis
Park at the time of the big controversy over this land, Mayor Lyle Hanks. I talked to Mayor Lyle
Hanks on Tuesday, April 17, 2005, and he remembers details of the controversy. He stated that
he had voted for having the city and the school district purchase the land. I am sure former
Mayor Gail Dorfman would also remember some of these details. As I recall, Gail and Jeff both
wanted to protect the wetland and wildlife in the area in perpetuity.
Parcel # 10 - 9258 Club Road (cont)
What happened to the promise of perpetual wildlife area when another builder
had the property and was forced to sell it to the city?
• egrets, Canada geese and deer abound in the area--dogs chase them
• flooding--that area floods in heavy rains--if houses are built where does
the water go? One of those awful bare ponds we see around the roads?
• parking--where? Did the city ever find out who owns the road? Are they
going to cut down trees and bare the land like all developments do and put
back spindly little bushes instead of the mature trees?
• Dogs near the school fence--some children are afraid of dogs and they
bark.
• Now the trees are a sound barrier from HWY 169--new houses are not.
I love dogs so don't feel I am against dog owners. I just want the promises
of the past kept and not destroyed in favor a few more houses for taxes. I
will protest to that end like we did the last time.
Parcel # 12 - 2601 Pennsylvania Ave S
We have concerns about the possible development of "excess public land" at
2601 Pennsylvania. We have lived for 21 years in our current house, which
abuts the proposed area of development from the west.
The undeveloped property at 2601 Pennsylvania is a great asset to the
neighborhood. If properly developed we might not have any issues. However,
given the early stage of the process the answers to most questions are "We
don't know..." - and that's kind of scary!
About ten years ago the property immediately south of us (across the railroad
tracks) was developed. Prior to that it was a very nice undeveloped wooded
parcel of land. Suddenly we noticed that many of the trees were marked to be
cut. When we called the City to ask what was going on we were told "This is
private property; the owner can do whatever he/she wants (within zoning
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 23
requirements), and the owner has decided to develop small warehouse spaces."
So the trees disappeared, the buildings appeared, and that was that!
We're concerned that a similar process might happen now. We fear that just
like what happened ten years ago, we could be told "It's the developer's
land, he/she has the right to develop (i.e. cut down the trees) right up to
the lot line", or something like that.
Certainly our preference would be for the land to be undeveloped. As we
talked to our kids about the fact that the woods might change the immediate
comment from one of our kids was "Why does every undeveloped area of land
have to be developed?" We were unable to answer that - We're not sure why
everything needs to be developed - or why now?
However, as a compromise, if "inviolable" restrictions can be applied to the
sale, appropriate development could be acceptable. From our perspective, as
long as the western-most 50 feet of the property were left undisturbed, we
would have less of an issue. However, we would be very upset if we woke up
one morning and saw development occurring right up to the edge of our lot. I
would assume that most of the neighbors would have a similar perspective.
About 15 years ago the City proposed using this parcel of land to store wood
chips and excess sand cleaned from city streets. Like with tonight's
meeting, a discussion was held to explain the proposal. (The City's needs
were eventually met in a different way, and so the property has obviously not
been used to hold sand or chips.) During the presentation SLP's Director of
Public Works at the time, Jim Grube, said that it would be almost impossible
for development to occur on this land. He said that the railroad deeded the
land to the City, County and State. He said that for development to occur
all three government entities would have to agree and that would never
happen. So, I don't know if he was mistaken, or if things have changed. In
any case, those kind of unkept promises, coupled with what happened across
the tracks a decade ago, make us extremely leery of any promises that
possible developments would be good for the neighborhood.
Parcel # 17 - 5609 Wood Lane
I are completely opposed to the city's objective of selling off the green space lot at the end of Wood
Lane. It is not excess land any more than a park is. We are sure that most of the 50 people who signed
our petition opposing the sale agree with us that this is a re-election issue. We are also opposed to the
way this decision process has been implemented. At no time have we been contacted by a city employee
seeking my opinion, even though we have lived one plot away from this green space for 17 years, paying
hefty taxes each of those years. In a democracy, government officials -- elected and otherwise -- work for
the citizens. Citizens shouldn't have to work to get their views noticed. Residents on our street have
repeatedly asked for dates for the next step and for a separate meeting with this task force. We have
heard only silence. Shame on you at every step of the way, so far.
A letter has been received from another resident requesting a meeting with Wool Lane
neighbors and city staff – the meeting is being scheduled.
Parcel #18 - 4525 Morningside Ave
As a resident of the Browndale Neighborhood, I am concerned that property #18 (4525
Morningside Road) may be sold for a single-family home. This parcel should be left untouched.
It is considered by residents of the neighborhood and those who use Browndale Park as part of
the park. I disagree that the parcel has no benefit for the park - it is an extension, or a gateway,
to the park for those who live on the Browndale (western) side of the park.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 24
Further, another house so near the play area of the park would significantly change the character
of this area, as well as possibly blocking the view of the play area from Morningside. The park
has had enough vandalism without adding another obstacle to keeping the park beautiful and safe
for everyone. I strongly urge you not to sell this parcel.
“Keep the Park in St. Louis Park” petition signed by 116 residents that are “opposed to
developing the land connected with our park. We have enjoyed and used this area of Browndale
Park for decades, and view the development of such a valuable resource within an urban setting
as short-sighted. We hope you value our opinion as much as we value this natural setting in our
neighborhood.”
Support & Interest
To whom it may concern
I live in the Texa-Tonka neighborhood and I receive Park Perspective news
paper. In the latest issue the article regarding the City's consideration of
selling excess land peeked my interest.
In May I will be getting marred. My fiancee and I are considering leaving St
Louis Park in favor of an area where we could build a new construction home.
However, we like St Louis Park a lot and we would miss it if we were to move
away.
Obviously, the article peeked my interest because if the city does sell off
this land it would give us a chance to satisfy both of our desires. We could
build a new home and remain in the city that we have grown to love.
I have visited each of the parcels listed in the article and several of them
would suite our needs well. Here are the top few lots i would be interested
in purchasing. 2600 Natchez Ave S 1608 Utah Ave S 5609 Wood Lane 9091 Cedar
Lake Rd
2. I wanted to write to you today to thank you, the city council and the
excess land taskforce for understanding the need for additional "move up"
housing and looking out for the future of our city. Without larger "move up"
type homes in the city citizens such as myself are forced to look elsewhere
to find their next home. In just the last few years I have seen friends and
neighbors of mine who lived in SLP move out to Eden Prairie, Maple Grove,
Waconia, Savage, Shakopee and Chanhassen. These are just people that I know
personally who chose to move "out" in order to find bigger housing that fit
their growing family's needs. I can only imagine how many others have done
the same.
I did attend last nights meeting and I realize there were some very
emotionally charged view points on putting these parcels of land up for sale.
I know most of the neighbor's of these properties are against it, and to a
certain degree I can understand why. If I had an empty lot next to me that I
could use for "free" I would probably oppose it too. And like a lot of the
people who were opposing this last night I would probably oppose it under the
guise of "protecting the environment." I think its human nature to shift
some of the "blame" on to something else (the environment) rather than admit
that they want the lot to remain empty for selfish reasons. Now, I'm not
insinuating that these people don't care about the environment...I just think
they are exaggerating their concerns for personal reasons. Again, it's hard
for me to blame them if I were in their shoes.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 25
The main reason for my writing you today is to let you know there are a lot
of citizens who would support your decision if you chose to sell some or all
of these parcels. The need for additional "move up" housing is great. If we
don't do something we will continue to loose our citizens with growing
families to the "suburban sprawl." If we keep loosing our growing families
what will that do to our schools? Our Retailers? Our places of worship? Our
sense of community? It seems negative feedback often over shadows the
positive...so I simply wanted to let you know you have my support and
interest if you decide to sell some or all of the parcels of land.
If parcels do go up for sale I would definitely be interested...but I think
you already have my contact info from an e-mail that I sent you a week or so
ago. (I also wrote it on a card last night.) As for the bidding process if
they do go for sale...I would hope that the design/quality of the proposed
home would be a significant factor in the process. Being a citizen of SLP I
selfishly would like it if current citizens would be given preference to the
parcels. I would also like to see preference given to those who are actually
going to live in the home vs. someone building it for profit.
Thanks again for looking out for the long term needs of our city.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 26
EXCESS CITY LAND TASK FORCE Summary/Minutes of April 21, 2005 Meeting
6:00 – 8:30 pm
Westwood Room, 3rd Floor
City Hall, City of St. Louis Park
Task Force members in attendance: Steve Fillbrandt, Carl Robertson, Robert Kramer, Dawn
Plender, Joe Favour, Claudia Johnston-Madison. Staff in attendance: Scott Merkley, Kevin
Locke, Michel Schnitker, and Kathy Larsen.
The meeting included task force and staff report back from the public meeting conducted on
April 12, 2005. The discussions led to recommendations for the parcels and considerations
related to the disposition of the parcels.
1. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS BY PARCEL
Task Force Members and staff reported public comments by parcel. This was followed by
discussion which led to the task force recommendation. Following are the task force report
backs and the task force recommendation by parcel.
• Property #1 – 2914 Inglewood Avenue South (Parking Lot)
• Property #14 – 6534 Walker Street (Parking Lot)
• Property #15 – 3301 Gorham Avenue South (Open Space)
Public Works staff, Scott Merkley reported that the consensus of comments was that parking
lots should remain as parking lots. He noted that there were very few comments regarding
this parcels and that the synagogue and businesses expressed concern that parking remain
available at these sites.
Task Force Recommendation consensus that parcels should be used as parking lots and city
should sell or lease lots.
• Property #2 – 2715 Monterey Avenue South
Task Force member Steve Fillbrandt reported that there was little discussion about this parcel
and that comments generally supported selling this parcel.
Task Force Recommendation that soil conditions be researched and if suitable for building
the parcel be sold for development of single family home.
• Property #3 – 2600 Natchez Avenue South
Task Force member Louis Shoen reported on comments regarding the 2715 Monterey &
2600 Natchez –“the two principal issues that stuck out for me at the open house, that the
Council will need to address, were: the need to assure appropriate environmental protection
in any development, highlighting serious problems in some of them. Indeed, in some cases,
housing development may be impractical because of this. I believe one or more area
residents near the Natchez property will argue for adding vegetation and converting it to a
wildlife preserve.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 27
Task Force Recommendation that a small portion of the parcel be sold for construction of 1-
2 single family homes, pending further investigation of wetland delineation and soil issues
and ensuring that homes would not negatively impact wetland.
• Property #4 – Cedar Lake Road/Trunk Highway 100
Task Force member Carl Robertson reported that comments were related to ensuring that any
single family homes be a “little nicer” than surrounding homes and that there was one very
vocal angry neighbor. Brian Swanson reported the comments seemed to be split between
selling and retaining vacant lot.
Task Force Recommendation; general consensus that City should continue research to
purchase from MNDOT and explore how parcel could be subdivided and sold to multiple
bidders for construction of up to five homes( if lot allows) rather than sell whole parcel to
one developer.
• Property #5 – 2015 Louisiana Avenue South
• Property #6 – 2005 Louisiana Avenue South
Park and Rec staff, Rick Beane reported that only two people commented about these lots,
both were neighbors that noted that drainage issues would need to be addressed in order to
build homes on these lots.
Task Force Recommendation: general consensus that City should explore drainage issues
and sell lots if drainage allows. Also consider selling the 2015 lot to an interested neighbor
for vacant space if no one is interested in purchasing the 2015 Louisiana lot for building.
• Property #7 - 13th Lane West
• Property #8 –Texas Avenue South/394 Frontage Road
Task Force member Carl Robertson reported that most of the comments were related to what
and how these lots could be developed – that single family housing did not seem appropriate.
Task Force Recommendation: general consensus to conduct further research and pursue
selling these parcels with design guidelines appropriate to invite mixed use, or work loft
development on the 13th Lane parcel and low density multihousing on the Texas
Avenue/Frontage parcel.
• Property #9 – 1608 Utah Avenue South
Task Force member Dawn Plender reported that there were numerous comments opposing
the selling of this lot and that it be retained as a passive recreation area. Neighbors noted that
there is no nearby park area for children, and this lot has served that function. She also noted
that many developers were interested in purchasing this lot. This parcel generated lengthy
discussion at both the public meeting and the Task Force meeting.
Task Force Recommendation: wetland issues, lot size and park issues need further research
before moving forward with the sale of this parcel for construction of a single family home
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 28
and retaining a portion for access to the pond. The task force members did not come to
consensus on the disposition of this lot, but all felt further investigation was warranted.
• Property #10 – 9019 Cedar Lake Road
• Property #11 – 9258 Club Road
Task Force member Joe Favour reported there was little comment regarding the 9019 Cedar
Lake Road parcel. He stated that comments regarding the 9258 Club Road were in
opposition of development. He noted that the developer who had previously attempted to
develop this parcel commented that if the city proceeds with the sale & development he will
take action against the city. The concerns raised were related to loss of open space, loss of
vegetation, wetland impact concerns and the difficulty of building access to this parcel if
developed.
Task Force Recommendation: wetland issues, access, and history of city acquisition should
be further explored before moving forward with the sale of this parcel for construction of a
single family homes. It was also suggested it might be reasonable to build only 1 home on
this parcel and avoid the wetland and access issues. The task force members did not come to
consensus on the disposition of this lot, but all felt further investigation was warranted.
• Property #12 – 2601 Pennsylvania Avenue South
• Property #16 – 7701 Edgebrook Drive
Written Report from Task Force member Tom Worthington – 7701 Edgebrook & 2601
Pennsylvania: The number 1 concern I heard about the property at my table - Edgebrook)
was that the lots contained a lot of fill placed by the city in the 1950s, so would be a very
difficult site for construction - needs soil investigations. The Cedar Knoll Park property had
no objections (at least from any of the visitors), but one women was very against the
proposed dog park for that site. She didn't express (to me) any objections to housing. Most of
the comments about Cedar Knoll from a development standpoint, was "how are you going to
get a road into there?"...
Task Force Recommendation: explore soil and access issues before selling for single family
homes recognizing that the off leash dog park task force may be recommending the 2601
Pennsylvania site for a dog park.
• Property #17 – 5609 Wood Lane
Task Force member Dawn Plender reported that the neighbors were strongly opposed to the
development of this parcel, raising issues about the desire for use as public park space and
impact of construction on the neighborhood. She noted that those interested in purchasing
the parcel were developers. The discussion centered around the “market desirability” of this
lot, building on open spaces, and the use of this lot by a relatively small number of residents
Task Force Recommendation: explore issues related to creek, wetlands and historical
transfer of property and schedule a meeting with neighbors before selling for single family
home. A strongly expressed minority did not support sale, but supports further investigation
of issues.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 29
• Property #18 – 4525 Morningside Road
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor, noted that there was opposition by neighbors toward
the development of this parcel. Comments were primarily related to the sense that this parcel
is part of the Browndale park and should be retained. She noted there was interest in
purchasing the lot. Task Force discussion was related to the notable opposition to building
on this lot, the sale process and design guidelines to ensure a home would be compatible with
the neighborhood.
Task Force Recommendation: suggestion to offer to meet with neighbors and discuss issue
before moving forward with selling the parcel. It was also noted this might be an
opportunity to offer to sell a portion of the lot to the adjacent neighbor. The task force
recognizes the strong concern of the neighbors in selling this parcel.
• Property #19 – 4200 Natchez Avenue South (Vacant)
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor noted that most comments regarding this lot were
related to ensuring the design of 1-2 new homes be compatible with the neighborhood. She
noted that there was concern expressed about the soil conditions and drainage issues.
Task Force Recommendation: explore soil conditions and drainage issues before moving
forward with selling the parcel.
2. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO SALE PROCESS.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding considerations for the selling process of parcels.
The following considerations are being recommended as components of the sale process:
a. ensure individuals are allowed equal access to process (v.s. builders & developers)
b. enforce general design guidelines and site specific design guidelines
c. bid process by price, followed by time period to submit plans for review
d. use residency preference as a tie breaker if highest offer for a parcel is tied.
e. design review committee composed of architect(s), landscape architect, and
neighborhood reps specific to parcel
f. provide adjacent property owners the option to purchase a portion of the lot it applicable
g. communicate process clearly and often – keep folks who have expressed interest in
purchasing updated.
3. RECOMMENDATIONS OF SALE PROCEEDS
The discussion related to the above topics was quite lengthY and left little time for discussion
related to possible use of revenues generated by the sale of parcels. Basically the task force
supported the suggested uses developed at an early meeting which included placing money in
an “endowment account” and use only interest for activities. The task force suggested that a
percentage of revenue be used for housing related activity to spur larger homes for families
and the other percentage for park, neighborhood and community improvements including:
• Aid in development of single family homes – loans, design services
• Park improvements beyond scheduled improvements and necessary replacements
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4f - Excess Land Task Force
Page 30
Neighborhood grants and neighborhood capital improvements - also make grants
available based on “community” need rather than specific to organized
neighborhoods.
Methodist healing garden
• Public art
• Stewardship activities such as tree boulevard planting
• Scholarships
• Junior high athletic field renovations
• Technology/on-line resident services (wi-fi)
The meeting ended at 8:45 pm. Task Force members not in attendance reviewed the Summary
and Recommendations and their comments have been incorporated.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4g - Revise Council Meeting Schedule & Holidays
Page 1
4g. Motion to adopt resolution revising holidays recognized by the city council and
revising 2005 meeting dates
Background:
The St. Louis Park City Council Rules and Procedures require Council to set and approve
meeting dates each year.
A. Regular Meetings
Regular meetings will be held on the first and third Mondays of each month at
7:30 p.m. A schedule of all regular meetings and recognized holidays will be kept
on file at City Hall. Regular meetings can be cancelled or rescheduled at any
time, provided Council meets at least once per month.
City Council's policy has been to reschedule meetings that would fall on New Year's Day, Martin
Luther King Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran's
Day, Christmas Day, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Passover and Shavuot. For New
Year's, Christmas and Yom Kippur, this includes the evening before the holiday. For Rosh
Hashanah, Sukkot, Passover and Shavuot this includes the first and second evenings of the
holiday.
Council has subsequently discussed the holidays and has determined that in order to better serve
the residents of our community, the holidays Sukkot and Shavuot should be removed from the
list of recognized holidays. The attached resolution redefines those holidays on which council
chooses not to meet and revises the 2005 meeting dates adopted in January.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Cindy Reichert, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4g - Revise Council Meeting Schedule & Holidays
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-074
RESOLUTION REDEFINING HOLIDAYS RECOGNIZED
BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR MEETING PURPOSES
AND REVISING 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATES
WHEREAS, the City Council Rules and Procedures require Council to annually declare
its public meetings for the year,
WHEREAS, meeting dates for 2005 were adopted by the City Council on January 3,
2005, and
WHEREAS, subsequent discussions about recognized holidays have occurred,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the holidays on which City Council
chooses not to meet are New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, Memorial
Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Christmas Day, Rosh Hashanah, Yom
Kippur, and Passover of each year,
LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED that the attached Exhibit A declares the revised
City Council meeting dates for 2005.
Reviewed for Administration: Approved by the City Council May 16, 2005:
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4g - Revise Council Meeting Schedule & Holidays
Page 3
Exhibit A
REVISED 2005 City Council Meeting Dates
Jan. 3 Regular Meeting July 5 Regular Meeting
(Tuesday, Independence Day)
Jan. 10 Study Session July 11 Study Session
Jan. 18 Regular Meeting
(Tuesday, Martin Luther King Jr.Day)
July18 Regular Meeting
Jan. 24 Study Session July 25 Study Session
Feb. 7 Regular Meeting Aug.1 Regular Meeting
Feb. 14 Study Session Aug. 8 Study Session
Feb. 22 Regular Meeting
(Tuesday, President’s Day)
Aug. 15 Regular Meeting
Feb. 28 Study
Session
Aug. 22 Study Session
Mar. 7 Regular Meeting Sept. 6 Regular Meeting
(Tuesday, Labor Day)
Mar. 14 Study Session Sept. 12 Study Session
Mar. 21 Regular Meeting Sept. 19 Regular Meeting
Mar. 28 Study Session Sept. 26 Study Session
Apr. 4 Regular Meeting Oct. 3 CANCELLED
(Due to Rosh HaShanah)
Apr. 11 Study Session Oct. 10 Regular Meeting / Study
Session
Apr. 18 Regular Meeting Oct. 17 Regular Meeting (Revised)
Apr. 25 Study Session Oct. 24 Study Session (Revised)
May 2 Regular Meeting Nov. 7 Regular Meeting
May 9 Study Session Nov. 14 Study Session
May 16 Regular Meeting Nov. 21 Regular Meeting
May 23 Study Session Nov. 28 Study Session
June 6 Regular Meeting Dec. 5 Regular Meeting
June 13 Study Session (Revised) Dec. 12 Study Session
June 20 Regular Meeting Dec. 19 Regular Meeting
June 27 Study Session Dec. 26 Study Session
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4h - Vision SLP Mobius Contract
Page 1
4h. Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a contract with Mobius,
Inc. for professional services related to revisiting and updating Vision St. Louis Park
Background:
At the study session of February 28, 2005, council and staff discussed the appreciative inquiry
process proposed to be used to revisit, update and recommit to Vision St. Louis Park. Staff
listened to council’s comments during that discussion and has moved forward by working with
Mobius, Inc. to further develop the process. Mobius, Inc is a consulting firm which staff has
worked with in the past and feels would be very suitable to assist the City with this initiative.
The strategy for this project, outlined in three phases, is to initiate an appreciative inquiry with
current City leadership and expand participation, step by step, to include all interested
stakeholders. Each conversation will build on the results created by previous participants to
create an expanding vision that identifies common ground for action. Participating stakeholders
will include many who are not residents but who work in the City and contribute to its vitality. A
critical element of the strategy is to involve children from the community, in partnership with an
adult, as interviewers in the inquiry.
The first two phases outline the process by which participation will be facilitated to include
thousands of stakeholders in this inquiry. The third phase describes the way in which common
ground will be articulated, communicated and formulated into actionable goals that expand, and
build on, the existing vision.
The City Manager, community outreach coordinator, internal organizational development staff
and two external (Mobius Inc.) consultants will form the City’s project team which will also
work with the larger Partnership Team. This contract will formalize the relationship staff has
already developed with Mobius and serve as council’s authorization to move forward with
implementation. The contract is in the amount of $77,950. Funding for this contract will come
from a McKnight Foundation Grant, a grant from the Park Nicollet Foundation and funds which
have been budgeted for by the City
Attachments: Contract
Prepared By: Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4h - Vision SLP Mobius Contract
Page 2
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is made on the 1st day of March, 2005, between the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota (“City”), whose business address is 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis
Park, Minnesota 55416-2290, and Mobius Inc., (“Contractor”) whose business address is 4255
Meadowbrook Blvd, St. Louis Park MN 55416.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The City has adopted a policy regarding the selection and hiring of consultants to provide a
variety of professional services for City projects. That policy requires that person, firms, or
corporations providing such services enter into written contracts with the City. The purpose of
this contract is to set forth terms and conditions for consultant services related to the Vision St.
Louis Park, 2005 Community Input Project.
The City and Contractor agree as follows:
1. Contractor’s Services. The Contractor agrees to provide professional services as
described in the Project Outline, Exhibit A, attached and made a part of this Agreement.
2. Compensation for Services. City agrees to pay the Contractor for services as described in
the Compensation Schedule, Exhibit B, attached and made a part of this Agreement.
3. The Contractor, upon direction of the City, agrees to perform the following services:
A. See Exhibits A (Project Outline), and B (Compensation Schedule).
B. Special Contractors may be utilized by the Contractor when required by the
complex or specialized nature of the Project and when authorized in writing by
the City.
C. Extra Services: City agrees to pay Contractor for extra services by the Contractor
or Special Contractors when authorized in writing by the City.
4. The City agrees to provide the Contractor with the complete information concerning the
scope of the Project and to perform the following services:
A. Consideration of the Contractor’s Work: The City shall give thorough
consideration to all reports and other documents presented by the Contractor, and
shall inform the Contractor of all decisions within a reasonable time so as not to
delay the work of the Contractor.
B. Owner’s Representative: A person shall be appointed to act as the City’s
representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. He
or she shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information,
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4h - Vision SLP Mobius Contract
Page 3
interpret, and define the City’s policy and decisions, with respect to the materials,
equipment, elements, and systems pertinent to the work covered by this
Agreement.
5. Method of Payment: The Contractor shall submit to the City, itemized bills for
professional services performed. Bills submitted shall be paid in the same manner as
other claims made to the City.
A. Progress Payment. Payment shall be made by the city for work performed
following completion of each phase of the project and upon receipt of an itemized
invoice from the contractor. The Contractor shall provide other such
documentation as reasonably required by the City.
B. Abandoned or Suspended Work. If any work performed by the Contractor is
abandoned or suspended in whole or in part by the City, the Contractor shall be
paid for any services performed on account of it prior to receipt of written notice
from the City of such abandonment or suspension.
C. Compensation for Services of the Contractor. The City shall pay the Contractor
for the services described in Exhibit A of this Agreement. The fee that the City
will pay under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount shown on Exhibit B
for this project.
6. Accuracy of Work. Contractor shall be responsible for the accuracy of the work and the
utilization of all determinant data, and shall promptly make necessary revisions or
corrections resulting from errors and omissions on the part of Contractor without
additional compensation.
7. Project Manager and Staffing. The Contractor has designated Marjorie Herdes and
William Stockton to serve on the Project. They shall be assisted by other staff members
as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Project in accordance with the terms
established herein. Contractor may not remove or replace Ms. Herdes or Mr. Stockton
from the Project without the written approval of the City.
8. Audit Disclosure. The Contractor shall allow the City or its duly authorized agents
reasonable access to such of the Contractor’s books and records as are pertinent to all
services provided under this Agreement. Any reports, information, data, etc. given to, or
prepared or assembled by, the Contractor under this Agreement which the client requests
to be kept confidential shall not be made available to any individual or organization
without the City’s prior written approval. All finished or unfinished documents, data,
studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, and reports prepared by the
Contractor shall become the property of the City upon termination of this Agreement, but
Contractor may retain copies of such documents as records of the services provided.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4h - Vision SLP Mobius Contract
Page 4
9. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from March 1, 2005 until project completion.
This Agreement may be extended upon the written mutual consent of the parties for such
additional period as they deem appropriate, and upon the terms and conditions as herein
stated.
10. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either party by seven (7) days’
written notice delivered to the other party at the address written above. Upon termination
under this provision if there is no fault of the Contractor, the Contractor shall be paid for
services rendered and reimbursable expenses until the effective date of termination. If
however, the City terminates the Agreement because the Contractor has failed to perform
in accordance with this Agreement, no further payment shall be made to the Contractor,
and the City may retain another contractor to undertake or complete the work.
11. Independent Contractor. At all times and for all purposes herein, the Contractor is an
independent contractor and not an employee of the City. No statement herein shall be
construed so as to find the Contractor an employee of the City.
12. Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this contract, the Contractor shall not
discriminate against any employee or applicants for employment because of race, color,
creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance,
disability, or age. The Contractor shall post in places available to employees and
applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination
clause and stating that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment.
The Contractor shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all of its
subcontracts for program work, and will require all of its subcontractors for such work to
incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts for program work.
13. Assignment. Neither party shall assign this Agreement, nor any interest arising herein,
without the written consent of the other party.
14. Services Not Provided For. No claim for services furnished by the Contractor not
specifically provided for herein shall be honored by the City.
15. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion hereof is, for
any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such decision
shall not affect the remaining provisions of the Agreement.
16. Entire Agreement. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This
Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to
the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between
the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions,
or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in
writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4h - Vision SLP Mobius Contract
Page 5
17. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. In providing services hereunder, the Contractor
shall abide by all statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations pertaining to the provisions
of services to be provided. Any violation shall constitute a material breach of this
Agreement and entitle the City to immediately terminate this Agreement.
18. Waiver. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Agreement shall
not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement.
19. Indemnification. Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers,
and employees harmless from any liability, claims, damages, costs, judgments, or
expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, resulting directly or indirectly from an act
or omission (including without limitation professional errors or omissions) of the
Contractor, its agents, employees, or subcontractors in the performance of the services
provided by this Agreement and against all losses by reason of the failure of said
Contractor fully to perform, in any respect, all obligations under this Agreement.
20. Records Access. The Contractor shall provide the City access to any books, documents,
papers, and record which are directly pertinent to the specific contract, for the purpose of
making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcriptions, for three years after final
payments and all other pending matters related to this contract are closed.
21. Ownership of Documents. All plans, diagrams, analyses, reports, and information
generated in connection with performance of the agreement shall become the property of
the City. The City may use the information for its purposes. Such use by the City shall
not relieve any liability on the part of the Contractor.
22. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be controlled by the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
Executed as of the day and year first written above.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
______________________________
Attest: Mayor
___________________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk City Manager
OWNER(S)/CORPORATION
By___________________________
Its____________________________
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4h - Vision SLP Mobius Contract
Page 6
EXHIBIT A: PROJECT OUTLINE
The strategy for this project, outlined in three phases (below), is to initiate an appreciative
inquiry with current City leadership and expand participation, step by step, to include all
interested stakeholders. Each conversation will build on the results created by previous
participants to create an expanding vision that identifies common ground for action. Participating
stakeholders will include many who are not residents but who work in the City and contribute to
its vitality. A critical element of the strategy is to involve children from the community, in
partnership with an adult, as interviewers in the inquiry. The first two phases outline the process
by which participation will be facilitated to include thousands of stakeholders in this inquiry. The
third phase describes the way in which common ground will be articulated, communicated and
formulated into actionable goals that expand, and build on, the existing vision.
The City Manager, community outreach coordinator, internal organization development staff and
two external (Mobius Inc.) consultants will form the project team.
Phase 1: Commitment of Community Leaders
Principals
Department Heads
This team will take the proposed design for the project to the city department heads for their
input and evaluation since they are key stakeholders whose commitment is critical to the success
of the project. These meetings will provide the department heads with an opportunity to
experience the appreciative inquiry process. The project team will return to the department heads
with a design for the project that incorporates their ideas. The department heads will be asked to
commit to the project, and one or two will be asked to volunteer to participate in taking the
proposal to the city council for their input and commitment.
City Council
One or two of the department heads, along with the Project Team, will replicate the commitment
process with the city council. In turn, city council members will be asked to participate in the
commitment meetings with representative city leaders and to meet with the key participants in
Vision St. Louis Park and the members of the Outcomes Committee for Vision St. Louis Park.
Vision St. Louis Park leaders and the Outcomes Committee
These two groups played a key role in the success of the first city-wide visioning process –
Vision St. Louis Park. It is important that their leadership be acknowledged and celebrated and
that their wisdom is tapped as Expanding Our Vision moves forward.
Partnership Team
Key community leaders will be invited to a meeting to develop their commitment to their key
role in the project – to recruit community leaders who will take responsibility for ensuring that
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4h - Vision SLP Mobius Contract
Page 7
effective, appreciative interviews are conducted with stakeholders in their network. Membership
on the Partnership Team will include:
• City Manager
• Superintendent of schools
• Park Nicollet Executive (the city’s largest employer)
• Mayor
• School Board Chair
• Twin West Chamber of Commerce Leader
• Children First Leader
Community Leaders
Community Leaders identified by the Partnership Team will play a key role in creating
opportunities for stakeholders throughout the community (and beyond) to participate in the
visioning process. Some of them will be responsible for developing support for the adult-child
teams, described in phase II.
Professional Facilitator Volunteers
Another key step in phase I will be to recruit professional facilitators to volunteer their energy
and skills to support the success of community leaders and their interview teams. These
volunteers will be asked to provide support throughout phases II and III.
Phase 2: Community Leadership & Interview Process
Community & Inclusiveness
In addition to the members of the Partnership Team, community leaders from all aspects of the
community will be invited to a kick-off meeting to experience appreciative inquiry and learn how
to bring the interview process into their community. Community leaders will include:
• school principles, special education and other school representatives (key players in the
inter-generational interview process)
• community education leaders
• adults with disabilities leaders
• representatives from neighborhood associations
• Lenox senior center representatives
• young leaders from youth organizations
• ministers, rabbi’s, other faith community leaders
• Rotary Club members
• Business council members
• Employee and labor groups
• Representatives of non-profit organizations
• Outreach to low socio-economic and diverse neighborhoods to intentionally include them
in the process
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4h - Vision SLP Mobius Contract
Page 8
Community Leaders will leave this kick-off meeting ready to recruit and train their community
members to conduct interviews. They will be clear about the resources available to them – a
volunteer professional facilitator, the Project Team, and members of the Partnership Team, and
they will understand the importance of their efforts to expand the vision for the city and set goals
and priorities for the next ten years.
Phase 3: Community Meetings & Development of Goals
Community meetings
After interviews have been conducted, open meetings will be held in communities throughout to
city. For example, children, families, neighbors, teachers and administrators from a school will
meet together to
• learn the results of the interviews (children will be reporting)
• tell stories and create images from the interviews in small groups and explore the
possibilities for St. Louis Park that emerge in the group
• Each group will report their ideas, images and vision to the whole assembly
Volunteer organization development consultants will help each community leader organize and
facilitate their community meeting.
The ideas, visions and visual images from across the city will be gathered and brought into a
community-wide meeting. Opportunities will also be provided for those not interviewed, or who
could not attend the community meetings, to participate through written and online surveys. The
resulting stories and images from all of these sources will be the focus of a culminating,
community-wide meeting.
Community-wide meeting
Volunteer representatives from each community meeting, community leaders, as well as other
interested people, will attend a community-wide meeting in the largest space available in the city.
At this meeting;
• Images of the future will be displayed
• Stories will be told in small and large groups
• Development themes will be identified, and
• An action plan will be created
• Communication will be developed to reach all the citizens of the City
We imagine that there will be lots of energy and enthusiasm for taking ideas and plans back into
their communities.
Partnership Team meeting
The Partnership Team members will meet to integrate the development themes identified in the
community-wide meeting into Vision St. Louis Park and strategies will be recommended to the
appropriate organizations, City agencies and community groups and individuals. The resulting
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4h - Vision SLP Mobius Contract
Page 9
goals and priorities will be incorporated into the work of the Outcomes Committee which will
formulate appropriate measure to monitor and evaluate progress on priorities during the next 5
year evaluation cycle.
Timeline
Our experience working with developed neighborhood associations tells us that there is a natural
cycle to the civic participation of residents. The best times to get people together for meetings
are in the spring and fall. Our planned timeline is as follows for 2005.
Winter Spring Summer Fall Year End
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Recruit
commitment
of community
leaders
Train leaders
for interview
process
Hundreds of
interviews
continue
Small & large
meetings to
shape future
goals
New outcomes
developed and
community
reporting
New Outcomes
After the renewed 2005 visioning process, the citizen vision outcomes committee will be set to
the task of developing additional indicators to measure. They will then be integrated into the
next 5 year survey in 2010. Our outcomes measurements are already a model for other cities
who share a commitment to progress. Integrating a second level of vision outcomes will
demonstrate how cities can continually progress in their measurement process.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4h - Vision SLP Mobius Contract
Page 10
EXHIBIT B – COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
PHASE I - Winter 2005
COMMITMENT OF COMMUNITY LEADERS
Project Team Meetings Phase I $ 7,500
Dept Head Meetings, design, prep, facilitate $ 2,700
Council meeting design, prep, facilitate $ 1,950
Outcomes and Vision group meeting, design, prep and facilitate $ 1,650
Individual meetings with key stakeholders $ 2,500
Partnership Team two half-day meetings, design, prep and facilitate $ 7,200
Partnership Team follow-up meeting, design, prep, facilitate $ 950
Support for Partnership Team as they invite community Leaders $ 900
Information sessions for potential volunteers, design, prep, facilitate (2) $ 1,500
Training sessions (2) volunteers, design, prep materials, facilitate $ 3,600
Due Upon Completion and Receipt of Invoice $ 30,450
PHASE II - Spring 2005
COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP AND INTERVIEW PROCESS
Community Leader, half-day, kick-off meeting, design, prep, facilitate $ 5,900
Training for interviewers and volunteers, design, prep, train $ 3,100
Due Upon Completion and Receipt of Invoice $ 10,500
PHASE III - Fall 2005
COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF GOALS
Support for Community Leaders and Volunteers as they conduct interviews $ 5,900
Hold community meetings to look at interviews and plan for the
community-wide meeting
$ 9,600
Community-wide meeting, design, prep, and train volunteers $ 5,900
Community-wide meeting, design, prep materials and facilitate $ 7,200
Compilation of results, materials and prep for follow-up with partnership
team
$ 4,800
Support identification of strategies and outcomes with partnership team and
follow up plan with outcomes committee
$ 3,600
Due Upon Completion and Receipt of Invoice $ 37,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 76,450
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4i - Bid Tab Ped Crossings Inters Impr 99-09 & 05-13
Page 1
4i. Bid Tabulation: Motion to reject the bid for the Pedestrian Crossings and
Intersection Improvement Projects– City Project No. 1999-0900 and 2005-1300 and
recommend Staff to solicit quotes to complete the independent specialty work.
Background: City Project 19990900 is part of the City’s Sidewalk, Trail, Bikeway and
Crossing Plan which has been incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Part of the plan
identified a need to provide more awareness for pedestrians crossing at certain intersections
throughout the city. The adopted plan for crossings identifies 26 locations for improvement.
The project considered for this year’s construction consists of at-grade improvements at 20
locations. These sites are typically located along major pedestrian thoroughfares. The
improvements for the identified sites will consist of one or more of the following:
• Improved Striping consists of adding or repainting crosswalks, stop bars and/or lane
striping.
• Improved Signage consists of adding the appropriate pedestrian crossing sign in the high
intensity fluorescent green color
• Improved Sidewalks consists or adding or upgrading the pedestrian ramps to make them
compliant with the new ADA standards
• Improved Signals consists of adding countdown timers to the pedestrian crossing
indicator.
Included with the bidding package was City Project 20051300 which has work similar in nature.
This work includes minor intersection configuration changes to improve traffic operations and
increase safety at the intersection of Cedar Lake Road and Quentin Avenue, the intersection of
Quentin Avenue and Old Cedar Lake Road, and the intersection of Old Cedar Lake Road and the
Highway 100 frontage road as recommended in the traffic study for this area and as directed by
Council in December 2004. These improvements will better help facilitate traffic operations in
this vicinity.
Bid Analysis: Only one bid for the project was received on April 27, 2005. An advertisement
for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on April 14 and April 21, 2005, and in
the Construction Bulletin on April 15 and 22, 2005. A summary of the bid result is as follows:
Staff has reviewed the bid submitted and has tabulated the results. The base bid was 15% above
the Engineer’s Estimate. The alternate bid for additional work at the intersection of Old Cedar
Lake Road and the East Highway 100 Frontage Road, Scenario D of the Attachment, is 75%
over the Engineer’s estimate. With only one bid received and the costs considerably over the
estimate, staff recommends rejecting the bid.
Legal: The project proposal language states that the City reserves the right to reject any and all
bids. Staff has discussed the bid rejection with City Attorney, Tom Scott.
CONTRACTOR BASE BID AMOUNT ALT BID AMOUNT
BCG Construction $108,944.81 $60,018.14
Engineer’s Estimate $94,587.00 $34,159.00
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4i - Bid Tab Ped Crossings Inters Impr 99-09 & 05-13
Page 2
Project Status: While this project was out for bids, the city received a number of requests for
the bid package (12). The request came mostly from specialty contractors who perform pavement
striping and traffic signal work. There were also two concrete contractors who requested bid
packages. Unfortunately there was only one contractor willing to act as the general contractor
for this project.
The work packaged under this project falls under three categories, pavement striping work,
traffic signal work and minor concrete work. Each of these types of work is not related and is
independent of the others. In evaluating the situation, staff does not feel the work as packaged in
this project is conducive to competitive bidding and therefore recommends performing the
specialty work under individual contracts. Quotes can be solicited from the specialty contractors
to complete the pavement striping work and the traffic signal work. The concrete work can be
added to the city’s annual concrete maintenance project and the small amount of sign work can
either be performed in-house or added to the striping contractor’s work, which typically perform
signage work as well.
Staff does not anticipate that re-bidding the project will improve bidder participation or better the
results.
Construction Timing: Staff can complete the solicitation of quotes and contract preparation in
a month’s time. This would allow for the work to begin in late June or early July. It is
anticipated that the construction would take about 2 weeks to complete.
Attachment: Short-Term Improvements Plan (Supplement)
Prepared By: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4j - Approve Copeland Building Corp
Page 1
4j. Motion to enter into an agreement with Copeland Building Corporation in an
amount not to exceed $755,000 to replace the park buildings at Browndale and
Nelson Parks according to the 2005 CIP.
Background: The 2005 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes the demolition of the existing
park buildings at Browndale and Nelson Park and the construction of new park buildings. The
City has budgeted $737,000 to be spent on the demolition and construction.
Public Process: City staff met with residents who live near Browndale and Nelson Park to get
their ideas prior to designing the park buildings and park areas. 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 will be 1,900 square feet and the layout and design of
these buildings is very similar to the new building at Oak Hill Park.
Bid Analysis: Bid packages for the park buildings at Browndale and Nelson Park were
distributed to contractors upon their request. Bids were opened on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 at City
Hall. Nine bids were subsequently received in the amounts as follows:
Copeland Building Corp. $ 755,000.00
American Liberty Construction Inc. $ 764,000.00
Ebert, Inc. $ 777,000.00
Maertens-Brenny Construction Company $ 779,300.00
Greystone Construction Company $ 786,000.00
Gen-Con Construction $ 817,000.00
Gladstone Construction Company $ 826,435.00
Met-Con Metro, Inc. $ 873,000.00
Lund Martin Construction Company $ 886,335.00
The cost of the buildings came back higher than anticipated. Staff has contacted other
municipalities and they have had similar results. It appears that the economy is rebounding and
we aren’t getting the low prices we have seen in the past couple of years. We will also incur
some increased cost due to poor soil conditions and asbestos abatement at the building sites.
Staff would also like to continue to incorporate Public Art into each new building. This would be
an additional cost of $25,000. This is an element that makes St. Louis Park stand out from our
neighboring cities and is consistent with the City’s interest in promoting public art when
possible. The neighborhood organizations also gave positive feedback on incorporating art into
our building design. Staff anticipates that the cost of buildings will be approximately $75,000
higher than anticipated given the bids received, public art, and demolition costs. Staff discussed
with Jean McGann, Finance Director, about the costs being higher than anticipated. Ms. McGann
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4j - Approve Copeland Building Corp
Page 2
indicated that the Park Improvement Fund will be able to fund the additional cost with the money
that exists in the fund in addition to some anticipated savings from other 2005 CIP projects.
Recommendation: Staff recommends Copeland Building Corporation as the lowest responsible
bidder in the amount of $755,000. References have been checked on their firm. From all
indications, they are a reputable firm. The architecture firm we are using has also worked with
Copeland Building Corporation in the past.
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.
Construction Timelines: Since both buildings have been demolished, the contractor plans to
begin construction in late May or early June. The buildings will be ready for use in time for the
winter skating season.
Prepared By: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4l - Planning Comm minutes 4-20-05
Page 1
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
April 20, 2005--6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison,
Robert Kramer, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Morris
STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, 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 of April 6, 2005
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to approve the minutes of April 6, 2005. The
motion passed 4-0
Commissioner Timian arrived at 6:05 p.m. Commissioner Bissonnette arrived at 6:10
p.m.
3. Hearings
A. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Office to High Density Residential and
Zoning Map change from Office to RC (Residential Commercial) for Meadowbrook
Lofts (public hearing continued from 3/16)
Location: 7200, 7202, 7250, 7252 Excelsior Boulevard
Applicant: RKL Landholdings, LLC
Case Nos.: 04-71-CP and 04-72-Z
Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented a staff report.
Commissioner Robertson discussed the zoning of the ApplianceSmart building and asked
if there was a concern about slowly eroding the Industrial districts into Residential
districts.
Ms. Erickson responded that an Industrial Study is currently underway. She said the
ApplianceSmart site, though zoned Industrial, is more of a retail use. As a retail use it is
a non-conforming use at this time. She went on to say that there are many daytime
Industrial uses which would probably work well with a Residential use next door. Ms.
Erickson said once the Industrial Study is completed, staff will have a much clearer
answer to Commissioner Robertson’s question.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4l - Planning Comm minutes 4-20-05
Page 2
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if more than six stories could be allowed under
the proposed zoning.
Ms. Erickson responded that the R-C district has a maximum 75 ft. height permitted.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about density.
Ms. Erickson responded that it is unlikely that more than 113 units would be workable at
the site with a 6-story building.
Chair Carper asked if there was a concern about the loss of potential office sites.
Ms. Erickson described the office area around 394 and 100. She said there are several
large areas of Office zoning. She added that the Burlington Coat Factory site is being
considered for Office zoning as part of the Elmwood Area Study. Ms. Erickson
commented that there are other areas that provide better access for an office building than
the subject site.
Commissioner Timian asked if the wetland to the north of the site would be developed as
usable green space.
Ms. Erickson said it would largely remain natural and the developer would have to
comply with the Designed Outdoor Recreational Area requirements.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about density if the site was guided for medium
density.
Ms. Erickson said with medium density guiding it could be as much as 30 units per acre.
Dean Dovolis, DJR Architecture, introduced the project team. He said a goal of the
project is to connect a trail to the creek.
The public hearing was continued from March 16 and remained open.
The Chair closed the hearing as there was no one present wishing to speak.
Commissioner Robertson said his only conflict regards approaching saturation of higher
density types in the city. He asked what the best need is for the city. He asked if the
city needs to retain some office space. He commented that the site is a good fit for higher
density residential, but he isn’t sure whether or not the city needs to make that step.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she doesn’t have objections to adding medium
density residential on Excelsior Blvd. She said she is concerned about six-story high
density residential on Excelsior Blvd.
Commissioner Robertson said because of the expanse of the wetland a six-story building
would make a striking contrast. He said if the site is going to be residential the building
needs to make a strong statement.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4l - Planning Comm minutes 4-20-05
Page 3
Commissioner Timian said he agreed that this is a nice site for a sizeable condominium
building. He commented on an article about Portland, Oregon which concerned over-
building condominiums to the detriment of losing the full sense of community by
creating many neighborhoods without children. He said it would be helpful to look at the
numbers of bedrooms per condo unit.
Commissioner Bissonnette said the drawing of the building makes a strong statement but
in reality the area around the site is heavily developed. She said she would prefer to see
medium density residential at the site.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she’d like to see a project at that site but not one of
the proposed density. She said she was concerned that the City continues to build
higher density projects on major roadways. She went on to say that the City should be
looking at the long view on how to move traffic on its major internal roadways. She said
she would be voting against the request on that overall view.
Chair Carper said he felt the rezoning was an appropriate use of the site and a good spot
for a larger building.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the Comprehensive
Plan land use change from Office to RC. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a 5-1 vote (Johnston-Madison opposed).
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of an amendment to the
zoning map to change the designation from O-Office to RC-Residential Commercial.
Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 5-1 vote (Johnston-
Madison opposed).
Commissioner Robertson made a motion that the City Council consider rezoning the
entire property to RC rather than leaving the northern portion as Industrial, as that portion
is wetland.
In response to Commissioner Timian’s question about wetland zoning, Ms. Erickson
responded that there isn’t an open space zoning designation. The Comprehensive Plan
provides guiding for park or community facilities, but not for open space.
The applicant said they would consider donating the wetland as open space.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of
6-0.
B. Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Garage Construction
Location: 5511 Vermont Street
Applicant: Darrell Brown
Case Nos.: 05-10-CUP and 05-11-VAR
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4l - Planning Comm minutes 4-20-05
Page 4
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented a staff report. He said that
based on the analysis provided, staff recommends denial of the request for conditional
use permit and variance.
A discussion was held regarding the number of similar requests which have been
approved since the ordinance was enacted. Mr. Morrison and Ms. Erickson said this was
the first request they are aware of. Ms. Erickson said a recent amendment to accessory
buildings allows some larger buildings by conditional use permit. Mr. Morrison said the
only other application for a CUP for an accessory building related to a garage with a
finished upstairs with windows.
Commissioner Kramer asked if the garage would be allowed if it is attached to the house.
Mr. Morrison said a garage is considered to be accessory, whether it is attached or
detached.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison mentioned a property on Wood Lane that has a large
addition/garage with living space above the garage.
Mr. Morrison said he was familiar with the property. As the garage is attached to the
house, living space above the garage is allowed.
Commissioner Robertson discussed the possibility of adding a hobby shop to the house.
Darrell Brown, applicant, has lived at 5511 Vermont for 27 years. He said the house and
proposed garage would occupy 15% of the lot. He said he would like to make some use
of the land. Mr. Brown went on to say that he has had a stroke and he would like to be
busy in the shop. His smaller shop has become too dangerous because of lack of space.
He explained that his house is two stories, so the total house square footage is quite a bit
more than the footprint.
Commissioner Robertson asked if adding a shop to the house and building a separate
large garage would be a solution for the applicant.
Mr. Brown said he could live with that, but as he has quite a bit of land and a nice lot his
preference would be to build as proposed.
Chair Carper opened the public hearing.
Jeff Carlson, 5505 Vermont, said he lives next door to the applicant. He said he didn’t
think the proposed garage would be visible from any of the surrounding streets. He said
the lot is very large and he doesn’t think the proposed garage would be imposing to the
three closest neighbors. He mentioned the development at Brookside School which is
¼ the size of Mr. Brown’s lot and is proposed to have five single family homes on the lot.
Steve Pellinen, 4330 Vernon, lives directly south of the applicant. He said the lots in the
area are large. He likes the idea of people being able to use their property. He doesn’t
think the proposal would negatively impact his lot, if the uses do not change. Mr.
Pellinen added that all of the properties are adjacent to Highway 100 which creates a loud
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4l - Planning Comm minutes 4-20-05
Page 5
ambient noise to the neighborhood so the idea of a shop doesn’t bother him. He said
his main concern regarded the architecture of the proposed garage.
Lois Hultberg, 5611Vermont, is a 40-year resident of the neighborhood. She said she
has concerns about the neighborhood staying residential and not becoming commercial.
She mentioned a neighborhood property that appears to be conducting a business. It has
a tow truck and many cars parked in front of it. She said she respects Mr. Brown’s
plans, but in general, she would be concerned if the neighborhood became too
commercial.
Mr. Morrison said a complaint has been filed regarding the property Ms. Hultberg
mentioned. He explained that it can take some time to bring home occupations into
compliance. He added that is part of the concern that the City has regarding large
accessory buildings.
As no one else was present who wished to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Bissonnette commented that the use seems reasonable but she is
concerned about resale and what the next homeowner would bring to such a large space.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she had visited the property. She believes the use
is reasonable but she is concerned that the view of an adjacent property owner will be cut
off. She said she also shares Commissioner Bissonnette’s concern about resale.
Commissioner Robertson said the variance is a special tool which requires hardship. He
said the applicant has options and he doesn’t see anything in the analysis or discussion
which justifies a variance. He said as a solution he could see doing the shop as an
addition to the house and building a smaller garage with the required setbacks.
Commissioner Robertson remarked that variances do set a precedent.
Chair Carper stated that he agreed that the applicant has alternatives.
Commissioner Robertson moved to deny the variance request to build an accessory
building larger than the footprint of the house and moved to approve a conditional use
permit to build an accessory building greater than 800 square feet.
There was a discussion about how the applicant could proceed. Options discussed
included tabling consideration of the conditional use permit, recommending CUP
approval up to the size of the existing house, a condition of approval that the addition to
the home be constructed, and a CUP for a 1900 sq. ft. accessory building.
Mr. Brown asked about dividing the lot.
Mr. Morrison responded that in the R-1 District each lot is required to have at least 75 ft.
of frontage. The applicant’s lot is 100 ft. wide. A garage has to be accessory to a
principal use on the lot.
Mr. Brown discussed the amount of square footage and his desire to divide the lot.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4l - Planning Comm minutes 4-20-05
Page 6
He discussed the uniqueness of his situation. He said he felt the variance would not set a
precedent because of the uniqueness of the size of the lot.
Chair Carper said land didn’t appear to be the issue. He went on to say that the issue was
the footprint of the house, the number of square feet, the size of the proposed garage in
comparison to the home, and the inability to meet the hardship findings for a variance.
Mr. Brown said he did not want to put an addition onto his house. He said he did not
have another solution to propose. He said he would look at the possibility of reducing the
building somewhat in size. Mr. Brown said he wanted to move forward and if that
wasn’t possible he would have to drop his proposal.
Commissioner Kramer discussed tabling the request so the applicant could figure out a
better solution with staff.
Ms. McMonigal said there is typically one month between Planning Commission
recommendation and City Council consideration. The applicant can also extend that
time period. She explained that the applicant could consider the options discussed prior
to City Council consideration.
Commissioner Robertson said the motion he made still seemed appropriate, it gave the
applicant options, and it kept the process moving forward.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion to deny the variance request to
build an accessory building larger than the footprint of the house and to approve a
conditional use permit to build an accessory building greater than 800 square feet. The
motion passed 5-1 (Timian opposed).
Commissioner Timian left the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Revisions to Chapter D – Housing
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 05-06-CP
Ms. Erickson commented on the need for the Planning Commission to discuss the
amendment at a study session following the regular meeting.
Chair Carper opened the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson moved to continue the public hearing until May 18, 2005.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
4. Unfinished Business
A. Discussion – Rules of Procedures
Commissioner Robertson noted that in the revisions provided by Commissioner Morris,
Article IV – Order of Business, Section 8, should be corrected to Section 9.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4l - Planning Comm minutes 4-20-05
Page 7
Chair Carper suggested revising Section 1 to read: At its first meeting of each calendar
year, the Commission shall elect from its membership a Chair and Vice-chair. He also
suggested revising Article III – Meetings, Section 7 to read as follows: If a
Commissioner wishes to transmit information regarding the business of the Commission,
the Commissioner should present it to the Community Development Director or the
Secretary of the Commission for distribution to the Commissioners. Chair Carper also
noted the following correction to Article III – Meetings, Section 6: All regular and
special meetings, records, and accounts shall be open to the public.
Chair Carper discussed Article III – Meetings, Section 3. regarding quorum. He
suggested adding a section stating that if a quorum does not exist, the agenda will be
considered and public hearings will be left open until a quorum exists. Ms. McMonigal
stated that staff should discuss this with the City Clerk as it is her understanding that a
meeting should not be convened or opened without a quorum.
5. New Business
Commissioner Robertson distributed a page from the Zoning Code, Section 36.166 and 36.167
(g) dimensional standards and densities for both the R-C and R-4 Zoning Districts regarding Item
(12): All dwelling units shall be at or above the grade of all land abutting the structure within a
distance of 25 feet from all faces of the building. He said he understood the intent of Item (12)
but remarked that it seems too restrictive. He asked that it be considered for further discussion.
6. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action – April 18
7. Adjournment
Commissioner Robertson moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4m - PRAC Official Minutes from 3-16-05
Page 1
1
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
MARCH 16, 2005 at 7 P.M.
REC CENTER PROGRAMMING OFFICE
MEMBERS PRESENT: George Foulkes, Steve Hallfin, Richard Johnson, Sarah
Lindenberg, and Tom Worthington
Bruce Cornwall and Dana Strong arrived following the Off-Leash
Dog Park meeting
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kirk Hawkinson
STAFF PRESENT: Rick Birno, Michelle Margo, and Stacy Voelker
Rick Beane and Cindy Walsh arrived following the Off-Leash Dog
Park meeting
1. Call to order
Mr. Worthington, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
2. Adjustments to the agenda
Mr. Birno advised staff and Commission members attending the Off-Leash Dog Park
meeting will be in attendance following the off-leash meeting and recommended item 5b
and 5c be discussed in reverse order pending when attendance is complete; members
agreed. (Staff and members attending the off-leash meeting arrived at 7:46 p.m.)
3. Approval of Minutes from February 16, 2005
Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from the February 16, 2005 meeting, Mr.
Foulkes seconded. The motion passed 5-0.
4. New Business
None.
5. Old Business
A. Discuss details for the Commissioners’ Swim/Skate Event
Mr. Johnson showed the wonderful flyer Ms. Margo created and advised that Mr.
Bill Gleason from Gleason Printing agreed to donate printing of the flyers again
this year. Mr. Johnson distributed notes organizing this year’s event. The
members reviewed and discussed the list.
Members feel the attendance of 220 people was good last year. They discussed
and agreed to provide two complimentary admissions to businesses in return for
publishing the event poster. Mr. Birno offered to print 300 complimentary tickets.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4m - PRAC Official Minutes from 3-16-05
Page 2
2
Mr. Hallfin will contact the Hockey Association and Little League Association to
include an advertisement in their newsletters.
Members feel a larger variety of foods should be available. Mr. Birno indicated
the food is available but there is additional work cleaning up following the event.
Members agreed it was worth the additional effort.
Mr. Johnson distributed a potential publicity action plan and members discussed.
Members feel the list is complete and volunteered as follows: Mr. Worthington
volunteered to contact the newspapers; Mr. Foulkes volunteered to contact TV
and radio stations; Ms. Lindenberg volunteered to post flyers in all public
buildings; Mr. Hallfin volunteered himself and Mr. Strong to contact retail
businesses along Excelsior Boulevard from France Avenue to Hopkins; Mr.
Cornwall was volunteered to contact retail businesses on Highway 7 from France
Avenue to Highway 169; and Mr. Foulkes volunteered and Mr. Hawkinson was
volunteered to contact all the businesses between and along Minnetonka
Boulevard, Cedar Lake Road, and Highway 394.
The members discussed volunteering to staff the night of the event. Most
members indicated they will be available that evening and some of their family
members will also assist. Mr. Birno advised what minimum staffing would be
needed and members agreed to have two members to take tickets and monitor the
skating rink, and four members will be in the concession stand and on the
concession deck. Members agreed and will have at least six individuals staffing
the event.
Mr. Birno advised the event would take place regardless of weather. If the Aquatic
Park is closed due to weather, the arena will remain open. Mr. Birno suggested
having a volunteer distribute ice skates when needed and the members agreed.
B. Off-Leash Dog Park Update
Ms. Walsh advised that after deliberation, the task force has their final list of four
potential sites. The potential sites are all larger than the interim site, but it appears
the task force may decide on at least two sites both being one to two acres in size.
The final four sites are Cedar Knoll, Victoria Lake, the southeast corner of Dakota
Park and the 40th and France site. The task force realizes that Minneapolis owns
the land at 40th and France but feel it’s a nice site. The task force will hold a
public meeting on Wednesday, April 20 from 6- 8 in the Rec Center Banquet
Room to review each site. There will be a formal presentation of the sites at 6:30
p.m. and four areas (one for each potential site) will be set up to receive
comments from individuals. The task force will meet in May to review the
comments received and review the permit fee/procedure. Recommendations will
be presented to Council in late May or early June. Ms. Walsh advised a survey
will be sent out to all individuals that have purchased an off-leash dog park permit
to collect statistical information on the interim site. Ms. Walsh thanked Mr.
Strong and Mr. Cornwall for participating in the meetings.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4m - PRAC Official Minutes from 3-16-05
Page 3
3
Mr. Cornwall advised the interim site would be open only until the end of summer
as that land is slated for development. Ms. Walsh indicated the task force has a
good balance of individuals and discussions.
C. Excess City Land Update
Mr. Worthington indicated the task force has made recommendations to staff
regarding what should be done with the excess city land. Staff will hold a public
meeting on Tuesday, April 12 at 6 p.m. in the Rec Center. A meeting notice will
be distributed to all neighbors within 500 feet of each parcel. Mr. Worthington
advised Clint Pires will interview Kathy Larsen from Community Development
on St. Louis Park’s local TV station. Mr. Worthington advised an estimated 2 to
2.5 million could be received from the sale of these properties.
Mr. Worthington asked members at the last meeting how the money received from
the sale of these parcels should be spent. Some suggested it be put in an
endowment fund and to spend the interest only; deposit into the general city fund;
spend the money on projects such as park improvements that are not included in
the CIP; give to the neighborhoods via grants for neighborhood improvements; or
put toward more single-family housing to meet the demand. Ms. Walsh felt most
members liked the idea of spending some of the money for park improvements so
people could see how that money was used. Items that are not part of the CIP and
not budgeted could then be incorporated into parks.
Mr. Worthington encouraged everyone to attend the public meeting if they are
interested. Mr. Strong inquired if the Commission should recommend specific
funding decisions and Mr. Worthington advised he had brought the information
from the last Commission meeting to the task force and feels the task force will
make the final recommendation.
D. 2005 CIP Update
Mr. Beane reviewed the CIP items scheduled for 2005, gave brief descriptions,
and estimated time frames for each project.
Mr. Strong inquired if the sun shelter at Dakota could be increased to a park
building and include a concession area if associations donated money to do so.
Mr. Beane advised it would be more expensive (approximately $100,000 -
$200,000 depending on the building) and the planned sun shelter is very basic.
Mr. Strong indicated it would be beneficial to have a concession area as it is an
active field. Mr. Birno, Mr. Beane, and Mr. Cornwall advised it would be a
substantial increase in cost, and the building codes that need to be followed may
cause potential barriers.
Ms. Walsh had conceptual designs of Browndale and Nelson Parks on display for
the Commission members to review. Mr. Beane indicated the buildings will be
created similar to the building at Oak Hill Park as that is the standard park
building design approved for all future park buildings. Commission members
thanked Mr. Beane for the information.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4m - PRAC Official Minutes from 3-16-05
Page 4
4
6. Communications
A. Chair
Mr. Worthington inquired if there are any issues that need to be discussed in
April. Mr. Strong inquired on an update of the Commission’s annual goals. The
members recommended meeting in April from 8 – 9 p.m. Discussion items will
include the Park & Run, Commissioners’ Skate and Swim, letter to youth
associations, and the number of staff that will attend the appreciation breakfast.
Mr. Worthington inquired on the residential survey scheduled to be sent out this
year and staff indicated it is in the preparation stage. Mr. Johnson inquired if
demographic information would be available to ensure our park system is meeting
the needs of the community and Ms. Walsh indicated it would be difficult to
obtain that information as the survey does not ask demographic questions.
B. Commissioners
Mr. Strong inquired about the Staff Appreciation Breakfast. Mr. Johnson
distributed notes on the Commissioners’ Appreciation Breakfast and members
reviewed. Mr. Beane suggested distributing a personal invitation to each
individual and Mr. Johnson agreed. Mr. Strong feels the breakfast is a personal
thank you and an individual invite would be great. Members agreed.
C. Program Report
Ms. Margo distributed an advertisement for the Park & Run and indicated the ad
has been published in various magazines. The members were advised of the
events that will be held on that date which include the Park & Run, Children First
Ice Cream Social, Kids’ Garage Sale and the Tennis “free for all”. Ms. Margo
advised all the logistics of these events have been determined. Members inquired
on volunteering for the event and Ms. Margo offered to e-mail the volunteer form
to all members. Mr. Foulkes inquired on the number of volunteers needed and Ms.
Margo anticipates approximately 10-15 volunteers.
Mr. Birno indicated the idea for this fund-raising event came from the
Commission and thanked Ms. Margo for her work on the event. Ms. Margo
advised the members of the sponsors and sponsorship money received along with
the expenses of the race. To date, the sponsorship money has exceeded the
expenses. Ms. Margo thanked Mr. Beane and his staff for providing materials for
the event. Mr. Cornwall inquired about parking for the race. Ms. Margo advised
parking will be available at the Rec Center (event is prior to the opening of the
Aquatic Park), in the two ramp parking areas off Excelsior Boulevard, and
Citizen’s Independent Bank can be used as an overflow area. Mr. Worthington
inquired if there will be prizes or trophies issued to top runners; Ms. Margo
indicated none will be awarded as that may take away from the event being a
fund-raiser.
Ms. Margo advised members of the Farmers Market to be held on Friday’s from
June 17 through September 16 from 11 – 4 located in the Town Green.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4m - PRAC Official Minutes from 3-16-05
Page 5
5
D. Director’s Report
Ms. Walsh advised that Damon Farber Associates, who built the Wolfe Park
Amphitheater, received another reward from the Minnesota Chapter of the
American Society of Landscape Architects.
Ms. Walsh indicated on Saturday, May 7 there will be a community bike ride at
noon and community members are invited. The City Council would like to
encourage Commission members to attend the event. Ms. Walsh reviewed the
trails that will be traveled beginning at Bass Lake Preserve. Members were also
advised the Arbor Day/Earth Day Celebration will be held on May 7 beginning at
10 a.m. by Wooddale and West 36 Street. Mr. Hallfin asked for a reminder next
month.
7. Adjournment
Moved by Mr. Cornwall and seconded by Mr. Hallfin to adjourn. The motion passed 7-0.
With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 8:41 p.m.
Minutes prepared and
respectfully submitted by,
Stacy M. Voelker
Recording Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4n - TAC Minutes February 3
Page 1
OFFICIAL MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 3, 2005
ST. LOUIS PARK COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Rick Dworsky, Ken Huiras, Mary Jean Overend,
and Rolf Peterson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dale Hartman and Bob Jacobson
STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh, Community
TV Coordinator
OTHERS PRESENT: Arlen Mattern, Time Warner Cable Public Affairs Administrator
1. Call to Order
Chair Huiras called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
2. Roll Call
Present at roll call were Commissioners Browning, Dworsky, Huiras, Overend and Peterson.
3. Approval of Minutes for December 2, 2004
Commissioner Browning indicated on page three, paragraph three, “or if you have a
converter box and subscribe to navigator services” should be inserted at the end of the first
sentence.
Commissioner Overend indicated on page four, paragraph two, the reply from Mr. McHugh
should be “yes”.
Commissioner Peterson also noted on page four, paragraph one, it should be
“Meadowbrook” instead of “Excelsior and Grand”.
It was moved by Commissioner Browning, seconded by Commissioner Peterson, to
approve the minutes of December 2, 2004, as amended.
The motion passed 5-0.
4. Adoption of Agenda
Chair Huiras requested public comment be added to future agendas.
Mr. Dunlap requested item 7B be deleted and add 5C – Review 2004/2005 Work Plans.
5. Old Business
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4n - TAC Minutes February 3
Page 2
A. Renewal Update
Mr. McHugh presented a PowerPoint presentation.
Chair Huiras asked what Time Warner’s position was on the number of local channels?
There was further discussion about what happens when the system is all digital, would
more access channels be available? Mr. McHugh responded that currently State law
provides for any additional channels, under certain conditions, and Time Warner met those
requirements in the past when they added channels. Should they need to add channels in
the future, they could still meet those requirements. This was a change from what the City
originally proposed, which was a significant number of new channels due to the transition
to an entirely digital system.
Chair Huiras asked if they would be able to discuss using the School District’s studio at the
May meeting, and Mr. McHugh replied yes, they would make it an agenda item.
Chair Huiras asked what items were pending? Mr. McHugh replied that there were about
four or five items and Time Warner had their own business points. Coming to terms on
the local origination was one of the more significant things where they were trying to
reach agreement.
Commissioner Peterson asked about the $.40 per subscriber figure, was that a standard?
Mr. McHugh replied yes, that’s what their other recent agreements have been. Currently
if a subscriber looks at their bill there is an item that says access fee. Next year the
access fee would include $.40, which would go to the city for equipment purchases for
both the School District and the City for cable TV and technology uses. An example
would be that the School district has a fiber optic network that works well for data, but as
far as distributing video and audio between school sites, there was equipment that they
needed to buy to be able to transport data, video and audio. The equipment grant would
be used to buy those parts.
Commissioner Peterson asked how they came to the figure of $.40, was that what they had
before? Mr. McHugh responded no, what they had before was a certain amount of money
every five years. This way it would be incremental. The actual $.40 level was suggested
by Time Warner and they were quite firm about it. The City agreed to accept that and work
with them on other parts.
B. Emergency Alert System Update
Mr. Dunlap stated that Mr. McHugh referenced in his presentation the fact that at the
most recent meeting, Time Warner talked about having the City designated as one of the
Federal Emergency Alert System sites and they would work with the Hennepin County
Sheriff’s office on this. He had not completed the research on what that would entail, but
hoped to do that before next Friday’s meeting with Time Warner.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4n - TAC Minutes February 3
Page 3
Chair Huiras asked if they were contacting the Sheriff’s Office to find that information?
Mr. Dunlap replied they had Federal Emergency Alert System data available on the
internet, and he would also speak with a representative from the Sheriff’s Office to see if
they had any comments or information.
C. Review 2004/2005 Work Plans
There was discussion about the 2005 Work Plan. Using the School District studio for
community TV for the May 5 meeting was suggested by Chair Huiras. Chair Huiras also
asked about By-Laws amendments and the City Clerk expected to have modified
language available a few weeks before that May meeting when they can approved or
denied.
Chair Huiras asked if a date had been set in March for the joint meeting with Council?
Mr. Dunlap replied no.
Chair Huiras noted franchise renewal progress report should be added to the May 5
meeting, and continue until an agreement was reached.
6. New Business
A. Consider requesting Time Warner Cable revise “Access fee” price listing placement
Mr. Dunlap stated this is on the St. Louis Park price list that customers can get from Time
Warner at the cable stores. The access fee was listed as other charges, but that fee was
part of the basic cable package and not listed near that on the price list. It should be made
clear that the basic package price did not include the access fee.
Mr. Mattern stated that they had made that change and had moved it up to the cable
service charges.
B. TV studio usage and consider appointing a publicity committee
Chair Huiras stated that he had talked with Commissioner Jacobson and this went to the
franchise agreement where they were talking about the use of the studio. The concern
was that it was not used a lot because people didn’t realize it was available. He proposed
forming a committee within the commission to publicize and also to assist the public if
they wanted help using the facilities. Commissioner Jacobson volunteered to help, but
because he was not present, it was suggested this be held over to a future meeting.
Mr. McHugh stated the next production at the high school studio would be February 14th at
4:00. A year from now when they have more new equipment, it will be more impressive.
C. Conference policy for Commissioners
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4n - TAC Minutes February 3
Page 4
Mr. Dunlap reported that there was no written policy about this. There was a reference in
the City’s personnel manual that says, “Conferences and workshops are to be job related
and used to develop the information and skills of City staff. They may be attended upon
the approval of the supervisor. Such conferences must be within budget guidelines and
fit within goals and objectives set by the City.” At a point years ago an item was brought
before Council to consider whether or not Telecomm Commissioners should be
reimbursed for cable service. The Council did not like that suggestion, but reiterated at
that time that they wanted to educate Commissioners and send them to conferences and
seminars and would be willing to pay for that expense. Since then, a couple of
commissioners had gone to state and national conferences. What hadn’t occurred yet was
when more than one commissioner wanted to attend a conference. The amount in the
budget for the last few years was for one commissioner to go and one city staff person to
go. With tight budgets, there was no staff travel to conferences at this time.
Commissioners were still able to go. Mr. Dunlap recommends the National Association
of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) conference, typically held in
September. Commissioner Dworsky said that having two commissioners go would be
more effective at covering the concurrent sessions, and it was a great way for
commissioners to increase their knowledge. Commissioner Browning said he liked the
idea of having more than one commissioner attend.
Commissioner Overend asked what was reimbursed? Mr. Dunlap replied they
reimbursed air travel, transportation from the airport to the hotel, meals that weren’t
provided, conference registration and hotel costs. Basically everything it took for a
commissioner to attend for three or four days.
Chair Huiras stated that the 2005 budget had been completed. Was there only one person
for 2005? Mr. Dunlap replied that they might have it budgeted for one staff and one
commissioner, but he would need to verify that.
It was moved by Chair Huiras, seconded by Commissioner Browning, to request staff to
revise the 2005 budget, and include in the 2006 budget, that one additional person be
able to attend a conference.
The motion passed 5-0.
D. Update on municipal wireless systems like Chaska and Buffalo
Mr. Dunlap stated that Clint Pires, the Technology and Support Services Director, had an
informational meeting with the City Council and shared that St. Louis Park was
beginning to consider studying whether or not to go forward with some kind of wireless
internet access. Many large cities such as Philadelphia, San Francisco and Minneapolis,
were looking at this. A Grand Rapids, Michigan article stated that the purpose for them
going forward was to ensure that all neighborhoods had equal access to the system. A
couple different kinds of systems were proposed. Ones that had already been built out
included the WiFi 802.11 transmission system. WiMax hasn’t been deployed yet, but
offers more range and bandwidth. There are several models. Cerritos, California waived
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4n - TAC Minutes February 3
Page 5
their pole attachment fees to allow a private company to build a city-wide network.
Verizon had been touting their broadband access, which is available in a number of cities
and airports. The City of Chaska built their own WiFi network expects to pay for their
system within three to four years.
Commissioner Browning asked what type of 802.11 they were using in Chaska? Mr.
McHugh believed it was “G”.
Mr. Dunlap said that the City of Buffalo, Minnesota also offers a Wi-Fi service, and that
Windom just built their own fiber optic to the home system for 4,200 homes and
businesses and would be turning that on in a couple of months. Moorhead is also looking
at getting a wireless service.
Commissioners Dworsky and Browning requested further information for both Chaska
and Philadelphia.
Commissioner Peterson asked if they knew what Chaska was charging? Mr. McHugh
said it was between $15-20. They didn’t say what the equipment charge was. In Buffalo
they had three tiers of service, the lowest being $10/month for 160 kilobits/second,
however that didn’t include the modem or the receiver which could be leased at
$10/month for five years or purchased for $400 (approx.). He didn’t get a comprehensive
list of pricing from Chaska.
Commissioner Browning asked if someone was going to offer it free? Mr. Dunlap
replied he had read articles about cities that had talked about having a citywide “hot spot”
with no charge for service, but he was unsure where that was.
Mr. McHugh indicated the reference he heard at the conference was to Dayton, Ohio who
would have a “hot spot” in their downtown where it was free to connect, but there would
be an advertising pop up every eleven minutes.
Chair Huiras asked if the service offered in Chaska affected Time Warner? Mr. Mattern
said he wasn’t aware of any effect, and that it was a slower service than what Time
Warner offers.
Mr. McHugh didn’t believe they would be competing for the same customer. People that
subscribed to Road Runner liked the premium service with fast speeds, and that was not
what Chaska was offering.
Mr. Dunlap said Road Runner had improved their speed to five megabits/second at the
end of January. Chaska.net was one megabit/second.
E. Elect Officers for 2005 (effective next meeting)
Commissioner Overend nominated Commissioner Dworsky as Commission Chair.
Commissioner Dworsky accepted the nomination. Approved.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4n - TAC Minutes February 3
Page 6
Commissioner Browning nominated Commissioner Overend Vice Chair. Commissioner
Overend accepted the nomination. Approved.
7. Reports
A. Complaints
Chair Huiras requested that the number of phone service subscribers be included on the
monthly franchise report from Time Warner.
Commissioner Browning asked when they began offering telephone service? Mr.
Mattern replied the first of the year. They had some beta testers during the fall and early
winter.
Commissioner Browning asked if someone had a TiVo unit and had phone service through
the cable company, would it work? Mr. Mattern replied he did not know, but would check.
Chair Huiras requested that customers be polled when canceling their service as to why.
He asked if the Commission could get names of customers who were canceling cable
service and do it themselves? Mr. Mattern replied he could check, but didn’t believe they
could provide the names because of privacy issues.
Commissioner Browning asked if he had any idea why they lost subscribers, if it was a
cost issue? Mr. Mattern replied that typi cally it could be cost, and customers that move
out of the service area.
Commissioner Dworsky asked if 911 were tied into their phone service to show
locations? Mr. Mattern replied yes.
Commissioner Browning believed Federal law required that.
Mr. Dunlap noted that was why Time Warner’s architecture was superior for emergency
purposes to Vonage, because Time Warner had a certificate with the State PUC and had
worked with them to provide 911 services, whereas Vonage could be plugged in
anywhere, but wasn’t able to identify the emergency location.
Mr. McHugh stated at the conference, someone showed on his computer how he could
connect to Vonage and on the opening screen there was a place where you have to click
to sign in for 911 service when you initiate each session, otherwise there was no way to
know where you are.
Mr. McHugh asked about the December 9 letter talking about the two new channels on the
digital variety pack. Those were the paid programming on 119 and 120 and designated as
Time Warner TV. Was that designated leased access channels for Time Warner or some
other category of programming? Mr. Mattern replied it would be considered leased access.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4n - TAC Minutes February 3
Page 7
Chair Huiras asked if there was more information about usage of the facility on Beltline
Blvd? Mr. Mattern replied he didn’t have figures about how many people went there, but
it was being used.
Chair Huiras asked that more information be provided.
Commissioner Dworsky asked when they would have the revised channel line up in the
St. Louis Park office. Mr. Mattern replied he would talk to someone the next day.
Commissioner Overend asked if there was a way they could be more specific on the bill
about the access fee and what it was for? Mr. Mattern replied that it was on the bill and
that it helped to maintain the access channels. They were required to maintain the public
access channels, so they were showing what it cost each subscriber per month to do that.
Mr. McHugh noted that the same Federal law that mandated the access fee be shown on
the bill as a separate item, also allowed franchise required costs to the cable company be
bundled into the access fee.
Mr. Mattern stated he would see what could be done to clarify that. They were limited on
what could be put in the bills.
Commissioner Dworsky noted that the access fee was fairly well explained on the rate
card that they talked about earlier.
Mr. Mattern responded since they moved the access fee, they had taken away that
explanation. They could consider putting that definition back in.
Chair Huiras clarified that the access fee covered the maintenance costs of the local
channels. The franchise fee (5%) is the fee paid back to the City on a quarterly basis.
They were two different things.
Mr. Mattern indicated there is also a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) user
fee on each bill that the Federal government receives to help regulate the cable industry.
Mr. Dunlap said that he could do a segment on the “Park Perspective” cable TV show on
the access fee as another way of helping to explain the bills, to address Commissioner
Overend’s concern.
Chair Huiras asked if information could be put on Time Warner’s channel? Mr. Mattern
replied they could look into it.
Chair Huiras asked if the Commission could request an insert in the billing for St. Louis
Park customers to publicize things that were available? Mr. Mattern replied it costs quite
a bit of money to do that and he was not sure the City would be willing to pay for that.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4n - TAC Minutes February 3
Page 8
Mr. McHugh asked if there was a standard rate? Mr. Mattern was unsure, but could ask
the marketing department.
Chair Huiras referenced the complaints that were received with the packet and one was a
complaint about rates going up and the way that it was presented in the billing. It was a
poor notice of the rate increase and was buried in the paperwork. Previously they
received separate mailings on rate changes.
Mr. Mattern was unsure why they did the notice differently.
Commissioner Browning stated that there was a complaint about cables left lying on the
floor from installation work. That typically would not be a normal occurrence would it?
Mr. Mattern replied no, they should clip it to the wall. That is not the way they should do
the installation.
Commissioner Browning asked how much leeway a homeowner had when someone
installed cable, for example if someone wanted to run a cable through a vent rather than
drill a hole in the wall? Mr. Mattern replied it depended on what type of a vent. If it
were a heating vent, they may not allow that to happen. There may be custom charges
depending on the work that needed to be done. When a technician initially goes out for
an install and a customer needs custom work, it would be referred. The customer would
then need to make arrangements for the work to be done.
Commissioner Browning asked if Road Runner service was separate from the traditional
cable installs? Mr. Mattern responded it was the same company.
Commissioner Dworsky noted he had custom work done and was satisfied with their work.
Chair Huiras added he had also been successful with the third party workers.
Commissioner Overend wondered if customers would know if they needed customer
work done? Mr. Mattern responded Time Warner would inform them.
Commissioner Browning asked if a flat rate is charged or if it depended on the work
needing to be done? Mr. Mattern replied it was an hourly fee.
Mr. McHugh added for an unwired home it would cost $43.82 for conventional
installations and additional outlets would be $18.81.
Chair Huiras asked if the Beltline office had the ability to do a billing audit, could he sit
down and talk with someone and have the bill explained? Mr. Mattern replied that they
wouldn’t to do that there because typically there is only one person there. Their customer
service could provide that information.
8. Communication from the Chair - None
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 4n - TAC Minutes February 3
Page 9
9. Communications from City Staff
Mr. Dunlap reported on Channel 17 program hours. They had been cutting back on
programming after 9PM and before Council Meeting replays at 8AM because they had a
snow emergency alert page that could be activated by Public Works staff. .
Senator Steve Kelly had introduced a bill addressing Article IV, mentioned last fall at the
Minnesota Association of Community Telecommunications Advisers (MACTA)
conference and there was a split within MACTA about whether Article IV was a great
idea or not. But right now MACTA as an organization opposes Article IV, which
pertains to a level playing field for new entrants if they were to build new cable systems
or to offer video service over a telephone system. They had a conference call coming up
on February 8th and if Commissioners wanted to be a part of this, he would provide
information.
He had received an email from NATOA about the possibility of Federal Legislation and
House leaders pledging to revise telecommunication laws by August. He would forward
information as it became available. Representative Joe Barton outlined raising fines for
broadcast indecency, setting a firm deadline for switching to digital television, and
updating the telecommunications bill as it pertains to competition between telephone
companies and cable television companies for information services like internet access.
10. Adjournment
Commissioner Browning made a motion, Commission Peterson seconded to adjourn at
8:40 p.m. The motion passed.
Respectfully submitted by:
Amy L. Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4o- HA Board Minutes 041305
Page 1
1
MINUTES
Housing Authority
St. Louis Park City Hall, Westwood Room
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
April 13, 2005
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Andria Daniel, Steve
Fillbrandt and Judith Moore
STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Bridget Gothberg, Jane Klesk, Kevin Locke and
Michele Schnitker
1. Call to Order
Commissioner Courtney called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for March, 2005
The March 9, 2005 minutes were unanimously approved, with the following amendment
to Paragraph 9, Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. Insurance Coverage Update
Ms. Anderson provided the Board with an explanation of additional insurance
coverage for Hamilton House, for a reduced premium, or a total of $33,648 for
property, liability and crime.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List No. 4–2005
Commissioner Moore moved for ratification of Claims List No. 4-2005, and
Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0, with
Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt, and Moore voting in favor.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 4o- HA Board Minutes 041305
Page 2
2
b. Communications
1. Update – Excess Public Lands
Commissioner Fillbrandt and Ms. Schnitker provided an update on the
Excess Land Task Force Public Meeting held April 12, 2005.
2. Monthly Report for April, 2005
3. Scattered-Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report)
4. Draft Financial Statements
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Daniel seconded
the motion. The motion passed 4-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt,
and Moore voting in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 5:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Anne Mavity, Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 8a - Excelsior Blvd St Imprv Proj No. 2004-0400
Page 1
8a. Approval of Preliminary Layout for the Excelsior Boulevard Street
Improvement Project – Project No. 2004-0400
This report considers the approval of a design layout for the reconstruction of
Excelsior Boulevard from Xenwood Avenue to Louisiana Avenue by Hennepin
County. This approval authorizes Hennepin County to proceed with preparation of
detailed construction plans and begin right-of-way acquisition.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt attached resolution A or B approving Layout
No. 2 with options, authorizing right-of-way acquisition, and
imposing permanent parking restrictions
BACKGROUND: The Hennepin County Transportation Department has developed a
preliminary layout (Layout No. 2) to reconstruct Excelsior Boulevard from Xenwood Avenue
(Highway 100) west to Louisiana Avenue. The purpose of the project is to improve vehicular
and pedestrian safety, improve capacity for vehicles, restore the pavement to an adequate
condition, replace a deficient bridge at Minnehaha Creek and add streetscaping/landscaping to
create a more attractive pedestrian environment.
Initial meetings were held with the business & property owners along the corridor as well as with
the larger, adjacent neighborhood in September 2004.
At the February 14, 2005 City Council Study Session, the Council reviewed the preliminary
layout for the project and discussed issues identified by residents. The Council directed staff to
work with Hennepin County on alternatives for access to residential property on the south side of
Excelsior Boulevard at Dakota Avenue and rationale for closure of the median at Zarthan
Avenue and analysis of the pros and cons associated with closure.
Two open houses were held in early March 2005 to present the preliminary layout to business
owners, property owners & residents.
At the April 11, 2005 City Council Study Session, the Council reviewed the preliminary layout.
Based on concerns about access and increased traffic, alternatives for intersection design were
reviewed at both the Dakota Avenue & Zarthan Avenue intersections with Excelsior Boulevard.
The Council then directed staff to hold informational meetings with affected businesses and
residents in the Dakota Avenue & Zarthan Avenue areas to discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of median closure and get their input on the intersection design options.
On April 21, 2005 separate neighborhood meetings were held to discuss both the Dakota Avenue
and the Zarthan Avenue intersections with residents. Approximately 32 residents attended one
or both of the meetings. In general, residents in attendance supported leaving the median at
Zarthan Avenue open. Their primary reasons for this view were increased traffic being routed to
local streets as a result of the closure, decreased safety for pedestrians due to lack of sidewalks in
the neighborhood, and decreased safety for motorists who choose to make u-turns on Excelsior
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 8a - Excelsior Blvd St Imprv Proj No. 2004-0400
Page 2
Blvd. However, a couple of residents said they thought it made sense to close the median at
Zarthan for safety reasons and for increased median landscaping on Excelsior Boulevard.
Residents also generally supported the addition of a left-turn lane at the hospital entrance to
allow westbound to eastbound u-turns. However, comments were made that closure of the
median at Dakota Avenue would route more traffic to Brunswick Avenue and thus further
decrease safety and increase speeding on that street. Complete closure of both Dakota Avenue
and Zarthan Avenue (north of the businesses) was also mentioned. Staff informed residents that
this could be considered but that it would take a neighborhood-wide discussion and
neighborhood association endorsement since a complete closure would re-route traffic within the
neighborhood.
Property owners have been notified of the Council meeting action to consider approval of the
preliminary layout via a mailed notice.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has summarized the key issues surrounding acceptance of the preliminary layout by the
Council:
Median Closures. The proposed plan (Layout No. 2) would close the medians at every location
where a side street does not cross Excelsior Boulevard. This would affect Dakota Avenue,
Colorado Avenue, Alabama Avenue & Zarthan Avenue. The decision to close intersections or to
keep them open will create both positive and negative outcomes.
Closing these medians will likely reduce the number of vehicle crashes on Excelsior Boulevard,
reduce the number of conflict points where crashes occur, improve the capacity of Excelsior
Boulevard to move traffic, and provide room in the median for installation of streetscape
elements. However, closure does result in less convenient access to property and will divert
some traffic into the adjacent neighborhoods because left-hand turns are restricted to fewer
locations.
This results in a tradeoff of interests. Closure of these medians will improve safety and
therefore, staff would recommend closure of all of the proposed medians, including Zarthan
Avenue, as shown by Hennepin County.
Whistle-Free Zone Railroad Crossing. Due to the condition of the existing crossing and the fact
that the road will be widened slightly, the railroad is planning to install a new crossing on
Excelsior Boulevard including signals and warning devices. The railroad would perform the
work but all costs would be paid for by the County. If the City wished to upgrade the crossing to
a whistle-free type, certain design requirements would need to be met including installation of
crossing arms and medians on either side of the crossing for a certain distance back from the
rails. This would be done to prevent vehicle crossings. Hennepin County staff has confirmed
with CP Rail that a whistle-free crossing can be constructed even if the Zarthan Avenue median
remains open. Determining if the City would wish to upgrade this crossing to a whistle-free
zone will be part of a future discussion with the City Council.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 8a - Excelsior Blvd St Imprv Proj No. 2004-0400
Page 3
Meadowbrook Golf Course Property-4f Federal Land. Hennepin County staff believes that the
golf course property may be categorized as 4f land. This means it is federally-regulated park
land which must be mitigated if it is taken for roadway or other purposes. Typically, this
requires that the same amount of land which is taken is provided for a similar use adjacent to the
affected property. This will be difficult to accomplish in this case as the golf course is
surrounded by development. If on-site mitigation cannot be achieved, the other options are to
mitigate off-site or to provide compensation in lieu of mitigation. Costs for mitigation would be
included in the City’s cost participation agreement with the County for right-of-way acquisition.
On-Street Parking. Currently, there is no on-street parking along this portion of Excelsior
Boulevard except in parking bays. Hennepin County has retained all of the existing spaces
within the parking bays except for 5 parking stalls. This includes removal of the parking bay on
the north side, adjacent to 5810 Excelsior Blvd. where 3 parking spaces will be removed.
Trail Construction. The Excelsior Blvd. bridge widening project, currently under construction, is
being built with a multi-use trail on the south side. In order to meet federal funding
requirements, it is necessary for the trail to have logical connections at either end to an existing
system. The City’s Sidewalk, Trail & Bikeway Plan shows Yosemite Avenue as an on-road
biking route. Therefore, the trail must extend from the bridge to at least Yosemite Avenue on the
south side. The right-turn lane onto Highway 100 south-bound also needs to be lengthened.
Limited right-of-way exists in this area and therefore, the trail & turn lane will require additional
land from the adjacent property owners. The Batteries Plus site will need to have their private
parking stalls re-configured to accommodate this trail.
Storm Sewer Diversion. Storm water from the Brooklawns neighborhood is routed via storm
sewer to the Methodist Hospital site. As plans were being developed for the hospital expansion,
the City determined that the outlet from the neighborhood should be increased in size to
minimize flooding in the streets. This was determined to be infeasible due to the location of the
existing storm sewer (runs between two homes). Therefore, staff is recommending that a portion
of the Brooklawns storm water be diverted to Excelsior Boulevard as a part of the Excelsior
Blvd. project at City cost.
Other Utilities. Since the roadway will be completely reconstructed, it is the opportune time to
repair or replace the City’s utilities prior to or in conjunction with the project. Some sanitary
sewer repair such as manhole replacement and watermain replacement may be necessary. City
staff are investigating the extent of needed repairs. Funding has been allocated for these repairs
from the appropriate utility fund.
COSTS & FUNDING: In accordance with the County’s Cost Participation Policy, the City will
be expected to pay for a portion of the project costs including road construction and right-of-way
acquisition. Hennepin County currently estimates the total roadway cost to the City to be
approximately $500,000 and right-of-way cost to the City to be $325,000. Besides these
amounts, the City would incur costs for the installation of decorative lighting, landscaping, and
other streetscape elements such as bus shelters, benches, etc. The total estimated cost for the
streetscape elements is $1.64M. The City will be asking the County to participate in these costs,
through the Roadside Enhancement Partnership Program (REPP), with the amount of
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 8a - Excelsior Blvd St Imprv Proj No. 2004-0400
Page 4
participation yet to be determined. REPP is limited to a maximum of $500,000. REPP funds
have been provided by the County for the previous streetscaping projects.
Costs for the storm sewer re-routing will be approximately $200,000. All of these costs are
anticipated to be paid for by EDA Funds. Cost for watermain replacement (approximately
$150,000) and sanitary sewer work (approximately $100,000) will come from the Utility Funds.
Therefore, the total expense to the City is anticipated to be $2.72M, less the County’s streetscape
participation.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the preliminary layout (Layout No. 2) for the entire
corridor from Xenwood Avenue to Louisiana Avenue has been proposed by Hennepin County.
Approval of the preliminary layout authorizes Hennepin County to begin preparing detailed
plans for roadway reconstruction and begin acquisition of right-of-way. As plans are developed,
additional meetings will be held with the City Council and the public to review them, however,
the major elements of alignment, width and design will be set by this layout approval.
Limits of initial project will be somewhere between Colorado a d Dakota
Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution (Resolution A) which approves Layout No. 2
modified to include Option 1 at Dakota Avenue, authorizes right-of-way acquisition, and restricts
parking. If the Council wishes to amend the layout further to include Option 1 at Zarthan
Avenue, Resolution B can be used.
PROJECT TIMELINE: Should the City Council approve the preliminary layout, Hennepin
County anticipates the following schedule:
• Council Final Plan Approval January 2006
• Council Right-of-Way & Cooperative Agrmt. Approval February 2006
• Bid Opening April 2006
• Construction-Xenwood Avenue to Colorado/Dakota
Avenue
June 2006 - September 2007
• Construction-Colorado/Dakota Avenue to Louisiana
Avenue
April 2008 - July 2009
Attachments: Layout No. 2 (Supplement)
Option 1 – Zarthan Avenue (Supplement)
Option 1 – Dakota Avenue (Supplement)
Resolution A (Layout No. 2 with option at Dakota Avenue)
Resolution B (Layout No. 2 with option at Dakota Ave. & Zarthan Ave.)
Prepared By: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 8a - Excelsior Blvd St Imprv Proj No. 2004-0400
Page 5
RESOLUTION A
RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT NO. 2 FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF
EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD (COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 3) BETWEEN
XENWOOD AVENUE AND LOUISIANA AVENUE WITH OPTION 1-DAKOTA
AVENUE, AUTHORIZING EASEMENT & RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION, AND
RESTRICTING PARKING FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004-0400
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has prepared Layout No. 2, Hennepin County Project No’s 9745/0410/0405, for the reconstruction of County State Aid Highway No. 3 (Excelsior Boulevard) between Xenwood Avenue and Louisiana Avenue, and bridge replacement over Minnehaha Creek; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has prepared Option 1 – Dakota Avenue Intersection as an alternate design to Layout No. 2; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County has requested that the City of St. Louis Park approve Layout No. 2 and prohibit on-street parking within the project area at locations that are not specifically identified as an on-street parking zone; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County has also requested that the City of St. Louis Park participate in the right-of-way costs associated with this project and that the city agrees to enter into a Construction Cooperative Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that:
1. Layout No. 2, Hennepin County Project No. 9745/0410/0405, for the reconstruction of County State Aid Highway No. 3 (Excelsior Boulevard) between Xenwood Avenue and Louisiana Avenue with the inclusion of Option 1 – Dakota Avenue and bridge replacement over Minnehaha Creek is hereby approved.
2. Hennepin County is hereby authorized to acquire all rights of way, permits and/or easements required for said improvement in accordance with Layout No. 2 and Option 1 – Dakota Avenue.
3. The City of St. Louis Park agrees to participate in the right-of-way costs associated with this project as per Hennepin County’s Cost Participation Policy.
4. The City of St. Louis Park agrees to enter into a Construction Cooperative Agreement which will define financial responsibilities for the construction items, right-of-way, city design, county construction management, and other related items associated with said project.
5. The parking of motor vehicles is prohibited at all times on both sides of County State Aid Highway No. 3 (Excelsior Boulevard) between Louisiana Avenue and Xenwood Avenue at locations that are not specifically identified as an on-street parking zone.
6. The City will use Economic Development Authority funding for all or a portion of the City’s cost of the project.
Signres
(Insert Signature Block Here)
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 051605 - 8a - Excelsior Blvd St Imprv Proj No. 2004-0400
Page 6
RESOLUTION B
RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT NO. 2 FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF
EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD (COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 3) BETWEEN
XENWOOD AVENUE AND LOUISIANA AVENUE WITH OPTION 1-DAKOTA
AVENUE & OPTION 1 – ZARTHAN AVENUE, AUTHORIZING EASEMENT &
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION, AND RESTRICTING PARKING FOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004-0400
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has prepared Layout No. 2, Hennepin County Project No’s 9745/0410/0405, for the reconstruction of County State Aid Highway No. 3 (Excelsior Boulevard) between Xenwood Avenue and Louisiana Avenue, and bridge replacement over Minnehaha Creek; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has prepared Option 1 – Dakota Avenue Intersection and Option 1 – Zarthan Avneue as alternate designs to Layout No. 2; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County has requested that the City of St. Louis Park approve Layout No. 2 and prohibit on-street parking within the project area at locations that are not specifically identified as an on-street parking zone; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County has also requested that the City of St. Louis Park participate in the right-of-way costs associated with this project and that the city agrees to enter into a Construction Cooperative Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that:
1. Layout No. 2, Hennepin County Project No. 9745/0410/0405, for the reconstruction of County State Aid Highway No. 3 (Excelsior Boulevard) between Xenwood Avenue and Louisiana Avenue with the inclusion of Option 1 – Dakota Avenue, Option 1 – Zarthan Avenue, and bridge replacement over Minnehaha Creek is hereby approved.
2. Hennepin County is hereby authorized to acquire all rights of way, permits and/or easements required for said improvement in accordance with Layout No. 2 and options.
3. The City of St. Louis Park agrees to participate in the right-of-way costs associated with this project as per Hennepin County’s Cost Participation Policy.
4. The City of St. Louis Park agrees to enter into a Construction Cooperative Agreement which will define financial responsibilities for the construction items, right-of-way, city design, county construction management, and other related items associated with said project. 5. The parking of motor vehicles is prohibited at all times on both sides of County State Aid Highway No. 3 (Excelsior Boulevard) between Louisiana Avenue and Xenwood Avenue at locations that are not specifically identified as an on-street parking zone. 7. The City will use Economic Development Authority funding for all or a portion of the City’s cost of the project. (Insert Signature Block Here)
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8b - Administrative Forfeiture Fee Ordinance
Page 1
8b. Administrative Fee for Vehicle Forfeitures
This ordinance establishes a $250.00 fee that will be charged to the vehicle owner to
cover administrative costs associated with the vehicle forfeiture process.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading of ordinance amending Chapter
16 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code to establish an
administrative fee in certain vehicle forfeiture cases and set
second reading for June 6, 2005
Background:
The following information was presented for review at the Council study session on April 25,
2005. Staff is now requesting that the ordinance be approved.
Minnesota Statute 169A.63 allows law enforcement agencies to seize vehicles for forfeiture upon
commission of a designated offense. Drivers charged with 1st Degree DWI, a felony, or 2nd
Degree DWI, a gross misdemeanor, are subject to having the vehicle used in commission of the
driving violation seized. 1st and 2nd Degree violations generally result from an arrest for DWI
when the driver has prior convictions for DWI.
Vehicles seized by the city for forfeiture pursuant to Minnesota Statue 169A.63 are generally
sold at auction and the proceeds received, after expenses, are used for DWI-related enforcement,
training, and community education. Vehicles attached to liens or leased vehicles where the driver
is not the sole owner of the vehicle are released to the secured party as part of a forfeiture
mitigation agreement. At this time, all costs incurred for towing and storage of the vehicle are
paid by the vehicle owner and or the secured party at the time the vehicle is released. These costs
are satisfied but the attorney costs associated with court actions and development of the
forfeiture mitigation agreement are not.
Discussion with the city attorney and other cities indicated a fee charged to the secured party of
$250.00 as part of the mitigation agreement would offset the costs incurred by the city when
forfeiture mitigation agreements are reached. The goals of removing the vehicle from the
offender to protect the community and protecting the secured party or lease holder from
unreasonable loss are achieved by use of the mitigation agreement. By enacting the proposed
ordinance, the costs to the city are kept at a minimum for the necessary legal work required to
prepare and deliver the necessary agreements.
Attachments: Proposed ordinance for administrative fee in forfeiture cases
Prepared By: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8b - Administrative Forfeiture Fee Ordinance
Page 2
ORDINANCE NO. ________-05
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 16: LAW ENFORCEMENT
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Chapter 16 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code is hereby amended to
add:
Sec. 16-34. Administrative fee in certain vehicle forfeiture cases.
All vehicles seized by the city for forfeiture pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 169A.63 that are
subsequently released to a secured party or lessor as part of a forfeiture mitigation agreement
with the City shall be assessed an administrative fee, payable to the City prior to release of the
vehicle. This fee shall be assessed in addition to, and shall not limit the City's right to assess and
recover other costs incurred by the city in seizing and holding the vehicle, such as towing and
storage fees. The fee shall be set from time to time by the city and included in the schedule of
fees listed as Appendix A to the city code.
SECTION 2. The fee called for in Section 1 above shall be set at $250, and shall
be included in Appendix A of the city code with other fees and charges called for by
ordinance.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council __________, 2005
City Mana ger Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8c - Brookside Schl PUD minoramend
Page 1
8c. Request of Foundation Land LLC and Master Development LLC (St. Louis Park
School District) for a minor amendment to an approved Final PUD for Brookside
School Lofts.
Case Nos. 05-18-PUD
Lots 1-11 and 29-36 Block 10 Suburban Homes Co.’s Addition except highway
The applicant is proposing to decrease the area of the underground garage and change
building materials in the 14-unit condominium building.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve resolution approving minor amendment to
Final PUD for Brookside School Lofts
BACKGROUND
On November 15, 2004, the City Council approved a preliminary and final PUD and plat for the
Brookside School site. The proposal is to convert the existing Brookside School building to 27
condominium units with underground parking in the basement level and to construct a new 14-
unit (2-story) condominium building on the site directly south of the existing school building.
The development also includes 5 single-family lots facing Webster Avenue. The applicant is
proposing to sell the single family lots to another builder.
Subsequent to the original approval, the applicant has indicated that in order to confront rising
materials costs, the applicant is proposing to decrease the area of the underground parking garage
and modify the exterior materials on the 14-unit building. Originally the underground parking
garage for the 14-unit building was proposed to extend to the existing school building with an
underground connection between the two. The proposal now is to limit the underground parking
garage to the footprint of the actual building (see attached exhibits) thereby reducing the number
of underground parking spaces by six . Two of these spaces will be replaced in the school
building basement and the other by expanding the at-grade parking lot east of the school
building. The proposed minor amendment continues to meet the requirement for 60% Class I
building materials on all building faces. However, the applicant is proposing to use a majority of
stucco on the building facades that do not face Vernon Avenue (see attached exhibits).
The City Council reviewed the proposed minor amendment at its regular meeting on May 2,
2005, and deferred action pending a neighborhood meeting.
Neighborhood Meeting
The applicant met with Brookside Neighborhood representatives on Tuesday, May 10, 2005, to
discuss the proposed changes. Changes to parking, building materials and roof structure, and
school building roof plaza were discussed. The applicant explained that the complex roof that
was originally proposed for the 14-unit building presented building code issues. In order to
continue to meet requirements for stormwater retention, a flat roof is now being proposed. The
Chair of the Brookside Neighborhood Association has indicated that she would be available at
the Council meeting to represent the neighborhood perspective.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8c - Brookside Schl PUD minoramend
Page 2
Proposal: 41 residential units (condominiums)
Building Height:
Allowed: 3 Stories or 40 feet
Proposed: Existing school building = About 36 feet
New building = 34 feet (2 stories)
Density (R4):
Allowed: 30 units/acre
Proposed: 23 units/acre
Condominium Parking:
Required: 70 spaces (Includes an approved 15% reduction)
Proposed:
Underground 49 spaces (56 including 7 tandem)
At grade: 23 spaces
Total proposed: 72 spaces (79 including 7 tandem)
ISSUES:
Ø Do the proposed changes meet the requirements for a minor amendment?
Ø Are the proposed amendments acceptable?
Analysis of Issues:
Ø Do the proposed changes meet the requirements for a minor amendment?
The Zoning Code allows minor amendments to an approved PUD provided that the changes
being proposed do not increase density, increase required parking, or reduce required usable
open space. The proposed minor amendment is consistent with these criteria.
Ø Are the proposed amendments acceptable?
Parking. The applicant is proposing to decrease the size of the underground parking garage for
the 14-unit building. It originally was proposed to extend beyond the building to the north.
Resizing the garage to the building footprint decreases the parking by six spaces. Two of these
spaces will be replaced in the school building basement and the other four will be replaced by
expanding the off-street parking lot on the east side of the school building. On-street parking
will also be allowed on the west side Vernon Avenue.
The proposed plan eliminates the sidewalk along the east parking lot. Staff recommends that this
sidewalk be replaced as a means for pedestrians to access the site from Vernon Avenue.
Building Floor Elevation.
Removing the garage extension also allows the floor elevation of the 14-unit building to be
lowered, thus lowering the overall building height. This is due to the increased driveway length
to accommodate the grade difference between the street level and garage.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8c - Brookside Schl PUD minoramend
Page 3
Lowering the building also eliminates the need for retaining walls and accessibility ramps to
access the building.
Plaza Area. In the original proposal, a plaza area was proposed over the underground garage that
extended to the north of the 14-unit building. Since the underground garage area is being
reduced, the plaza area is also somewhat smaller and partially relocate further to the west. The
applicant is proposing to replace a portion of this area by creating a roof top patio on the south
wing of the school building facing TH 100. This area is at the same level as the second floor of
the building and is accessible from the second floor corridor. Activity on this patio will be
buffered from the neighborhood to the west by a building wall.
Building elevations. The proposal is to add more cement stucco to the 14-unit building and
change the roof line from a complex gable and flat roof to a totally flat roof. The applicant is
proposing to meet a portion of the required storm water retention on the roof, and a flat roof
accommodates this better less chance of leakage. The flat roof is consistent with the roof line of
the school building.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution approving a minor amendment for an
approved PUD for Brookside Lofts subject to conditions. (Minor amendments do not require a
Planning Commission recommendation.)
Attachments:
Ø Resolution approving minor amendment to PUD
Ø Proposed PUD Exhibits
Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
952-924-2574 jerickson@stlouispark.org
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8c - Brookside Schl PUD minoramend
Page 4
RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 076
Amends and Restates Resolution No. 04-134
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 04-34 ADOPTED
ON NOVEMBER 15, 2004 APPROVING A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED
R-4 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT
4100 VERNON AVENUE SOUTH AND 4135 WEBSTER AVENUE SOUTH
MINOR AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A DECREASE IN THE AREA OF THE
UNDERGROUND GARAGE AND CHANGE EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS
FOR THE 14-UNIT CONDOMINIUM BUILDING
WHEREAS, Master Development has made application to the City Council for a minor
Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) under Section 36-367 of the St.
Louis Park Ordinance code to allow a decrease in the area of the underground garage and change
exterior building materials for the 14-unit condominium building at 4100 Vernon Avenue South
and 4135 Webster Avenue South within a R-4 Multi-Family Residential Zoning District having
the following legal description:
Parcel One: Lots 10 and 11, Block 10, Suburban Homes Co.’s Addition, Hennepin
County, Minnesota (Torrens)
Parcel Two: Lot 8, Block 10, Suburban Homes Co.’s Addition, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (Torrens)
Parcel Three: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36, Block 10, Suburban
Homes Co.’s Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; EXCEPT that portion taken by the
State of Minnesota for trunk highway purposes as shown by the Final Certificate
recorded as Document No. 4040269, described as Parcel 12, S.P. 2734, being that portion
of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 10, Suburban Homes Co.’s Addition, which lies easterly
of the following described line: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Lot 6; thence
run northwesterly to a point on the north line of said Lot 4, distant 10 feet west of the
northeast corner thereof; thence run northwesterly to a point on the north line of said Lot
2, distant 25 feet west of the northeast corner thereof; thence run westerly on the north
line of said Lot 2 to its intersection with a line run parallel with and distant 60 feet west
of the east line of said Block 10, thence run northerly on said 60 foot parallel line to its
intersection with a line run parallel with and distant 22 feet south of the north line of said
Lot 1, thence run westerly on said 22-foot parallel line to its intersection with a line run
parallel with and distant 70.5 feet west of the east line of said Block 10; thence run
northerly on said 70.5 foot parallel line to the north line of said Lot 1 and there
terminating. (Abstract)
Parcel Four: Lot 29, Block 10, Suburban Homes Co.’s Addition, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (Abstract)
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8c - Brookside Schl PUD minoramend
Page 5
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case
No. 05-18-PUD and the effect of the proposed minor amendment on the health, safety, and
welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the
effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the
Comprehensive Plan; and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a Preliminary and Final PUD was approved regarding the subject property
pursuant to Resolution No. 04-134 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated November 15, 2004
which contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that Preliminary and Final PUD; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution No. 04-134, to add the amendments now required, and to
consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 04-52-PUD and 05-18-PUD are hereby
entered into and made part of the public hearing and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 04-134 (document not
filed) is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a Final
Planned Unit Development to the subject property for the purpose of permitting a decrease in the
area of the underground garage and change exterior building materials for the 14-unit
condominium building within the R-4 Multi-Family Residential Zoning District at the location
described above based on the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Final PUD
official exhibits.
2. Final PUD approval and development is contingent upon developer meeting all
conditions of final approval including all Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
requirements.
3. There shall be a maximum of 41 condominium units and such development shall include
individual exterior entrances for ground floor units in Building 2 along Vernon Avenue.
4. There shall be a minimum of 60 below-ground residential parking stalls, including
tandem stalls.
5. Front yard, parking and drive aisle modifications are approved as follows:
a. Front yard of 23 feet
b. Drive aisle of 0 feet from existing building
c. Parking of 10 feet from existing building
6. Prior to signing the Final Plat, the following conditions shall be met:
a. The Environmental Coordinator shall review and find the Landscape Plan plant
species acceptable.
b. A revised plat that increases the drainage easement on Lot 1 to include the area
within the ordinary high water level shall be reflected.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8c - Brookside Schl PUD minoramend
Page 6
c. Condominium association papers and other Final Plat documents shall be received
and approved by the City Attorney.
d. The applicant shall submit park and trail dedication fees in the amount of
$51,750, if cash in lieu of park dedication is approved by the Park and Recreation
Commission.
e. An easement over all sidewalks proposed on private property along Webster
Avenue and West 41st Street shall be submitted and approved by the City
Attorney.
7. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
a. The Planning and EDA Redevelopment Contracts shall be signed that address, at
a minimum, construction staging/routes/hours/duration, required completion of
improvements prior to occupancy, allowable administrative amendments,
prevention of garage space sales to non-residents, and consistency between
documents as required by the City Attorney.
b. A copy of permit from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District must be provided.
c. An erosion control permit must be secured from the City.
8. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional conditions, the
following conditions shall be met:
a. Evidence of filing the final plat shall be submitted.
b. Evidence of filing easements over all sidewalks proposed on private property
along Webster Avenue and West 41st Street shall be submitted.
c. Color samples of all materials, shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning
Administrator.
d. An Irrigation Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator.
e. A Lighting Plan, including light fixture details shall be submitted and approved
by the Zoning Administrator.
9. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with.
b. The hours of construction shall be limited as follows: All outdoor activity and
loud equipment operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 5:00
pm weekdays and 9:00 am and 5:00 pm on holidays; no such activity shall take
place on weekends. Indoor construction activity that does not involve loud
equipment shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm on
weekdays and 9:00 am and 10:00 pm on weekends and holidays.
c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding
properties.
10. Pursuant to Section 36-367(e)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution
of a development agreement as a condition of approval of the Final P.U.D. The
development agreement shall address those issues which the City Council deems
appropriate and necessary. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the
development agreement.
11. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on May 16, 2005 to incorporate all of
the preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8c - Brookside Schl PUD minoramend
Page 7
a. The Final PUD exhibits Site Plan (required to be modified to show a sidewalk
along the east parking lot), Landscape Plan, Utility Plan, Grading and Erosion
Control Plan, Parking Level Plan (School Building), Garage Plan (14-Unit
Building), 14-Unit Building Elevations are modified.
b. The Site Plan shall be modified to include a sidewalk along the west side of the
east parking lot.
c. The minimum number of below-ground residential parking stalls, including
tandem stalls, may be reduced from 60 to 56.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of
$750 per violation of any condition of this approval.
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit.
Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
Adopted by the City Council May 16, 2005
___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Reviewed for Administration:
_______________________________
City Manager
05-18-PUD/res-ord/2005
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8d - Comp Plan and Zoning amend Meadowbrook Lofts
Page 1
8d. Request of Emad Abed for a Comprehensive Plan land use amendment and a
Zoning map amendment for property located at 7200, 7202, 7250, 7252 Excelsior
Boulevard (Meadowbrook Lofts).
Case Nos. 04-71-CP and 04-72-Z
The applicant is requesting the City to reguide and rezone properties to allow a 6-story
condominium project. The project will also require a subdivision and PUD and may
require a variance; those applications may only be made following action on the
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning.
Recommended
Action:
ü Motion to approve resolution amending the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use from Office to RC subject
to review by the Metropolitan Council, approve summary
publication and authorize publication.
ü Motion to approve first reading of ordinance amending
zoning map to change the designation from O-Office to
RC-Residential Commercial and set second reading for
June 6, 2005.
Site Data:
Comprehensive Plan :
Existing: Office and Industrial
Proposed: Residential High Density and Industrial
Zoning:
Current: O-Office, IG-General Industrial,
FF-Flood Fringe
Proposed: RC-Residential Commercial, IG-General Industrial
Site Area: 11.6 acres
Current Use: Vacant, except for a non-conforming
billboard
Proposed Density: Approximately 27 units/acre (based on buildable
area only, 9.8 units per acre based on entire parcel)
Ground Floor Area Ratio
Proposed 0.06
Allowed 0.25
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8d - Comp Plan and Zoning amend Meadowbrook Lofts
Page 2
Background:
The applicant is proposing to reguide and rezone properties to allow for a 6-story, 113-unit
condominium building on the subject property. The property is located within the regulatory
100-year floodplain, so the applicant would require a variance to allow compensating storage to
occur in the floodplain. (Another option to the variance is to acquire additional land that is
located outside the regulatory floodplain.) There is also a wetland on the property, so the
proposal will also require permits from the DNR and MCWD.
On February 16, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a separate request
from the applicant to amend a provision in the floodplain section of the zoning code to allow
compensating storage for fill in a floodplain to occur within the flood fringe area of the
floodplain. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request. The City Council
did not act on the request and subsequently, the applicant withdrew the application. The
applicant decided to either apply for a variance from this provision in lieu of the text amendment
or to acquire land outside the regulatory floodplain boundary.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 20, 2005, and recommended approval
on a vote of 5 – 1.
The City Council reviewed this request to reguide and rezone at a study session on May 9, 2005.
There was considerable discussion about the continued strength of the condominium market, the
loss of office land, and the issues related to the floodplain. Attached to this report is a memo,
copy of a market study entitled “Market Viewpoint Twin Cities Condo Market 2004 – 2005
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8d - Comp Plan and Zoning amend Meadowbrook Lofts
Page 3
completed by DSU Research, and current condo developments in St. Louis Park. Issues related
to traffic and floodplain will be addressed more specifically when the applicant makes an
application for an actual project.
Site History:
The subject site was originally part of a larger lot that also contained the building now occupied
by ApplianceSmart. An RLS was filed with Hennepin County in the early 1990s that divided the
parcel into 4 tracts. Tract A was later subdivided as Excelsior Townhomes. Track D is the
parcel occupied by ApplianceSmart and Tracts B and C are the parcels that the applicant is
proposing to develop. There is also a school district boundary that divides the parcels from
north to south. Although there are only two legal parcels being considered, there are actually 4
tax parcels.
The current zoning boundary follows the school district line. The northern tax parcels are zoned
General Industrial and the southern two tax parcels are zoned Office. The applicant is proposing
to change the zoning on the southern two tax parcels only and development is to occur only on
the southern parcels.
Issues:
ü How does the current zoning compare with proposed zoning?
ü How does the proposed amendment impact surrounding properties?
ü How does the proposed amendment change the physical character of the location
and neighborhood?
ü Does the proposed amendment improve or degrade the transitions between existing
land uses?
ü How does the proposed amendment impact the natural environment?
ü Are there unaccounted benefits to the proposed amendment, such as the removal of
blighted properties?
ü Does the proposed amendment require analysis by an outside expert, including but
not limited to traffic engineers, financial consultants, hydrologic engineers, or
environmental engineers?
Issue Analysis:
How does the current zoning compare with proposed zoning?
A list comparisons between current and proposed zoning is attached. It shows permitted
building height, densities, and allowed uses. The Zoning code lists uses that do not require City
Council approval as “permitted” or “permitted with conditions”. Uses permitted by
“Conditional Use Permit” or “PUD” require City Council approval. The density of development,
including building height, floor area ratio, and types of uses are more intense in the Office
District.
How does the proposed amendment impact surrounding properties?
The applicant is proposing an approximate 29,500 square foot building foot print on the
southwest portion of a 500,000 square foot site. This constitutes a ground floor area ratio of
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8d - Comp Plan and Zoning amend Meadowbrook Lofts
Page 4
0.06. The building as shown is over 700 feet from the rear property line and 160 feet from the
east property line. Uses within 1000 feet include the following (see attached):
ü Excelsior Townhouses -- 38 Townhouse units, the nearest building is 200 feet from the
proposed building.
ü Meadowbrook Manor -- Several buildings are within 1,000 feet, the closest is about 450
feet from the proposed building.
ü Municipal Service Center property line is within 800 feet, the building is over 1,000 feet
from the proposed building.
ü ApplianceSmart is located adjacent, along with several other industrial properties.
ü The Meadowbrook Golf Course and single family residential in Hopkins are also within
1,000 feet.
The impacts of development under the current zoning could be more intense due to the greater
building height and both peak hour and total traffic generation of a commercial use. An office
use could also be considered a transition between residential and industrial zoned properties.
Residential uses tend to have more of a weekend and evening focus, with dispursed traffic
patterns.
How does the proposed amendment change the physical character of the location and
neighborhood?
The 11.5 acre site is currently vacant except for a non-conforming billboard that is located on
eastern parcel. There is a stand of cottonwood trees on the portion of the site to be developed.
Tree replacement would be a requirement of project approval.
The proposed development would place a 6-story residential building on the existing vacant
property with both evening and weekend activity. The current zoning could result in a
significant office building, provided structured parking was provided. This use is primarily a
weekday use and would generate significant peak hour traffic.
A building on the subject property would impact views of the wetland from Excelsior Boulevard,
but not from any nearby residential uses. The development plans show a boardwalk or trail that
would connect Excelsior Boulevard to Minnehaha Creek.
There has been some concern that future residents would complain about noises generated by
industrial activity, especially those generated at the Municipal Service Center where backing
trucks and other activity has already generated complaints from residents of Excelsior
Townhomes. Future residents may also complain about the truck storage and truck traffic form
ApplianceSmart. The closest point of proposed building is located 700 feet from the rear
property line and 800 feet from the parcel occupied by the MSC. Since sound will not be
traveling over open water, decibel levels would drop significantly over this distance.
Does the proposed amendment improve or degrade the transitions between existing land
uses?
The proposed use would provide a buffer between the existing Excelsior Townhomes and the
ApplianceSmart parking lot, truck storage, and loading docks. The proposed development would
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8d - Comp Plan and Zoning amend Meadowbrook Lofts
Page 5
move residential uses closer to commercial and industrial uses and currently trucks from
ApplianceSmart are parked right up to this property. However, the under-building parking raises
the first occupied floor so that sight lines out of windows would be above the existing parking
lot. Also, the proposed alignment of the building would take advantage of the best views for
most of the units.
How does the proposed amendment impact the natural environment?
The major portion of the 11.6 acre site contains a wetland and the site is almost totally within the
regulatory 100-year floodplain of Minnehaha Creek. The site cannot be developed under either
current or proposed zoning without filling a portion of the wetland and filling within the 100-
year floodplain. State law requires a two for one replacement for wetland mitigation. The City
requires compensating storage for filling in a floodplain. The applicant has met with Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and believes that proposed wetland mitigation will actually
improve the quality of the wetland. The applicant will apply for a variance to allow
compensating storage for filling in the floodplain to occur within the boundaries of the
floodplain. This variance would be required regardless of the type of use or existing zoning,
unless the applicant finds compensating storage in another location.
Are there unaccounted benefits to the proposed amendment, such as the removal of
blighted properties?
If the proposed development occurs on this parcel, it will result in the removal of a non-
conforming billboard. Billboards have been non-conforming in St. Louis Park since 1985, and
about 35% have actually been removed since that time. (There are currently 29 billboards in St.
Louis Park.)
The Army Corp. of Engineers has been considering a project that would reestablish some former
meanders within the Minnehaha Creek bed. The applicant has indicated a willingness to allow
meanders over the north portion of the property, which could improve the aesthetic quality of the
creek. The applicant has also indicated some interest in dedicating a conservation easement over
the proposed wetland boundary.
Residential development generates fewer peak hour trips than an office use. The Institute of
Transportation Trip Generation manuals indicate that the proposed 113-unit condominium
project would generate 662 weekday trips, 50 a.m. peak hour trips, and 59 p.m. peak hour trips.
The same size office building would generate 1,163 weekday trips, 234 a.m. peak hour trips and
225 p.m. peak hour trips. Site access to the site is right-in and right-out only from Excelsior
Boulevard. A residential use on this property would generate fewer peak hour trips and would
result in fewer U-turns on Excelsior Boulevard during rush hour in order to access or exit the
site. This would be beneficial as current traffic counts in Excelsior Boulevard were 25,600
vehicles per day in 2001 in this section.
Does the proposed amendment require analysis by an outside expert, including but not
limited to traffic engineers, financial consultants, hydrologic engineers, or environmental
engineers?
Due to the existing wetland and floodplain, any grading of the site will require review from the
City’s a hydrologic engineer consultant and a variance from the City. Prior to any site disturbing
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8d - Comp Plan and Zoning amend Meadowbrook Lofts
Page 6
activities, permits are also required from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Traffic studies are often required as part of the development approval process if traffic is
perceived to be an issue.
Summary:
The subject property is located adjacent to both industrial and residential land uses. It is also
adjacent to green space amenities that create a desirable living and working environment. Since
the property itself has a desirable environment for either residential or office development and is
currently vacant, a change in land use would not impact existing jobs. There are, however, a
number of jobs within ½ mile of the subject property including Methodist Hospital, medical
office buildings, and industrial uses. The proposed project could provide housing for persons
who work in the area. The site is also on a frequently operating transit line that could connect
future residents with jobs all along Excelsior Boulevard, Uptown, and downtown Minneapolis.
Future Actions:
If the City Council approves the proposed Comprehensive Plan and zoning map amendments, the
applicant will make application for a PUD, Subdivision, and variance. All of these applications
require public hearings. If the City Council denies the request, the applicant has indicated a
willingness to construct a mixed-use project consistent with the existing zoning.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan
Land Use amendment from Office to High Density Residential and the proposed zoning map
amendment to change the designation from O-Office to RC-High Density Residential based upon
restricted site access and traffic generation comparisons between office and residential uses.
Even though this amendment would move residential closer to existing industrial property, new
owners will move into a known condition.
If the Council chooses to deny the requests, the action would be to direct staff to prepare
resolutions of denial.
Attachments: Proposed Resolution approving Comprehensive Plan amendment
Proposed Ordinance approving Zoning Map change
Conceptual drawings, preliminary site and building plans
Existing & Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Zoning District Comparison Chart
Prepared by: Judie Erickson
Planning Coordinator 952-924-2574 jerickson@stlouispark.org
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigel, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8d - Comp Plan and Zoning amend Meadowbrook Lofts
Page 7
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
7202 and 7252 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 was adopted by the City Council on
May 17, 1999 (effective September 1, 1999) and provides the following:
1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and
community facilities and service decisions affecting the City.
2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical,
financial, and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and work
and a setting conducive for new development.
3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful,
interesting, and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large rather
than the interests of individual or special groups within the community if their interests are at
variance with the public interest.
4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the
development and preservation of the community.
5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range
considerations into determinations affecting short-range action, and
WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and
more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and
will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and
WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change,
thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities
of adjacent units of government, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning
Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to
procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and
are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park recommended
adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 on April 20, 2005, based on
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8d - Comp Plan and Zoning amend Meadowbrook Lofts
Page 8
statutes, the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, extensive research and analyses involving the
interests of citizens and public agencies;
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 04-71-CP);
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 04-71-CP are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the
Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, is
hereby amended as follows:
Change the land use designation as shown on the attached map from Office to Residential
High Density.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 16, 2005
Contingent upon review of the Metropolitan
Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
04-71-CP:res-ord/2005
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8d - Comp Plan and Zoning amend Meadowbrook Lofts
Page 9
SUMMARY
RESOLUTION NO.________
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
7202 and 7252 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
This resolution states that the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of properties located at
7202 and 7252 Excelsior Boulevard will be changed from Office to Residential High Density.
Adopted by the City Council May 16, 2005
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: May 26, 2005
04-71-CP:res-ord/2005
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8d - Comp Plan and Zoning amend Meadowbrook Lofts
Page 10
ORDINANCE NO.__________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
7202 and 7252 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 04-72-Z).
Section 2. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959,
Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, amended December
17, 2001, Ordinance No. 2216-01, as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended by
changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying the following described lands from their
existing land use district classification to the new land use district classification as indicated for
the tracts as hereinafter set forth, to wit:
Tracts B and C, Registered Land Survey No. 1674
from O - Office to RC – High Density Residential.
Section 3. The contents of Planning Case File 04-72-Z are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Section 4. The ordinance shall take effect upon Metropolitan Council approval of
associated Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Adopted by the City Council June 6, 2005
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
04-72-Z:res-ord/2005
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8e - CUP Brown Garage
Page 1
8e. Request by Darrell W. Brown for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an
accessory building larger than 800 square feet together with a variance to
allow the cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings to be greater
than the house.
Case Nos. 05-10-CUP and 05-11-VAR
5511 Vermont St.
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to deny the application for a variance to allow the
cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings to
exceed the ground floor area of the home.
• Motion to approve a conditional use permit to allow a
cumulative ground floor area for accessory buildings not to
exceed 1,170 square feet.
Site Map:
E x c e ls io r B o u le v a rd
State Highway # 100Ver mont StYosemite AvenueMinne
h
a
ha CreekCity of Edina
SITE
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8e - CUP Brown Garage
Page 2
Background:
The existing house and one car detached garage were constructed in 1941. The city zoning
ordinance allows up to 800 square feet for accessory buildings. The code also allows more than
800 square feet of accessory building with a conditional use permit. In addition to this provision,
the zoning ordinance states that the cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings shall
be smaller than the ground floor area of the principal building on the lot.
On March 21, 2005, Mr. Brown made application for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a
2,544 square foot garage. The same application also included a variance request to allow the
detached garage to be larger in ground floor area than the existing home.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the April 20th meeting to review the
applications together with staff’s recommendation to deny both the request for a variance and
conditional use permit. An excerpt of the meeting minutes is attached to the report. The
Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance and approval of the conditional use
permit subject to the stated conditions.
Existing Conditions:
The home on the property has a ground floor area of 1,173 square feet. The existing detached
garage is approximately 870 square feet and would be removed if the request is approved. There
is a shed in the back corner of the property that is 196 square feet in size.
The applicant’s property is bound on all sides by single family homes in the R-1 Zoning District.
The property to the west is similar in size and dimensions as the applicant’s. The property to the
east consists of two single family lots one 7,600 square feet in size, the other 12,000 square feet.
The property to the south is a 30,000 square foot lot with the home constructed near the rear lot
line so their front yard is adjacent to the back yard of the applicant’s property (See aerial photo).
None of the adjacent properties has a garage over 800 square feet (the maximum allowed without
a conditional use permit).
Zoning: R-1, Single Family
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
R-1 DISTRICT STANDARDS COMPARISON
STANDARDS
MINIMUM
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED/EXISTING
DIMENSION
Minimum lot size: 9,000 square feet 26,800 square feet (existing)
Minimum lot width: 75 feet 100 feet (existing)
Minimum usable area to be
located in rear yard:
600 square feet 18,710 square feet (existing)
Minimum rear yard (house) 25 feet 187.1 feet (existing)
Minimum front yard (house) 30 feet 46.1 feet (existing)
Minimum side yard (house) 9 & 6 feet 35.3 & 21.2 feet (existing)
Minimum rear yard (garage) 25 feet 63.6 feet (proposed)
Minimum side yard (garage) 13 feet 13 feet (proposed)
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8e - CUP Brown Garage
Page 3
Proposal:
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing detached garage and build an oversized 6-car
garage with a 1,040 square foot shop for a total area of 2,544 square feet. The new accessory
building would be a 60 by 64 foot “L” shaped one story building. The existing 170 square foot
shed at the rear of the property would not be removed.
The survey submitted with the application shows the proposed garage to be 5 feet from the side
property line. The building would have to be setback 13 feet to meet the special provision in the
zoning ordinance for buildings with side walls longer than 40 feet.
Enclosed for your review are elevations of the proposed garage, a site survey, an aerial photo of
the subject property and immediate neighboring properties and the applicant’s comments relevant
to the Conditional Use Permit and variance applications.
Issues:
• What will be the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety and welfare of
occupants of surrounding lands?
• What will be the effect on existing and anticipated traffic conditions, including parking
facilities on adjacent streets?
• What will be the effect on property values in surrounding the area?
• What will be the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan?
• Does the proposed variance meet the required findings?
Issues Analysis:
The applicant states that he would use the garage to hold 2 pick up trucks, 2 cars and a boat or
trailer. He also states that a portion of the building will consist of a wood working and hobby
shop.
What will be the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety and welfare of occupants of
surrounding lands?
The applicant states that there is no effect on health, safety and the welfare on occupants of
surrounding lands.
By stating a maximum accessory building size of 800 square feet, it is the intent of the code to
allow for a garage that can accommodate up to 3 vehicles which is typical for a single family
home in most suburban communities. Most properties in St. Louis Park, however, have either a
1 or 2 car garage because the smaller lot sizes make it difficult to impossible to construct a 3 car
garage.
It is also the intent of the zoning ordinance to prohibit home occupations, and even hobbies that
resemble home occupations and commercial uses by placing size limitations on accessory
buildings. By limiting the size of the accessory building to 800 square feet, the property owner is
limited to a garage with an amount of storage and hobby area appropriate to a single family
neighborhood.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8e - CUP Brown Garage
Page 4
The applicant is proposing to construct the building so that the 64 foot long wall is 13 feet from
the side property line shared in common with the rear property line of the neighbor. The back
side of the neighbor’s home is only 25 feet from the property line, and 38 feet from the proposed
64 foot long wall. This also means that the 1,040 square foot woodshop and hobby space is 38
feet away from the neighboring home.
Staff believes that a 2,544 square foot accessory building that can house up to 5 vehicles and a
1,040 square foot woodshop/hobby space indicates that their will be more activity and noise
generated than is typical for a single family home in St. Louis Park. Staff also believes that the
size of the building will be a significant factor in the future sale of the property, meaning that
who ever purchases the property will be wishing to utilize the building for a home occupation or
shop activities more intense than typical for a single family neighborhood. Staff therefore
believes that the proposed building will have an adverse impact on the safety, health and welfare
of the occupants of the surrounding land.
What will be the effect on existing and anticipated traffic conditions, including parking
facilities on adjacent streets?
The applicant states that the request will allow more parking area for others because he will no
longer need the street for parking.
The zoning ordinance allows up to 3 vehicles that can be parked outside a building for a single
family dwelling. If there are 3 or more persons with a valid driver’s license showing they live at
that address, then the amount of vehicles that can be stored outside is increased by 1 additional
vehicle per person up to a maximum of 5 vehicles. If this project were approved, then the
applicant would be able to keep up to 10 vehicles at the site, 5 inside the building, and five
outside the building.
The city code allows parking on residential streets provided the vehicle is moved within 36
hours. The property currently has a driveway that is 19 feet wide and 82 feet long, which can
accommodate more than the maximum allowed five vehicles. The driveway can even be
expanded to accommodate more parking area to alleviate the need to shuffle cars around.
Staff believes that a building that would allow up to 10 vehicles to be parked at a single family
property is not typical for St. Louis Park, and will result in a level of activity also not typical for a
single family home and considered to be a nuisance to adjoining properties.
What will be the effect on property values in surrounding the area?
The applicant states that the request will not negatively affect other property values in the
surrounding area if it affects them at all.
As stated above in the issues analysis, staff believes the activity and noise generated from a 2,544
square foot accessory building that can house up to 5 vehicles and a 1,040 square foot
woodshop/hobby space that is 13 feet from the side property line and 38 feet from the back wall
of the neighbor’s home will create nuisance levels and have an adverse effect on adjoining
properties.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8e - CUP Brown Garage
Page 5
What will be the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan?
The applicant states that the request will not be contrary to the comprehensive plan, and that the
garage will be built in a residential area for residential use.
The comprehensive plan identifies this property and neighborhood as low density residential and
the R-1 Single Family Zoning District is consistent with that plan designation. The property is
currently being used as a single family home for the principal use and the detached garage as an
accessory use. The zoning ordinance defines accessory use/building as “…a use or a structure
subordinate to the principal use or structure on the same land and customarily incidental thereto.
In the case of an accessory structure, both the building footprint and building height of an
accessory building are smaller than the principal building.” The amount of ground floor area for
all accessory buildings proposed in this application is 2.3 times larger than the ground floor area
of the existing home, and no longer fits the definition of accessory structure.
Staff believes the proposed accessory building is not consistent with the comprehensive plan
because the principal use of the property is supposed to be a single family dwelling unit, and an
accessory building that is 2.3 times larger than the house is more commercial or industrial in
nature than residential.
Does the proposed variance meet the required findings?
The applicant is requesting 1 variance to allow the cumulative ground floor area of all accessory
buildings located on the property to exceed the ground floor area of the house. The existing
home is 1,173 square feet, and the applicant is requesting a total of 2,740 square feet.
Provisions of the code require that all of the following criteria must be met to make findings for
granting a variance.
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of
exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
conditions of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this ordinance would result
in a peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the
owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally
permissible within the zoning district in which said lot is located.
The applicant states that “The lot is 268 feet by 99.95 feet, which is 4 times more than the
average lot in the area. We have an extra 40 feet in width than will be needed and there will be
60 feet more space between the back of the yard and back of garage. The yard is flat with sandy
soil and hard cover is only 14.6% so water runoff will be no problem. The zoning district is
residential and will stay residential.”
Staff agrees that the lot is larger than typical for St. Louis Park , and further states that the
requested cumulative ground floor area of 2,740 square feet is only 14.6% of the back yard, well
below the code maximum of 25%. This said, staff believes that a hardship pertaining to the
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8e - CUP Brown Garage
Page 6
shape or physical condition of the land does not exist that necessitates 2,740 square feet of
accessory building, and therefore does not believe this criterion has been satisfied.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property
or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which said land is located.
The applicant states that the land is safe to house such a structure. The only difference is that
other much smaller lots in the area do not and cannot have a structure of such size.
Again, staff agrees that the lot is larger than most properties in St. Louis Park, however, staff has
been unable to identify a hardship or difficulty which creates a need to have accessory buildings
with a cumulative ground floor area greater than the ground floor area of the home. Also, a
variance is to be granted to allow a structure which is lawful and typical for other similar
properties in St. Louis Park, and staff believes that it is not typical to allow a cumulative ground
floor area of accessory buildings to be larger than the ground floor area of a house. Therefore,
staff believes this criterion has not been satisfied.
3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
The applicant states that the old garage was built in 1941, and needs major repairs. The village
has ordered the building to be repaired. The current garage does not have the space that he
needs. The door will only open to 6’2”, so he has to park vehicles outside. The hobby shop is so
cluttered with things that there is not enough room to work on projects. This will allow for him
to have a safer and secure environment with sufficient space to keep his property indoors.
Staff agrees that it is desirable to keep property indoors rather than stored outside, however, staff
does not believe that having accessory buildings with cumulative ground floor area of over 2,700
square feet is a substantial property right typical of St. Louis Park. The city has granted several
variances to allow 2 car garages with a ground floor area of around 600 square feet, but not when
the ground floor area ever approached 2,700 square feet, or even exceeded that of the house.
Staff believes this criterion has not been satisfied.
4. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The applicant states that the granting of the variance will not impair the supply of light and air to
others. It will lower the congestion on the streets because his vehicles will no longer be parked
there. The danger of fire will decrease because of new better heating and electrical systems
(compared to what’s in the existing garage/shop.)
The existing 64 foot wall is proposed to be 13 feet from the side property line, and 38 feet from
the back wall of the neighboring home. The building will have an 8 foot side wall height and
will stand approximately 16 feet in height at the peak. Staff believes the proximity to the
neighboring property will have an impact on the back yard and open space of the neighboring
property. Staff believes this criterion has not been satisfied.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8e - CUP Brown Garage
Page 7
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety,
comfort, or morals of the area.
The applicant states that the granting of the variance will increase the appearance of the
neighborhood by getting rid of the old dilapidated garage and putting up a new one. He also
states that it will not impair the other property values, health, safety, comfort or morals of the
area.
As stated in the other criterion above, staff believes that the large building will have an impact on
the character of the neighborhood and the adjacent single family residential property. Staff
believes this criterion has not been satisfied.
6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance
or Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant states that the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the zoning ordinance
or comprehensive plan because the garage will be built in a residential area for residential use.
Staff believes that the granting of the variance would be contrary to the zoning ordinance. As
stated above in the report, the zoning ordinance defines an accessory structure as being smaller in
height and area than the principal building. The applicant could construct a garage that is
approximately 1,100 square feet in size and still get more additional ground floor area than is
typical for a single family home in St. Louis Park, and still have less ground floor area than the
existing home. Staff believes this criterion has not been satisfied.
7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The applicant states that he needs enough room to keep vehicles and belongings safe from
weather and theft, that he needs enough room so he can keep his neighbor happy by keeping his
things indoors and out of sight, and he needs additional room in his hobby shop so he can work
safely and not risk injury because of a cluttered space.
Staff has been unable to identify a hardship or difficulty that would require a cumulative ground
floor area of 2,740 square feet. Staff believes this request is not typical for St. Louis Park, and
represents a convenience for the applicant, and therefore believes that this criterion has not been
satisfied.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Variance:
Based on the analysis that the proposed variance does not meet the required findings, the
Planning Commission recommended the Council adopt the attached Resolution to deny the
variance to allow the cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings to be greater than
the ground floor area of the home.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8e - CUP Brown Garage
Page 8
Conditional Use Permit:
Based on the analysis provided above, the Planning Commission recommends the Council
approve a conditional use permit to allow a cumulative ground floor area for all accessory
building not to exceed the ground floor area of the home. This means that if the house is added
onto at any time in the future, then the property owner could build an addition to the garage, or
another accessory building as long as the cumulative ground floor area of all accessory buildings
is less than the ground floor of the house with additions.
Staff recommends the Council approve the conditional use permit with an identified and specific
limit to the ground floor area for accessory buildings rather than leaving it open. This would
require the property owner to come before the Council to amend the CUP to construct additional
accessory buildings after constructing an addition to the house. Staff is recommending the
maximum be set at 1,170 square feet, which is 3 square feet less than the existing house. The
attached resolution reflects this recommendation.
Attachments:
• Resolution to deny the variance.
• Resolution to approve the Conditional Use Permit.
• Existing conditions aerial photo.
• Proposed Site Plan.
• Proposed Elevations.
• Applications with comments from applicant
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
952-924-2592 gmorrison@stlouispark.org
Approved: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8e - CUP Brown Garage
Page 9
RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 088
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE
CUMULATIVE GROUND FLOOR AREA FOR ALL ACCESSORY
BUILDINGS TO EXCEED THE GROUND FLOOR AREA FOR THE
HOME AT 5511 VERMONT ST
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
WHEREAS, Darrell W. Brown has made application to the City Council for a
variance to Section 36-162(c)(7)b.3 of the St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance to allow the
cumulative ground floor area for all accessory buildings to exceed the ground floor area of the
home located at 5511 Vermont Street, legally described as follows, to-wit:
North 268 feet of Lot 2, Block 3, Brookside Addition
WHEREAS, The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 05-11-VAR) and determined that the requested variance does
not meet the requirements of Section 36-33(d) of the Zoning Ordinance necessary for the City
Council to grant variances. There are no factors related to the shape, size or other extraordinary
conditions on the lot which prevent a reasonable use, and granting of the requested variance is
not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. The property
has had a reasonable use in the past.
WHEREAS, The contents of Planning Case File 05-11-VAR are hereby entered into
and made part of the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The variance to allow a cumulative ground floor area for all accessory buildings to exceed the
ground floor area of the home is hereby denied based on the findings set forth above.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 16, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8e - CUP Brown Garage
Page 10
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 36-162 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT AN ACCESSORY BULDING
LARGER THAN 800 SQUARE FEET FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-1
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 5511
VERMONT AVENUE SOUTH
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Darrell W. Brown has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit
under Section 36-162 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of permitting an
accessory building larger than 800 square feet within a R-1 Single Family Residential District
located at 5511 Vermont Avenue South for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
North 268 feet of Lot 2, Block 3, Brookside Addition
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 05-10-CUP) and the effect of the proposed accessory building larger
than 800 square feet on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands,
existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding
area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
3. The Council has determined that the accessory building larger than 800 square feet will not
be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause
serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property
values, and the proposed accessory building larger than 800 square feet is in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 05-10-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of accessory buildings in excess of 800
square feet cumulative ground floor area based on the findings set forth above and subject to the
following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A such
documents incorporated by reference herein.
2. The total cumulative ground floor area shall not exceed 1,170 square feet.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
051605 - 8e - CUP Brown Garage
Page 11
3. The accessory buildings shall not be used in any way as part of a home occupation.
4. The accessory buildings conform to all zoning ordinance provisions.
5. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of
$750 per violation of any condition of this approval.
6. Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building
or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
7. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit.
8. Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council May 16, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
res-ord/2005/05-10-CUP