Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/07/18 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA July 18, 2005 – 7:30 p.m. 6:45 – Study Session Westwood Room 1. Call to Order a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call 2. Presentations a. John Mantz Retirement Recognition 3. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of July 5, 2005 b. City Council Study Session Minutes of July 27, 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 - None 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing to consider an intoxicating on-sale and Sunday sale liquor license for WYN Hotels, LP dba Doubletree Park Place Hotel Request of Council to approve a liquor license for WYN Hotels operating at the Double Tree Park Place, 1500 Park Place Blvd. Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve an intoxicating on-sale and Sunday sale liquor license for WYN Hotels, LP dba Doubletree Park Place Hotel 6b. Consideration of the establishment of Special Service District #4 (along the western portion of Excelsior Boulevard between Highway 100 and Louisiana Avenue) and the imposition of a service charge within the district. Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve 1st reading of the attached ordinance to create Special Service District #4 and to schedule the 2nd reading of the ordinance for August 1, 2005. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Resolution Accepting Resignation and Declaring Vacancy in the Office of Ward Four Councilmember Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution declaring a vacancy in the office of Ward Four Councilmember effective July 15, 2005 8b. Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Chapter P, Redevelopment and Chapter U, Plan by Neighborhood to incorporate development guidelines for the northwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue. Case No. 05-26-CP Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to incorporate Development Guidelines for the northwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue into the Redevelopment and Plan by Neighborhood Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan, approve summary and authorize publication. 8c. Request by Park Tavern for a Major Amendment to a Special Permit to construct a building addition for a smoking area at 3401 Louisiana Avenue S. Case No. 05-15-CUP Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution amending and restating Resolution No. 6805, authorizing a Major Amendment to a Special Permit to allow the construction of a building addition, subject to conditions as recommended by staff. 8d. Resolution authorizing an application for a grant from the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing an application for grant funds from the Metropolitan Council. 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 JULY 18, 2005 SECTION 4: CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 4a Motion to adopt an ordinance amending chapter 36 of the city code to remove Cluster Housing from the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts, while allowing existing cluster housing developments to continue as a conforming use, approve summary, and authorize publication. Case Nos. 05-23-ZA 4b Motion to approve second reading of an ordinance amending chapters 4 and 20 of the St. Louis Park municipal code, approve summary, and authorize publication allowing off-leash dogs in designated off-leash area(s) with a permit. 4c Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Park Construction the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $147,663.36 for the Cedar Lake Road Trail Connection – City Project No. 2004- 0303 4d Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Special Assessment of Dutch Elm Diseased Trees 4e Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow the placement of approximately 5,800 cubic yards of fill material to construct a trail link between Cedar Lake Road and the Cedar Lake Regional Trail subject to conditions included in the resolution. Case No. 05-32-CUP 4f Planning Commission Minutes of June 1, 2005 4g Planning Commission Minutes of June 15, 2005 4h Motion to approve a resolution honoring John Mantz’s Service to the City 4i Motion to accept report regarding Time Warner Cable Franchise Agreement for filing 4j Motion to accept vendor claims for filing (supplement) AGENDA SUPPLEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 18, 2005 Items contained in this section are those items which are not yet available in electronic format and which are identified in the individual reports by inclusion of the word “Supplement”. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 3a - Council Minutes July 5, 2005 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA July 5, 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: Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), City Clerk (Ms. Reichert), City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Park Board Superintendent (Mr. Beane) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations - None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of June 20, 2005 Councilmember Finkelstein noted on page seven in the second paragraph, after”…to worry about market issues”, insert, “although he continued to remain worried about what they called “condo-itis.” That was something the entire City Council was concerned about and had been talking about at study sessions. The minutes were approved as corrected. 3b. Study Session Minutes of June 13, 2005 Councilmember Finkelstein indicated on page four, fourth paragraph of item one, it was not that he cautioned against leaving any of the three parcels out of the final proposal, rather he cautioned about coming back more than once. They should be meticulous in terms of what they demanded for the development and maybe take a different look at it. Other members of the Council agreed. The minutes were approved as corrected. 3c. Study Session Minutes of June 20, 2005 The minutes were approved as presented. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 3a - Council Minutes July 5, 2005 Page 2 NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 4a. Adopt Ordinance No. 2293-05 amending the zoning designation for property located at 7202 and 7252 Excelsior Boulevard from O-Office to RC-High Density Residential, approve second reading of ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication. Case No. 04-72-Z 4b. Adopt Ordinance No. 2294-05 amending the Official Zoning Map changing the zoning designation from IG – General Industrial to C2 – General Commercial at 7115 W. Lake Street, approve second reading, and authorize publication. Case No. 05-16-Z. 4c. 2005 Street Sealcoat Project: Designate Allied Blacktop Co. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $218,371.10 for the 2005 Street Sealcoat Project, No. 2005-0001 4d. Adopt Ordinance No. 2295-05 second reading of an Ordinance vacating right-of- way along a portion of 16th Street West, approve summary, and authorize publication 4e. Adopt Resolution No. 05-090 approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for construction and installation of a high-speed fiber optic link to connect the St. Louis Park Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) to Hennepin County radio communications tower to support 800 MHz radio communications 4f. Accept Vendor Claim Report It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and Commissions 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing to consider an intoxicating off-sale liquor license for Miracle Mile Liquor Barrel, Inc. at 5111 Excelsior Blvd Ms. Reichert presented the staff report. Comments from residents included a concern about the proximity to a competitor and that a liquor store in this location would not present the neighborhood in the best light as a gateway. A neighborhood leader also requested they be more proactive contacting the neighborhood association with changes at Miracle Mile. Mayor Jacobs stated he received a fax of a petition signed by some members of the Brookside Neighborhood Association, which would be made part of the public record. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 3a - Council Minutes July 5, 2005 Page 3 Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. Jim Burton, 4003 Grimes, was surprised St. Louis Park was more liberal in relation to liquor store proximity to churches and schools, that should be considered in the future. There were eight liquor stores within a mile and a half radius and there should be more control. Dave Anderle, applicant, stated this was an upscale wine and spirits retailer and were proposing a competitive store with many choices. They will have knowledgeable staff and good customer service, but would also bring a small town concept. There will be enough room for everyone to enjoy the free enterprise system. St. Louis Park can handle another store, especially one that kept the sidewalks clean and presented the right concept for Miracle Mile. Councilmember Sanger asked if they would only being selling wine? Mr. Anderle replied they would be selling beer and spirits as well. Councilmember Omodt asked if they did a market survey. He had the same concern about the number of liquor establishments in one area. Mr. Anderle responded they used the survey Miracle Mile did and also used the St. Louis Park traffic study to determine how many cars were using Excelsior Blvd and Highway 7 as part of their proposal. David Payne, Al’s Liquors, stated he closed his liquor store fourteen years ago when MGM, Byerly’s and France 44 came in. Chains often declare bankruptcy and small retailers get stuck paying for it. He was not adverse to a good liquor store, but the City paid moving expenses for Mr. Jennings to move and there was a spirit store in Excelsior and Grand. Mr. Jennings expanded his wine department and did a good job and was a long-term taxpayer in the City. This would end up hurting present taxpayers. Peter Rademacher, 8963 Pierce St. NE Columbia Heights, applicant, stated their chain was seven different owners that bought together and had the buying power as a chain. They also advertised together, but they did things differently at each store. He hoped they would bring good prices and selection to the city, with a small town feel. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Finkelstein agreed it wasn’t desirable to have another liquor store in a concentrated area, but the ordinance didn’t restrict it. He suggested this be a study session item and would like to know what other cities were doing. Even less desirable than a liquor store were empty storefronts at Miracle Mile, which caused him concern. He wanted to preserve a neighborhood shopping center and protect the neighborhood. It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to approve the intoxicating off-sale liquor license for Miracle Mile Liquor Barrel, Inc. located at 5111 Excelsior Blvd. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 3a - Council Minutes July 5, 2005 Page 4 Councilmember Sanger agreed about having a study session. She wanted to take the prospective owners at their word they would run a classy operation. If there was a problem associated with having a concentration of liquor stores, she felt certain the Police Department would let them know. Councilmember Omodt also agreed that they couldn’t deny this and that this warranted further discussion. It seemed like a lot of liquor stores in a mile of the city. Mayor Jacobs wasn’t sure if it was a good or bad idea for government to regulate. If Miracle Mile had four hardware stores that wanted to go in, three probably wouldn’t survive, but questioned whether it was government’s job to regulate the market. Mayor Jacobs also didn’t want residents to believe the only reason this was approved was that the ordinance did not allow them to deny. This was not a bad proposal and he wants them to succeed. He also shared concerns about vacant spaces at Miracle Mile and didn’t want that to be the message either. Councilmember Basill agreed with studying what neighboring communities did. He also wanted to consider how close to churches and schools these establishments were located. He had a request from some constituents that they have a tasteful sign and a request they probably could not honor, which was to consider a different name. Councilmember Santa commented that it may not be the residents of St. Louis Park that go to the liquor stores, it may be people using Hwy 100. She also had concerns about purposeful development along Excelsior. They were concerned for all of Excelsior, not just Excelsior and Grand. Keeping Miracle Mile vital was very important. The motion passed 7-0. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. First reading of an ordinance allowing off-leash dogs in designated off-leash area. Mr. Beane presented the staff report. He noted the dog park was 90% completed and should be open by the end of July. Councilmember Sanger asked how the community would be notified when the new site was available. Mr. Beane indicated the neighborhood would be notified, they would also update their website. Residents were aware this was happening. Councilmember Sanger asked how they would notify users of the site? Mr. Beane responded that most dog owners had been active in the process and followed the web site. It was moved by Councilmember Saner, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve first reading of the amended ordinance allowing off-leash dogs in a designated off-leash area with a permit and to setting second reading for July 18, 2005. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 3a - Council Minutes July 5, 2005 Page 5 The motion passed 7-0. 8b. Request by Darrell W. Brown for a Conditional Use Permit to allow more than 800 square feet of accessory building ground floor area. Case Nos. 05- 10-CUP 5511 Vermont St. Resolution No. 05-089 Mr. Morrison presented the staff report. Mr. Brown stated that he was thankful Mr. Morrison came up with this idea for many reasons and was happy with this approach. Councilmember Sanger indicated on the third page of the staff report, it indicates minimum side yard was 13’, but the proposed side yard was only five feet. Why wasn’t a variance needed? Mr. Morrison responded the report was incorrect, Mr. Brown met the setbacks. Councilmember Sanger asked if this was granted, was there a way to put an easement or restriction on the property prohibiting future use of this building to operate a business? Ms. McGonigal replied in the resolution there was a condition (#4) that the accessory building shall not be used in any way as part of a home occupation. Councilmember Sanger asked if there was something that could be put on the title? Mr. Scott responded that the conditional use permit resolution gets recorded against the title and a potential buyer would see that. They should also be aware of zoning ordinances. Councilmember Basill stated this was a unique lot. The applicant had made substantial changes in the proposal to comply with a CUP. The existing garage was long and narrow and in disrepair. It would be difficult to put a two-car garage there. It would have to go behind the property. This was a much more reasonable and he would be in favor. Councilmember Omodt indicated he would support this, as he did last time. People with two story houses were penalized because of the ground floor area. This added to the value of the neighborhood, took cars off the street, neighbors were supportive, they would not see the structure from the street, and it would not impede views or green space. He was in favor of the CUP. Councilmember Finkelstein asked where the garages would be in relation to the neighbor to the East? Mr. Morrison replied that the back yards faced each other. It was further away than the first proposal from the property line, about 50 feet away. Councilmember Finkelstein indicated the report noted this would allow twelve cars and asked for further clarification. Mr. Morrison responded that would allow four cars outside of the building as well. Councilmember Sanger believed this was a better proposal and couldn’t argue against the CUP. Her concern was the ability to enforce the ordinance against home occupations in St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 3a - Council Minutes July 5, 2005 Page 6 residential areas. They needed to be concerned about future residents because it was difficult to regulate home occupations. What can they as a city do to enforce their requirement against home occupation use when they discover it happening? Councilmember Finkelstein asked if their language was strong enough? Mr. Scott replied that it was a perennial problem, regardless of the ordinance language, to enforce illegal home occupations. Every city had those issues. He believed the language was fine. The way to control them was to regulate the size of structures so there was not an incentive and available space to do those kinds of things. That was what they were doing here. Councilmember Basill clarified for viewers that they were not looking to create a parking lot. They were looking to provide a space for his cars. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve Resolution No. 05-089, Conditional Use Permit to allow a cumulative ground floor area for accessory buildings not to exceed 1,170 square feet. The motion passed 7-0. 8c. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to remove Cluster Housing from the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts as a conditional use, while allowing existing cluster housing developments to continue as a conforming use. Case Nos. 05-23-ZA Ms. McGonigal presented the staff report. Councilmember Sanger stated that the Planning Commission didn’t discuss the motivation for this proposal. The proposal to eliminate cluster housing in R1, R2 and R3 was based on the recommendations of the Housing Summit process, which put a priority on retention and development of single-family, owner-occupied, detached homes. Therefore, one of the reasons for eliminating cluster housing was to minimize zoning incentives someone might have to tear down existing single-family, owner-occupied, attached housing and replace it with something else. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve first reading of Zoning Ordinance amendment, and set second reading for July 18th. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs thanked all staff involved with the 4th of July fireworks display. Mr. Harmening reported that the State shut down impact would depend on the length of time. Public safety was the primary concern and they were fine. The State Fire Marshall’s office and the BCA were essential service. They have a working relationship with the State Department of Employment and Economic Development on the retention of a large industry in St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 3a - Council Minutes July 5, 2005 Page 7 including Novartis. They needed to make a proposal to Novartis by the first part of August. It was important the State be a partner, so that would be an impact. It they were out for a longer period of time, there would be more impact. They also worked with MnDot on planning, etc. Councilmember Sanger asked this would impact the City’s receipt of property tax money? Mr. Harmening replied the property tax payment was received from the County. Councilmember Finkelstein asked about bus service? Mr. Harmening replied bus service was considered an essential service. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION June 27, 2005 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers present: John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Sue Santa, Sally Velick and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: Deputy City Manager (Ms. Gohman); Planner (Mr. Fulton); Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt); Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal); TSS Director (Mr. Pires); and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert). 1. Condominium Market Report Mr. Thomas O’Neil of Dahlgren Shardlow and Uban presented a report to council entitled “Market Viewpoint: Twin Cities Condo Market 2004-2005.” Planning Commission members Carl Robertson, Dennis Morris and Lynne Carper were also present at the meeting. Following the report Councilmembers Basill and Finkelstein questioned whether additional research could be done when proposals come forward to ensure developers chosen to work in the city were qualified, competent and experienced. Ms. McMonigal responded that if a particular development proposal is an allowed use, council has little control in that regard. Council has discretion at the zoning level, with comp plan amendments and when financial assistance from the city is involved. She offered to do further research for discussion at a later date. Councilmember Finkelstein also requested that council consider the “top 10 development sites” in the city, and that council discuss “plan by corridor” zoning overlay districts. Mr. Morris thought it would be prudent to develop additional controls to put the brakes on residential development in the city. Ms. McMonigal informed council that staff is working on a study of commercial and industrial properties in the city, which will be helpful in planning for future development. 2. Wireless Study Update Mr. Pires reported that the community wireless survey was almost done and council will be receiving information from that survey in late July. There is also a town hall meeting scheduled for July 26th. Mr. Pires introduced Tom Marble of the SLP School District. SLP City and School staff have been working on strategies for helping persons who may not have the hardware necessary to access the internet to gain that access. The philosophy being, that if a local wireless network is created to benefit the public, efforts should also be made to ensure the equipment needed to take advantage of that resource should also be made available. Mr. Pires anticipated this to be a city/school/business collaboration. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 3b - Study Session Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 2 Councilmember Finkelstein believed all work on this should be completed prior to the next legislative session. Councilmember Santa said that people are asking where the city is at with this project and she is anxious for more information so that she can keep residents updated. Mr. Pires said that promotion for the town meeting is coming soon and that there will also be media releases on the subject. 3. Salary Cap Ms. Gohman presented proposed salary modifications which reflected recent legislative changes in the salary cap for local government officials. Ms. Gohman also asked council to consider options for dealing with the Paid Time Off balances accrued by employees who had reached the cap. Council also opted to transfer the PTO hours into Health Care Savings Plans which could be set up to happen July 31st of each year. Admin Services staff will prepare documents to bring forward for council adoption. 4. Council and EDA Salaries Council considered options for changing Council and EDA salaries, which must be done during an election year. Council had not raised council salaries since January of 2002. Because two councilmembers were not able to participate in the discussion, council asked to defer further discussion to a future study session. 5. Communications The City Clerk answered questions from council about a public hearing to be held July 5th regarding issuance of a liquor license to a retail store to be located in the Miracle Mile Shopping Center. 6. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4a - 2nd Rdg Zoning Amendment for Cluster Housing Page 1 4a. Motion to adopt an ordinance amending chapter 36 of the city code to remove Cluster Housing from the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts, while allowing existing cluster housing developments to continue as a conforming use, approve summary, and authorize publication. Case Nos. 05-23-ZA Description of Proposal It is proposed to remove the Cluster Housing provision from the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts into the future, while allowing the existing Cluster Housing developments to remain as conforming uses in the Zoning Ordinance. Background Cluster Housing is now permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning districts, and is a permitted use in the RC zoning district. It is proposed that Cluster Housing would remain as a conditional use in the R-4 district and a permitted use in the RC district. On July 5, 2005, the City Council approved the first reading of the Zoning Ordinance amendment. Recommendation Staff recommends the approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to remove Cluster Housing from the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts as a conditional use, while allowing existing cluster housing developments to continue as a conforming use. Attachments: Ø Ordinance Ø Summary for publication Prepared By: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed By: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4a - 2nd Rdg Zoning Amendment for Cluster Housing Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2296-05 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO CLUSTER HOUSING ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 36-163, 36-164, 36-165 THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 05-23-ZA) Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-163, 36-164, 36-165 are hereby amended by adding the following underlined language: Section 36-163. R-1 single-family residence district. (d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. (1) Cluster housing developments in existence on August 11, 2005. Section 36-164. R-2 single-family residence district. (d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. (1) Cluster housing developments in existence on August 11, 2005. Section 36-165. R-3 two-family residence district. (d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. (1) Cluster housing developments in existence on August 11, 2005. Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 05-23-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 00-12-ZA/N/res/ord St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4a - 2nd Rdg Zoning Amendment for Cluster Housing Page 3 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2296-05 AN ORDINANCE REGARDING CLUSTER HOUSING This ordinance states that cluster housing will be removed from the R-1, R-2 and R-3 residential zoning districts as a conditional use, while allowing existing cluster housing developments to continue as a conforming use. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council July 18, 2005 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: July 28, 2005 Res/ord/2005/05-23-ZAsum St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4b - 2nd Rdg Dog Park Ordinance Page 1 4b. Motion to approve second reading of an ordinance amending chapters 4 and 20 of the St. Louis Park municipal code, approve summary, and authorize publication allowing off-leash dogs in designated off-leash area(s) with a permit. Background: Revisions to the off-leash dog ordinance were a result of designation of off-leash dog areas in the City. Since a permanent off-leash dog park has been created, the ordinance will need to be amended to allow dogs off their leash in areas designated by staff. A task force was assembled to give recommendations on appropriate off-leash dog park locations. After reviewing input from neighborhood and public meetings, the task force finalized its recommendations and submitted them to the City Council on May 23 and June 6. The City Council approved the recommendations of the Task Force at its June 6 meeting. Ordinance Change: The attached ordinance authorizes dogs to be off their leash in the area or areas designated by the City which will be called an Off-Leash Dog Park. The ordinance also corrects wording to distinguish between the terms “allowed” and “permitted” and outlines the permit process. Attachments: Ordinance Summary Ordinance Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Department Secretary Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4b - 2nd Rdg Dog Park Ordinance Page 2 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2297-05 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 AND 20 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE CODE CHAPTER 4 AND 20: This ordinance allows dogs to be off their leash in the area or areas designated by staff which will be called the Off-Leash Dog Park. The ordinance also corrects the wording to distinguish between the terms “allowed” and “permitted” and outlines the permit process. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council July 18, 2005 Jeffrey W. Jacobs Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: July 28, 2005 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4b - 2nd Rdg Dog Park Ordinance Page 3 ORDINANCE NO. 2297-05 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 4-81 AND CHAPTER 20, REGULATING THE PRESENCE OF OFF-LEASH DOGS IN A DESIGNATED AREA THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 4-81, is amended to read: Sec. 4-81. Dogs running at large. (a) No person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog, nor the parents or guardians of any such person under 18 years of age, shall allow the dog to run at large within the corporate limits of the city except in a designated off-leash dog area after obtaining a permit in accordance with section 20-6 of this ordinance. (b) A dog shall be deemed to be running at large if the dog is off the premises of the person who owns, harbors or keeps the dog, and not under the control of that person or a designee, either by leash, cord or chain not more than six feet long. (c) The term "premises," when used in this chapter, means the usual place of residence, including a building, structure or shelter and any land appurtenant thereto, of a person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog, whether domesticated or non-domesticated; or the dog owned, harbored or kept by such a person. SECTION 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 20-5, is amended to read: Sec. 20-5. Prohibited acts; regulations. (12) Pets. Pets are allowed in all parks as defined in section 20-1, provided that pet owners abide by the provisions listed in this subsection with the following exceptions: a. Exceptions. Pets shall be allowed in playground structure areas, athletic fields, picnic shelters, park buildings or wading pools. Pets are not allowed anywhere in the Westwood Hills Nature Center or the Rec Center. Seeing-Eye dogs, other disability assisting creatures and police dogs are allowed in any area where they are needed. The parks and recreation director shall be authorized to post additional restricted areas that may be determined inappropriate for pets. b. Requirements. 1. The pet is properly licensed. 2. Pets shall be under control at all times. The pet owner is liable for any action taken or damage caused by the pet. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4b - 2nd Rdg Dog Park Ordinance Page 4 3. All pets shall be restrained at all times on adequate leashes not longer than six feet. Except that dogs are allowed off leash in a designated off-leash dog park in accordance with section 20-6 of this chapter. 4. Persons in control of pets must have in their possession tools or equipment suitable for the removal of animal fecal material and shall promptly and effectively remove from the ground all fecal material deposited there by a pet. Persons removing animal waste from park surfaces shall dispose of it in a sanitary manner, which may include depositing it in any designated waste receptacle located in the public parks. c. Signage. The parks and recreation department will place in all public parks to inform park users of the distinction between areas where pets are prohibited and allowed in accordance with subsection (12)a. of this section. SECTION 3. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Chapter 20 is amended to add: Sec. 20-6. Off-leash dog areas; permits and regulations. Some areas of the city may be designated as off-leash areas if deemed suitable for such activity by the director of parks and recreation. (1) Dogs may be unrestrained by chain or leash in areas designated for off-leash activities. No person shall use a designated off-leash area without first having obtained a permit for each dog using such an area from the city. (2) The annual fee for an off-leash area permit shall be set from time to time by the city and a schedule of such fees is listed in appendix A to this Code. A permit may only be granted upon verification that the dog has been issued a current dog license and a current rabies vaccination certificate. The city shall provide a tag containing a registration number and the year registered for each permit. Permits shall be valid from the date of purchase until December thirty-first following the date of purchase. (3) Upon application for a permit, the applicant shall be provided with the rules for use of off-leash areas. As a condition for the issuance of a permit, the applicant shall sign and agree to abide by these rules. A permit may be revoked for failure of the applicant, or any person who takes the dog into an off-leash recreation area, to abide by these rules, or for violation of any city ordinance. Permits may be revoked by the director of parks and recreation. (4) The person responsible for a dog must have the dog restrained when entering and leaving an off-leash area. If so directed by a law enforcement officer, animal control officer, or authorized parks and recreation employee, persons using an off- leash area must immediately restrain their dogs and remove them from the off- leash area. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4b - 2nd Rdg Dog Park Ordinance Page 5 SECTION 4. The fee for a dog park permit as outlined in section 20-6(2) shall be $25 for St. Louis Park Residents and $50 for non-residents. The City Clerk is directed to include the fee in Appendix A of the city code with other fees and charges called for by ordinance. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective 15 days after its passage and publication. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 18, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: City Clerk City Attorney St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 071805 - 4c - Bid Tab Cedar Lake Road Trail Connection Page 1 4c. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Park Construction the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $147,663.36 for the Cedar Lake Road Trail Connection – City Project No. 2004- 0303 Background: Bids were received on July 7, 2005 for the Cedar Lake Road Trail Connection Project. The project provides for the construction of an at grade trail linkage between Cedar Lake Road and the Cedar Lake Regional Trail. The proposed project area is located at the pedestrian bridge over the Burlington Northern Railroad and Regional Trail near the Jewish Community Center. The City Council ordered the project, approved plans and specifications, and authorized an advertisement for bids at its June 6, 2005 meeting. A total of five (5) bids were received for this project. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on June 16 and June 23, 2005, and in the Construction Bulletin on June 17, and June 24, 2005. A summary of the bid results is as follows: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT Park Construction $147,663.36 Veit and Company $161,654.30 Sunram Construction, Inc. $175,394.30* Environmental Assoc., Inc. $197,652.00* Midwest Asphalt, Inc. $249,789.21 Engineer’s Estimate $116,246.45 *Bid corrected upon extension Evaluation of Bids: Staff has reviewed all of the bids submitted and has tabulated the results. From the review, staff recommends Park Construction as the lowest responsible bidder. Park Construction is a reputable contractor who has previously completed projects for the City, including the recent Lamplighter Pond project. A letter of recommendation has also been provided by the consultant engineer for this project, TKDA. As shown, the low bid of $147,663.36 is significantly higher than the Engineer’s Estimate of $116,246.45. Generally, the unit prices on several of the items considered in the Engineer’s Estimate were underestimated. The higher bid prices may be attributed at least in part to the following: 1. Timing of the project – projects bid in summer for a fall completion sometimes result in higher prices than when bid in the winter or spring months. 2. Site Accessibility - At least one contractor noted that the relatively narrow and tight access to the site off of Cedar Lake Road makes the construction of this project somewhat more difficult than other sites where more open, flatter, and easier access for large and heavy vehicles allows for quicker construction. 3. Size of the project – The overall size of the project is relatively smaller than other similar projects completed by the Contractors who submitted bids. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 071805 - 4c - Bid Tab Cedar Lake Road Trail Connection Page 2 4. Final quantities – In finalizing the plans and specifications, some quantities (including fill material and tree replacements) increased in quantity above those utilized in the original Engineer’s Estimate. Some adjustments were performed to satisfy the requirements of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board who own the property where the trail will be constructed. In summary, 5 bids were received from 5 reputable contractors, all but one within a reasonable range. It can therefore be surmised that the low bid received is a legitimate price, and that any further bidding or re-bidding will not likely reduce the cost. It is therefore recommended that the City Council accept the low bid from Park construction as submitted. Financial Considerations: The CIP budgeted a total of $150,000 for this project which included construction, engineering, and administrative costs the project. As a result of the higher than expected bids received, a budget amount of $200,000 is therefore recommended. Financing of the project is based upon 2006 General Obligation bond proceeds. As a result, the Finance Department will be closely monitoring all current and future improvement projects to assure that sufficient overall funding is available in accordance with the CIP and projected bond proceeds. Construction Timeline: An early August construction start is expected. In accordance with the project schedule, all work should be completed by mid October. Prepared By: Scott Brink, City Engineer Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4d - DED Tree Special Assessments Page 1 4d. Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Special Assessment of Dutch Elm Diseased Trees Background: At the July 26, 2004 Study Session, Council discussed the large volume of trees that are required to be removed due to Dutch Elm Disease (DED). At that time, a program was introduced which allows home owners to have the cost of removal of these trees assessed to their property. This program allows an assessment to be placed on the property and repaid over a specific number of years based on the dollar amount of the assessment. In October of 2004, the City approved the first six (6) special assessments for this program. Since that time, the City has received an additional six (6) petitions for special assessments. These petitions indicate that the property owners waive their right to a public hearing and wish to have the cost of the removal of the DED tree placed as a special assessment against their property. The total dollar amount that will be assessed to the six properties is $16,943.35 at an interest rate of 5.46%. The individual assessment amounts range from $410.03 to $4,920.30. The actual property addresses, assessment amounts and terms are shown on Exhibit A. Diseased trees continue to be removed and staff anticipates there will be additional residents that want to take advantage of the special assessment program. Any additional requests for this program that come in before mid-November will be placed as an assessment on the 2006 property taxes. After that date, the assessment will be on the 2007 property taxes. Attachments: Resolution Prepared By: Jean McGann, Director of Finance Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4d - DED Tree Special Assessments Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF DUTCH ELM DISEASED TREE(S) AT (SEE ADDENDUM A) WHEREAS, the Property Owner(s) at see Addendum A (“Benefited Property”) have petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the removal of Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s) on the Benefited Property; and WHEREAS, the Property Owner(s) have agreed to waive their right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Forester related to the removal of Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the Property Owner(s) requesting the approval and special assessment for the Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s) is hereby accepted. 2. The removal of the Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s) in conformance with the specifications on file in the office of Park & Recreation, Environmental Division is hereby authorized. 3. The total estimated cost for the removal of Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s) is accepted at $16,943.35 and itemized on Addendum A. 4. The Property Owner(s) have agreed to waive their rights to public hearing, notice and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law. 5. The Property Owner(s) agree(s) to pay the City for the cost of the above improvements through special assessment over a specified number of years as itemized on Addendum A at 5.46% interest. 6. The Property Owner(s) agree(s) to execute an agreement with the City and any other documents necessary to implement the removal of Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s) and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Adopted by the City Council July 18, 2005 (Insert Signature Block Here) St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4d - DED Tree Special Assessments Page 3 RESOLUTION 05-_______ ADDENDUM A BENEFITTED PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS PID AMOUNT YEARS INTEREST Barbara Addington 7504 Edgebrook Dr 20-117-21-21-0101 4,920.30$ 5 5.46% Brian Schroeder 4073 Webster Ave 21-117-21-31-0225 3,045.90 5 5.46% Andrew Townsend 6027 Cambridge Street 21-117-21-22-0097 600.92 2 5.46% Dennis Liudahl 4370 Glen Place 07-028-24-34-0018 410.03 1 5.46% Roger Swedlund 3156 Hampshire Ave S 17-117-21-12-0197 3,748.80 5 5.46% John & Deborah Skinner 3936 Zarthan Ave S 21-117-21-24-0095 4,217.40 5 5.46% TOTAL 16,943.35$ St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4e - Cedar Lake Trail CUP Page 1 4e Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow the placement of approximately 5,800 cubic yards of fill material to construct a trail link between Cedar Lake Road and the Cedar Lake Regional Trail subject to conditions included in the resolution. Case No. 05-32-CUP Current Zoning: R1 Single Family Residential Comprehensive Plan Designations: Low Density Residential Request: A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is requested for fill to complete an addition of a connection to the Cedar Lake Regional Trail. This segment was added to the City’s Sidewalk, Trail, Bikeway and Crossing Plan in 2003. This site was identified by both staff and area residents due to the lack of access to the regional trail in this area. On June 6, 2005, the City Council approved the construction of the trail connection. A CUP is required for fill over 400 cubic yards. Description of Trail Connection (from City Engineer): The proposed trail (see attached plan) would meander along the hillside from the end of the cul- de-sac on Cedar Lake Road, westerly to the Cedar Lake Regional Trail. The proposed trail is 620 feet in length and was designed with a slope that meets the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines (there is a nearly 21 foot elevation difference between the cul-de-sac and the regional trail). The trail would be 8 feet in width with 2 foot safety clear zones on either side and would be constructed of asphalt. No lighting is proposed to be installed. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) owns the property where the trail would be located. A permit application has been submitted to the Park Board, and reactions from Park Board staff have been favorable. Preliminary conversations indicate we should be able to obtain a permit from the MPRB for this project as proposed. Design Considerations A stairway is proposed near the upper portion of the new trail interconnect. This would be an alternative for walkers or runners who wish to travel east into Minneapolis without “backtracking” some additional distance over the entire trail linkage. Although optional, staff considers that the stairway is warranted as people would likely continue to “short cut” through the trees anyway without the steps. The alignment of the trail was designed to minimize tree removal while attempting to follow the existing ground contours. However, approximately 44 trees will need to be removed. Tree and vegetation removals near the higher portion of the trail are generally “lower quality” species such as poplar, birch, and buckthorn. The trail alignment has been refined to limit removals of oak trees. Replacement trees, following the City’s tree replacement ordinance, will be installed. We also received replacement suggestions from residents, and are working with the City Environmental Coordinator to complete a suitable final plan. This may include hybrid elms, aspens, and flowering shrubs such as dogwood. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4e - Cedar Lake Trail CUP Page 2 Finally, two park benches are proposed to be installed at the two connection points to the regional trail. Conditional Use Permit Issues: Ø What route is proposed to haul the material? The hauling route will be Cedar Lake Road to France Avenue to Lake St. Ø How long will the hauling take place and what will be the hours of operation? Hauling is anticipated to take place this summer and will take approximately one month. Per Ordinance, hauling can occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on the weekend and holidays. Staff has specified in the contract that the hauling be complete by 7:00 p.m. each day; these hours are recommended as a part of the Conditional Use Permit. Ø How will dust and noise be managed? Fugitive dust and noise mitigation will be achieved by requiring contractors to comply with state requirements and local ordinance requirements. The Public Works staff will ensure that the contract includes requirements for controlling dust and noise as necessary. Planning Commission Recommendation: On July 6, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request. No one from the public was present to speak. The Planning Commission recommended approval with some additional specifics regarding haul routes; these recommendations are incorporated into the attached resolution. Recommendation: Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow the placement of approximately 5,800 cubic yards of fill to construct the trail line between Cedar Lake Road and the Cedar Lake Regional Trail, with the conditions as follows: 1. Haul routes shall be Cedar Lake Road to south on France Avenue to Lake Street only. 2. Hauling can occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on the weekend and holidays. 3. All contractors are required to comply with state and local dust and noise ordinances. Attachments: Ø Resolution Ø Location Map Ø Sketch Plans of Trail Ø Landscaping Plan of Trail Prepared By: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed By: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4e - Cedar Lake Trail CUP Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-79 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW FILL OF APPROXIMATELY 5,800 CUBIC YARDS FOR A REGIONAL TRAIL CONNECTION AT CEDAR LAKE ROAD AND THE CEDAR LAKE REGIONAL TRAIL BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. The City of St. Louis Park have 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 allowing fill of approximately 5,800 cubic yards for the legal description as follows: South of BNSF Railroad right-of-way (from Cedar Lake Road to Cedar Lake Regional Trail) 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 05-32-CUP) and the effect of the proposed placement of fill 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 placement of fill 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 placement of fill is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The contents of Planning Case File 05-32-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The Conditional Use Permit to permit the placement of over 400 cubic yards of fill at the location described is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4e - Cedar Lake Trail CUP Page 4 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with documents incorporated by reference herein. 2. Haul routes shall be Cedar Lake Road to south on France Avenue to Lake Street only. 3. Hauling can occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on the weekend and holidays. 4. All contractors are required to comply with state and local dust and noise ordinances 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 July 18, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Res-ord/2005/05-32-CUP St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4f - Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 2005 Page 1 OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA June 1, 2005--6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Lynne Carper, Jerry Timian STAFF PRESENT: Adam Fulton, Meg McMonigal, Nancy Sells 1. Call to Order – Roll Call Chair Carper called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Due to illness, the Chair excused himself from the meeting. 2. Approval of Minutes of May 18, 2005 Commissioner Robertson made a motion to approve the minutes of May 18, 2005. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnston-Madison, and approved on a vote of 4- 0. 3. Hearings A. Major Amendment to a Special Permit for a Smoking Room Addition Location: Park Tavern, 3401 Louisiana Ave S. Applicant: Philip Weber Case No. 05-15-CUP Adam Fulton, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Vice-Chair Morris said the plan shows the addition will have windows. He asked how negative air pressure will be maintained when windows are open. Mr. Fulton responded that additional air would have to be pumped into the restaurant area to make the air pressure higher than the outside air, similar to what is done at settings like the Metrodome. Vice-Chair Morris said he supports the request but doesn’t understand how an addition can be built on the business and not be called part of the business. He said he interprets the addition as a smoking area and not part of the food or liquor license establishment. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4f - Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 2005 Page 2 of 5 But paradoxically drinks can be taken into the smoking room. Therefore drinks can be taken into an area that is not covered by a liquor license. He said it would make more sense if there was no liquor allowed, just as drinks cannot be taken to the parking lot. Mr. Fulton said that could be added to the conditions. He said staff arrived at its decision to recommend approval as the proposal does not increase the intensity of the use. Vice-Chair Morris said if it was as simple as that, wouldn’t it be more economical to declare the special events banquet room not part of the business area and turn the banquet room into a smoker’s lounge. Mr. Fulton said he believes Park Tavern plans on continuing to offer food service in the banquet room. Vice-Chair Morris asked how there can be a split use in a licensed establishment. Vice-Chair Morris said he assumed that the City Attorney was involved in deciding that the request was not in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Fulton said he had not communicated with the City Attorney about the request. He stated that the City Environmental Health Official, Manny Camilon, has been meeting with the applicant to ensure that the proposal is in compliance with the ordinance. Vice-Chair Morris said that City inspectors should also contact the County Attorney. Mr. Fulton addressed Vice-Chair Morris’ comments on split uses. He said that Park Tavern already has split uses. It has a bowling alley, restaurant and game room and all uses are treated a little bit differently under the zoning code. He said the code specifically calls out for the areas to be addressed differently when looking at items like parking. Vice-Chair Morris said he agreed, except to say that all of those areas are governed by the Indoor Clean Air Act, and that is where his confusion lies. An addition is constructed which is not covered by the ordinance but in reality everything inside the building is covered by the smoking ban. He referenced the County’s ordinance which states that smoking is prohibited in the indoor areas of food establishments. He said he doesn’t know how the addition can be separated as not being an indoor area. He supports the request but feels there are some obstacles which need to be addressed. Mr. Fulton showed the site plan and described the layout. He also showed illustrations of the proposed addition. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she supports the request but felt it was worth consulting with the County. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4f - Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 2005 Page 3 of 5 Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said the applicant may address contacts he has made with the County in his remarks to the Commission. She added that the applicant has been working with the City health inspectors on the request. City inspectors understand that this use would allowed as a separate use under the County ordinance. Philip Weber, applicant, said he has had extensive conversations with Lynne Moore, Hennepin County enforcement, regarding the ordinance. He said many meetings were held between himself, Lynne Moore, and Manny Camilon of City Inspections. Lynne Moore consulted the County Attorney. He said the banquet room is used extensively, making it more economical to build an addition for a smoking room. Commissioner Robertson asked if there would be any entertainment in the smoking area such as TV. Mr. Weber said there would be TV in the smoking area. He said he didn’t want to create an unpleasant space like an airport smoking lounge. Commissioner Robertson asked about clean up of tables. Mr. Weber said the patrons will be very willing to bus tables. He said the addition is meant to be an amenity to the business, not an attraction. Commissioner Kramer said he supported the request but had a picture in his mind of a glass enclosed ashtray. He said he was also troubled that there will be TVs in the room and that people can spend many hours there. He asked if this is the kind of indoor situation the City wants to create. Commissioner Kramer asked about liability if customers bus tables. He said he knew that the applicant was a great part of the community, but he wanted to avoid creating an unsightly area. He said he would also be concerned if the room was too nice and inviting. Mr. Weber said there would be no glassware in the smoking area. He said he believed customers would take some pride in keeping the room neat. He said it would be the nicest room in the building. Ms. McMonigal said it might operate more like a self-service setting. Regarding air handling, Commissioner Kramer asked if there would be a concentration of smoke outside of the addition, different from what an outdoor patio would create. He said he was concerned both for people walking by and for residents of the new buildings across the street. Mr. Weber said he checked with air handling experts and they seemed to think that would not be an issue. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4f - Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 2005 Page 4 of 5 Vice-Chair Morris asked if the room could be for patrons who are seated, or being served, in the restaurant/bar facility and that it not be for walk-in customers. By activity, it could expand the seating area. Ms. McMonigal said the area that the room is planned for is currently an outdoor patio, so a new area is being replaced and the applicant is not really adding more area for customers. Vice-Chair Morris asked if the intent of the smoking room is not for the service of customers, but is for customers who want to leave the area where they are being served to go out and have a cigarette. Mr. Weber said Hennepin County was quite adamant that beverage and food was allowed in a smoking room, service is just not allowed in the room. Vice-Chair Morris opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, the Vice-Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Robertson asked if the plans had been reviewed by the building inspector. Mr. Fulton said the building inspectors have reviewed the proposal and felt it was an appropriate addition. He added that the fire exit will be through the smoking room. The City Fire Inspector also reviewed the plans. Commissioner Robertson said he had been frustrated by the lack of architectural drawings. He wants to be assured that plans are meeting building code. If a project requires an architect stamp by state law, he would like to see agenda material include something from a registered architect that assures plans are meeting building code. He said he didn’t think the code allowed exit through an adjoining space. The current exit door is a required exit from the dining area. He said to exit the dining area through an adjoining space does not meet the building code. Mr. Fulton said further review will be required when the applicant requests the building permit. Commissioner Robertson said as he has mentioned, part of his concern is having an applicant go too far through the process only to encounter problems with their proposal. He said he’s not sure how to cover all approvals at one time, but suggested that requiring a review by a licensed professional would be helpful. Ms. McMonigal said these issues can be double-checked. Vice-Chair Morris said he knows the issue relates to the issuance of an amendment to a special permit, and said that he is confident that this type of use is going through many reviews including that of fire marshall, licensing, health inspector, zoning administrator and Planning Commission comments regarding legal issues. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4f - Planning Commission Minutes June 1, 2005 Page 5 of 5 Commissioner Robertson said from a zoning perspective he has no issues at all, but in reading the material it wasn’t clear that building code had been considered. He said it would have been helpful to list the parties who have reviewed the proposal. Vice-Chair Morris said the City liquor license ordinance says any establishment with a liquor license that wants to build an addition must notify the City Clerk and have the addition approved by City Council. So there are various ways that these kinds of establishments and additions get reviewed outside of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the Major Amendment to the Special Permit, subject to conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0. 4. Unfinished Business: None 5. New Business: None 6. Communications Ms. McMonigal reminded the Commission that they were invited to Tom O’Neil’s presentation of his Twin Cities Condo Market Study at the City Council’s June 27th study session. Copies of the study will be sent to the Planning Commission this week. Ms. McMonigal introduced Jaci Johnson, a St. Louis Park resident, who is an intern with the Planning Dept. She will be working on the Industrial Study this summer. Vice-Chair Morris announced that the Planning Commission would conduct a study session on the Industrial Study following tonight’s meeting. 7. Miscellaneous 8. Adjournment Vice-Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Administrative Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4g - Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2005 Page 1 OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA June 15, 2005--6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette STAFF PRESENT: Adam Fulton, Meg McMonigal, Nancy Sells 1. Call to Order – Roll Call Chair Carper called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Minutes - None 3. Hearings A. Comprehensive Plan amendment to Chapter P, Redevelopment and Chapter U, Plan by Neighborhood to include development guidelines for the northwest corner of Excelsior Blvd. and France Ave. Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 05-26-CP Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, presented the staff report. She explained that the intent was to create a set of guidelines that are a tool for evaluating future development options. Consultants from the areas of urban design, traffic engineering, and retail market analysis were retained. The sites were analyzed and evaluated. A mini group of neighborhood representatives met five times with staff and consultants to study the sites and create the development guidelines. An Open House with the full neighborhoods was also held on May 24th. Barry Warner and Marie Cote, SRF, and Michael Lamb of the Cuningham Group presented the guidelines. Mr. Warner remarked that the purpose of the guidelines is to serve as a tool for the various stakeholders in the project such that if/when future proposals come forward the guidelines can be used as evaluation criteria. He added that the City’s Zoning Code regulations and the land use guidance have legal standing, so the design guidelines are intended to be complementary in nature. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4g - Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2005 Page 2 Marie Cote, reviewed existing conditions of traffic and access and recommendations for possible future scenarios. Michael Lamb, Cuningham Group, discussed massing, height, setbacks, articulations, entries, and building materials. Ms. McMonigal explained that it isn’t proposed to put the 30 pages of guidelines into the Comprehensive Plan but to have them included by reference. She read the proposed paragraph which could be adopted into Chapter P, Redevelopment. She also read a proposed text addition to the Minikahda Oaks Plan by Neighborhood section which references the development guidelines. Commissioner Morris said the guidelines contradict the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. He gave the example of a plan for 8 stories allowed by the zoning code, but not allowed by the design guidelines as incorporated into the Comp Plan. Ms. McMonigal said the way that situation would be addressed, in terms of height specifically, is that the guidelines say that the preference is first for a well-designed buildings and overall the preference is for buildings that are no taller than 4 stories. Commissioner Morris asked about the use of a Class I material permitted by the Zoning Code, such as mirrored glass. If a development proposed some areas of mirrored glass, the reference to the development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan means the use of mirrored glass would be prohibited. Ms. McMonigal said the guidelines are above and beyond the Zoning Code. A development proposal could be evaluated by the guidelines. The Zoning Ordinance is the actual standard. The Comprehensive Plan serves as a guide. Commissioner Morris said he understood that and agreed with it. He said his question regards taking the specific neighborhood area and defining it in the Comprehensive Plan down to an isolated type of development that can occur, although that development under the Zoning Code could occur. The Comp Plan is general enough to guide as to what’s desired for the neighborhood and community but shouldn’t be used for development guidelines. He commented that some of the language is hard to define, such as “redevelopment of the site should result in a place with a distinct, memorable and attractive character.” Someone could say if something isn’t memorable or attractive then it’s against the Comp Plan. He said he’s trying to distinguish whether the Comp Plan is still the official guide or would the guidelines prevail over the Comp Plan. Ms. McMonigal responded that if the guidelines are adopted into the Comp Plan they are part of the Comp Plan. She said she didn’t see any conflict with the guidelines being in the Comprehensive Plan. She said there may be some specific items in the guidelines that are in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance and in that case the guidelines are a preferred set of guidelines. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4g - Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2005 Page 3 Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the key word is guideline. She said the guidelines are for a developer to see what the neighborhood has already envisioned. She said it was her understanding that the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code take precedent. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked staff how the Elmwood Study was put into the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. McMonigal said the Elmwood Study was adopted by reference into the Comprehensive Plan. She said she would have to look at the language for specifics. Commissioner Morris said he liked the guidelines but said his conflict regarded problems with the language used such as “must, will, shall,” which makes him concerned about flexibility in interpretation. Ms. McMonigal said that was a good point and staff could look at the language. Commissioner Robertson said he understood Commissioner Morris’ comments. He said he was a member of the Elmwood Study task force, and he recalled that the language used for that study was not as specific as that used in the Excelsior and France guidelines. Chair Carper said he agreed with comments about language. Chair Carper opened the public hearing. Joseph Waldron, 3806 Glenhurst, said language proposed in Chapter U, Plan by Neighborhood, #26, Minikahda Oaks which states that “Redevelopment of the commercial corner shall be mixed use” concerned him. He wondered if the strict zoning classification of mixed use is meant in that sentence or did it really mean there will be some commercial on the first floor. Mr. Waldron said he had also expected to see an explanation in the document regarding the 10 foot build-to-line, explaining that there would be 10 more feet of grass beyond the sidewalk. Regarding the setback, Ms. McMonigal said Mr. Waldron was correct, the intent was there would be a sidewalk and then 10 feet of a grassy area between the sidewalk and the building. Regarding Mr. Waldron’s question about language, Ms. McMonigal stated that the sentence about the commercial corner was existing language, not a proposed change. She said that existing language was meant to be very general about the Minikahda Oaks neighborhood. Mr. Waldron said he was a member of the neighborhood committee, beginning with the development proposal which was presented. He said it has been a very heartfelt process and the neighborhood does not want a tall building. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4g - Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2005 Page 4 John Miller, 3550 France, said he is one of the closest neighbors to the corner being discussed. He said he was not against adoption of the guidelines. He said he was against the language mentioned by Mr. Waldron that redevelopment of the commercial corner shall be mixed use. Mr. Miller said the law is the Comprehensive Plan is in effect for the neighborhood and has to be followed except if 1) it’s proven that that Comprehensive Plan designation was made in error to begin with; 2) it can be shown that the surrounding territory has subsequently changed so as to dictate the requested change. Mr. Miller said in last summer’s development application for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, question number 8 was an issue for him. The question asks what change or changing conditions make the passage of the amendment necessary. The applicant answered Excelsior Blvd. road corridor enhancement plan and the Excelsior & Grand development. Mr. Miller said the answer was not explained further. He said the application was withdrawn. He said there doesn’t seem to be enough information about a proposal to make the recommendation suggested. In reference to the language that redevelopment shall be mixed use, Mr. Miller said there is no evidence to pass that language on to the City Council. Commissioner Robertson said the language being referred to is existing language in the Comprehensive Plan, not a proposed revision. Only the underlined text is new language. Mr. Miller discussed the third paragraph of the guideline summary which states that “the guidelines are not, however legally mandated requirements that must be met in order to obtain project approvals.” He said the guidelines then mean nothing. He said he wants the City to have all the power it can have as it will help the residents have something good. The neighborhood believes something is going to develop at the site someday. He said the current situation gives the neighborhood very little information. He said that he had commented at the Open House that if pictures were available as part of the guidelines it wouldn’t take the neighborhood long to decide whether or not they approved. He went on to say that the guidelines by themselves leave the neighborhood at a disadvantage. Mr. Miller said that the Comprehensive Plan includes the range of densities. The guidelines ask for high density on the total site. He said having the whole site mixed use does only one thing. He referenced the Exc. and Grand project. Mr. Miller spoke about Al’s Bar being grandfathered in as mixed-use. He thinks developing the entire site as mixed-use is a mistake and has to be stopped. Steve Buffington, 3800 Huntington Ave., a member of the mini committee said he hoped to address the concerns of Commissioners Morris and Robertson. He said a lot of work was built into the guidelines. He said recommending approval of an amendment incorporating the guidelines into the Comp Plan is not a law or ordinance, but provides a sense of this is how the City would encourage a developer to build. It does not contradict the Zoning Code. He said his understanding of the guidelines is to put it out there and St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4g - Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2005 Page 5 talk and think about what we would like to see before the next development proposal arrives. It’s an opportunity to say this is what we’d like to see, and to say it publicly. Apurva Patel, owner of American Inn, 3924 Excelsior Blvd., said he has been through the process with the neighborhood, staff, and the mini committee for the last 1 ½ years. He is concerned about how the guidelines in the Comp Plan will relate to his site and the PUD process. He said he is currently under contract with a developer on his site. He wasn’t sure how the guidelines pertained to his site. The site was purchased as an investment property. They are trying to be good neighbors, but four stories will not work. Mr. Patel said guidelines should be treated as guidelines and not adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The guidelines should be given to developers for the entire site, not for parcels. Ms. McMonigal said the motel site is zoned R-C High Density Residential and it could be developed under the current zoning. It would be allowed to be 6 stories in height and the density would come out to about 37 units. She said with a PUD they would be allowed to ask for up to 75 units/acre. Without a PUD they could apply for a building permit and if they meet all the zoning requirements they could receive a building permit quickly. With a PUD they would go through the public process, including a careful look at the redevelopment chapter of the Comp Plan. With a PUD the City could look carefully at the guidelines and evaluate the proposal in relation to the guidelines. Mr. Patel asked if the guidelines could force a developer to have a PUD. Ms. McMonigal said she did not believe the guidelines could legally force a developer to have a PUD. She added that the mixed-use zoning does require a PUD. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked Mr. Warner to address this question. Mr. Warner said the design guidelines are site specific regarding traffic. From a legal standpoint, the existing zoning code would provide guidance in terms of the number of units or the administrative procedure that a developer could proceed with in conformance with existing zoning or through a PUD process. His recollection is that the design guidelines do not mandate that individual parcels would go through a PUD process. That process is usually employed when complex design issues exist. Mr. Patel said he understands the full use of the PUD process. His question is if the guidelines are adopted will he be constrained to them on his particular site. He said he has no problem going through the PUD process to get more units, the issue is about specifics if the guidelines are adopted. Commissioner Robertson said Mr. Patel would be allowed a 6 story building without a PUD. He went on to say that in the height area of the guidelines it does state that some limited opportunities exist to build 5 stories for a portion of the buildings if there are corresponding 3 story portions and it is determined through the PUD process that the overall design is preferable. He commented that this is a problem since the PUD St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4g - Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2005 Page 6 process shouldn’t be required for a 5 story building since a 6 story building without a PUD would be allowed. Ms. McMonigal said in looking at the entire site, the overall intent was to have a cohesive development and typically that is done through a PUD process. She said mostly the committee wants well designed buildings. She said the committee was flexible about height but would want to look at the design of the buildings. Ms. McMonigal said the most common comment from the group was that varying heights are preferable and that taller buildings would be looked at with appropriate and spectacular design. Mr. Warner said a lot of attention has been addressed to building height. He said that is a complex situation which also has to take in such elements as parking. Design guidelines need to be looked at from a holistic standpoint rather than height only. He said he would ask the Commission to consider the entire document and all the topics and criteria. As no one else was present who wished to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Robertson said the design guidelines are very good but he said he gets stuck on the height issues. He said for almost any development the parking is what limits how far the development goes. He commented on the problem of having an extra document that doesn’t really have teeth but lends itself to limiting the height. He said he understood the neighborhood’s need to create the document but he was concerned about limiting height. He mentioned two of his favorite recent residential projects, 301 Kenwood and the Calhoun Beach Club addition. He said a building like 301 Kenwood would be a fantastic gateway piece, but could not be built at Exc. & France using the design guidelines. Everybody wants something really nice. The project should be the gateway. He spoke about the value of the project and what you put into the project is what you get out of the project. He said taller buildings and better views could almost double the value per square foot and the money a developer would have to work with to create a spectacular design. He discussed problems with having a guideline document which is in conflict with the Zoning Code. Ms. McMonigal asked if there was a way to change the height section to make it less specific. Commissioner Robertson said yes. He suggested editing out specifics, the use of the word shall, and items in conflict with zoning. He said with those edits it probably doesn’t need to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, but can be used to evaluate projects. Commissioner Morris said he agreed with Commissioner Robertson’s concerns. He said although he supports the intent and the neighborhood input, he couldn’t support the request to incorporate it into the Comp Plan because the guideline’s specific language is in conflict with the Zoning Code. He is concerned about future legal issues. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4g - Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2005 Page 7 In response to Chair Carper’s question about whether or not removing specific language and the use of words like shall and must would that be acceptable, Commissioner Morris responded that it could be edited but he understood the need to have a finished document soon. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if the City Attorney had reviewed the document. Ms. McMonigal responded that the Attorney had not reviewed the guidelines in detail. Ms. McMonigal said the document could be edited and returned to the Planning Commission at its next meeting, or the Commission could recommend that the guidelines not be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan, or the zoning could be changed. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if there would be any benefit to changing the title to Excelsior Blvd. and France Ave. Development “Study.” Commissioner Robertson said he wouldn’t want the references to height to be removed. He said he disagrees with the height guidelines, but it is what the neighborhood wants. Commissioner Timian made a motion to approve the Development Guidelines but not incorporate them into the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion. Commissioner Kramer said he was concerned about the guidelines being legally binding. Chair Carper commented on structural errors of the document. He said he was concerned about the use of the words shall and must throughout the document. He commented that the document is ambiguous about whether the design guideline concept is for a 9 parcel master development site. Commissioner Johnston-Madison encouraged the Commission to get the guidelines in the process somehow. All the property owners were united in developing the guidelines and the guidelines were meant to be a tool in evaluating future proposals. In reference to one parcel being ready for development and 8 others remaining for development, Commissioner Morris said tools do exist in the Comp Plan to look at the scope of an area and how a development would affect the community. He said it would be possible that there would be a finding that a development at this site is not conducive to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for that neighborhood. Commissioner Morris made a friendly amendment to the motion to change the document name from Development Guidelines to Development “Study”, and accept the document as a community study. Commissioner Timian accepted the friendly amendment. The motion and friendly amendment were restated: Commissioner Timian made a motion to approve the Development Guidelines but not incorporate them into the St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4g - Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2005 Page 8 Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion. Commissioner Morris made a friendly amendment to the motion to change the document name from Development Guidelines to Development Study, and accept the document as a community study. Commissioner Timian accepted the friendly amendment. The motion passed on a vote of 4-1-1, (Carper opposed, Kramer abstained). B. Zoning text amendment to remove cluster housing as a conditional use and allowing existing cluster housing to continue as a conforming use. Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 05-23-ZA Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report. Commissioner Kramer asked about the proposed amendment and the City Council’s concern regarding potential wholesale changes to existing single family neighborhoods related to townhome developments. He asked if this was the only reason for the amendment. He asked if such a change would be a bad thing. Ms. McMonigal responded that there was the potential if it changed the character of an existing single family neighborhood it could be a bad thing. Commissioner Kramer said that in any existing single family neighborhood an unattractive house could be built at any time and that could also change the character of a neighborhood. He asked if there was some experience that had made the City Council consider this amendment. Ms. McMonigal responded not to her knowledge. Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated that perhaps the Council was being proactive on this issue. Commissioner Robertson asked about the difference between a cluster house and a townhouse. Ms. McMonigal responded that townhouses are a form of cluster housing. In the Zoning Ordinance townhouses are only defined under cluster housing. Commissioner Robertson said that the proposed amendment would do away with the scenario depicted in the illustrative drawing provided in the report “Scheme 2 – Single Family Cluster.” Commissioner Robertson said why not redefine cluster housing to not include townhomes because he feels “Scheme 2” is a very important planning tool. He went on to say that as the City is looking at the possibility of selling some larger odd- shaped parcels of land. Someone wishing to buy those parcels of land might be looking at a cluster house-type arrangement for some larger family detached homes but the only way to maximize it would be to do Scheme 2. He said it would be a mistake to remove St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4g - Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2005 Page 9 that possibility. He said if the goal is to get away from the possibility of someone building townhomes in single family residential neighborhoods, why not define cluster homes and townhomes separately. Ms. McMonigal said the definitions could be separated. Commissioner Robertson said that would be his preference. Commissioner Morris said he agreed. He said he had always considered cluster homes to be a design element that functions better than the rectangular platted lots. It allows same size houses, some on smaller lots and some on larger, and it allows the cluster site to have more natural amenities. Developments can be clustered and still have the same density housing as a traditional development, just reconfigured. Commissioner Morris agreed to keeping it as an R-1 and R-2 but eliminating townhome condo development in cluster zoned areas. Commissioner Kramer said he thought the Commission was guessing as to what the City Council is trying to accomplish regarding this amendment. He said he didn’t want to suggest that the wording be changed. Commissioners suggested holding a joint study session on housing. Chair Carper opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend not removing Cluster Housing from the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts as a conditional use, and to change the definition of cluster housing to exclude townhomes and excluding townhomes from those residential zones. Commissioner Morris seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 4-1-1, (Kramer opposed, Carper abstained). 4. Unfinished Business 5. New Business 6. Communications A. Ms. McMonigal reminded the Commission of the condo study presentation to be given at the June 27th City Council Study Session. She also said discussion on other Zoning Code updates is tentatively scheduled for the July 11th Council Study Session. 7. Miscellaneous 8. Adjournment St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4g - Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2005 Page 10 The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 4h - John Mantz Resolution Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. ______ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO JOHN MANTZ WHEREAS, John Mantz began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park almost 35 years ago on November 30, 1970; and WHEREAS, John has earned the respect of peers and citizens; and WHEREAS, John has spent many long hours and gave up many weekends tending to the sanitary sewer lift stations and water treatment plants during his years as a Li ft Station Mechanic; and WHEREAS, John has been a dependable employee truly dedicated to serving “John Q. Public” to the best of his abilities; and WHEREAS, John’s strong work ethic and dedication have earned him the title of the “Go to Guy” in the Utility Division; and WHEREAS, John has established a very positive relationship with all the contractors he has worked with as the Water Utilities liaison on many redevelopment projects, the contractors could count on John to always be there when they needed him to provide assistance; and WHEREAS, John will spend his retirement at his beautiful lake home he built on Borden Lake a few miles west of Garrison; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank John Mantz for his great contributions and 35 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 18, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # : 071805 - 4i - TWC Franchise Renewal Page 1 4i. Motion to accept report regarding Time Warner Cable Franchise Agreement for filing. Background: The last franchise renewal update to Council was June 27, 2005. City and Time Warner staff met on Thursday, June 23 (re-scheduled from Thursday, June 9). Time Warner introduced their new legal counsel, Todd G. Hartman of Robbins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP. Mr. Hartman agreed to review the marked-up (City proposed changes) franchise ordinance. To date, Time Warner corporate counsel had not completed said mark-up as agreed in previous meetings. Time Warner sent their mark-up to City on July 6. City again met with Time Warner the next day, on July 7. Mr. Hartman reviewed the document. Time Warner’s mark-up did not accurately differentiate between what they proposed to change or delete, and what the City had already proposed to modify. This made effective review impractical. On Friday, July 8, Joel Jamnik (City legal counsel) again e-mailed the ordinance asking Time Warner for a marked-up version that we can effectively review, discuss, and share with Council. Until the City has a document that reflects Time Warner’s verbal representations, no demonstrable progress can be made in negotiations for Council consideration. Recommendation: In the absence of a proposed franchise ordinance from Time Warner, a public hearing will not be held to review that ordinance earlier than Monday, August 15, 2005. Staff recommends that council accept this report for filing in the interest of entering this information into the public record of the proceedings. Prepared by: John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator Through: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 6a - WYN Hotels Liquor License Page 1 6a. Public Hearing to consider an intoxicating on-sale and Sunday sale liquor license for WYN Hotels, LP dba Doubletree Park Place Hotel Request of Council to approve a liquor license for WYN Hotels operating at the Double Tree Park Place, 1500 Park Place Blvd. Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve an intoxicating on-sale and Sunday sale liquor license for WYN Hotels, LP dba Doubletree Park Place Hotel Background: WYN Hotels dba Doubletree Park Place Hotel has made application to the city for a liquor license to sell intoxicating beverages to customers in association with its operation of a hotel, restaurant, bar and banquet facilities. The application named Jonathan Paul Kranock of St. Louis Park as the hotel’s general manager. Mr. Kranock has served in that capacity since earlier this year. An existing liquor license is in place for the premises, issued to predecessor property owner Wyndham Hotels International/DT Management Inc. The hotel has continued operation under a management agreement between Wyn Hotels and DT Management and is now requesting a new license to be issued which will finalize the transfer of the property. Response to the Public Hearing Notice Staff has received no calls in response to the notice. Police Department Investigation The Police Department has conducted an investigation and has found no reason to deny the license based on the investigation. Prepared by: Cindy Reichert, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 6b - Public Hearing for SSD#4 Page 1 6b. Consideration of the establishment of Special Service District #4 (along the western portion of Excelsior Boulevard between Highway 100 and Louisiana Avenue) and the imposition of a service charge within the district. Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve 1st reading of the attached ordinance to create Special Service District #4 and to schedule the 2nd reading of the ordinance for August 1, 2005. Background: The city is considering the installation of infrastructure improvements along Excelsior Boulevard west of Highway 100 to Louisiana Avenue in conjunction with Hennepin County’s planned street reconstruction project between 2006 and 2008. These special “streetscape” improvements would be similar to those installed on the east side of Excelsior Bvld (from Highway 100 to France Ave.) and would include low level pedestrian lighting, banner poles, banners, tree lights, and bollards as well as landscaping and irrigation systems. To date, three special service districts have been established along the eastern Excelsior Boulevard corridor. The special service districts provide funding for the proper maintenance of the streetscape improvements. In order to maintain the proposed streetscape improvements along Excelsior Boulevard west of Highway 100 a fourth special service district must be established. As with the other three previous improvement projects, the city has worked with adjacent commercial property owners along the western portion of Excelsior Boulevard to arrive at a proposed special service district that would be designed specifically to accommodate their particular preferences. What has been the extent of communication with the affected property owners? Three newsletters were mailed to affected commercial property owners regarding how a special service district would operate and how the fees would be calculated and collected. Two information meetings were held (February 3rd and March 3rd.) where more specific information was provided including a Preliminary District Budget and Cost Allocation for each property. Subsequently, city staff and its consultant, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc (HKGi) met individually with various property owners within the proposed area of Special Service District #4 to discuss the potential improvements, the special service district concept, and answer questions relevant to their particular properties. In addition, detailed information describing the proposed district and how costs would be allocated was distributed to all property owners. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 6b - Public Hearing for SSD#4 Page 2 Has the city received the sufficient level of petitions required to hold a public hearing? There are a total of 28 separate, commercial parcels in the proposed district. To date, 10 or 36% of commercial property owners along the western portion of Excelsior Boulevard submitted petitions requesting that the City Council conduct a public hearing to discuss the establishment of a special service district. These property owners represent approximately 81% of the affected land area and 47% of the tax capacity of property that would be subject to the proposed service charge. According to state statute, 25% of the land area and 25% of the net tax capacity of property subject to the service charge are required to petition in order for the Council to convene a public hearing. What services will the district provide? The district will provide for the maintenance of landscape materials, decorative lighting, banners, banner poles, the irrigation system as well as electric service (see attached List of Proposed Services). Unlike the other three special service districts, the majority of property owners expressed little interest in a higher level of snow and ice removal beyond what the city is currently providing thus snow removal is not part of the proposed district’s budget. How were the costs allocated to the property owners? The Annual Service Charge is based on the amount of front footage each commercial property has along Excelsior Boulevard. While there are other methods, front footage was determined to be the most easily understood and obtained. How would the service charges be collected? The service charges will be collected through annual property tax payments. Due to the lag time between levy and collection, the service charges will be certified this fall. The service charges would then be collected in May and October of 2006. This will enable expenses to be incurred and paid for beginning in 2007. Is there a cap on the amount of the annual service charges? Yes, the maximum service charges to be imposed in 2006 and 2007 are outlined in the attached Proposed Operating Budget and Service Charge Allocation. Pursuant to the proposed resolution, the annual service charges may increase or decrease from the maximum authorized budgeted amount in the preceding year based upon changes in the Consumer Price Index (All Items) for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. Such increases or decreases may not fluctuate more than 5% per year (which is the same for the other three districts). St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 6b - Public Hearing for SSD#4 Page 3 Who determines and controls the annual operating budget? As with the other three districts, an advisory board consisting of district property owners appointed by the City Council will be formed to oversee the district’s operation. The advisory board will advise the City Council in connection with the maintenance and operation of the improvements and the furnishing of special services in the district. The advisory board will recommend the annual budget to the City Council. It will also make recommendations to the City Council on requests and complaints of owners, occupants, and users of property within the district and members of the public. How will the activities approved by the advisory board be implemented? The city’s Public Works Coordinator will coordinate the advisory board and ensure that the district’s services are properly implemented. What is the term of the district? Are there limitations? The proposed district has a term of 10 years (same as the other three districts) at which time property owners must formally reapprove the district. Recommendation: Given that the minimum petition requirements have been more than satisfied, staff recommends approval of the 1st reading of the ordinance creating Special Service District #4 and that the 2nd reading of the ordinance be scheduled for August 1, 2005. Next Steps: If the City Council approves the recommended action, Council will be asked at the August 1, 2005 meeting to approve the 2nd reading of the ordinance creating Special Service District #4 and to adopt a resolution for the imposition of a service charge within the district. A 45-day veto period then begins. The new special service district will go into effect unless at least 35% of the affected property owners submit a petition to veto the formation of the district. Assuming this does not happen, the district will be in full force and affect on September 16, 2005. Attachments: • Ordinance Authorizing Creation of SSD #4 • Resolution Imposing a Service Charge • Proposed List of Properties w/in SSD#4 • Proposed Map of Special Service District #4 • Proposed Cost Allocation • Proposed Operating Budget Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 6b - Public Hearing for SSD#4 Page 4 ORDINANCE NO. _________ CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CREATION OF SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 4 WHEREAS, the City has received a petition to establish a special service district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 428A.02 (the "Petition") from the owners of certain property located adjacent to Excelsior Boulevard within an area approximately bounded by Highway 100 westerly to Louisiana Avenue. The specific properties included within this area are identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and generally depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and the right-of-way adjacent thereto; and WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Council (the "City Council") has determined each of the following: (A) The owners of at least twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the land area of property that would be subject to the service charge have signed the Petition; (B) The owners of at least twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the net tax capacity of property that would be subject to the service charge have signed the Petition; (C) It is appropriate to establish a special service district; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing concerning the petition to establish a special service district was published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on June 30, 2005 and July 7, 2005. Additionally, the City mailed notice of the hearing to the owner of record of each parcel within the area proposed to be included within the special service district. For the purposes of giving such mailed notice, the notice was sent to those shown on the records of the County Auditor. The City Council has determined that said notices were published and sent in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 428A.02. The public hearing was held on July 18, 2005, before the St. Louis Park City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Establishment of District. The City hereby establishes a special service district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.01 through 428A.101 (the “Act”) consisting of the properties identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and the right-of-way adjacent thereto (the "District"). SECTION 2. Services to be Performed. 2.01 Provision of Services. The City may provide or contract for services in the District; except, however, that the special services provided shall not include a service that is ordinarily provided throughout the City from the general fund revenue of the City unless an increased level of service is provided in the District. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 6b - Public Hearing for SSD#4 Page 5 2.02 Description of Services. The City may provide or contract for the following services: (a) Cleaning and scrubbing of sidewalks; cleaning of curbs, gutters, alleys, and streets. (b) Purchase, installation, maintenance, removal, and replacement of banners and other decorative items for promotion of the District. (c) Poster and handbill removal. (d) Repair and maintenance of sidewalks. (e) Snow and ice clearance and removal from sidewalks. (f) Purchase, installation, maintenance, and removal of area-wide security systems. (g) Coordination of security personnel to supplement regular City personnel. (h) Purchase, installation, maintenance, repair, cleaning, and removal of area directories, kiosks, benches, bus shelters, newspaper stands, trash receptacles, information booths, bicycle racks and bicycle storage containers, sculptures, murals, and other public area art pieces. (i) Purchase, installation, maintenance, and removal of decorative lighting on area trees. (j) Cost of electrical service for pedestrian and decorative tree lighting. (k) Repair of low-level pedestrian lights and poles. (l) Comprehensive liability insurance for public space improvements. (m) Trash removal and recycling costs. (n) Purchase, installation, maintenance, replacement, and removal of special signage relating to vehicle and bicycle parking, vehicle and pedestrian movement, and special events. (o) Watering, fertilizing, maintenance, and replacement of trees, shrubbery, and annual flowers and perennials on the public right-of-way. (p) Repair, maintenance and replacement of irrigation system. (q) Maintenance and operation of a public transit system. (r) Promotion and administration. (s) Maintenance of a reserve fund or capital reserve fund. (t) Installation, maintenance, and removal of capital improvements. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 6b - Public Hearing for SSD#4 Page 6 SECTION 3. Service Charge. 3.01 Petition Requirements. Before taking any action to impose a service charge to pay the cost of services described in Section 2, owners of twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the land area subject to the proposed service charge must file a petition requesting a public hearing on the proposed action with the City Clerk. Before taking any action to impose any other type of service charge to pay the cost of services described in Section 2, owners of twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the net tax capacity subject to the proposed service charge must file a petition requesting a public hearing on the proposed action with the City Clerk. 3.02 Relationship to Service. The City may impose service charges against properties located within the District pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. The City may impose service charges that are reasonably related to the special services provided. Charges for services shall be as nearly as possible proportionate to the cost of furnishing the service, and may be fixed on the basis of the service directly rendered, or by reference to a reasonable classification of the types of premises to which service is furnished, or on any other equitable terms. Taxes and service charges may be levied pursuant to this ordinance to finance special services ordinarily provided by the City only if the services are provided in the District at an increased level and, then, only in an amount sufficient to pay for the increase. 3.03 Limitation of Service Charges. Only property classified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.13 as commercial, industrial, or public utility purposes and located within the District may be subject to the service charges imposed by the City. Property exempt from taxation by Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.02 is exempt from any service charges based on net tax capacity. SECTION 4. Imposition of Service Charge. 4.01 Public Hearing. Before imposing a service charge in the District, for each calendar year, the City shall hold a public hearing. At the hearing, a person affected by the District or the proposed service charge may testify on any issues relevant to the proposed service charge. The hearing may be adjourned from time to time. 4.02 Notice of Hearing. The City shall give prior notice of the public hearing to impose service charges required by Section 4.01. Notice of the public hearing must be mailed to any property owner subject to the proposed service charge. Notice of the public hearing shall be given in two (2) separate publications of the City's official newspaper two weeks apart and the public hearing shall not be held less than three (3) days after the later publication. Not less than ten (10) days prior to the hearing, notice shall be mailed to the owner of record of each parcel of real estate within the District. For the purpose of giving such mailed notice, owners shall be those shown on the records of the County Auditor. For properties which are tax exempt or subject to taxation on a gross earnings basis in lieu of property tax and are not listed on the records of the County Auditor, the owners shall be ascertained by any practical means, and mailed notice given them. 4.03 Content of Notice. The notice shall include: (a) a statement that all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at the hearing regarding the proposed service charge; (b) the estimated cost of improvements to be paid for in whole or in part by service charges imposed, the estimated cost of operating and maintaining the St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 6b - Public Hearing for SSD#4 Page 7 improvements during the first year and upon completion of the improvements, the proposed method and source of financing the improvements, and the annual cost of operating and maintaining the improvements; (c) the proposed rate or amount of the proposed service charge to be imposed in the District during the calendar year and the nature and character of the special services rendered in the District during the calendar year in which the service charge is to be collected; (d) a statement that the petition requirements of Minnesota Statutes have either been met or do not apply to the proposed service charge; and (e) if the City is adopting a resolution imposing a service charge for more than one year, the information required by Section 4.05 below. 4.04 Adoption of Resolution. Within six (6) months of the public hearing, the City may adopt a resolution imposing a service charge within the District not exceeding the amount or rate expressed in the notice issued under this Section. 4.05 Multi-year Service Charge. The City may adopt a resolution imposing a service charge for more than one year. The City must give notice of such a resolution by including with the notice of public hearing required by Section 4.02, and including with the notice mailed with the adopted resolution the following information: (a) In the case of improvements constructed within the District, the maximum service charge to be imposed in any year and the maximum number of years charges imposed to pay for the improvements; and (b) In the case of operating and maintaining services, the maximum service charges to be imposed in any year and the maximum number of years charges imposed to pay for the service, or a statement that the service charges will be imposed for an indefinite number of years. The resolution imposing a service charge for more than one year may provide that the maximum service charge to be imposed in a year will increase or decrease from the maximum amount authorized in the preceding year based on an indicator of increased cost or a percentage amount established by the resolution. Each calendar year, a public hearing must be held regarding the imposed service charge. Notice of the hearing must be given and must be mailed to any individual or business organization subject to the service charge. The notice must be sent in the manner specified in Section 4.02. The notice shall include the information specified in Section 4.03(a) through (d). The purpose of the hearing shall be to allow persons or companies affected by the service charge to testify on any issue related to the service charge. SECTION 5. Imposition of Service Charges. Except as otherwise provided herein, the service charges imposed shall be imposed against parcels of real estate within the District in the manner and subject to the procedures provided in Minnesota Statutes. The service charges shall be imposed annually. Service charges may be collected in advance of, contemporaneously with, or subsequent to the rendering of services to which the service charges relate. SECTION 6. Collection of Service Charges. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 6b - Public Hearing for SSD#4 Page 8 6.01 Imposition and Collection. The City may impose service charges on the basis of the net tax capacity of the property on which the service charge is imposed, but must be spread only upon the net tax capacity of the taxable property located in the District. All service charges may be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes. For purposes of determining the appropriate tax rate, taxable property or net tax capacity shall be determined without regard to captured or original net tax capacity under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177 or to the distribution or contribution value under Minnesota Statutes, Section 473F.08. 6.02 Penalty and Interest. When service charges are made payable in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, service charges not paid on or before the applicable due date shall be subject to the same penalty and interest as in the case of ad valorem tax amounts not paid by the respective date. 6.03 Due Date. The due date for a service charge payable in the same manner as ad valorem taxes is the due date given in law for the real or personal property tax for the property on which the service charge is imposed. Service charges imposed on net tax capacity which are to become payable in the following year must be certified to the County Auditor by the date provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.061, Subd. 3 for annual certification of special assessment installments. Other service charges imposed may be collected as provided by the resolution imposing service charges. SECTION 7. Revenue Surplus. To the extent that the total of service charges collected exceed the cost of services rendered within the District, at the election of the City, all or a portion of such excess amount shall either be held as a reserve to pay the cost of future services provided under this ordinance or applied to reduce the next year’s service charge levy. SECTION 8. Advisory Board. 8.01 Composition and Appointment. An advisory board to be known as the Special Service District Advisory Board consisting of a number of members determined by the City Council, at its discretion, who are residents of the District or owners (or their representatives) of property within the District, may be created by the City Council by Resolution. At the time of adopting a resolution, the City Council may approve a set of By-laws which will govern the advisory board's activities. The City Council at its discretion may pass a resolution terminating or suspending the advisory board. 8.02 Role of Board. The advisory board shall advise the City Council in connection with the construction, maintenance, and operation of improvements and the furnishing of special services in the District. The advisory board shall recommend an annual budget to the City Council. It shall make recommendations to the City Council on requests and complaints of owners, occupants, and users of property within the District and members of the public. Before the adoption of any proposal by the City Council to provide services or impose taxes of service charges within the District, the advisory board of the District shall have an opportunity to review and comment upon the proposal. 8.03 Removal and Termination. The City Council reserves for itself the right, at its sole discretion, to remove members of the advisory board, with or without cause, or to disband and terminate the advisory board before the expiration of the District. SECTION 9. Veto Powers. 9.01 Notice of Veto Right. Within five (5) days after adoption of the ordinance establishing the District or a resolution imposing a service charge, the City shall mail a summary of the ordinance or St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 6b - Public Hearing for SSD#4 Page 9 resolution to the owner of each parcel included within the District and any individual or business organization subject to the service charge. For the purpose of giving such mailed notice, owners shall be those shown on the records of the County Auditor. For properties which are tax exempt or subject to taxation on a gross earnings basis in lieu of property tax and are not listed on the records of the County Auditor, the owners shall be ascertained by any practical means, and mailed notice given them. 9.02 Content of Notice. The notice must state that the owner, business, or person subject to the service charge has the right to veto the ordinance or resolution by filing the required number of objections with the City Clerk before the effective date of the ordinance or resolution. The notice must also state that a copy of the ordinance or resolution is on file with the City Clerk. 9.03 Requirements for Veto. (a) Veto of Ordinance. If the owners of thirty-five percent (35%) or more of the land area in the District subject to a service charge based upon net tax capacity or owners of thirty-five percent (35%) or more of the net tax capacity in the District subject to a service charge based on net tax capacity file an objection to this ordinance with the City Clerk before the effective date of the ordinance, the ordinance does not become effective. (b) Veto of Resolution - Net Tax Capacity. If the owners of thirty-five percent (35%) or more of the land area in the District subject to a service charge based upon net tax capacity or owners of thirty-five percent (35%) or more of the net tax capacity in the District subject to a service charge based on net tax capacity file an objection to the resolution imposing a service charge based upon net tax capacity with the City Clerk before the effective date of the resolution, the resolution does not become effective. (c) Veto of Resolution - Other Basis. If thirty-five percent (35%) or more of the individuals and business organizations subject to a service charge file an objection to the resolution imposing a service charge on a basis other than net tax capacity with the City Clerk before the effective date of the resolution, the resolution does not become effective. 9.04 Effect of Veto. In the event of a veto, no district shall be established during the current calendar year and until a petition meeting the requirements set forth in this Section for a veto has been filed. 9.05 Exclusion. The veto powers of this Section do not apply to second or subsequent years' applications of a service charge that is authorized to be in effect for more than one year under a resolution meting the petition requirements of Section 3.01 and which has not been vetoed under this Section 9 for the first years' application. SECTION 10. Enlargement of District. Boundaries of the District may be enlarged only after petition, hearing and notices as provided in Minnesota Statutes. Notice must be served in the original District and in the area proposed to be added to the District. The petition to enlarge the District must include a request for the imposition of service charges sufficient to provide services to the property. Petition requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 428A.08 and the veto power of Minnesota Statutes, Section 428A.09 shall only apply to owners in the area proposed to be added to the District. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 6b - Public Hearing for SSD#4 Page 10 SECTION 11. Definitions and Construction. The terms used herein shall be defined as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 428A and this ordinance shall be construed consistently therewith. SECTION 12. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the forty-fifth (45th) day following adoption, which effective date shall be September 16, 2005. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK AUGUST 1, 2005. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: ____________________________ ATTEST: Mayor _______________________________ City Clerk REVIEW FOR ADMINISTRATION: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION: ________________________________ _________________________________ City Manager City Attorney St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 6b - Public Hearing for SSD#4 Page 11 RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION IMPOSING A SERVICE CHARGE FOR SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 4 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Recitals: Findings. 1.01 Pursuant to Ordinance No. ______, (the “Ordinance”) the City created a special service district for certain property located adjacent to Excelsior Boulevard within an area approximately bounded by Highway 100 westerly to Louisiana Avenue. The specific properties included within this area are identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and generally depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and the right -of-way adjacent thereto (the "District"). 1.02 The City has received a petition requesting a public hearing to impose a service charge from the owners of property within the District (the "Petition"). 1.03 The City Council has determined each of the following: (a) at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the individuals or business organizations subject to the proposed service charge have signed the Petition; (b) only owners of property located within the District have signed the Petition; (c) only owners of property classified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.13 as commercial, industrial, or public utility purposes, or that is vacant land zoned or designated on a land use plan for commercial, industrial, or public utility purposes, have signed the Petition; and (d) notice of a public hearing has been given and a public hearing has been held. Section 2. Imposition of Service Charge. 2.01 Amount of Service Charge. There is hereby imposed a service charge in the amounts and against the properties specified on Exhibit "C" attached hereto (the "Service Charge"). The City imposes a service charge, payable in 2006, for special services provided during the period of January 2007 - December 2007 in a maximum amount of $37,900. The maximum service charge in all subsequent years will be calculated pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.04. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 6b - Public Hearing for SSD#4 Page 12 2.02 Multi-year Service Charge. The Service Charge imposed by this resolution is a charge for more than one year. The Service Charge will remain in effect through and including the year 2015 for taxes payable in said year. 2.03 Calculation of Service Charge. The Service Charge for all costs related to the District shall be distributed based upon the front feet adjacent to Excelsior Boulevard for each parcel within the District and subject to the Service Charge. 2.04 Inflation Adjuster. Commencing with the service charge payable in 2006, the maximum service charge to be imposed in any year (the "Current Year") will increase from the maximum authorized budgeted amount for the year immediately preceding the Current Year (the "Prior Year") based upon the following: The Consumer Price Index (All Items) for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics ("Index"), which is published for the date nearest the commencement of the Current Year (the "Current Year Index"), shall be compared with the Index published for the date nearest the commencement of the Prior Year (the "Prior Year Index"). If the Current Year Index has increased over the Prior Year Index, the Maximum Service Charge shall be increased by multiplying the Maximum Service Charge by a fraction, the numerator of which is the Current Year Index and the denominator of which is the Prior Year Index. If the Index is discontinued or revised, such other government index or computation with which it is replaced shall be used in order to obtain substantially the same result as would be obtained if the Index had not been discontinued or revised. Notwithstanding increases in the Index of greater than five percent (5%), the Maximum Service Charge shall not increase from any Prior Year to any Current Year by an amount greater than five percent (5%) of the Prior Year's Service Charge. 2.05 Distribution of Total Service Charge. The distribution of the total Service Charge among properties within the District and subject to the Service Charge may vary and shall be recalculated pursuant to the formula specified in Section 2.03 if and to the extent that: (i) the front footage of sidewalks constructed on such properties increases or decreases; or (ii) a parcel increases or decreases in size by acquisition or sale. 2.06 Use of Revenues. Revenues collected through the imposition of service charges may be used by the City for any purposes authorized in the Ordinance. Exhibit D contains the services proposed for funding in 2006. The services and the revenues allocated to each service are subject to change at the discretion of the City. Section 3. Collection of Service Charges. 3.01 Collection. The Services Charges shall be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes; except that the City may directly bill owners of parcels located within the District and subject to the Service Charge for the Service Charge due and payable in calendar year 2006. For purposes of determining the appropriate tax rate, taxable property or net tax capacity shall be determined without regard to captured or original net tax capacity under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177 or to the distribution or contribution value under Minnesota Statutes, Section 473F.08. Any service charge due and payable in calendar year 2006 that remains unpaid as of October 31, 2006, shall be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes in the year 2007. 3.02 Penalty and Interest. Service Charges made payable in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, if not paid on or before the applicable due date, shall be subject to the same penalty and interest as in the case of ad valorem tax amounts not paid by the respective date. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 6b - Public Hearing for SSD#4 Page 13 3.03 Due Date. The due date for the Service Charge payable in the same manner as ad valorem taxes is the due date given in law for the real or personal property tax for the property on which the service charge is imposed. Service Charges imposed on net tax capacity which are to become payable in the following year must be certified to the County Auditor by the date provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.061, Subd. 3 for annual certification of special assessment installments. Section 4. Revenue Surplus. To the extent that the total of Service Charges collected exceed the cost of services rendered within the District, at the election of the City, all or a portion of such excess amount shall either be held as a reserve to pay the cost of future services provided under this resolution or applied to reduce the next year’s service charge levy. Section 5. Recording. The City may record this Resolution against parcels located within the District and subject to the Service Charge for the purpose of providing notice of the Service Charge to prospective purchasers of such parcels. Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective on the forty-fifth (45th) day following adoption, which effective date shall be September 16, 2005. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK AUGUST 1, 2005. ____________________________________ Mayor Attest: _______________________________ City Clerk Reviewed for administration: Approved as to form and execution: _______________________________ __________________________________ City Manager City Attorney St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8a - Declare Council Vacancy Page 1 8a. Resolution Accepting Resignation and Declaring Vacancy in the Office of Ward Four Councilmember Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution declaring a vacancy in the office of Ward Four Councilmember effective July 15, 2005 Background: Sally Velick has resigned from her position as Councilmember Ward Four effective July 15, 2005. This move will result in a vacancy in that seat. Section 2.05 of the City Charter states that Council shall accept the resignation and declare a vacancy for the remainder of the unexpired term, which runs until January 9, 2006. Attachments: Resolution Letter of Resignation Prepared by: Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8a - Declare Council Vacancy Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. ___________ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING RESIGNATION AND DECLARING VACANCY IN THE OFFICE COUNCILMEMBER WARD FOUR WHEREAS, St. Louis Park City Councilmember Sally Velick has submitted a letter of resignation effective July 15, 2006, leaving a vacancy in the office for a term expiring January 9, 2006 and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 2.05 of the City Charter the Council shall accept the resignation and declare a vacancy for the remainder of the unexpired term. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that a vacancy is hereby declared for the office of Councilmember Ward Four effective July 15, 2005 for the remainder of the term to expire January 9, 2006. Attest: Adopted by the City Council July 18, 2005 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend - France and Excelsior Design Guidelines Page 1 8b. Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Chapter P, Redevelopment and Chapter U, Plan by Neighborhood to refer to the “Development Guidelines for the Northwest Corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue.” Case No. 05-26-CP Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to refer to the “Development Guidelines for the Northwest Corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue” in the Redevelopment and Plan by Neighborhood Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan, approve summary and authorize publication. Background: Over the past several months the city staff and consultants have been working closely with the land owners and representatives of the Minikahda Oaks and Minikahda Vista neighborhoods to create development guidelines for the northwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue – the three acres of land encompassing Al’s Bar, American Inn and Anderson Cleaners. The Development Guidelines address such issues as site design, building massing and height, building location and environmental design. They include recommendations on circulation, access and public infrastructure. Attached are the draft Development Guidelines and a summary of the Guidelines. Barry Warner, SRF; Marie Cote, SRF, and Michael Lamb, Cuningham Group will present the proposed guidelines at the City Council meeting. Process: The idea for development Guidelines came out of a succession of development proposals put forth over time by developers working on the Excelsior and France sites. After a series of neighborhood meetings, the city suggested stepping back and evaluating the sites and options for development outside of a development proposal. The intent was to create a set of development guidelines that looked closely at the development options and site constraints, as well as issues raised by the surrounding neighborhoods. The Guidelines are to be a tool for the community, Planning Commission and City Council to assist in evaluating future development proposals for the affected parcels at Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue. Over the months of March, April and May, a “Mini” group of neighborhood representatives worked with city staff and consultants to create the development guidelines. Meeting were held on March 8th, March 29th, April 26th, May 10th, and May 17th, with an Open House for the full neighborhoods held on May 24th. The consultants facilitated the meetings, provided traffic and circulation data and analysis, as well as building height and massing analysis. The attached draft guidelines are a result of the process. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend - France and Excelsior Design Guidelines Page 2 Planning Commission Recommendation: On June 15, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on adopting the proposed Development Guidelines. Some concern was expressed by Commissioners that the Guidelines may contradict the Zoning Ordinance with some of the required standards listed. The Planning Commission recommended approving the Development Guidelines, but not incorporating them into the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has reviewed the Guidelines and highlighted some areas where the language could be changed to remove any conflicts with the zoning ordinance. The Guidelines attached show where these changes are proposed. Recommended Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Staff recommends the Guidelines be referenced in the Comprehensive Plan, without being fully adopted, in order to eliminate any conflicts with the Zoning Ordinance. This alternate addresses the Planning Commission concerns while placing a reference to them in the Comp Plan. The following text (new text is underlined and bolded; deleted text is struck out and bolded) is proposed for two chapters of the Comprehensive Plan: In Chapter P, Redevelopment, under Potential Future Districts: Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue – Development Guidelines for the Northwest Corner “Development Guidelines for the Northwest Corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue” were developed for the approximately three acres of land encompassing 10 parcels of land (currently occupied by Al’s Liquors, American Inn and Anderson Cleaners). The Development Guidelines were created through a neighborhood involvement process in the spring of 2005, and are intended to be a tool to assist in evaluating future development proposals for the affected parcels. In Chapter U, Plan by Neighborhood, under Neighborhood #26, Minikahda Oaks: Specific Development Guidelines: Redevelopment of the commercial corner shall be mixed use including small scale retail, office, and residential uses, with primarily residential uses on the north side. The transition from a commercial front to the single family area shall be mindful of scale, density, quality, aesthetics, and vehicle access. Civic uses within the commercial area are encouraged. New development shall follow urban design goals set in Chapter R. “Development Guidelines for the Northwest Corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue” were developed for the approximately three acres of land encompassing 10 parcels of land (currently occupied by Al’s Liquors, American Inn and Anderson Cleaners). The Development Guidelines were created through a neighborhood involvement process in the spring of 2005, and are intended to be a tool to assist in evaluating future development proposals for the affected parcels. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend - France and Excelsior Design Guidelines Page 3 Attachments: Ø Resolution and Summary for Publication Ø Planning Commission Minutes of June 15, 2005 Ø Summary of Design Guidelines Ø Design Guidelines and Figures Prepared By: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed By: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend - France and Excelsior Design Guidelines Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 05-092 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 Chapter P, Redevelopment and Chapter U, Plan by Neighborhood Development Guidelines Northwest Corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue South 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 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend - France and Excelsior Design Guidelines Page 5 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 held a public hearing on the adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 on June 15, 2005, and considered the staff report, the statements of the public; and based on statutes, the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, extensive research and analyses involving the interests of citizens and public agencies recommended on a vote of 4-1-1 to not incorporate the Development Guidelines into the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission further recommended to change the document name from Development Guidelines to Development Study, and to accept the document as a community study, and, WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 05-26-CP), and; WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 05-26-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: 1. The following text (new text is underlined and bolded; deleted text is struck out and bolded) is adopted into Chapter P, Redevelopment, under “Potential Future Districts”: Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue – Development Guidelines for the Northwest Corner “Development Guidelines for the Northwest Corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue” were developed for the approximately three acres of land encompassing 10 parcels of land (currently occupied by Al’s Liquors, American Inn and Anderson Cleaners). The Development Guidelines were created through a neighborhood involvement process in the spring of 2005, and are intended to be a tool to assist in evaluating future development proposals for the affected parcels. 2. The following text (new text is underlined; deleted text is struck out) is revised in Chapter U, Plan by Neighborhood, under Neighborhood #26, Minikahda Oaks: Specific Development Guidelines: Redevelopment of the commercial corner shall be mixed use including small scale retail, office, and residential uses, with primarily residential uses on the north side. The transition from a commercial front to the single family area shall be mindful of scale, density, quality, aesthetics, and vehicle access. Civic uses within the commercial area are encouraged. New development shall follow urban design goals set in Chapter R. “Development Guidelines for the Northwest Corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue” were developed for the approximately three acres of land encompassing 10 parcels of St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend - France and Excelsior Design Guidelines Page 6 land (currently occupied by Al’s Liquors, American Inn and Anderson Cleaners). The Development Guidelines were created through a neighborhood involvement process in the spring of 2005, and are intended to be a tool to assist in evaluating future development proposals for the affected parcels. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 18, 2005 Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Res-ord/2005/05-26-CP St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend - France and Excelsior Design Guidelines Page 7 SUMMARY RESOLUTION NO. 05-092 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 Chapter P, Redevelopment and Chapter U, Plan by Neighborhood Development Guidelines Northwest Corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue South This resolution states that the Development Guidelines for the northwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue South will be referred to in the Comprehensive Plan. Adopted by the City Council July 18, 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: July 28, 2005 Res-ord/2005/05-26-CP St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend - France and Excelsior Design Guidelines Page 8 3. Hearings – Planning Commission Excerpts June 15, 2005 A. Comprehensive Plan amendment to Chapter P, Redevelopment and Chapter U, Plan by Neighborhood to include development guidelines for the northwest corner of Excelsior Blvd. and France Ave. Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 05-26-CP Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, presented the staff report. She explained that the intent was to create a set of guidelines that are a tool for evaluating future development options. Consultants from the areas of urban design, traffic engineering, and retail market analysis were retained. The sites were analyzed and evaluated. A mini group of neighborhood representatives met five times with staff and consultants to study the sites and create the development guidelines. An Open House with the full neighborhoods was also held on May 24th. Barry Warner and Marie Cote, SRF, and Michael Lamb of the Cuningham Group presented the guidelines. Mr. Warner remarked that the purpose of the guidelines is to serve as a tool for the various stakeholders in the project such that if/when future proposals come forward the guidelines can be used as evaluation criteria. He added that the City’s Zoning Code regulations and the land use guidance have legal standing, so the design guidelines are intended to be complementary in nature. Marie Cote reviewed existing conditions of traffic and access and recommendations for possible future scenarios. Michael Lamb, Cuningham Group, discussed massing, height, setbacks, articulations, entries, and building materials. Ms. McMonigal explained that it isn’t proposed to put the 30 pages of guidelines into the Comprehensive Plan but to have them included by reference. She read the proposed paragraph which could be adopted into Chapter P, Redevelopment. She also read a proposed text addition to the Minikahda Oaks Plan by Neighborhood section which references the development guidelines. Commissioner Morris said the guidelines contradict the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. He gave the example of a plan for 8 stories allowed by the zoning code, but not allowed by the design guidelines as incorporated into the Comp Plan. Ms. McMonigal said the way that situation would be addressed, in terms of height specifically, is that the guidelines say that the preference is first for a well-designed buildings and overall the preference is for buildings that are no taller than 4 stories. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend - France and Excelsior Design Guidelines Page 9 Commissioner Morris asked about the use of a Class I material permitted by the Zoning Code, such as mirrored glass. If a development proposed some areas of mirrored glass, the reference to the development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan means the use of mirrored glass would be prohibited. Ms. McMonigal said the guidelines are above and beyond the Zoning Code. A development proposal could be evaluated by the guidelines. The Zoning Ordinance is the actual standard. The Comprehensive Plan serves as a guide. Commissioner Morris said he understood that and agreed with it. He said his question regards taking the specific neighborhood area and defining it in the Comprehensive Plan down to an isolated type of development that can occur, although that development under the Zoning Code could occur. The Comp Plan is general enough to guide as to what’s desired for the neighborhood and community but shouldn’t be used for development guidelines. He commented that some of the language is hard to define, such as “redevelopment of the site should result in a place with a distinct, memorable and attractive character.” Someone could say if something isn’t memorable or attractive then it’s against the Comp Plan. He said he’s trying to distinguish whether the Comp Plan is still the official guide or would the guidelines prevail over the Comp Plan. Ms. McMonigal responded that if the guidelines are adopted into the Comp Plan they are part of the Comp Plan. She said she didn’t see any conflict with the guidelines being in the Comprehensive Plan. She said there may be some specific items in the guidelines that are in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance and in that case the guidelines are a preferred set of guidelines. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the key word is guideline. She said the guidelines are for a developer to see what the neighborhood has already envisioned. She said it was her understanding that the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code take precedent. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked staff how the Elmwood Study was put into the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. McMonigal said the Elmwood Study was adopted by reference into the Comprehensive Plan. She said she would have to look at the language for specifics. Commissioner Morris said he liked the guidelines but said his conflict regarded problems with the language used such as “must, will, shall,” which makes him concerned about flexibility in interpretation. Ms. McMonigal said that was a good point and staff could look at the language. Commissioner Robertson said he understood Commissioner Morris’ comments. He said he was a member of the Elmwood Study task force, and he recalled that the language used for that study was not as specific as that used in the Excelsior and France guidelines. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend - France and Excelsior Design Guidelines Page 10 Chair Carper said he agreed with comments about language. Chair Carper opened the public hearing. Joseph Waldron, 3806 Glenhurst, said language proposed in Chapter U, Plan by Neighborhood, #26, Minikahda Oaks which states that “Redevelopment of the commercial corner shall be mixed use” concerned him. He wondered if the strict zoning classification of mixed use is meant in that sentence or did it really mean there will be some commercial on the first floor. Mr. Waldron said he had also expected to see an explanation in the document regarding the 10 foot build-to-line, explaining that there would be 10 more feet of grass beyond the sidewalk. Regarding the setback, Ms. McMonigal said Mr. Waldron was correct, the intent was there would be a sidewalk and then 10 feet of a grassy area between the sidewalk and the building. Regarding Mr. Waldron’s question about language, Ms. McMonigal stated that the sentence about the commercial corner was existing language, not a proposed change. She said that existing language was meant to be very general about the Minikahda Oaks neighborhood. Mr. Waldron said he was a member of the neighborhood committee, beginning with the development proposal which was presented. He said it has been a very heartfelt process and the neighborhood does not want a tall building. John Miller, 3550 France, said he is one of the closest neighbors to the corner being discussed. He said he was not against adoption of the guidelines. He said he was against the language mentioned by Mr. Waldron that redevelopment of the commercial corner shall be mixed use. Mr. Miller said the law is the Comprehensive Plan is in effect for the neighborhood and has to be followed except if 1) it’s proven that that Comprehensive Plan designation was made in error to begin with; 2) it can be shown that the surrounding territory has subsequently changed so as to dictate the requested change. Mr. Miller said in last summer’s development application for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, question number 8 was an issue for him. The question asks what change or changing conditions make the passage of the amendment necessary. The applicant answered Excelsior Blvd. road corridor enhancement plan and the Excelsior & Grand development. Mr. Miller said the answer was not explained further. He said the application was withdrawn. He said there doesn’t seem to be enough information about a proposal to make the recommendation suggested. In reference to the language that redevelopment shall be mixed use, Mr. Miller said there is no evidence to pass that language on to the City Council. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend - France and Excelsior Design Guidelines Page 11 Commissioner Robertson said the language being referred to is existing language in the Comprehensive Plan, not a proposed revision. Only the underlined text is new language. Mr. Miller discussed the third paragraph of the guideline summary which states that “the guidelines are not, however legally mandated requirements that must be met in order to obtain project approvals.” He said the guidelines then mean nothing. He said he wants the City to have all the power it can have as it will help the residents have something good. The neighborhood believes something is going to develop at the site someday. He said the current situation gives the neighborhood very little information. He said that he had commented at the Open House that if pictures were available as part of the guidelines it wouldn’t take the neighborhood long to decide whether or not they approved. He went on to say that the guidelines by themselves leave the neighborhood at a disadvantage. Mr. Miller said that the Comprehensive Plan includes the range of densities. The guidelines ask for high density on the total site. He said having the whole site mixed use does only one thing. He referenced the Exc. and Grand project. Mr. Miller spoke about Al’s Bar being grandfathered in as mixed-use. He thinks developing the entire site as mixed-use is a mistake and has to be stopped. Steve Buffington, 3800 Huntington Ave., a member of the mini committee said he hoped to address the concerns of Commissioners Morris and Robertson. He said a lot of work was built into the guidelines. He said recommending approval of an amendment incorporating the guidelines into the Comp Plan is not a law or ordinance, but provides a sense of this is how the City would encourage a developer to build. It does not contradict the Zoning Code. He said his understanding of the guidelines is to put it out there and talk and think about what we would like to see before the next development proposal arrives. It’s an opportunity to say this is what we’d like to see, and to say it publicly. Apurva Patel, owner of American Inn, 3924 Excelsior Blvd., said he has been through the process with the neighborhood, staff, and the mini committee for the last 1 ½ years. He is concerned about how the guidelines in the Comp Plan will relate to his site and the PUD process. He said he is currently under contract with a developer on his site. He wasn’t sure how the guidelines pertained to his site. The site was purchased as an investment property. They are trying to be good neighbors, but four stories will not work. Mr. Patel said guidelines should be treated as guidelines and not adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The guidelines should be given to developers for the entire site, not for parcels. Ms. McMonigal said the motel site is zoned R-C High Density Residential and it could be developed under the current zoning. It would be allowed to be 6 stories in height and the density would come out to about 37 units. She said with a PUD they would be allowed to ask for up to 75 units/acre. Without a PUD they could apply for a building permit and St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend - France and Excelsior Design Guidelines Page 12 if they meet all the zoning requirements they could receive a building permit quickly. With a PUD they would go through the public process, including a careful look at the redevelopment chapter of the Comp Plan. With a PUD the City could look carefully at the guidelines and evaluate the proposal in relation to the guidelines. Mr. Patel asked if the guidelines could force a developer to have a PUD. Ms. McMonigal said she did not believe the guidelines could legally force a developer to have a PUD. She added that the mixed-use zoning does require a PUD. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked Mr. Warner to address this question. Mr. Warner said the design guidelines are site specific regarding traffic. From a legal standpoint, the existing zoning code would provide guidance in terms of the number of units or the administrative procedure that a developer could proceed with in conformance with existing zoning or through a PUD process. His recollection is that the design guidelines do not mandate that individual parcels would go through a PUD process. That process is usually employed when complex design issues exist. Mr. Patel said he understands the full use of the PUD process. His question is if the guidelines are adopted will he be constrained to them on his particular site. He said he has no problem going through the PUD process to get more units, the issue is about specifics if the guidelines are adopted. Commissioner Robertson said Mr. Patel would be allowed a 6 story building without a PUD. He went on to say that in the height area of the guidelines it does state that some limited opportunities exist to build 5 stories for a portion of the buildings if there are corresponding 3 story portions and it is determined through the PUD process that the overall design is preferable. He commented that this is a problem since the PUD process shouldn’t be required for a 5 story building since a 6 story building without a PUD would be allowed. Ms. McMonigal said in looking at the entire site, the overall intent was to have a cohesive development and typically that is done through a PUD process. She said mostly the committee wants well designed buildings. She said the committee was flexible about height but would want to look at the design of the buildings. Ms. McMonigal said the most common comment from the group was that varying heights are preferable and that taller buildings would be looked at with appropriate and spectacular design. Mr. Warner said a lot of attention has been addressed to building height. He said that is a complex situation which also has to take in such elements as parking. Design guidelines need to be looked at from a holistic standpoint rather than height only. He said he would ask the Commission to consider the entire document and all the topics and criteria. As no one else was present who wished to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend - France and Excelsior Design Guidelines Page 13 Commissioner Robertson said the design guidelines are very good but he said he gets stuck on the height issues. He said for almost any development the parking is what limits how far the development goes. He commented on the problem of having an extra document that doesn’t really have teeth but lends itself to limiting the height. He said he understood the neighborhood’s need to create the document but he was concerned about limiting height. He mentioned two of his favorite recent residential projects, 301 Kenwood and the Calhoun Beach Club addition. He said a building like 301 Kenwood would be a fantastic gateway piece, but could not be built at Exc. & France using the design guidelines. Everybody wants something really nice. The project should be the gateway. He spoke about the value of the project and what you put into the project is what you get out of the project. He said taller buildings and better views could almost double the value per square foot and the money a developer would have to work with to create a spectacular design. He discussed problems with having a guideline document which is in conflict with the Zoning Code. Ms. McMonigal asked if there was a way to change the height section to make it less specific. Commissioner Robertson said yes. He suggested editing out specifics, the use of the word shall, and items in conflict with zoning. He said with those edits it probably doesn’t need to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, but can be used to evaluate projects. Commissioner Morris said he agreed with Commissioner Robertson’s concerns. He said although he supports the intent and the neighborhood input, he couldn’t support the request to incorporate it into the Comp Plan because the guideline’s specific language is in conflict with the Zoning Code. He is concerned about future legal issues. In response to Chair Carper’s question about whether or not removing specific language and the use of words like shall and must would that be acceptable, Commissioner Morris responded that it could be edited but he understood the need to have a finished document soon. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if the City Attorney had reviewed the document. Ms. McMonigal responded that the Attorney had not reviewed the guidelines in detail. Ms. McMonigal said the document could be edited and returned to the Planning Commission at its next meeting, or the Commission could recommend that the guidelines not be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan, or the zoning could be changed. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if there would be any benefit to changing the title to Excelsior Blvd. and France Ave. Development “Study.” St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend - France and Excelsior Design Guidelines Page 14 Commissioner Robertson said he wouldn’t want the references to height to be removed. He said he disagrees with the height guidelines, but it is what the neighborhood wants. Commissioner Timian made a motion to approve the Development Guidelines but not incorporate them into the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion. Commissioner Kramer said he was concerned about the guidelines being legally binding. Chair Carper commented on structural errors of the document. He said he was concerned about the use of the words shall and must throughout the document. He commented that the document is ambiguous about whether the design guideline concept is for a 9 parcel master development site. Commissioner Johnston-Madison encouraged the Commission to get the guidelines in the process somehow. All the property owners were united in developing the guidelines and the guidelines were meant to be a tool in evaluating future proposals. In reference to one parcel being ready for development and 8 others remaining for development, Commissioner Morris said tools do exist in the Comp Plan to look at the scope of an area and how a development would affect the community. He said it would be possible that there would be a finding that a development at this site is not conducive to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for that neighborhood. Commissioner Morris made a friendly amendment to the motion to change the document name from Development Guidelines to Development “Study”, and accept the document as a community study. Commissioner Timian accepted the friendly amendment. The motion and friendly amendment were restated: Commissioner Timian made a motion to approve the Development Guidelines but not incorporate them into the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion. Commissioner Morris made a friendly amendment to the motion to change the document name from Development Guidelines to Development Study, and accept the document as a community study. Commissioner Timian accepted the friendly amendment. The motion passed on a vote of 4-1-1, (Carper opposed, Kramer abstained). St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend - France and Excelsior Design Guidelines Page 15 Summary of DRAFT Development Guidelines for the northwest corner of France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard 1.0: Introduction and Purpose The Development Guidelines are a tool for the community, the Planning Commission and the City Council to assist in evaluating future development proposals for the affected parcels at Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue. The specific dimensions and policy directives in this document illustrate an approach for planning new development on the site. The standards address issues such as site design, building massing and height, building location and environmental design. The guidelines are not, however, legally mandated requirements that must be met in order to obtain project approvals. They depict preferred conditions and represent the best case conditions for new development. As such they are the foundation of dialogue with development interests and will influence development on the affected parcels. 2.0: Summary of General Principles • Redevelopment of the site should result in a place with a distinct, memorable and attractive character. • The site commands a strong visual presence on two major corridors; there is an opportunity for a gateway feature, public space or other physical recognition of the site’s importance. • Building materials should be classic, timeless and project a sense of simple elegance. • A mix of land uses (residential with neighborhood retail, professional or medical office) is envisioned by the City’s Comprehensive Plan for the site. These land uses should serve daily needs and not be regional destination-type commercial activity. • Vehicle and pedestrian access to Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue will influence building location and site configuration. • Prominent open spaces and pedestrian-oriented street frontages are expected on Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue. • Encourage building design that demonstrates creative, modern interpretations of traditional architectural principles such as base, middle and top. This will assist in articulating building facades and retaining a human scale to new buildings. • Concentrate building height and density away from the residential and public park edges of the site. • Retain a human scale to the design and massing of buildings on the Excelsior Boulevard edge as well as on the park edge that will face any new development. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend - France and Excelsior Design Guidelines Page 16 • Respect and improve the ecology of the site, through responsible storm water management and provision of landscaping and green areas. 3.0: Blocks Traffic: • At the present time, there are five right-in, right-out access points off Excelsior Boulevard and two from France Avenue. There is one left-in access point from Excelsior Boulevard at the American Inn site location. Left-in turns are permitted from westbound Excelsior Boulevard to northbound France Avenue. • Access to and from Excelsior Boulevard should be consolidated wherever possible. • A median break on Excelsior Boulevard allowing left-in turns its current location will be allowed. Access at any other location on Excelsior must be supported by additional study. If a new access is combined with the current day entrance to Minikahda Court Apartments, allowing access to the subject site, the current day left-in access from Excelsior Boulevard will be closed. Land Use: • Based upon the current land-use guide plan and zoning classifications, the land-use patterns should be predominantly residential with a mixed use component of neighborhood retail/ service/professional office up to 15,000 square feet of space. • A “residential only” land use alternative is a possible development scheme for this site. This would require a change to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan from Mixed Use to a residential category, and a corresponding change to the zoning map from mixed use to a residential zoning district. These changes may be initiated by the City or by the owner of the subject property. • Retail uses should be focused on Excelsior Boulevard at the street level and at the street face or frontage. • Neighborhood and residential edges (to the north and west) should be residential in nature. Development should also be sensitive to residential uses south of Excelsior Boulevard. • Land use will be consistent with approved land use guiding and zoning. PUD applications may alter the exact location and residential density of allowed uses consistent with these development guidelines. • Height and density of approved land uses will be determined by zoning allowance and conformance with related guidelines. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend - France and Excelsior Design Guidelines Page 17 Gateway: • As a part of a development proposal, the design must incorporate a gateway element. • Suitable treatment alternatives can incorporate elements of: public art, distinctive architectural solutions, vertical streetscape elements, landscape treatment and City approved signage. 4.0: Streets • Streetscape components of the existing Excelsior Boulevard design will be adhered to along the site edges. On-street parking, in bays, is an acceptable feature to accompany new development on the site contingent upon Hennepin County approval. • The use of sidewalks at least ten feet wide, together with streetscape elements continued along Excelsior Blvd. to the France Ave. side of the site, was highlighted as an especially important element of any future development proposal. 5.0: Site • Residential density should allow up to 134 units1. If a PUD approach is employed, the number of residential units can increase. • Commercial square footage should not exceed a maximum of 15,000 square feet. • These density recommendations are based on limitations to site access and the ability to provide parking. Traffic impacts resulting from new development are more or less equivalent regardless of the land use types (commercial, residential) at the level of likely development intensity suggested by the market demand analysis and the zoning allowance for residential uses. • The guidelines outline desired standards for buffering, landscaping, utilities and infrastructure, building massing, setbacks, storm water, lighting, and signage. 6.0: Building • The primary goal is well designed buildings. Generally, the preference is for the overall height of buildings to be no more than four stories. • For proposals that include buildings taller than four stories, additional design review related to lighting, façade materials, overall mix of heights, views from the neighborhood and shadow patterns will be mandatory, in addition to any zoning code provisions. • In its entirety, new development on the site should be in the range of 3 to 4 stories, with a maximum of 46 feet. Some limited opportunities to build to 5 stories (a maximum roofline height of 59 feet) are possible for portion of the buildings, if there are corresponding 3-story portions and it is determined through the PUD process that the overall design is preferable. 1 Current day zoning (RC and MX districts) allows greater density, between 130 and 189 units if all nine parcels are considered comprehensively. However, neighborhood preferences for lower density have been consistently communicated to prospective developers. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend - France and Excelsior Design Guidelines Page 18 Uniform 5 story heights at any location on the site are not desired. Buildings with varied heights are preferred as they may improve ‘human scale’ by allowing building mass and height to cluster at compatible locations while maintaining lower heights at edges closest to single family dwellings. • Building mass should be clustered at the midpoint of the site, with lower heights and lesser massing on the south side of the neighborhood park, along the north edge of the development parcels. • Street presence is important but setbacks and height limitations on the Excelsior Boulevard edge should be observed so that the effect is one of “terraced” building mass for a portion of the street frontage. • Where build-to lines are shown, buildings shall be sited at a minimum of eight (8) feet of a street or plaza and shall occupy at least 80 percent of each block’s linear street frontage. The primary entries to buildings must face onto build-to lines on Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue rather than onto rear or side parking lots or alleys. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8c - Park Tavern Special Permit Page 1 8c. Request by Park Tavern for a Major Amendment to a Special Permit to construct a building addition for a smoking area at 3401 Louisiana Avenue S. Case No. 05-15-CUP Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution amending and restating Resolution No. 6805, authorizing a Major Amendment to a Special Permit to allow the construction of a building addition, subject to conditions as recommended by staff. Zoning Designation: C-2, General Commercial Comp. Plan Designation: Commercial SITE MAP: St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8c - Park Tavern Special Permit Page 2 PROJECT SUMMARY: Special Permit / Conditional Use Permit: A Major Amendment to a Special Permit is requested by Park Tavern for the purpose of the construction of a building addition to be used solely as a smoking area. At a public hearing, the Planning Commission considered Park Tavern’s request and recommended approval of a major amendment enabling construction of the smoking area at its June 1, 2005 meeting. No interested parties attended the meeting or spoke either for or against the smoking area. Park Tavern’s Special Permit, issued in 1979 under the previous Zoning Code, has been continued and remains in effect. The Zoning Code states that “Special permits issued for land uses which…are now conditional uses in the zoning district in which the property is located are hereby continued in full force and effect” (§ 36-36). The construction of a smoking room is in response to Hennepin County’s Smoking Ordinance. The ordinance, which bans smoking in restaurants and bars, went into effect in March of 2005. As proposed, Park Tavern’s requested smoking area is permitted under the Hennepin County ordinance. Park Tavern and City staff have worked closely with Hennepin County to ensure that the requested smoking area meets all requirements of the ordinance and that no compliance issues arise in the future. BACKGROUND: Park Tavern opened in St. Louis Park in 1957. It moved to its present location in 1980. Park Tavern was required to obtain a Special Permit to operate in this location. The Special Permit (attached) went through a series of amendments and the most recent version was adopted by the Council on April 6, 1981. Park Tavern constructed an addition in 1998, adding a game room to the southern portion of the building. The game room expansion added approximately 2,200 square feet for darts, pool tables, and arcade games. At the present time, the restaurant is approximately 9,300 square feet, and the portion of the building dedicated to the bowling alley contains 20 lanes. PROPOSAL: The proposed smoking area will add approximately 410 square feet to the northwestern corner of Park Tavern. It will be built of brick and glass and will be accessible directly through the existing dining area. Emergency exits are provided to the exterior of the building from the smoking area. The proposed building addition meets the setback requirements for the C-2 zoning district. SMOKING BAN: The Hennepin County Board passed a smoking ban affecting all cities under its jurisdiction. That smoking ban went into effect on March 31, 2005. Prior to this time, St. Louis Park’s Inspections Department had a program of measuring and posting the level of smoke in any given bar or restaurant within the City; that program has now been discontinued. The smoking ban includes a restriction on smoking in any indoor area where food or beverages are served. Neither food or drink orders nor service may be offered within the smoking room. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8c - Park Tavern Special Permit Page 3 Patrons may carry their drinks into the smoking room on their own, but no wait-staff will enter the smoking room to provide service. Under the Hennepin County Ordinance, Park Tavern staff is not permitted to enter the smoking room until business has ceased for the evening. At that time, no further smoking may take place within the smoking room until the next business day. As an additional precaution, the Park Tavern’s smoking room would be required to maintain a constant negative pressure as compared to the main dining area. The negative pressure in the smoking room will cause air to rush into the smoking room when the door is opened, rather than smoke entering the dining area. ISSUES ANALYSIS: Staff reviewed the proposal and found that it meets the requirements of the existing Special Permit. The following is a summary of the major issues reviewed by staff to determine whether the proposed expansion is appropriate. The Major Amendment to the continued Special Permit is required to prevent any adverse impacts to the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding community. A location map, site plan and a copy of the building elevations are attached to the report for review. Issues: • Is the proposed Major Amendment to a Special Permit addressed in the Comprehensive Plan? • How will Park Tavern’s use change as a result of the proposed expansion? • Will the proposed expansion affect off-street parking at the site? • How will the proposed expansion affect the surrounding properties? • What traffic impacts are associated with the proposed expansion? • Does Park Tavern currently meet the requirements of the pre-existing Special Permit? Is the proposed Major Amendment to a Special Permit addressed in the Comprehensive Plan? The proposed building addition to Park Tavern will improve one side of the building with a glass and brick façade. Doing so will “preserve and revitalize neighborhood business areas,” meeting one goal of the Comprehensive Plan’s set of goals for Commercial Uses. The section of the Comprehensive Plan that details how the City should proceed to meet those goals states that the City should “encourage housekeeping activities to enhance appearance, connections to the surrounding areas, and viability [of existing businesses].” The proposed building addition is an improvement to Park Tavern’s physical structure, and will increase its ability to remain a viable business within the community. How will the Park Tavern’s use change as a result of the proposed expansion? The proposed expansion will increase the floor area of Park Tavern by approximately 410 square feet. It will enable patrons to smoke within the structure, but will not increase the dining area available to patrons. Rather, it will decrease the dining area, as the proposed expansion will be located on the site where outdoor dining had previously been provided. The outdoor dining area currently offers seven tables with a total of 28 seats for patrons. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8c - Park Tavern Special Permit Page 4 Will the proposed expansion affect off-street parking at the site? Today, there are 133 parking spaces available directly to Park Tavern. This includes the parking area to the south of the site recently purchased by Park Tavern. In order to increase the amount of available parking, the applicant has indicated that Park Tavern will be offering valet parking service to its patrons in the future, if an agreement can be worked out to use the public city- owned parking lot on Gorham Avenue. Park Tavern and the City are currently discussing a leasing arrangement whereby Park Tavern would lease some or all of the Gorham parking lot. Park Tavern would need this lot in order to offer valet parking. Park Tavern - Required Parking Use Approx. sq. ft. Zoning Code Required Spaces Bowling Lanes NA One per each alley 20 Restaurant 9,357 sq. ft. Rest. w/liquor: one per each 50 sq. ft. 187 Pool Hall or Video Arcade 2,233 sq. ft. One per each 25 sq. ft. customer area 89 Total 296 No reductions were made to the total required spaces, though it is possible that the site may qualify for reductions based on transit service, bicycle parking, or adjacent on-street parking. There is on-street parking in the vicinity of Park Tavern. The number of available off-street parking spaces does not meet the number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Code. However, Park Tavern has made a good-faith effort to expand the parking choices for its patrons by purchasing of the lot to the south and by proposing to use valet parking. Because Park Tavern is operating under a pre-existing Special Permit and because the proposed expansion will not increase the dining area, staff does not believe that it triggers a requirement for additional new parking. In the past, Park Tavern used the vacant Apple Valley Ready-Mix (AVR) site to the north for overflow parking. Presently, the site is undergoing preparations for a development by Mendota Homes and can no longer by used for overflow parking. On-street parking is currently restricted to one-side of Oak Leaf Drive to the north of Park Tavern. A sign on site also directs patrons to other parking lots nearby. The Gorham lot, as discussed above, is currently used by Park Tavern patrons and provides approximately 80 extra parking spaces. Park Tavern is the primary user of the Gorham lot during evening hours. How will the proposed expansion affect the surrounding properties? The proposed expansion will have a negligible effect upon the surrounding properties. The new smoking room will be built on the northwest portion of the existing building. To the west of the building is off-street parking and Louisiana Avenue. To the north of the building is Oak Leaf Drive and the AVR site, where a new residential development has been approved. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8c - Park Tavern Special Permit Page 5 What traffic impacts are associated with the proposed expansion? No impacts to traffic in the area surrounding Park Tavern are expected as a result of the proposed expansion. As stated previously, the proposed expansion will result in a net decrease in the amount of dining area because the smoking room will occupy a portion of the site currently dedicated to outside dining. Does Park Tavern currently meet the requirements of the pre-existing Special Permit? The Special Permit for Park Tavern, amended April 6, 1981 and attached hereto, had four primary conditions attached. The first condition outlined the necessary development that was to take place; the second addresses the chain-link security fence along the building’s east side; the third addresses the landscape plan; and the fourth sets a deadline for completion. The existing conditions on Park Tavern site indicate that all requirements of the Special Permit are up-to-date and that the site has been maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Special Permit since that time. What questions arose during the Planning Commission’s review and public hearing for the proposed building addition? The Planning Commission’s concerns were primarily about the legality of the proposed smoking room and how food and beverages could be offered in such a room. Hennepin County has indicated that the proposed smoking area is legal. No interested parties attended the meeting or spoke either for or against the smoking area. A memo from Manny Camilon, Environmental Health Official, explains how service must be handled. No wait staff are allowed in the room until the room is clear of smoke after the close of business. To decrease the need for room maintenance, patrons bringing food or beverage into the smoking room will only be able to do so using disposable tableware. Should the Council choose to approve the major amendment, the requirements outlined in this paragraph will be incorporated into Park Tavern’s Special Permit. All conditions of the Special Permit must be met by Park Tavern on a continuing basis. Violations of the Special Permit result in a $750 fine; continued violations of the Special Permit may result in its revocation. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to adopt a resolution amending and restating Resolution No. 6805, authorizing a Major Amendment to a Special Permit to allow the construction of a building addition, subject to conditions as recommended by staff. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8c - Park Tavern Special Permit Page 6 Attachments: • Resolution Amending and Restating Resolution No. 6805, to allow the construction of a building addition • Location Map • Memo from Manny Camilon, Inspections Dept. – Food • Site Plan • Development plans • Existing Special Permit • FAQs – Hennepin County Smoking Ban • Letter from Philip Weber, owner, Park Tavern • Photographs, Park Tavern – smoking area location Prepared by: Adam W. Fulton, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8c - Park Tavern Special Permit Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. ____ Amends and Restates Resolution No. 6805 A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 6805 ADOPTED ON APRIL 6, 1981, AND GRANTING AMENDMENT TO EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-36 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW A BUILDING ADDITION AT 3401 LOUISIANA AVENUE SOUTH FINDINGS WHEREAS, Philip Weber (Park Tavern – Philips Investment Co.) has made application to the City Council for an amendment to an existing special permit under Section 36-36 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow a building addition at 3401 Louisiana Avenue South within a C-2 General Commercial Zoning District having the following legal description: Lot 1, Block 6, Oak Park Village (Abstract) WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case Nos. 79-22-SP and 05-15-CUP and the effect of the proposed building addition 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. 6805 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated April 6, 1981 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 special permit; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the permit granted by Resolution No. 6805, to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; WHEREAS, the contents of Case Nos. 79-22-SP and 05-15-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 6805 (document not filed) is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a special permit to the subject property for the purposes of permitting a building addition within the C-2 General Commercial District at the location described above based on the following conditions: St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8c - Park Tavern Special Permit Page 8 A special permit for a restaurant/bowling alley and a Class I restaurant is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the site be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A, Site Plan; Exhibit B, Topography Plan and Utility Plan; Exhibit C, Elevation Plan, except as modified and as stamped received by the Planning Department on June 20, 1979 and except as modified by Exhibit D, New Site Plan, which permits construction of the southerly wall up to eleven feet off from the south property line and the northeasterly wall for up to six feet off from the east property line and provided that said area between the lot line and the building line be properly backfilled and compacted to guarantee against settlement, be graded for proper drainage, and be landscaped with trees and grass and maintained thereafter, and except that the basement shall be eliminated and comparable square foot area added at the northeast corner of the structure as shown on Exhibit E, New Site Plan No. 2; and Exhibit F, New Floor Plan; and further except that the sidewalk on the east side of the parking lot south of the entrance area may be deleted. 2. That a chain link fence be allowed against the building and extending above the rooftop along Oak Leaf Drive and 2nd Street Northwest. 3. That Exhibit A, Site Plan, with respect to the landscape items can be amended as follows: a. Seven sunburst locust can be changed to seven seedless ash. b. Nine mountain ash can be changed to seven skyline locust. c. Four black hill spruce can be added—three at the north end of the building and one along the southwest wall. d. Planting of ivy along the northeasterly and southeasterly wall where the chain link fence exists. 4. That all improvements, including development of the bowling alley and restaurant and landscaping, paving, curbing, lighting and other items shown on the exhibits be completed by June 15, 1981. 5. The special permit shall be amended on July 18, 2005 to allow for construction of a 410 square foot smoking room addition to Park Tavern’s northwestern corner, and shall incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional requirements, Park Tavern shall: 1. Meet all Public Works Department/Utility requirements as recommended by staff. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8c - Park Tavern Special Permit Page 9 2. Building and architectural screening materials samples & colors must be submitted to and approved by Zoning Administrator. 3. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during construction. b. Park Tavern shall comply with the following conditions during construction: 1. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. 2. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times. 3. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. 4. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. 5. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. c. The proposed addition shall be maintained at all times at a lower air pressure than the rest of Park Tavern. d. Park Tavern shall remain in compliance with Hennepin County Ordinance #24, “Hennepin County Smoke-Free Ordinance”. e. Park Tavern staff shall not enter the smoking area during business hours or at any time Park Tavern is open to the public. f. Park Tavern shall ensure no food or beverage is brought into the smoking area except in disposable cups or tableware. g. Park Tavern shall repair any portions of the existing on-site parking lot that are currently in a state of disrepair, by November 1, 2005. h. No future building expansions, not including interior and exterior remodeling, shall be permitted without Park Tavern or future occupant first coming into full compliance with parking requirements of the Zoning Code. i. No future building expansions, including any exterior remodeling and any improvements to the site’s landscaping or parking lot, but not including any interior remodeling, shall be permitted without Park Tavern or future occupant first coming into full compliance with the City’s requirements for stormwater. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8c - Park Tavern Special Permit Page 10 per violation of any condition of this approval. 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. 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 July 18, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Res-ord/2005/05-15-CUP St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8d - Resolution in Support of Hoigaards LCDA Grant Page 1 8d. Resolution authorizing an application for a grant from the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing an application for grant funds from the Metropolitan Council. Request: Community Development staff is seeking City Council authorization to apply for a Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant through the Metropolitan Council. The grant is sought in response to the Elmwood Study and potential Hoigaard Village redevelopment project. The grant request for $1,800,800 seeks funds to improve the Elmwood area’s regional stormwater system and to enhance future connectivity between developments in the Elmwood area and the potential Wooddale Avenue light rail transit station. Should St. Louis Park be awarded a 2005 LCDA grant, the City will be notified by the Metropolitan Council in December of 2005. Funds would become available to the City in January of 2006, and could be used following Council approval of a redevelopment project in the Elmwood area. Those funds would be expended for stormwater improvements and/or pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections. Background: Community Development staff, at the direction of the Council and the EDA, continue to work with developers involved with the potential future redevelopment of the Hoigaard’s site, located in the northeast corner of the Elmwood area. As the project evolved, staff became aware that it had facets that may qualify it as a recipient of a Livable Community Demonstration Account (LCDA) grant. The Elmwood Area Land Use, Transportation & Transit Study dictates that the Hoigaard’s site redevelop in a transit-friendly manner taking into account critical life-safety issues such as stormwater and the environment. Funds for LCDA grants come from the Minnesota Legislature’s 1995 ‘Livable Communities Act.’ It is the intent of the act to “address affordable and lifecycle housing needs while providing funds to communities to assist them in carrying out their development plans to leverage private and public investment to provide new jobs, housing choices, and business growth” (Metropolitan Council). The LCDA funds are specifically for projects that use regional infrastructure efficiently, linking housing, jobs, and services. Should the City receive the LCDA grant, funds would be earmarked for specific items such as stormwater retention, pedestrian to trail / pedestrian to LRT connections, or streetscape enhancements. Improvements like these relate directly to the overall base of infrastructure in the Elmwood area and will have long-term, area-wide effects relating to redevelopment in the Elmwood area. It is likely that such enhancements would significantly increase the viability of future redevelopment projects in the Elmwood area. The Elmwood Area Land Use, Transportation & Transit Study was completed in 2003 as a joint effort between the City and Hennepin County. It calls for the redevelopment of a significant St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8d - Resolution in Support of Hoigaards LCDA Grant Page 2 portion of the City’s oldest structures and infrastructure. To do so, the study took into account current and future land use trends and examined market opportunities to better understand how redevelopment may occur in the Elmwood area in the future. The Village in the Park development by David Bernard and Rottlund Homes is currently under construction in the Elmwood area. It is the first project coming to fruition as a result of the Elmwood Area Land Use, Transportation & Transit Study. Recommendation: Staff recommends a motion to adopt a Resolution Authorizing an Application for Grant Funds. Attachments: • Proposed Resolution • Site Map of Proposed Hoigaard’s Village Redevelopment Site Prepared By: Adam Fulton, Associate Planner Reviewed By: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8d - Resolution in Support of Hoigaards LCDA Grant Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. _____ CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS WHEREAS the City of St. Louis Park is a participant in the Livable Communities Act’s Housing Incentives Program for 2005 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to apply for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds; and WHEREAS the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the Demonstration Account’s purposes and criteria and is consistent with and promotes the purposes of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the policies of the Metropolitan Council’s adopted metropolitan development guide; and WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the grant agreement; and WHEREAS the City agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the grant application submitted on June 30, 2005; and WHEREAS the City acknowledges Livable Communities Demonstration Account grants are intended to fund projects or project components that can serve as models, examples or prototypes for development or redevelopment projects elsewhere in the region, and therefore represents that the proposed project or key components of the proposed project can be replicated in other metropolitan-area communities; and WHEREAS only a limited amount of grant funding is available through the Metropolitan Council’s Livable Communities Demonstration Account during each funding cycle and the Metropolitan Council has determined it is appropriate to allocate those scarce grant funds only to eligible projects that would not occur “but for” the availability of Demonstration Account grant funding. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and due consideration, the governing body of the City: St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 071805 - 8d - Resolution in Support of Hoigaards LCDA Grant Page 4 1. Finds that it is in the best interests of the City’s development goals and priorities for the proposed project to occur at this particular time. 2. Finds that the project component(s) for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is sought: (a) will not occur solely through private or other public investment within the reasonably foreseeable future; and (b) will not occur within two years after a grant award unless Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is made available for this project at this time. 3. Authorizes its Community Development Department to submit on behalf of the City an application for Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant funds for the project component(s) identified in the application, and to execute such agreements as may be necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City. Adopted this ___ day of _____________, 2005. ______________________________ ____________________________________ Mayor Clerk