Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/08/15 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA August 15, 2005 7:30 p.m. 6:30 p.m. – Study Session – Westwood Room 1. Call to Order a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call 2. Presentations a. Junior Leader Recognition b. Met Council Grant Award – Peggy Leppik 3. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of August 1, 2005 b. City Council Study Session Minutes of July 11, 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. Proposed Transfer of Cable Television System Public hearing to discuss issues regarding the proposed transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance and cable system from Time Warner Cable, Inc. to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. Recommended Action: Motion to continue the public hearing to September 19, 2005. 6b. Time Warner Cable TV Franchise Renewal Update Public hearing to discuss the status of the franchise renewal process with Time Warner Cable, Inc. Recommended Action: Motion to continue the public hearing and extend the term of the franchise agreement to September 19, 2005. An alternate motion would be to direct staff to proceed to the formal franchise renewal process (Staff will provide a more specific recommendation during the meeting). 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Request by SilverCrest Properties for a Major Amendment to a Planned Unit Development Location: 3601 Park Center Boulevard Applicant: SilverCrest Properties Case No: Case No. 05-33-PUD Recommended Action: Motion to adopt Resolution No. 000, authorizing a Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the elimination of age restrictions at the Park Summit Condominiums and changes to the underground parking structure. 9. Communications 10. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department) at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF August 15, 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 a Resolution appointing election judges for the Primary and General Elections to be held September 13 and November 8, 2005 4b Motion to approve second reading of ordinance amending the zoning designation for property located at 1324 and 1332 Kentucky Avenue from C-2 General Commercial and R2 – Single Family Residential to RC – Multi-Family Residential, adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication. Case No. 05-29-Z 4c Motion to approve resolution calling for a public hearing regarding the issuance of multifamily housing revenue refunding bonds under Minnesota statutes, chapter 462c for the benefit of Knollwood Place Apartments Project 4d Motion to Adopt Resolution of Support for Trunk Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange Improvements 4e Motion to adopt the attached resolution that declares the petition adequate for the purposes of preparing a formal City Engineer’s Report on the feasibility and costs associated with a proposed alley paving project in the 2900 block of Princeton and Ottawa Avenue – Project No. 2005-1800. 4f Motion to adopt resolution accepting construction of enclosed park building and open picnic shelter at oak hill park contract no. 50-04 4g Motion to accept Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes of May 11, 2005 for filing 4h Motion to accept Telecommunications Commission Minutes of May 5, 2005 for filing 4i Motion to accept Planning Commission Minutes of July 5, 2005 for filing 4j Traffic Study No. 598: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the installation of stop signs on Cedar Lake Road at Quentin Avenue 4k Motion to accept vendor claims for filing (supplement) St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 3a - Council minutes August 1, 2005 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA August 1, 2005 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm. Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Jim Brimeyer, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger and Sue Santa Mayor Jacobs welcomed Interim City Councilmember Brimeyer. Staff present: Associate Planner (Mr. Fulton), City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Human Resources Director (Ms. Gohman), City Engineer (Ms. Brink), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations a. Presentation of Met Council TBRA Grant – Peggy Leppik – Moved to next meeting 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of July 18, 2005 The minutes were approved as presented. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 4a Bid Tabulation: Designate Michels Corporation the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $95,152.00 for construction of a fiber optic link to connect Golden Valley City Hall to Hennepin County Sheriff Radio Tower at Highway 169 for the 800 MHz radio project communications network serving the cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley 4b Bid Tabulation: Designate Ettel & Franz Roofing Company the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $204,450.00 for the 2005 Police Department Reroof Project - Project No. 2005- 1700 4c Approve Resolution No. 05-097 adopting the National Incident Management System 4d Approve Resolution No. 05-098 to adopt the Military Leave Policy 4e Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License - Holy Family Fall Festival, 5900 & 5925 West Lake Street, St. Louis Park to be held September 23 & 24, 2005 4f Accept City/School Volunteer Office Annual Report for Filing 4g Accept Planning Commission Minutes of July 6, 2005 for Filing St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 3a - Council minutes August 1, 2005 Page 2 4h Adopt Resolution No. 05-099 authorizing submittal of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants and Affidavit Concerning Real Property Contaminated with Hazardous Substances in Wolfe Park 4i Accept vendor claim report for filing (supplement) It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and Commissions - None 6. Public Hearings 6a. Consideration of the establishment of Special Service District #4 (along westerly Excelsior Boulevard between Highway 100 and Louisiana Avenue) and the imposition of a service charge within the District. Ordinance No. 2298-05 Resolution No. 05-100 Mr. Hunt presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. Jerry Trestman, Trestman Music Center, 5600 Excelsior Blvd, objected to the special service district. They eliminated lights on City property and were putting new lights to light up their driveway. They did not need snow removal because they had their own. They would like to have City approval to put a sign on the building stating they are open for business during road construction. They could not stand additional costs. Mayor Jacobs asked staff to work with the applicant on signage. Mr. Harmening responded they would work with him. He clarified that snow removal was not a part of the special service district and they would not be charged for it. Mayor Jacobs clarified there was a petition from property owners along the corridor for this special service district. Mr. Hunt replied they saw the value in continuing the streetscape improvement project along Excelsior Blvd. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Basill stated businesses had come forward asking them to fix up the streetscape. Residents on the West side also expressed an interest. Businesses on the East side with a special service district expressed how good deal it was. Flowerpots are taken care of, sidewalks kept up and it looked good. It’s good for pedestrians and the community. They needed to address the sign issue, but the roadwork needed to be done. He supported this. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein to approve 2nd reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 2298-05 to create Special Service District #4, approve summary, and authorize summary publication. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 3a - Council minutes August 1, 2005 Page 3 Councilmember Finkelstein felt it was important to point out that things looked pretty bad now, but in several years it would look a lot better. They needed to take account of the increased traffic on Excelsior Avenue. Whatever they could do to create traffic calming would benefit businesses, the neighborhood and the entire city. The motion passed 7-0. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to approve Resolution No. 05-100 imposing a service charge for Special Service District #4. The motion passed 7-0. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Request by Park Tavern for a Major Amendment to a Special Permit to construct a building addition at 3401 Louisiana Avenue South. Case No. 05-15-CUP. Resolution No. 05-101 Mr. Fulton presented the staff report. Phil Webber, Park Tavern owner, noted he did fix and the parking lot, one of the conditions. To address the requirement for windows in the room, the new addition is lower than the level of the dining room. They would need shades drawn when the sun came through. He has a camera and would put a monitor to be viewed by the bartenders. Councilmember Brimeyer asked the purpose of the windows? Mr. Fulton replied to improve visibility between the dining area and the proposed addition for security. Mr. Webber noted that parking had always been an issue. He was fortunate to be in an industrial area and after hours there is a lot of parking in the area. He adamantly disagreed with taking away parking on the North side on Louisiana. Councilmember Santa indicated last time they talked about the liquor ordinance and how it would be administered. Did the proposal meet the liquor ordinance requirement with a camera or windows? Mr. Locke replied yes. After much discussion with the City Attorney and Hennepin County staff, they concluded it was appropriate for the City to focus on the zoning applications and building addition. There shouldn’t be problems complying with the City’s liquor ordinance. Windows improved the ability to monitor the space. The operation would be in compliance with the City and County’s ordinances. Councilmember Santa asked Councilmember Omodt if his issues from the previous meeting had been addressed? Councilmember Omodt responded, based on his comments last time, he was under-whelmed by the County’s response to a municipality’s request for information on how to enforce this and that they would not provide something in writing. As a City, they needed to move forward in good faith. Mr. Webber was operating under the assumption what they were doing was legal and from a building code perspective, they should move forward. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 3a - Council minutes August 1, 2005 Page 4 Councilmember Sanger had concerns with the policies that got them to this point and with risk management for the City. She was concerned about the legal position the City was being put into. Hennepin County declined their request for a legal opinion regarding this approach. Hennepin County Ordinance No. 24 does not allow any exemptions for indoor smoking in a bar or restaurant, yet County staff came up with a policy Mr. Webber was relying on, that it was legitimate to have smoking indoors. She had concerns about how Hennepin County got to that policy enforcement guideline. It was not their job to do the legal analysis and to develop the policy for Hennepin County, but she was troubled when Mr. Webber indicated he had significant input into the guidelines when other members of the public did not have the same opportunity for input. There could be legal challenges and she didn’t want St. Louis Park caught in the middle. If they granted the request she was concerned with issues of competition between Park Tavern and other bars and restaurants in the community. If this was approved, she expected other bars and restaurants to come forward requesting exemptions, which would further undermine the smoking ban. Or, it would lead to charges that the City had done something special for Park Tavern. It was a lose/lose situation. It wasn’t their job to give him a competitive edge. She had concerns about liquor license issues and enforcement, concerns about an ordinance and policy enforcement based on the idea that staff members of bars and restaurants should not be exposed to second hand smoke, but at the same time Hennepin County saying it was OK for the same staff to clean up trash after people had consumed food and beverages. She was disappointed they had not gotten clarity from the County and they were not willing to put their policy into writing. As a policy matter her concern was that second hand smoke kills people. By this request, they were asking the Council to be enablers of chemical dependency and she would not support that. Mr. Webber responded he was classified as a multi-use facility, which can have smoking. He must have misrepresented himself when he said that he had input on Hennepin County on their guidelines. He said he talked with Lynn Moore once the ban was enacted trying to see where he could fit within the ban. Everyone had input at the meetings. He asked Lynn Moore where he could go within this ordinance as a multi-use facility. Councilmember Sanger responded those comments were what she was referring to. Mr. Webber clarified that was after the ordinance was in place, he was trying to find out exactly what the ordinance stated. He just happened to be one of the first to talk to her. Everything he was doing was in complete compliance with Hennepin County guidelines. Bowling alleys and pool halls are exempt from the smoking ban and all have employees. He was not trying to create an unsafe environment, but trying to come up with something within Hennepin County’s guidelines to allow smoking. He didn’t believe they were approving the death of innocent people. Hennepin County is revisiting this issue because there are economic consequences to the smoking ban. He was within his legal rights. They were not giving him a competitive edge, anyone with the ability to, should be able to come before the Council. He was offended they thought he was trying to pull something over on the Council or do something illegal and skirt around the law. He has been in the community for over 26 years and has never been cited for anything. He was in the customer service business and trying to stay economically viable. Councilmember Sanger stated she was not accusing him of trying to pull something over on anyone. Her concern was with the enforcement policy that Hennepin County had done, St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 3a - Council minutes August 1, 2005 Page 5 which appeared directly in conflict with its own ordinance banning smoking. He was within his rights to try this, she just didn’t think it was the proper way to go about it. Councilmember Omodt agreed with Mr. Webber. The County Attorney should be giving them a legal opinion and has chosen not to. He didn’t think Mr. Webber was doing anything illegal. If they were concerned about people dying from smoke or second hand smoke, they should go after primary smokers. The issue was the fact he had applied to modify his building and was meeting all of the guidelines. The fact that this may give him a competitive advantage, that was what he was supposed to do, he was in business. He should take the opportunity because its there. If other bars and restaurant or multi use facilities wanted to take it, they should. He didn’t think they should criticize a businessperson for seeking a competitive advantage. They wouldn’t be in business unless they did that. He further didn’t think Mr. Webber was asking for any exemptions, he believe he had complied with what the County or City had asked every step of the way. They needed to go from a building perspective and stop debating smoking. Councilmember Finkelstein thought Mr. Webber was an asset to the community and appreciated that. He was opposing the request because he thought it defeated the purpose of the Hennepin County ordinance. Hennepin County may be backing away because of the several page explanatory of what they will let people do, but the purpose of the ordinance was to preserve health, and by taking actions like this, they were not meeting that. He was concerned about enforcement issues they would be placing on staff. He took Mr. Webber at his word that he would do his best to enforce it, but he would not be there 24 hrs/day-7 days/week. He remained concerned about legality of this action. He learned in law school when you write an ordinance and then you write an explanation of the ordinance, they shouldn’t contradict each other. These contradict each other and the County had not met their obligation to give them guidance. He had a concern about an equal playing field and other establishments in the community coming forward. They would go from one smoking lounge to five or six and all paying the costs. Councilmember Santa requested the City Attorney to respond to legal issues raised by Councilmember Finkelstein and Sanger. Mr. Scott indicated their primary issue was the liquor license. The staff report accurately set forth what needed to happen to be in compliance with the liquor license. To maintain compliance, Park Tavern employees must have full access to the smoking room during all business hours. They could not have any restrictions on employees accessing that room. Whether or not that was in compliance with the Hennepin County’s Smoking ordinance, or their interpretation of the smoking ordinance, was the question they had not gotten a specific answer in writing from the County. They have had conversations with County staff and they believed it would be consistent with their interpretation of the ordinance. With that understanding, that there is full access for staff to monitor what was going on, it would be in compliance with their liquor ordinance. Councilmember Basill read from the staff report, their discussion with Hennepin County, “so long as no smoke is not allowed to migrate between the different portions of the building, a multi-use facility is allowed to provide an indoor smoking area”. It was allowed under their ordinance. They may not like that, but the fact was Mr. Webber was bringing forward something allowed. He could bring forward a request to add a 410 sq. ft. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 3a - Council minutes August 1, 2005 Page 6 building with no explanation. When it was done, make sure it has negative airflow and they wouldn’t have this discussion. They would be approving a building, and it would be up to the County for enforcement. He reminded the Council they were the ones that took that burden on. They shouldn’t make an applicant pay for their decision to take on the enforcement policy. The addition met the code and met Hennepin County’s ordinance. He didn’t see how they should interpret the County’s ordinance differently from how they were interpreting it. The applicant brought this forward in good faith. Planning Commission approved it overwhelming. There may be changes that the applicant and the Council need to deal with. With the facts before them, he didn’t see how they could not approve this. They were complying with the ordinance. Councilmember Santa believed it was very difficult to be a trailblazer. They had gone through several steps and looked things over. She agreed with Councilmember Basill that Mr. Webber had done everything he had been told he needed to do. She saw no reason why they should not approve this. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 05-101 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 in the resolution. Mayor Jacobs was concerned about the potential inconsistency between the ordinance versus the way County staff was telling them it ought to be applied. What happened if somewhere along the way there is an interpretation saying they can’t do this? Does the City face any liability having approved the building addition? Mr. Scott replied they were approving the building addition. Our issue is the liquor license and there has to be full access. The County has taken the position it was OK, under their interpretation of their ordinance. If the County decides to interpret their ordinance in a different way, and indicate it is not OK for employees to have full access to this addition, that was a risk Mr. Webber would run. If that happens, there would be an issue whether or not this room could be continued to be used for that purpose and still be in compliance with both ordinances. It was a risk Mr. Webber took, and he didn’t see any significant liability from the City’s standpoint. Mayor Jacobs agreed with Councilmember’s Omodt and Basill. The issue involved whether they should approve a building addition. He didn’t see the county’s smoking ordinance as their issue. He didn’t like second hand smoke and thought the state should pass a statewide law. The issue was a request for a building addition, and he could see no reason to deny the application. Councilmember Finkelstein read from Hennepin County Ordinance No. 24, “smoking is prohibited in indoor areas of food establishments unless otherwise excluded.” Mayor Jacobs responded that was risk you have to run if there is an interpretation by at some point indicating this room can’t be used for the purpose he intended it. They were all acting in good faith that this was OK. He did not see any grounds to deny the request, although he understood the concerns. The motion passed 5-2, with Councilmember’s Finkelstein and Sanger opposed. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 3a - Council minutes August 1, 2005 Page 7 8b. Traffic Study No. 597: Basketweave stop sign pattern in the Pennsylvania Park neighborhood. Resolution No.’s 05-102 and 05-103 Mr. Brink presented the staff report. Councilmember Brimeyer believed they had way too many stop signs in town already. Are there stops on Franklin Avenue? Mr. Brink replied yes, at Maryland and Oregon. Councilmember Brimeyer believed it was inconvenient for people, but if the residents in his ward wanted it, he would support it. Mayor Jacobs noted as a former member of that ward years ago, he was uncomfortable with the uncontrolled intersections. There were topographical changes that made it difficult to see. This was a good idea and there was consensus from the neighborhood. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt Resolution No. 05-102 authorizing placement of stop and yield signs for traffic control and rescinding Resolution No. 4385; and to adopt Resolution No. 05-103 authorizing installation of basket weave stop sign pattern in the Pennsylvania Park Neighborhood and rescinding Resolution No.’s 5053 and 84-132. Councilmember Sanger stated she would like to respect the resident’s choice for the basketweave. They had always been told that this is better for traffic calming and in theory she believed it. This would be a good opportunity to test it. If it turned out not to be perfect, it was not that hard to make a change and move a stop sign. Councilmember Omodt indicated that it was difficult to take stop signs out and hard to get them back once they were taken out. It was a lot of signs and a lot of work to either put them in or take them out. Mayor Jacobs stated it may be an inconvenience and when installed it meant that people needed to stop. Some intersections really needed stop signs. Councilmember Basill indicated he was in favor of this because the neighborhood wanted it. It didn’t mean he was always for basketweave. There are times it fits and times it doesn’t. He didn’t think they could go to every neighborhood with this as a solution. Councilmember Santa stated she went through this process in her own neighborhood and there was no consensus. She knew the work the residents put into this and respected that and would support it because it made sense to them and they lived there. The motion passed 7-0. 8c. Salary Cap Changes Effective August 1, 2005 Resolution No. 05-104 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 3a - Council minutes August 1, 2005 Page 8 Mr. Gohman presented the staff report. Councilmember Santa asked who administers the health savings account? Ms. Gohman replied America’s VEBA and ING. Councilmember Santa indicated she was an employee of ING and owned stock and would be abstaining. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Basill, to adopt Resolution No. 05-104 revising employee salaries affected by the change in the salary cap, removing PTO and revising a section of our personnel manual. The motion passed 6-0-1, with Councilmember Santa abstaining. 8d. Request of Mr. Parrish Hemmeke for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Commercial and Low Density Residential to High Density Residential; and a Zoning Map Amendment from C2 – General Commercial and R2 – Single Family Residential to RC – Multi-Family Residential. Case No.: 05-28-CP and 05-29-Z. Resolution No. 05-105 Mr. Fulton presented the staff report. Parrish Hemmeke, applicant, stated the commercial property at 1324 was cut in half and made unbuildable and 1332 had been a rental property. The proposal would create a buffer zone between the commercial frontage and residential properties behind it. They would provide guest parking in addition to parking in the cul-de-sac. There was no entrance from the residential Southerly side. At a neighborhood meeting June 28th, neighbors three concerns were parking, construction staging, noise and the buffer to the South and East. MnDot owned property behind the St. Louis Park sign, where they felt they could access the site. They could put in prefabricated walls with span crete floors for the ceiling of the garage and would be able to use underground for parking construction vehicles. They were willing to work with the City to try to minimize impact in the neighborhood. This project would benefit the site and the design proposal aimed to develop a highly visible corner with high-end urban lofts. It is a gateway to the City and imperative surrounding properties were well maintained. He has had several problems with vehicles being abandoned in the lot. They would provide adequate landscaping as a part of the development to create appropriate buffers from the neighbors. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if he had done similar projects or worked in other cities? Mr. Parrish replied that he owned a mortgage company and was a general contractor of a construction company he also owned. He partnered with a friend and another general contractor who was more familiar with multi-family projects. Councilmember Finkelstein asked how large the units would be and what they anticipated they would sell for? Mr. Parrish replied they would be marketed as high-end lofts in the range of $300-$380,000. They would be between 1200-1700 square feet. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 3a - Council minutes August 1, 2005 Page 9 Councilmember Omodt indicated that his biggest concern would be the buffer on the back end, which was brought up by the neighborhood. Would there be a fence or landscaping? Mr. Fulton replied it hadn’t been determined at this time. There would typically be a higher buffer yard requirement, which could be met in a variety of ways. There was plenty of room to meet buffer yard requirements. Mayor Jacobs noted that hey were not reviewing a site plan at this point. Councilmember Sanger was glad the units would be larger size condominiums. Larger units may mean a potential for two adult drivers in each unit. The assumptions regarding traffic in the staff report seemed low. The theory was nice that they would take the bus, but she was unsure they could rely on that. Her concern went to traffic and parking implications. She was uncomfortable they did not have a traffic study. She goes through the frontage road and Louisiana on a daily basis and frequently has to wait two and three times through to make a left turn and about adding traffic to the intersection. Mr. Fulton indicated they used the traffic manual used by transportation engineers to get their figures. It was not expected the numbers would vary dramatically. Twelve units require 24 parking spaces, which met City Code. The applicant hadn’t requested the additional 15% reduction allowed in a PUD, only reductions for transit proximity and bicycles. Councilmember Sanger asked if they would be doing a traffic study? Mr. Fulton responded should the applicant go forward with a PUD they could require that. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they didn’t have a project like this, because it was such an unusual shaped property, could they end up with a commercial property with more traffic? Mr. Fulton replied it was not anticipated that the Northern parcel could feasibly be developed for commercial use. It was awkward and small. Councilmember Finkelstein asked what else could they see there if they didn’t have a project like this? Mr. Fulton responded without re-platting, it was not anticipated this parcel could be used for much, other than the parking lot. Councilmember Basill understood they were not approving a site plan, but it was good the applicant knew that there was an R2 area behind them and they wanted to protect single- family homes. The buffer yard would be very important to the residents. This project is on a visible corner and next to the City sign and needed to be a superior product when the PUD comes forward. Mayor Jacobs agreed the applicant should be sensitive to neighbors behind this. They should be sensitive to the traffic concerns and to the fact this is a very visible corner and should be a superior design, possibly incorporating public art. He hoped people would buy there because they could walk across the street to a major transit hub. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 05-105, approving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for 1324 and 1332 Kentucky Avenue South; and a motion to approve the publication of a summary of Resolution No. 000. The motion passed 7-0. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 3a - Council minutes August 1, 2005 Page 10 It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt the first reading of an ordinance amending the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code changing boundaries of zoning districts for 1324 and 1332 Kentucky Avenue South from C2 and R2 to RC, Multi-Family Residential. The motion passed 7-0. 8e. Request by AVIS Rent-A-Car for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an automobile rental facility together with a variance to allow 7 rental cars to be parked within 100 of a residentially zoned property. Case Nos. 05-30-CUP and 05-31-VAR. Resolution No.’s 05-106 and 05-107 Ms. McGonigal presented the staff report. Jenny Peterson, 4300 36th St, asked hours of operation? Jeff Higginbotham, Agency manager for Avis, replied they were open Monday-Friday, 8 AM – 6 PM, 8 AM – 4 PM Saturday and 10 AM – 2 PM on Sunday. Ms. Peterson asked how much traffic they expected to come through the back entry? Mr. Higginbotham replied they would use the Excelsior Blvd entrance as much as possible. Councilmember Basill asked staff to show the location of the back entrance. Ms. McGonigal showed the entrances. Midas shares the parking lot. When going West, you can turn right easily. When going East, it was more difficult to exit. Mayor Jacobs stated it reminded him of the Norwest Bank building on Excelsior. There were similar concerns raised and it was his understanding that those had not materialized. Conrad Miller, 4309-4311 W 36th St, stated that he was not opposed to the business, but there was a lot of traffic on 36th St from Midas and the transmission shop. He suggested a cul-de-sac and W 36th St be closed, so businesses could no longer use it. The transmission shop used the street to test vehicles when they were finished being repaired. Councilmember Omodt stated it would be a benefit to have a car rental business. Who would a typical customer be? Mr. Higginbotham replied they had eight stores in the Twin Cities, and trying to expand local market stores. A typical customer is a leisure customer that rents on weekends. They have corporate accounts and 5-15% is replacement business for people renting while their car is being repaired. Councilmember Omodt noticed in the staff report they asked that cars not be brought in on a flat bed truck. Would cars be driven from the airport here? Mr. Higginbotham replied they have part-time drivers on staff to bring vehicles to varying locations or to the airport. Councilmember Finkelstein asked when cars are dropped off? Mr. Higginbotham replied they only allow it during normal business hours. They open themselves to liability if they have after-hour drops. None of their locations allow after-hour drops. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if he would have any objection adding no after-hour drops and hours of operation to the conditions of the CUP? Mr. Higginbotham replied no. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 3a - Council minutes August 1, 2005 Page 11 Councilmember Omodt asked if the condition wouldn’t be specific to the times, because they might change their hours of operation and would be no after-hours drop? Councilmember Finkelstein replied no, that there wouldn’t be any expansion of the hours. He was concerned they didn’t have a 24-hour, seven day a week operation and that there be no after-hour drop-off of cars disturbing neighbors. Councilmember Sanger indicated during the Planning Commission hearing people raised concerns about junker cars in the lot. She assumed Avis would be using new or newly new cars and would be taking steps to make sure junker cars were not parked there, would that be correct? Mr. Higginbotham replied yes. Avis only rents brand new cars and only keep them six to eight months. There is no repair or servicing on-site. They rent cars as needed and take them back to the airport when they are not. Councilmember Santa stated there were seven spots for rental cars. Is there adequate parking for employees? Ms. McGonigal replied yes, there is additional parking on the site. Helen Miller, 4309-4311 W 36th St, asked how many spaces were available for employee parking and if they were also the spots used for Midas? Ms. McGonigal replied there were approximately 25 spaces, other than the seven and some handicapped stalls, it was mixed for employee and Midas customers. Ms. Miller stated 36th Street already had more cars parked on it than there was space and there was need for more parking. They couldn’t afford any more cars on the street. Mayor Jacobs asked if that was enough parking on-site? Ms. McGonigal replied it met the parking requirements. Joe Stranek, Midas Owner, stated there were an additional five spaces in front of Midas. Avis could also park eight cars inside. When he visits the store, there is always ample parking in the back. If there is an overflow of parking on 36th, he didn’t believe it came from his business. Avis was replacing the transmission shop, so that problem would be alleviated. Ken Falkner, neighbor, stated he was the one that the vehicles would be annoying. He asked to clarify that the parking spaces would be accessed only during the day and that the request was for seven spaces to be dedicated to overnight parking? That was all that would be different. He disagreed about the fact that there was enough parking because it would be an issue in winter when snow is stored in the lot. Ms. McGonigal responded that the change in use resulted in a reduction of required parking spaces from 17 to 10, including the seven spaces. Mr. Falkner agreed that there were a lot of cars parked on 36th St, mostly because of the double-bungalows West. Someone mentioned blocking off the rear exit. That would make it difficult for people heading East on Excelsior Blvd. and not a good solution. He had no problem with cars parking there, although he was concerned about the business operating on Sunday. A last issue arose this morning when an employee trimmed the arborvitaes along the parking lot that screened his yard. The vegetation was trimmed five feet off the ground. Fortunately, he stopped him before they were done. They were not maintaining St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 3a - Council minutes August 1, 2005 Page 12 them, they ruined them. Mr. Stranek stated he didn’t know about this issue, but would check with the operations manager. Councilmember Basill asked Mr. Stranek if they would stop trimming against the buffer yard? Mr. Stranek replied yes. Councilmember Basill stated they needed to give it time to see if there was an issue with the back exit onto 36th. Most business would come from Excelsior. If there are problems, they can research it further. When he looked at this proposal, he had a lot of concerns, many that the residents brought up, but Planning Commission and staff came up with good conditions. If Avis doesn’t use this property, there would be another tenant and they needed to look at the worst-case scenario. He didn’t believe Avis would be the worst use. They provide a valuable service to the community. Adding the condition regarding hours of operation was important, because they didn’t want late hours which would disturb neighbors. With all of the conditions, he thought this use would be OK. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt Resolution No. 05-106 approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow an automobile rental facility at 4150 Excelsior Blvd, with the added conditions: Hours of operation shall be limited to 8 AM – 6 PM Monday through Friday, 8 AM – 4 PM Saturday, and 10 AM – 2 PM Sunday; and, Vehicle drop-off shall be limited to the hours that the business is in operation. The motion passed 7-0. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution No. 05-107 approving a variance to allow 7 rental cars to be parked within 100 feet of a residentially zoned property. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs indicated August 2nd is National Night Out (NNO). Bookmark in the Park selected the book, Tale of Despero, which was nationally recognized. Councilmember’s were provided with bookmarks to distribute at NNO. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 3b - Study Session Minutes July 11, 2005 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 11, 2005 The meeting convened at 7:10 p.m. Councilmembers present: John Basill, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, Paul Omodt, Sue Sanger and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening); Planner (Mr. Fulton); Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal); Community Development Director (Mr. Locke); Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrisson); and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert). 1. Zoning Code Issues Related to Housing Summit Planning Commissioners Claudia Johnston-Madison, Carl Roberts and Lynne Carper were present at the meeting. Staff presented some possible zoning code changes that would facilitate the expansion of single family homes in the city. Council considered changes to front, side and corner lot setbacks to clear up inconsistencies in the current zoning ordinance. Council also discussed the issue of subdivision of parcels which consist of more than one underlying platted lot. Confusion exists as to whether a parcel with underlying lots can be split without replatting or subdividing. Councilmembers discussed different scenarios and the impact subdivision of larger lots may have on neighborhoods. Mayor Jacobs suggested that requirements similar to a CUP approval be put in place to allow council discretion in their decision to allow or not allow the subdivision. Councilmember Basill suggested there be restrictions and architectural standards to retain the character of the neighborhoods. Councilmember Sanger was opposed to any subdivision of large lots in the city. Mayor Jacobs commented that some subdivisions would allow for the kind of move-up housing the residents of the community are asking for. He was in generally in favor and thought council should build latitude for approval or denial into the application process. Planning Commissioner Johnston-Madison believed that staff could come up with design standards and an approval process that council would be satisfied with. Ms. McMonigal offered to do more research to identify the number and character of properties which are affected. Staff will return at a future date with more information. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 3b - Study Session Minutes July 11, 2005 Page 2 Planning Commissioner Robertson asked council to explain the rationale they had used for a change to the zoning code which would further restrict development of cluster housing in the city’s residential zoning districts. He expressed concern that council may not be delineating between the terms “cluster housing” and “townhomes”. Mr. Harmening explained that the intent of the new ordinance is to provide levels of control the city needs to guide development, and that the intent is to use this new restriction to allow for time to look at new provisions that can better control how cluster and townhome developments occur in the city. Ms. McMonigal stated that staff intends to hold additional discussions with the council on this issue in the future. Staff requested that council consider combining Comp Plan and Zoning applications with PUC/CUP/Plat/Variance applications. The zoning ordinance currently requires that a comp plan or zoning amendment process must be completed prior to accepting application for other zoning approvals related to the development. Combining the processes would allow for review of the specific development project at the time of comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning. Council and staff to place specific conditions on the development project at the time of the comp plan and rezoning approval, giving us more control over use and other project specifics. Following discussion, council agreed that this change would allow them more discretion and directed staff to move forward with the change. 2. Whistle Quiet Zones Brian Shorten of SRF was in attendance and presented an overview of changes to federal rules regulating the blowing of whistles at crossings. Following the presentation Mr. Rardin asked council if they wished to consider implementing Whistle Quiet Zones in St. Louis Park, as was recommended by the St. Louis Park Railroad Advisory Task Force. Mayor Jacobs was concerned about the high cost of implementing the WQZ’s. He believed the $4 million could more wisely be spent on other projects. He also questioned the wisdom of spending the initial $40,000 for the assessment if the city had no resources to fully implement the WQZ’s. Councilmembers Santa and Sanger felt that we should at least move forward with the initial assessment as recommended by the task force. Councilmember Sanger specifically wanted to understand the technical issues with implementation before decisions were made. Councilmember Basill asked if there was latitude to undertake portions of the WQZ recommendations, or if the city was bound to complete all of the recommendatins or none. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 3b - Study Session Minutes July 11, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Shorten responded that any partial projects undertaken would need to be 1.5 miles long each. Council directed staff to move forward with an initial feasibility study concentrating on the technical aspects of implementing the WQZ’s. Following the technical study, a public process will be designed regarding implementation. 3. Novartis Update Staff reviewed with the council Novartis Nutrition Corporation’s options to expand or relocate its local operations and receive feedback on the EDA/City efforts to retain and expand the company’s facility in St. Louis Park. Sid Inman of Ehler’s and Associates was present a the meeting. Mr. Hunt provided options for economic develoment packages we could put on the table for Novartis and asked permission to pursue grants from the State of MN. Councilmembers agreed that retaining Novartis Corporation in St. Louis Park was very important and placed their full support behind staff’s efforts as they prepared an incentive package for presentation. Mr. Rardin added that there would be opportunity for improvements to the city’s stormwater system if proposed modifications were made to Novartis’ existing plant. Mr. Harmening informed the council that a meeting with Novartis officials would take place on August 3rd. More information was to follow. 4. Excess Public Land Update Staff provided council with an update on the status of the process for considering the possible sale of excess property in St. Louis Park. Councilmember Sanger requested that council receive the technical information they had requested prior to the public hearing. Mr. Harmening and Mr. Locke suggested that a study session be held to present to the council the analysis of field work, title work, historical data, as well as summary of resident input from meetings and correspondence. The refined sale process and design guidelines will also be discussed. At that meeting the standard study session protocol would be observed. A subsequent city council meeting would be held and televised to allow members of the public to comment on the proposed sale of property. 4. Cable Television Update – Transfer of Franchise St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 3b - Study Session Minutes July 11, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Pires met with council to provide a brief update on the cable television franchise transfer and status of the negotiations. A public hearing will be called for August 15th. 6. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081505 - 4a - Appoint 2005 Election Judges Page 1 4a. Motion to adopt a Resolution appointing election judges for the Primary and General Elections to be held September 13 and November 8, 2005. Background: Minnesota Statutes and City Charter require that election judge appointments be made at least 25 days before the election at which the election judges will serve. The attached resolution contains the names of individuals who have been selected to serve as election judges at this fall’s primary and general elections. Council’s action on this resolution will serve to appoint judges for both the primary and general elections and training of judges for both elections will proceed almost immediately. Another resolution will be presented to Council in October to appoint additional judges and to make adjustments in staffing that may be necessary prior to the general election. Additional training sessions will also be held in late October for judges unable to attend the August sessions. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Cindy Reichert, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081505 - 4a - Appoint 2005 Election Judges Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 05-108 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS OF 2005 WHEREAS, Primary and General Elections will be held on September 13 and November 8, 2005 and the City must appoint judges no later than 25 days before each election by resolution of the City Council: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the following persons have agreed to serve as Election Judges and are hereby appointed to serve: Ward 1 Precinct 1 Benilde/St. Margaret’s High School Schoen Lou Chair Steege Richard Co-Chair Laiderman Nessa Lee Mayes Nancy Brown Carol Ward 1 Precinct 2 Peter Hobart Primary Center Hintz Todd Chair Slager Eunice Co-Chair Maynard Mary Rheinhart Ethel Muszynski Mary Ann Ward 1 Precinct 3 Groves Academy Tape William Chair Primary Rainey William Co-Chair Primary Drache Kay Chair General Thorne Richard Co-Chair General Murman Jeffrey 2-9 Krishef Dale 6-2 J. Hamilton Kurtz - Primary Rawls Deb - General Byrd Kathleen - General Ward 1 Precinct 4 Groves Academy LaPray Jami Chair Novotney Dolores Co-Chair Botner Loren Malcomson Nanette Cox JoAnn Murman Gloria Ward 1 Precinct 5 City Hall - Community Room Berthene Sandra Chair Ruhl Barbara Co-Chair Manuel Julie Anne Kurtz Kirsten Hill Geraldine Ward 2 Precinct 6 City Hall Council Chambers Marsden Rick Chair Brehmer David Co-Chair Meyer Michael Nalezny Lois Juntunen Jan Ward 2 Precinct 7 SLP Rec Center Plumeri Margaret Chair Wagner Catherine Co-Chair Struss Michele Bagloo Ira Vekich Susan Ward 2 Precinct 8 Susan Lindgren Intermediate Center Vitale Kristine Chair Shoger Rachel Co-Chair Monson Patricia Richards Margie Theissen Katherine Ward 2 Precinct 9 Aldersgate United Methodist Church Larson David Chair Bjorgaard Deb Co-Chair Capra Sandy Hendrix Mary Iacono John St. Louis Park City Council Meeting 081505 - 4a - Appoint 2005 Election Judges Page 3 Ward 3 Precinct 10 Prince of Peace Lutheran Church Tape William Chair Rainey William Co-Chair Quilling Shirley Johnson Carol Deane Betty Ward 3 Precinct 11 SLP Senior High School Nelson Dorothy Chair Serrell Judith Co-Chair Benson Janet Silvernail Arleene Hamilton Sylvia Posz Ward 3 Precinct 12 Lenox Community Center Otterblad Patricia Chair Smits George Co-Chair Berglund Brenda Meyers Sally Scully MaryJo Ward 3 Precinct 13 Aquila Primary Center Williams Michael Chair Bjoraker Erik Co-Chair Grove Henry Metzker Kathy Kusnetz Robert Ward 4 Precinct 14 Westwood Lutheran Church Stulberg Jean Chair Posz Albert Co-Chair Tanick Paul Johnson Shirley Wheeler Mary Ward 4 Precinct 15 Peace Presbyterian Church Martens Brenda Chair Carlson Cheryl Co-Chair Peltier Kay Koepcke Stephen Smith Esther Ward 4 Precinct 16 SLP Junior High School Christensen Mary Lou Chair Decker Sharon Co-Chair Savick Elaine Bratland Rose Richards David Ward 4 Precinct 17 Eliot Community Center Wickersham Mary Chair Weinstein Joan Co-Chair Lipson Harvey Stalling Geri Nerheim Constance Absentee Ballot Board Judges Huiras Ken Varner Sim Tangney Alice Ploof Patricia Berlin Nancy Alternate Judges Worthingham Vivian Murman Gloria Bierma Shirley Swan Jill Stevenson Leah Swenson Joyce Hansen Betty Skelton Bonnie Monroe Myrtle Leader Jackie Thornsjo Lucille (Insert Signature Block Here) St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4b - Urban Lofts Page 1 4b. Motion to approve second reading of ordinance amending the zoning designation for property located at 1324 and 1332 Kentucky Avenue from C-2 General Commercial and R2 – Single Family Residential to RC – Multi-Family Residential, adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication. Case No. 05-29-Z Current Zoning: 1324 Kentucky: C2 – General Commercial 1332 Kentucky: R2 – Single Family Residential Parcel Size: 0.37 acres when combined Current Land Use Vacant/Parking/Single Family Home Proposed Land Use Residential Condominiums Other required approvals: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plat of properties Background: Mr. Parrish Hemmeke has applied for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the Official Zoning Map. The Council passed a resolution approving the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan at its August 1, 2005 regular meeting. That amendment is now undergoing review by the Metropolitan Council. The Council also adopted the first reading of an Ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map at its August 1, 2005 regular meeting. As required by the City’s Charter, all ordinances require two readings prior to going into effect. Mr. Hemmeke requests that the parcels at 1332 and 1324 Kentucky Avenue be rezoned from C-2 (General Commercial) and R-2 (Single Family Residential) to R-C (Multi-Family Residential). Pending approval of the change in zoning, Mr. Hemmeke has indicated that he plans to apply for a Planned Unit Development to construct a 3-story, 12-unit condominium building. Further information, including an analysis of the issues surrounding the rezoning request by Mr. Hemmeke, is included in the attached supplementary information. Recommendation: Motion to approve second reading of ordinance amending the zoning designation for property located at 1324 and 1332 Kentucky Avenue from C-2 General Commercial and R2 – Single Family Residential to RC – Multi-Family Residential, adopt ordinance, approve summary, and authorize publication. Attachments: Ordinance No. OOO, Amending Zoning Map Designation Summary of Ordinance No. OOO Existing and Proposed Zoning Map Site Plan for Proposed Development Staff Report for Case Nos. 05-28-CP and 05-29-Z, August 1, 2005 Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Associate Planner Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4b - Urban Lofts Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2299-05 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS 1324 and 1332 KENTUCKY AVENUE SOUTH THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 05-29-Z). Section 2. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959, Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, amended December 17, 2001, Ordinance No. 2216-01, as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying the following described lands from their existing land use district classification to the new land use district classification as indicated for the tract as hereinafter set forth, to wit: Parcel 1: Lots 357 and 358, “Richmond” Parcel 2: That part of Lots 355 and 356, “Richmond”, lying Southeasterly of the following described line: beginning at a point on the West line of said Lot 356, distant 3 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof; thence run Northeasterly to the Northeast corner of Lot 355, said Richmond and there terminating, except any portion thereof taken for highway or street purposes. from R-1 Single Family Residential to RC Multi-Family Residential (Parcel 1) and C-2 General Commercial to RC Multi-Family Residential (Parcel 2). Section 3. The contents of Planning Case File 05-29-Z are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Section 4. The ordinance shall take effect upon Metropolitan Council approval of associated Comprehensive Plan amendment. Adopted by the City Council Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4b - Urban Lofts Page 3 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2299-05 AN ORDINANCE CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS 1324 and 1332 KENTUCKY AVENUE SOUTH This ordinance states boundaries of zoning districts for 1324 and 1332 Kentucky Avenue South will be changed from C2 General Commercial and R2 Single Family Residential to RC – Multi- Family Residential. This ordinance shall take effect upon Metropolitan Council approval of associated Comprehensive Plan amendment. Adopted by the City Council August 15, 2005 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: August 25, 2005 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4c - Knollwood PARB Page 1 1 4c Motion to approve resolution calling for a public hearing regarding the issuance of multifamily housing revenue refunding bonds under Minnesota statutes, chapter 462c for the benefit of Knollwood Place Apartments Project Background: In 1985 the City of St. Louis Park issued $10,145,000 of Private Activity Revenue Bonds for the benefit of the Knollwood Place Apartments Project. The proceeds of the original bond issue went to the Community Housing and Service Corporation, the owners of the Knollwood Place Apartments Project. The 1985 bond issue was subsequently refunded/refinanced in 1995. The City has received a request from Sholom Community Alliance, Knollwood Place Apartments Project Management Company, an affiliate of Community Housing and Service Corporation, to refinance the 1995 debt as well as to replace windows and upgrade the exterior of the building. Sholom Community Alliance is requesting the City to issue Variable Rate Demand Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds for the benefit of Knollwood Place Apartments Project in the approximate principal amount not to exceed $12,300,000, to refund the outstanding bonds and refinance the existing bonds. They are also asking the City to issue a Housing Revenue Note in the approximate principal amount not to exceed $2,700,000, to finance capital improvements and related expenditures with respect to the Project under the Act. The City of St. Louis Park is not responsible for the repayment of this debt. The Community Housing and Service Corporation submitted the required $2,500 application fee along with the appropriate application materials. In addition, they will be responsible for paying a bond administration fee of 1/8 of 1% of the outstanding principal to the City. The City of St. Louis Park is currently receiving this bond administrative fee based on the outstanding debt of $8,860,000. Recommendation: Staff has been working closely with Kennedy & Graven on this application and recommends approval of this refunding issue. Next Steps: September 19 Public Hearing and sale of bonds September 26 Community Housing and Service Corporation close on bonds Attachments: Resolution Prepared By: Jean McGann, Director of Finance Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4c - Knollwood PARB Page 2 2 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 05-109 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”) as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Act”) authorizes the City to issue revenue bonds to finance a multifamily housing development. 1.02. In 1985, a 153-unit senior housing facility located at 3630 Phillips Parkway in the City (the “Project”), was originally financed with the proceeds of the Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (FHA Insured Mortgage Loan – Community Housing and Service Corporation Project), Series 1985 (the “Series 1985 Bonds”), issued by the City in the original principal aggregate amount of $10,240,000. The Series 1985 Bonds were redeemed and prepaid with the proceeds of the Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (FHA Insured Mortgage Loans – Community Housing and Service Corporation Project), Series 1995 (the “Prior Bonds”), issued by the City in the original principal aggregate amount of $10,160,000. 1.03. Section 462C.03 of the Act requires that in order carry out a project, the City must develop a housing program and hold a public hearing thereon. In conjunction with the issuance of the Series 1985 Bonds, a housing program was prepared on behalf of Community Housing and Service Corporation, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the “Borrower”). The housing program was submitted to the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for review in accordance with the then applicable provisions of the Act. An amended and restated housing program (the “Housing Program”) has been prepared on behalf of the Borrower and is on file with the City. 1.04. The Borrower has proposed that the City issue Variable Rate Demand Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Knollwood Place Apartments Project), Series 2005 (the “Bonds”), in the approximate principal amount not to exceed $12,300,000, to refund the Prior Bonds and refinance the Project under the Act. The Borrower has also proposed that the City issue a Housing Revenue Note (Knollwood Place Apartments Project), Series 2005 (the “Note”), in the approximate principal amount not to exceed $2,700,000, to finance capital improvements and related expenditures with respect to the Project under the Act. 1.05. Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations promulgated thereunder, requires that prior to the issuance of the Bonds and the Note, this Council approve the Bonds and the Note after conducting a public hearing thereon. Section 2. Public Hearing. 2.01. The City Council shall meet at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, September 19, 2005, to conduct a public hearing on the issuance of the Bonds and the Note as requested by the Borrower. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4c - Knollwood PARB Page 3 3 2.02. The City Manager is authorized and directed to publish notice of the hearing in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A in a newspaper of general circulation in the City once, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the public hearing. Section 3. City Council Approvals 3.01. The Council hereby states its preliminary intention to issue the Bonds to refund the Prior Bonds and refinance the Project, and to issue the Note to finance capital improvements and related expenditures with respect to the Project, subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of the Act and the final agreement among the City, the Borrower and the initial purchaser of the Bonds and the Note as to the terms and conditions thereof. 3.02. The Council hereby approves the Housing Program in the form now on file with the City. The Council hereby authorizes the submission of the Housing Program to the Metropolitan Council for its review in accordance with the terms of the Act. Section 4. Reimbursement of Costs under the Code. 4.01. The United States Department of the Treasury has promulgated final regulations governing the use of the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds, all or a portion of which are to be used to reimburse the City or a borrower from the City for project expenditures paid prior to the date of issuance of such bonds. Those regulations (Treasury Regulations, Section 1.150-2) (the “Regulations”) require that the City adopt a statement of official intent to reimburse an original expenditure not later than sixty (60) days after payment of the original expenditure. The Regulations also generally require that the bonds be issued and the reimbursement allocation made from the proceeds of the bonds occur within eighteen months after the later of: (i) the date the expenditure is paid; or (ii) the date the project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date the expenditure is paid. The Regulations generally permit reimbursement of capital expenditures and costs of issuance of the bonds. 4.02. To the extent any portion of the proceeds of the Bonds or the Note will be applied to expenditures with respect to the Project, the City reasonably expects to reimburse the Borrower for the expenditures made for costs of the Project from the proceeds of the Bonds or the Note after the date of payment of all or a portion of such expenditures. All reimbursed expenditures shall be capital expenditures, costs of issuance of the Bonds or the Note, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Regulations and also qualifying expenditures under the Act. Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Approved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park this 15th day of August, 2005. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA By Mayor By City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4c - Knollwood PARB Page 4 4 EXHIBIT A CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS AND A REVENUE NOTE UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C, AS AMENDED, TO REFINANCE A MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), will hold a public hearing on Monday, September 19, 2005, on or after 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard in the City, to consider the issuance of revenue refunding bonds (the “Bonds”), and a revenue note (the “Note”), under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Act”). The Bonds are proposed to be issued to refinance a 153-unit senior housing facility located at 3630 Phillips Parkway, near the intersection of Highway 169 and Highway 7, in the City (the “Project”). The Note is proposed to be issued to finance capital improvements and related expenditures with respect to the Project. The Project is currently owned and operated by Community Housing and Service Corporation, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. The Project was originally financed with the proceeds of the Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (FHA Insured Mortgage Loan – Community Housing and Service Corporation Project), Series 1985 (the “Series 1985 Bonds”) issued by the City in the original principal aggregate amount of $10,240,000. The Series 1985 Bonds were redeemed and prepaid with the proceeds of the Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (FHA Insured Mortgage Loans – Community Housing and Service Corporation Project), Series 1995 (the “Prior Bonds”), issued by the City in the original principal aggregate amount of $10,160,000. Following the public hearing, the Council will consider adoption of a resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds to refund the Prior Bonds and refinance the Project and the issuance of the Note to finance capital improvements and related expenditures with respect to the Project. The aggregate face amount of the Bonds proposed to be issued to refinance the Project is presently estimated not to exceed $12,300,000. The aggregate face amount of the Note proposed to be issued to finance the Project is presently estimated not to exceed $2,700,000. The Bonds and the Note will be issued by the City and will be limited obligations of the City payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof. Neither the Bonds nor the Note will be general or moral obligations of the City. The Bonds and the Note will not be secured by or payable from any assets, revenues, or other property of the City (except the interests of the City in the Project) and will not be secured by or payable from any revenues derived from any application of the taxing powers of the City. All persons desiring to be heard during this public hearing will be afforded an opportunity to do so. Dated: [date of publication] BY ORDER OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4c - Knollwood PARB Page 5 5 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4d - Woodale-TH 7 STIP Application Page 1 4d Motion to Adopt Resolution of Support for Trunk Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange Improvements. Background: A proposed project is being submitted for federal funding under the Surface Transportation Program (STP) in the Non-Freeway Principal Arterial category for Trunk Highway 7 (T.H. 7). This proposed project would provide for the construction of a grade- separated interchange at Wooddale Avenue and T.H. 7. The project would also include pedestrian and bicycle friendly improvements along with re-configuration of the frontage roads in order to improve access, safety, and traffic flow for both the T.H. 7 corridor and Wooddale Avenue. The City of St. Louis Park is submitting this application with the support of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/Dot). This proposed improvement is essential in meeting the transportation and safety needs of both Mn/Dot and the City, and has been identified accordingly in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) and Comprehensive Plan. In addition to high commuter usage in the T.H. 7 corridor, the T.H. 7/Wooddale intersection experiences many other traffic and safety related problems. Due to significant congestion and delays on T.H. 100 during peak hour conditions, motorists often exit T.H. 100 at 36th Street to utilize Wooddale Avenue as an alternate route to T.H. 7 or points beyond. The current T.H. 7/Wooddale intersection also presents constraints and issues, in that a closely spaced frontage road, freight and commuter railroad tracks, and a regional trail are all located in very close proximity to the intersection. Back-ups on Wooddale Avenue often extend on to 36th Street. Despite recent signal timing modifications by Mn/Dot to the T.H. 7 corridor, the T.H. 7/Wooddale intersection still experiences significant delays during the peak traffic periods. In addition, potential future re-development activities and associated traffic studies have determined that the T.H. 7/Wooddale improvement is a critical element in meeting the future transportation needs in this area. T.H. 7 also provides a barrier for bicycles and pedestrians to cross at Wooddale Avenue. The separated grade interchange will therefore provide opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists to safely cross the T.H. 7 corridor in order to link with destinations such as schools, recreation and transit facilities, and future light rail. Process: The Surface Transportation Program funding application must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by August 19, 2005. The solicitation process is conducted by the Metropolitan Council and a Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). Over a period of several months, various groups review and score the applications in accordance with established criteria. Projects in specific categories are ranked by total score and are endorsed accordingly. This process continues through the fall months and a recommendation is eventually forwarded by a Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) to the TAB which ultimately recommends a list of projects in the draft 2007-20010 program. This process is expected to be completed by February, 2006. Cost: If the application is approved, construction would be expected to commence in 2009 and be completed in 2010. Total project cost, not including right of way, is estimated to be $10 million. At this time, $5,500,000 in federal funds is being requested. A local (State and City) St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4d - Woodale-TH 7 STIP Application Page 2 match of that amount would also be needed. At this time, it is not known specifically what the Mn/Dot vs. City share would be. However, City funds would be expected to be provided from a combination of Tax Increment Financing (TIF)/Development Fund and State Aid Funds. Recommendation: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution providing support for funding for the Trunk Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange Improvements. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Reviewed by: Michael Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4d - Woodale-TH 7 STIP Application Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 05-110 RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 7/WOODDALE AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS, CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park is the official governing body of the City of St. Louis Park; and WHEREAS, this project is consistent with the City of St. Louis Park Capital Improvement Plan and Comprehensive Plan and it is believed to be consistent with the policies of the Metropolitan Council’s Development Guide, including the Transportation Policy Plan and Regional Development Framework; and WHEREAS, this project is located in a significant high use transportation corridor (Trunk Highway 7) in the Twin Cities metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, this project supports improvements planned to the regional and local transportation system at T.H. 7 and Wooddale Avenue; and WHEREAS, this project supports and enhances inter-modal transportation uses, including motor vehicle, transit, light rail, bicycle, and pedestrian uses; and WHEREAS, this project implements a solution in the form of continuity, capacity, and safety to a transportation problem and provides upgrade to the regional transportation system; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park in conjunction with it partners accept responsibility for an amount equal to or greater than 20 percent of the eligible project construction cost, together with costs for design, administration, right-of-way, and peripheral project costs. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park in regular meeting assembled to adopt this Resolution in support of the request for federal funds under the Surface Transportation Program for the Trunk Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange Improvement project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution be provided to the Metropolitan Council Transportation Advisory Board and Technical Advisory Commission with the Trunk Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange Improvement project submittal. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4d - Woodale-TH 7 STIP Application Page 4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute such agreement and any amendments, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. Passed and adopted this 15th day of August, 2005. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 15, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4e - Alley Paving Petition Princeton-Ottawa Page 1 4e. Motion to adopt the attached resolution that declares the petition adequate for the purposes of preparing a formal City Engineer’s Report on the feasibility and costs associated with a proposed alley paving project in the 2900 block of Princeton and Ottawa Avenue – Project No. 2005-1800. Background: On April 8, 2005 residents from the 2900 block of Princeton and Ottawa Avenue submitted a petition to the City requesting the alley be paved in accordance with the City’s standard for alleys, and that the cost of the improvements be assessed against all benefited properties. Mr. Mark Tucker of 4800 Minnetonka Blvd. circulated the petition. The City’s Alley Paving Policy requires that at least 51% of the property owners (based on alley front feet) sign a petition for the improvement in order to investigate the feasibility and cost of construction. Petition Analysis: Signatures, representing 74.1% of the alley footage, have been obtained. This represents 16 of the 20 assessable properties. Therefore, the petition is deemed adequate in order to prepare a City Engineer’s report for review by the City Council. Project Timing: Surveying of the site was recently completed this summer. Staff is now analyzing the site information to determine if the alley construction is feasible. This feasibility report will be brought back to the City Council. Once the project is determined feasible and a preliminary design has been completed, staff will hold a meeting with the affected residents to inform them of the project. A public hearing will also need to be held prior to approval. If the project proceeds, construction will likely occur this Fall. Attachments: Petitioner List Resolution Petition (Supplement) Prepared By: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed By: Scott Brink, City Engineer Michael P.Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4e - Alley Paving Petition Princeton-Ottawa Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 05-111 RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF A REPORT TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTING AN ALLEY IN THE 2900 BLOCK OF PRINCETON AND OTTAWA AVENUE CITY PROJECT NO. 2005-1800 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a petition signed by affected property owners related to alley paving in the 2900 block of Princeton and Ottawa Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The City’s Alley Paving Policy requires that a petition containing signatures from at least 51% of the affected property owners be received in order to investigate the feasibility and cost of construction. 2. A certain petition requesting the improvement of the alley in the 2900 block of Princeton and Ottawa Avenue, filed with the Council on August 15, 2005, is hereby declared to be signed by the required percentage of owners of property affected thereby. This declaration is made in conformity to Minn. Stat. § 429.035. 3. The petition is hereby referred to the City Engineer who is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 15, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4e - Alley Paving Petition Princeton-Ottawa Page 3 Petition Signatures for Concrete Alley Paving in 2900 Block of Princeton/Ottawa Avenue Address Alley Front Footage Petition Signed by Property Owners 2901 Princeton Avenue South 40 * 2905 Princeton Avenue South 40 * 2909 Princeton Avenue South 40 2913 Princeton Avenue South 40 * 2917Princeton Avenue South 40 * 2921 Princeton Avenue South 40 * 2925 Princeton Avenue South 40 2929 Princeton Avenue South 40 * 2933 Princeton Avenue South 40 * 2939 Princeton Avenue South 86 2900 Ottawa Avenue South 70 * 2908 Ottawa Avenue South 45 * 2912 Ottawa Avenue South 45 * 2916 Ottawa Avenue South 40 * 2920 Ottawa Avenue South 40 * 2924 Ottawa Avenue South 40 * 2928 Ottawa Avenue South 80 2936 Ottawa Avenue South 40 * 4800 Minnetonka Boulevard 40 * 4806 Minnetonka Boulevard 65 * Total 951 Petition signed by 74.1% of the alley front footage (705 feet / 951 feet) St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4f - Resolution for final payment - Hunerberg Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 05-112 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING CONSTRUCTION OF ENCLOSED PARK BUUILDING AND OPEN PICNIC SHELTER AT OAK HILL PARK CONTRACT NO. 50-04 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated June 1, 2005, Hunerberg Construction Company has satisfactorily completed work on the enclosed park building and open picnic shelter at Oak Hill Park, as per Contract No. 50-04. 2. The Director of Parks and Recreation has filed her recommendations for final acceptance of the work. 3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 15, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4g - Fire Comm Minutes 051105 Page 1 MINUTES FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION May 11, 2005 – 8:00 a.m. FIRE CONFERENCE ROOM, 1ST FLOOR CITY HALL 1) The meeting was called to order at 8:10 a.m. by President MacMillan. 2) In attendance were Commission President William MacMillan, Commissioners David Lee and Marjorie Douville. Also present were Ali Fosse, Human Resources Coordinator/Staff Liaison; Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief; and Bill Ryan, Union President. 3) A correction for a typo was made to the minutes of April 1, 2005. A motion was made by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner Douville to accept the corrected minutes from the April 1, 2005 meeting. The motion carried unanimously. 4) Chief Stemmer updated the Commission on the status of the vacant Firefighter position. One of the names certified, Eric Tate, has declined certification. Therefore, the Commissioners need to certify the next name on the list to fill the vacancy. 5) A motion was made by Commissioner Douville, seconded by Commissioner Lee to certify the next highest name on the Firefighter Eligibility Register (Matthew Nordby). Chief Stemmer indicated the timeline for selecting someone from the 3 certified names to fill the position would be two weeks. The motion carried unanimously. 6) Other business: Chief Stemmer updated the Commission on the status of the vacant Fire Captain position. The City’s attorney wrote an opinion letter indicating that we do not need to have 3 names on the Eligibility Register and can fill the position using one of the two names currently certified on the register. The Chief indicated that a decision would be made by the Appointing Authority to fill the vacancy within the next two weeks. 7) A motion was made by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner Douville to adjourn the meeting. The Commission adjourned at 8:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Ali Fosse City Staff Liaison to the Fire Civil Service Commission St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4h - Telecom Minutes May 5, 2005 Page 1 OFFICIAL MINUTES ST. LOUIS PARK TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 5, 2005 SCHOOL BOARD MEETING ROOM C350 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Rick Dworsky, Dale Hartman, Ken Huiras, Bob Jacobson, Mary Jean Overend MEMBERS ABSENT: Rolf Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator OTHERS PRESENT: Cindy Reichert, City Clerk; Tom Marble, School District #283 Director of Information Services 1. Call to Order Vice Chair Overend called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. 2. Roll Call Present at roll call were Commissioners Browning, Hartman, Huiras, Jacobson and Overend 3. Approval of Minutes for February 3, 2005 It was moved by Commissioner Huiras, seconded by Commissioner Hartman, to approve the minutes of February 3, 2005, without changes. The motion passed 5-0. 4. Adoption of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by Commissioner Huiras, to approve the agenda. The motion passed 5-0. 5. Public Comment - None 6. New Business A. By Laws Amendments Ms. Reichert discussed the changes to the Commission By Laws, as in her report. Commissioner Huiras asked if the section regarding term of office was true of all commissions? Ms. Reichert replied it was what the Telecommunication Commission had set up. Individual committees could determine their own rules. Commissioner Huiras asked if youth members could vote and if that were different by Commission? Ms. Reichert replied the Council made a change in the ordinance which pertains to Commissions to allow youth members to vote with the exception of committees where it involved personal property. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4h - Telecom Minutes May 5, 2005 Page 2 Commissioner Huiras asked about section 4.4, special meetings, where it indicated that notice be posted on the City bulletin board? Ms. Reichert responded that the Chair or three other Commissioners could call special meetings and that this was statutory language. Commissioner Huiras asked under the Rules and Procedures section, if anything said a person could be on multiple commissions? Ms. Reichert replied no. The Council had discussed prohibiting people from serving on more than one commission, but it hadn’t been incorporated yet. It was moved by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by Commissioner Huiras, to accept the By Laws as presented. The motion passed 5-0. B. City Clerk presentation on records retention & open meeting law Ms. Reichert reported on record retention policies and open meeting laws. Commissioner Huiras asked if they received something from staff on their home computers, they were required to retain that record? Ms. Reichert replied yes, however staff would retain correspondence for three years. If Commissioners communicate with each other or with members of the public, it would be their responsibility to maintain the record. Ms. Reichert completed the report. Commissioner Jacobson asked about the City’s policy on social security numbers? Ms. Reichert replied that they were private. Commissioner Jacobson asked why they were requested on some City documents? Ms. Reichert replied they could collect the information, but were not allowed to disseminate the information. Commissioner Jacobson requested clarification regarding the need for social security numbers. Ms. Reichert replied she would research that information and respond back. C. School District funding for 2005 & quarterly report Tom Marble, Director of Information Services for the School District, reported on the funding and quarterly report. Mr. McHugh asked about if the editing system was a replacement unit or if they were moving an existing one to the junior high? Mr. Marble replied they would set one up in the television studio to be accessible for after hours use. There would be the addition of one editing system. Vice Chair Overend asked about if student interest had increased? Mr. Marble responded it had changed and was coming from more traditional classes (social studies, etc.). The Media productions class was eliminated a couple of years ago. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4h - Telecom Minutes May 5, 2005 Page 3 Vice Chair Overend asked if students younger than junior high age were using the equipment? Mr. Marble replied yes, some elementary students were also using the equipment because it’s more accessible and the kids were more comfortable with it. Commissioner Jacobson asked if staff had training on the equipment? Mr. Marble replied a leadership group was at a training session focused on how to get staff to use the equipment. They switched to a new student information system and piloting on-line attendance and working with an on-line grading system. It would be “live” next fall. Commissioner Jacobson asked if there were already prepared presentations staff could look at? Mr. Marble replied they have a service called Atomic Learning, an on-line video streaming on how to use specific pieces of software. Commissioner Jacobson asked if there was a need to prepare something for the equipment that the school district used? Mr. Marble replied one of the reasons they went with Atomic Learning was because it covered much of the things that were common to every school and every piece of equipment in the district. Training at the senior high facility would be best done in-person. It was too complex to put into a video. Commissioner Browning asked if schools would eventually be networked with a central storage facility? Mr. Marble replied that the vision was to do that with Hopkins. They presently had a video cooperative where they stored DVD’s and videotapes. The Atomic Learning service allowed them an on-site option with their own servers and the downloaded media to their server, which allowed better performance. They would also have the ability to add their own training videos. Commissioner Browning asked if there would be a laptop initiative? Mr. Marble replied yes, it would require long term planning. The first step would be changing the way that teachers taught. Commissioner Browning asked if they were equipped with WiFi? Mr. Marble replied they had wireless “hot spots” in every school, but were not completely wireless. Teachers at many schools have wireless laptops. Every media center is a wireless hot spot. They were looking at the possibility of participating in the City’s wireless project. Commissioner Dworsky arrived. It was moved by Commissioner Browning, seconded by Commissioner Jacobson, to continue the $35,000 grant for the School District. The motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Browning felt the money was being spent wisely and he liked the direction they were going with the digital equipment. D. Review School District using interns for extra experience & to produce programming St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4h - Telecom Minutes May 5, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Marble stated that setting up an intern program was difficult because of supervision issues. They were looking at high school students assisting and being resources to help staff and students with general computer problems. E. Using High School Studio for Community TV productions Mr. Marble indicated that the biggest hurdle was getting the procedural pieces into place regarding staffing. Space can be reserved through the community education program. The studio was complicated and required advanced training. Mr. McHugh added that they were looking forward to training on the new equipment. Chair Dworsky asked if they scheduled training for the community? Mr. Marble replied that could be a possibility. Mr. McHugh noted it would probably be a community education class. They would schedule according to need. Chair Dworsky suggested that be developed further. Mr. Marble asked if it had been the experience that one or two people used the facility and become “experts?” Mr. McHugh replied no. One of the proposals was to assure access to the facility, that there be a projected number of hours with compensation that matched the hours for using the studio. That would cover personnel expenses that the district would incur. Commissioner Jacobson asked how much public access time was available? Mr. Marble responded it would likely be available between 4 PM-10 PM. Days would be determined based on the amount of demand. F. Time Warner TV studio use and consider forming a committee for publicizing availability to citizens It was moved by Commissioner Huiras, seconded by Commissioner Browning, to table discussion on this item to a future meeting. Commissioner Jacobson suggested forming the committee and getting a committee report before it was put on the agenda. The following Commissioners expressed interest in being members of the committee: Overend, Jacobson, Browning and Mr. McHugh as staff representative. Commissioner Dworsky called the question. The motion passed 6-0. 7. Old Business A. Renewal update St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4h - Telecom Minutes May 5, 2005 Page 5 Mr. McHugh indicated that the next meeting with Time Warner would be on May 18th to discuss proposed changes in the franchise ordinance. There had been no movement on the significant issues. A transfer to Comcast would be happening at the same time as the renewal. Commissioner Browning asked how would the fact that Comcast may own the St. Louis Park system play into this? Mr. McHugh replied it would be better to have the renewal completed prior to the transfer because in August when the six-month extension for the franchise runs out, there would not be a valid franchise to transfer because it will have expired. Therefore, Council could not give approval for a system swap to Comcast because there wouldn’t be a valid franchise. This was added incentive to get the job done in the time remaining. Mr. Dunlap added that the City Manger sent a letter to Time Warner asking them what the impact this would have on the continuing renewal negotiations. Commissioner Jacobson asked how the Comcast issue affected connectivity issues that they had been working with and St. Louis Park getting internet for the citizens? Mr. McHugh replied Comcast did not offer that kind of connectivity. They offered premium wire line broadband service, similar to Time Warner. Commissioner Jacobson asked if wireless internet access would be a private contract or how it would be handled? Mr. Dunlap replied that Clint Pires was in the process of hiring a consultant to advise the City and determine what kind of system was feasible. It would also include what kind of business model was feasible for St. Louis Park including partnerships with private companies and other entities such as the school district and other cities. None of that had been determined. A study would occur in the summer. They were tabulating the informal surveys distributed in the Park Perspective and Business Line and the results would be available in the next week. Commissioner Jacobson asked if the City had committed to an investment? Mr. McHugh replied the investment to date was the fiber optic network, which connects existing City sites to the City network. By June, the City will have fiber optics going to the Westwood Nature Center and would not need to spend money for dedicated Qwest telephone lines for high speed internet and network activities. Chair Dworsky asked when Time Warner would respond to the changes? Who would provide notification of when the transition to Comcast would take place? Mr. McHugh stated they were waiting for the official forms from the two parties that officially documented what they proposed to do. They didn’t anticipate significant changes and hoped to accomplish it between nine and twelve months. Time Warner would reply to the proposed changes at the May 18th meeting. He would send an invitation to the Commissioners to attend. B. Emergency Alert System update St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4h - Telecom Minutes May 5, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Dunlap reported that the analog system was tested and worked, but they were unable to test the digital emergency override. Time Warner was aware that they needed to work on this. They would test it as soon as they could. Commissioner Browning stated that the issue with the Emergency Broadcast system seemed to be going on a long time. Was there a time frame where this had to be working properly? Mr. Dunlap responded that the franchise agreement said the emergency alert system should be available on all channels. They were working with Time Warner on this issue. Commissioner Browning asked if other communities had this same issue or used the same device? Mr. Dunlap replied not all franchises called for an emergency alert system. As part of the negotiations for renewing the franchise, Time Warner did not want to continue an alert system like this because of the complicated way it interfaced with their digital service. He was not sure if other cities had this. It is presently required as part of the franchise. C. Conference policy for Commissioners Mr. Dunlap noted this was inadvertently put on the agenda. There had not been any changes to the policy. The City’s budget process hadn’t started yet. As they amended the budget, staff would budget additional money to allow two commissioners to attend a conference. D. Update on St. Louis Park wireless internet study Mr. McHugh reported there would be a Council study session where they would get the results from the survey. An independent consultant was compiling the results. The Information Services Manager and the City Manager met with the St. Louis Park Business Council to describe what the timeline was for the City evaluating its options for wireless. Telecommunications companies and Time Warner representatives were also there. The biggest point was that in St. Louis Park DSL is not accessible at City Hall (and many other places) and options for broadband are limited. The process will conclude in August. Commissioner Browning asked if this had been discussed in other communities? Mr. McHugh replied that City staff toured the City of Chaska, which has a similar type of service. Commissioner Jacobson asked about the possibilities of getting this installed so they could get the services. Mr. McHugh replied the City could provide it or arrange to have another entity provide it. Minneapolis was proposing to go with the private sector to build the service and guarantee to deliver it at a certain price point. That way the City of Minneapolis would not have the investment expense. The City of St. Louis Park is reviewing all options and getting input. 8. Reports A. Complaints Commissioner Huiras asked about his request for information on voice over internet telephone (VOIP) counts? Mr. Dunlap replied the number of customers that use the Belt Line store is an average of 72 per day. Time Warner did not wish to provide information St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4h - Telecom Minutes May 5, 2005 Page 7 about VOIP customers. They did not feel the City of St. Louis Park had any regulatory authority over that and they didn’t need to provide it. Commissioner Huiras asked about the status of the first complaint? Mr. Dunlap indicated he would report back to the Commission. Commissioner Huiras indicated Mr. Mattern was supposed to provide information regarding who was dropping service and why. Mr. Dunlap replied that could be discussed at the next meeting. The meeting in August was when they talk about their annual filings, financial information and customer service issues. Commissioner Jacobson believed that Time Warner was doing the same things and thought nothing had changed or improved. On complaint number two and the bill being wrong, he had experienced that and hadn’t gotten a correct bill for over four months. Commissioner Browning asked if there were many service-oriented complaints? Mr. Dunlap responded the complaints in the packet were from February 17th until the date of this meeting. There were only three, which was not very many. 9. Communication from the Chair Commissioner Huiras indicated that Mr. Dunlap sent an Email regarding basic subscribers, what was the percentage? Mr. Dunlap replied the percentage was of the total number of St. Louis Park homes with cable service. Commissioner Huiras stated that the percentage included Road Runner subscribers that may not be cable subscribers. Mr. Dunlap indicated there were 13,000 total households with cable service in St. Louis Park. You don’t have to get cable service to have Roadrunner. He was trying to track cable subscribers. 10. Communications from City Staff Mr. Dunlap indicated on May 6th Time Warner was launching a retail product demonstration cart at Southdale Mall to show HDTV programming, Road Runner high speed internet and the new telephone product. Commissioner Browning asked with regard to telephone service, were they required to provide 911 information? Mr. Dunlap replied yes. They went through the MN State Public Utilities Commission and their official legal position was that they didn’t feel they had to provide this, but they would comply to the point that they could. They were doing that voluntarily. Some operators offering this service were not doing it that way. Commissioner Browning asked if they had back up for the system if there was a power outage so people don’t lose phone service? Mr. Dunlap replied they had back up systems. If they had a wire line telephone, they had battery back ups, even though the power was out. If you have a cordless phone, with at base station plugged into the wall, St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4h - Telecom Minutes May 5, 2005 Page 8 that phone wouldn’t work. The Time Warner service would be out if you don’t have electrical service because it was not hard wired. They had an interface in each subscriber’s home and he was unsure if there was battery back up. He could check further and send an Email. Commissioner Huiras noted that with Vonage, you have the ability to transfer the call to another number such as a cell phone. Wasn’t it mandatory that they had to be able to do 911 and recognize it? Mr. Dunlap replied that Vonage does not automatically provide a correct address to 911 and does not have the same kind of architecture that the Time Warner system had. Commissioner Huiras noted that Vonage had the ability to track an address. Mr. Dunlap believed when someone logged in they could indicate where they were. Mr. McHugh provided a handout of programs produced by community TV, channels 15 and 96. They would be receiving an FCC Form 320 from Comcast at some point. That would start a 120-day clock for city review. They were not sure when they would receive it. Commissioner Jacobson inquired about the date of the special meeting? Mr. Dunlap replied it was not scheduled. They could discuss it at the August 4th mtg. 11. Adjournment Commissioner Browning made a motion, Commission Huiras seconded to adjourn at 8:35 PM. The motion passed. Respectfully submitted by: Amy L. Stegora-Peterson Recording Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4i - Planning Comm minutes 7-20-05 Page 1 OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA July 20, 2005--6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Robert Kramer STAFF PRESENT: Adam Fulton, Meg McMonigal, Nancy Sells 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of July 6, 2005 Commissioner Robertson made a motion to approve the minutes of July 6, 2005. Claudia Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion was approved on a vote of 5-0. 3. Hearings A. Park Summit Condos Major Amendment to PUD to Eliminate Age Restrictions for Residential Condominium Building Location: 3601 Park Center Boulevard Applicant: SilverCrest Properties Case No.: 05-33-PUD Adam Fulton, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Fulton explained that the proposed changes to the approved Park Summit condominium building are only to the parking ramp, increasing the number of indoor parking spaces from 225 to 255. He said the tunnel which was proposed to connect the Park Summit building to the Park Shores assisted living building to the south will not be included in the current proposal. Mr. Fulton said the driveway will remain disconnected from the Park Shores assisted living facility until the City rebuilds Park Center Blvd. Commissioner Johnston-Madison suggested that staff look very carefully at the recommendation that the future Park Summit and Park Shore building entrance be aligned with the primary entrance to Target directly across Park Center Boulevard. She said she doesn’t think the configuration would work well. Mr. Fulton said the design is conceptual at this point in time. Official Minutes Planning Commission July 20, 2005 Page 2 Commissioner Morris asked if an analysis had been done on the effect of losing 150 senior housing units. Mr. Fulton responded that an analysis has not been done. He said the applicant may be addressing this issue. He said that staff relied primarily upon the Comprehensive Plan which determined that the site was high density housing and not in particular senior housing. Commissioner Carper asked about the redesign of Park Center Blvd. Ms. McMonigal said that when the City proposes to redesign and reconstruct the boulevard, they will work with all of the property owners to work out the exact locations. She said the concept was to have the SilverCrest Properties owners agree that they would change the driveway in the future as needed to create better movement on the roadway. Commissioner Carper asked if there were any changes proposed for the green space. Mr. Fulton said the Zoning Code doesn’t designate differences between open space and type of resident. Commissioner Carper asked about the trail connection and the exit driveway. Mr. Fulton said the trail is addressed in the conditions of the Final PUD. He said staff will double check those conditions to make sure that there is appropriate connection. Commissioner Carper commented on a projected 50% increase in number of daily vehicle trips. Mr. Fulton said that other than the peak hour trips, which are approximately the same as the existing office building, those trips would be spread throughout the day. Commissioner Morris asked the applicant if there were plans to redesign the interior to meet the expected market. Mike Gould, applicant, said they do not anticipate a big market shift. They will still target their marketing to seniors. The project is next to SilverCrest’s assisted living facility and independent living facility which will naturally draw seniors to the area. Mr. Gould said as they analyzed the marketplace, looking at an age restricted building became problematic. As a practical matter they will be serving the senior community. He said that it became evident that moving the Official Minutes Planning Commission July 20, 2005 Page 3 age restriction, especially in the competitive market today, achieves goals for everybody and for the feasibility of the project. Commissioner Morris asked about the original plan showing the first floor as being either community or office oriented. He asked if the first floor would now be converted into living units. Mr. Gould replied that there may a couple of residential units on the first floor as well as a common area. SilverCrest’s office may or may not be located in the building. He said he doesn’t see the character of the facility changing from the original proposal. The unit mix will be very similar. Mr. Gould said that some common areas may change a little bit, but there will still be many common areas. Peter Pfister, architect, said there will be 15 surface parking places for visitors and 10 spaces in the ramp. Mr. Pfister said the parking garage will be secured and controlled. Commissioner Robertson asked what the mix will be in order to be a bit more marketable. He wondered about the necessity of removing the age restriction. He commented that the building will feel like a senior facility as part of the campus. He asked if removing the restriction provides more flexibility. Mr. Gould said he didn’t know what the mix will turn out to be. He explained from the lender’s perspective, and the market study perspective, the ability to be able to attract all age groups greatly enhances the marketability and absorption of the project. He went on to say that in a highly competitive environment it’s the prudent thing to do, but that SilverCrest is basically in the senior business. He added that the project has to be built all at once and cannot be phased. Chair Carper opened the public hearing. As no one was present who wished to speak, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development, for the elimination of age restrictions at the Park Summit Condominiums. Commissioner Johnston- Madison seconded the motion, and the motion was approved on a vote of 5-0. Official Minutes Planning Commission July 20, 2005 Page 4 B. Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Designation from Industrial to Commercial and Rezoning from IP Industrial to C1 Neighborhood Commercial for 1.5 acre parcel Location: 5330 Cedar Lake Road Applicant: JMW Development/Paul Maenner Case Nos.: 05-34-CP and 05-35-Z Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, presented the staff report. She distributed a hand-out showing uses allowed in the C-1 District. Ms. McMonigal commented that the site may be a good site for retail uses from a marketing and visibility standpoint; however, the C-1 uses are broad and could have significant impacts. She said that commercial districts are quite wide open to just about any use. Depending on what the specific use is, it could have significant traffic and access impacts. It could change the character of the neighborhood and there is a concern about that. She said that staff recommends denial of the requests. Ms. McMonigal remarked that once the zoning is changed any use in the commercial category could be allowed. She noted that it is a tough site as it is small, and it doesn’t really relate to the other industrial uses on the site. She said she can see the potential for retail on the site but without knowing the specific uses she is not comfortable recommending approval. Ms. McMonigal went on to say that changes to the Zoning Code are being discussed that would allow Comprehensive Plan and rezoning applications to be considered at the same time as Conditional Use Permits and PUDs. There was a discussion about Podany’s business and whether or not it was considered a retail use. Mr. Fulton said he thought Podany’s was classified as a retail showroom which is a permitted use in the IP Industrial Park district. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she liked the idea of something new at the site but she is concerned about traffic. She asked if the application could be put on hold until a traffic study is done. Ms. McMonigal said that could be done but a traffic study would require specific uses and a site plan, not just a concept plan. Commissioner Timian asked if a C2 General Commercial designation would work for the developer. Ms. McMonigal said C2 is less restrictive than C1. Official Minutes Planning Commission July 20, 2005 Page 5 Paul Maenner, applicant, said staff had suggested that C1 would probably meet their needs and be more appropriate for what they were trying to accomplish as C2 would open up more possibilities for traffic issues. Ms. McMonigal added that C2 allows big box retail and is a much heavier use. Ms. McMonigal noted that maps in the report had an error. The requests are being made only for the front 1.5 acre parcel. Commissioner Morris asked what percentage of the City’s Industrial zoned property this site comprised. Ms. McMonigal said the data base for the Industrial Study is currently being compiled. Commissioner Johnston-Madison commented that the site is so small that it is hard to believe it could be developed for any kind of industrial purposes. Ms. McMonigal responded that there are very few uses allowed in the IP district that are commercial. Included would be business and trade schools, medical, optical and dental laboratories, printing process, catering, communication tower, manufacturing process, showrooms, and storage. Paul Maenner, applicant, said he wanted the opportunity to address some of the concerns such as traffic and uses with the Planning Commission. Mark Johnson, applicant, said the Zoning Code does allow retail in the IP district if it is incidental to a warehouse type facility. Mr. Johnson said their title commitment references Res. 85-132 and identifies the zoning as DDD Diversified Development District. Item 4 of the resolution states that the building may be used for office, warehouse, retail, health clubs and health clubs. Mr. Fulton said the Code has been rewritten and the DDD zoning designation no longer exists. Mr. Johnson said traffic is a concern as two large retail anchors generate a significant amount of traffic. He said they are prepared to better define the types of uses for the site and have a traffic engineer run some projections based on those uses and compare them to the current condition. Mr. Johnson said just prior to the meeting he asked Ms. McMonigal to provide them with the current level of service for the intersection at Cedar Lake Rd. and Parkdale. Mr. Johnson commented on the City-owned right-of-way on the site. He discussed the dedicated right turn lane in front of the property. He suggested that Official Minutes Planning Commission July 20, 2005 Page 6 any other proposed geometrics proposed for that intersection would be difficult because of Office Max in the northeast quadrant, the office park to the north, the athletic club to the south, and specific access points from Cedar Lake Road to Highway 100. Mr. Johnson went on to say that the probability of something dramatic needing to be done there is somewhat limited because of existing development. Chair Carper opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. A discussion was held regarding options for the applicant. Commission Johnston-Madison said she’d like the Commission to consider tabling the requests due to lack of information. Commissioner Morris said there is a need for eating establishments in the area, especially if that area is more opened up to office and retail. He said he is concerned about creating a block that has two zoning uses. He said from a traffic perspective it is a difficult area to open up driveways and get pedestrian movement. He said he is inclined to deny the requests until the City determines what it wants to do with its IP zoning properties. Commissioner Robertson said he didn’t have a problem with splitting the zoning on the block. He said he finds it more unusual when zoning is split on a street. He discussed the economic benefit of industrial vs. retail. He said he couldn’t vote to remove more industrial land. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked Commissioner Morris what kind of information he hoped to get from the Industrial Study that would help him make a decision on the applicant’s request. Commissioner Morris said he feels the City shouldn’t lose any more industrial properties. It might come to a decision to freeze rezoning of industrial properties, or provide a certain set of guidelines for considering rezoning. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked what kind of industrial use Commissioner Morris envisioned on this size parcel. Commissioner Morris responded that there would be the possibility of a consolidated parcel, instead of four or five different businesses. Chair Carper commented that currently it is a functional IP property and could be sold as industrial. There was a discussion about why staff recommended denial other than traffic issues. Official Minutes Planning Commission July 20, 2005 Page 7 Ms. McMonigal said primarily when the zoning is changed; there is no control over what kind of retail use might go in the site. She said her concern was that some of the uses might not be appropriate in the area, such as communication tower, sexually oriented businesses, grocery store, or motor fuel station. She explained that while conditions could be placed on some permitted uses, once the zoning is changed it is difficult legally to say no to anything which is permitted in that zoning district. Commissioner Morris said the concept plan presented by the applicant is for a drive-through restaurant or drive-through facility. He said it may not be a good site for a drive-through facility as it would generate a lot of traffic. Commissioner Morris said he was inclined to give the applicant extra time to work out some of the issues on the use of land as well as finding out more about where the Industrial Study may take the City. Commissioner Robertson said his issue didn’t regard use or traffic, but strictly that he is not willing to give up the industrial property at this point in time. Tabling it would give the applicant some time to look into a good use that was worth losing some industrial property. He said in general he’s not comfortable with a vaguely defined use. Commissioner Johnston-Madison suggested tabling the requests to give the applicant time to complete a traffic study and to determine what type of retail would be appropriate. Ms. McMonigal stated that the City requires its traffic engineer to complete the traffic study, paid by the applicant, based on the uses that the applicant identifies. She added that the data for the Industrial Study has just been collected. Additional analysis needs to be done and she doesn’t have a date of completion at this time. Mark Johnson, applicant, clarified that they had wanted to buy just a portion of the City-owned property, not the entire piece. Mr. Johnson asked if there was any advantage to consider applying for a PUD. Ms. McMonigal responded that the City’s PUD process does not specify uses. The underlying zoning district regulates what the uses are. Staff is proposing a change in the ordinance to make the PUD a little bit stronger in making an overlay zoning district. Under that scenario uses could be specified for a particular piece of property. That might be one option for the applicant. She said it takes 3-4 months to make a change to the zoning code. Official Minutes Planning Commission July 20, 2005 Page 8 Mr. Johnson asked if there was any merit to the applicant agreeing to certain deed restrictions that would preclude certain uses. Ms. McMonigal said she would check with the City Attorney. Mr. Johnson said obtaining some hard traffic data is important. He said they would like to postpone and continue to gather information and meet with staff. Commissioner Robertson moved to table the requests until the City and developer receive the completed traffic study. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion was approved on a vote of 5-0. 4. Unfinished Business: None 5. New Business Commissioner Robertson distributed a cluster development definition from a textbook as a follow-up to the recent zoning amendment regarding cluster housing. He said that everyone seems to agree that cluster housing is an important tool to have, but that its placement in the code did not have give enough controls. He said the definition was an acknowledgement that a townhome is a type of cluster home but a cluster home isn’t necessarily a type of townhome. Commissioner Robertson made a request that staff prepare a text change for the definition of cluster housing which specifically excludes townhomes and that staff also prepare a definition for townhomes. This would provide the ability to reintroduce some detached single houses in a cluster development under a PUD process or some other tool without including townhomes in the same action. Commissioner Robertson said the Commission’s recommendation to the City Council was to redefine those categories. He said he thinks that request still stands open so he’d like to see an attempt at some redefinition of those two terms. Commissioner Robertson and Ms. McMonigal discussed the definitions in more detail. Ms. McMonigal said there had been discussion about a single family cluster definition. Commissioner Robertson referenced the three examples which were shown in the presentation, one of which illustrated single family cluster. He said single family cluster is a valuable tool and currently there is no way of addressing it. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the definition needs to make clear that cluster home is detached. Commissioner Robertson suggested that terms could be combined. He said something like Victoria Ponds could be referred to as cluster duplexes. Official Minutes Planning Commission July 20, 2005 Page 9 Ms. McMonigal talked about proposed changes to the PUD to be an overlay zoning district and how that could affect townhomes and cluster housing. Ms. McMonigal said the discussion on changes to the zoning code will continue at the August 8th City Council study session. The Planning Commission is invited to attend. She said there will be more discussion about allowing cluster housing and townhomes in the R3 Zoning District. Ms. McMonigal said that staff will be coming forward with a number of zoning code changes over the next several months. Commissioner Morris asked if staff would be looking at a fall development tour for the Commission, Council and Housing Authority. Ms. McMonigal thanked him for the reminder and said that staff will set up a tour. 6. Communications A. Recent City Council Action – July 18 7. Miscellaneous Chair Carper thanked Commissioners Robertson and Johnston-Madison for their participation at the July 11th City Council study session. Chair Carper also attended the meeting. 8. Adjournment Commissioner Morris moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Administrative Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4j - TS No 598 Stop Signs at CLR and Quentin Page 1 4j. Traffic Study No. 598: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the installation of stop signs on Cedar Lake Road at Quentin Avenue Background: Over the past few years, residents of the Cedarhurst neighborhood have expressed concern about speeding along Cedar Lake Road and making left turns at the intersection of Cedar Lake Road and Quentin Avenue. These issues were discussed at the December 13, 2004 study session. At the study session, staff recommended that the following short-term changes be made to the intersection of Cedar Lake Road and Quentin Avenue: Ÿ Install all-way Stop control at the intersection of Quentin Avenue/Cedar Lake Road Ÿ Install an east-bound left-turn lane on Cedar Lake Road at the intersection of Quentin/Cedar Lake Road The east-bound left-turn lane has been installed as per the study session report, and now the stop signs must be authorized for installation. Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution authorizing installation of stop signs on Cedar Lake Road at Quentin Avenue. Attachments: Resolution December 13, 2004 Study Session Report Prepared By: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator Reviewed By: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4j - TS No 598 Stop Signs at CLR and Quentin Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 05-113 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF CEDAR LAKE ROAD AND QUENTIN AVENUE SOUTH TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 598 WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and has determined that traffic controls are necessary at the intersection of Cedar Lake Road and Quentin Avenue South. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following controls: Ÿ Stop signs on the eastbound and westbound Cedar Lake Road approaches to Quentin Avenue South. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 15, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4j - TS No 598 Stop Signs at CLR and Quentin Page 3 DECEMBER 13 STUDY SESSION REPORT: Quentin Avenue/Cedar Lake Road/Old Cedar Lake Road Area Traffic Study Purpose of Discussion: To review the short-term and long-term suggested improvements for the area east of TH 100 at Quentin Avenue and Cedar Lake Road. Background: Over the past two years, concern has been expressed by residents of the Cedarhurst neighborhood regarding speeding along Cedar Lake Road, east of Quentin Avenue, increased traffic volumes as a result of the expansion of the Jewish Community Center, extraordinary delay in making left-hand turns at the intersection of Cedar Lake Road & Quentin Avenue, and the feeling that this same intersection is unsafe. A petition was submitted to the City requesting installation of Stop signs in the east-bound & west-bound directions at this intersection. Of the 324 signatures on the petition, 105 were from St. Louis Park residents. Of these, there were 74 St. Louis Park addresses. None of the addresses were within 600 feet of the intersection. Staff contracted with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to perform a traffic study of this area (see attached information/maps). This study built on the data and results compiled in SRF’s recently completed study for the I-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance Analysis: In order to study the traffic patterns at the intersection of Cedar Lake Road and Quentin Avenue, it is also necessary to analyze the intersections of Old Cedar Lake Road with Quentin Avenue and Old Cedar Lake Road with TH 100 frontage road due to their close spacing. SRF and City staff collected traffic counts, turning movement counts, and measured vehicle delay. This information was used to determine a level of service (LOS) for each of the intersections. Results of the analysis show that all intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during both the daytime and evening peak periods except for the intersection of Quentin Avenue and Old Cedar Lake Road. This intersection has a LOS of D in the p.m. peak period. The average delay encountered by south-bound traffic making a left-turn onto Cedar Lake Road at Quentin Avenue is 35 seconds in the a.m. and 21 seconds in the p.m. period. This is considered acceptable per engineering standards. Based upon the most recent information from MnDOT, a crash analysis at the three intersections was also completed for crashes during the years 2000-2002. The results of this analysis indicate that the intersections of the frontage road with Old Cedar Lake Road and the intersection of Quentin with Cedar Lake Road have slightly higher crash rates than average suburban rates for all of Hennepin County. For example, the average Hennepin County crash rate for an unsignalized T-intersection is 0.32 crashes per million vehicles. The crash rate for the T- St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4j - TS No 598 Stop Signs at CLR and Quentin Page 4 intersection of Quentin Avenue and Cedar Lake Road is 0.51 crashes per million vehicles. According to records, 8 vehicles crashes occurred at this intersection in a 3-year period. Short-Term Improvements Although the intersections operate at acceptable LOS, SRF has determined some short-term improvements that can be considered by the City to improve the overall function and safety of the area. These are summarized in the table below along with estimated costs. These improvements are shown in Attachment A. Scenario Improvements Cost* A § Install all-way Stop control at the intersection of Quentin Avenue/Cedar Lake Road $500 B § Install all-way Stop control at the intersection of Quentin Avenue/Cedar Lake Road § Install an east-bound left-turn lane on Cedar Lake Road at the intersection of Quentin/Cedar Lake Road $1,500 C § All improvements listed under B § Install a north-bound left-turn lane at the intersection of Quentin/Old Cedar Lake Road § Install a right-turn bay island on the north-bound approach of the Quentin/Old Cedar Lake Road intersection & relocate the Stop sign § Modify the striping for the south-bound right-turn lane at Quentin/Old Cedar Lake Road $15,000 D § All improvements listed under C § Widen the west-bound approach of the intersection of the frontage road/Old Cedar Lake Road; re-stripe as 2 lanes § Widen the west end of the concrete island to create a 90-degree T-intersection at the frontage road/Old Cedar Lake Road $30,000 *Costs shown are inclusive of all improvements including prior scenarios Under Scenario A, the LOS at the intersection of Quentin/Cedar Lake Road worsens from C to D. That is because east-bound traffic delay is significantly increased. Under this scenario, the severe impact on Cedar Lake Road motorists does not justify the slight benefit to motorists in the south-bound queue. Under Scenario B however, which provides a separate left-turn lane for east-bound traffic turning left onto Quentin, the LOS stays the same as existing conditions but the east-bound queue is significantly lessened. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 4j - TS No 598 Stop Signs at CLR and Quentin Page 5 Although Scenarios C and D do not achieve significant benefits to the queues and delays at the intersection of Quentin Avenue/Cedar Lake Road, they would improve overall safety and operations at the other two intersections since motorists’ confusion and sight distance restrictions play a key role in their operations. SRF is also recommending that the City assess the current lighting at the intersection of Quentin/Cedar Lake Road and evaluate the current signing in the entire area and remove unnecessary or repetitive signage. Long-Term Improvements A future traffic operations analysis was conducted for the three intersections based on the anticipated development identified in the I-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance study. Even with implementation of the short-term improvements listed in Scenario D above, the intersection of Quentin/Cedar Lake Road will operate at a LOS F in the p.m. peak period. Two long-term improvement alternatives were identified. These were: • installation of a traffic signal and realignment of the intersection of Quentin Avenue/Cedar Lake Road along with installation of a traffic signal at Quentin Avenue/Old Cedar Lake Road. This alternative is shown in Attachment B. • Installation of round-abouts at the intersections of Quentin Avenue/Cedar Lake Road and Quentin Avenue/Old Cedar Lake Road. This alternative is shown in Attachment C. The estimated cost of the first alternative is $625,000 ($450,000 for traffic signals and $175,000 for roadway work). The estimated cost of the second alterative is $1,000,000 (exclusive of right- of-way acquisition costs). With the implementation of either of these two scenarios, LOS at all intersections is expected to improve to C or better. The Quentin Avenue/Cedar Lake Road intersection will improve to a LOS B. Recommendation: Staff would recommend the following: • Install signage and striping, as described in Scenario B, as soon as feasible (given weather restraints) • Program remaining short-term improvements under Scenario D in the Capital Improvement Program for 2006. • Program a long-term improvement project for this area in the Capital Improvement Program to be built in conjunction with the Duke redevelopment and/or redevelopment of the Westside Volkswagen site. Attachments: A: Short-Term Improvements Plan (Supplement) B: Long-Term Improvements Plan-Scenario 1 (Supplement) C: Long-Term Improvements Plan-Scenario 2 (Supplement) St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 6a - Comcast transfer Page 1 6a. Proposed Transfer of Cable Television System Public hearing to discuss issues regarding the proposed transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance and cable system from Time Warner Cable, Inc. to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. Recommended Action: Motion to continue the public hearing to September 19, 2005. Background: On June 15, 2005, Comcast notified the City about an agreement to purchase all of Time Warner Cable’s Minnesota cable TV systems, including St. Louis Park’s franchise. Time Warner and Comcast are purchasing the bankrupt Adelphia cable systems for about $12.7 billion in cash. Adelphia has about 5 million subscribers, and the systems will be geographically divided between Comcast and Time Warner so the systems can be clustered together. As part of the clustering, Time Warner’s Minnesota, Florida and Louisiana franchises would be swapped for Comcast’s Dallas, Los Angeles and Cleveland area franchises. One area of uncertainty is that the Time Warner and Comcast agreement is contingent on the completion of the Adelphia deal. The Adelphia bankruptcy proceedings are expected to be resolved at the end of this year. Some Minnesota cities have already granted Comcast’s request for franchise transfers, including Helena, Jackson, Jordan, Lanesboro, Lewisville, Madelia, New Ulm, Sand Creek and Waverly. The City has retained Brian Grogan of Moss & Barnett to assist with the franchise transfer process. A report from Mr. Grogan is expected about September 1 on Comcast’s legal, technical and financial ability to operate the franchise, the parameters set by federal law. Comcast and Time Warner Cable are the two largest cable operators in the United States, and offer similar services, including video, high speed data, and telephone. Fridley’s Cable TV Coordinator, Brian Strand, conducted an informal survey of Comcast’s city representatives last week. Generally, the city representatives say: • They have no problems receiving Franchise Fees or Access Fees, or Performance Bonds. • All areas have recently been upgraded to fiber and the system is in good working order. • They receive very few citizen complaints concerning signal quality or service. They receive standard complaints about prices, channel selection and no competing cable company… • All have said the customer service has greatly improved over the previous franchisee. Ramsey Washington Cable Commission’s Executive Director, Tim Finnerty, said “Comcast is extremely responsive to citizen complaints that I handle, which are almost 100% immediately resolved by an escalated complaints department.” St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 6a - Comcast transfer Page 2 Regarding St. Louis Park’s specific franchise, set to expire on August 28, 2005, Comcast’s Director of Government Relations, Kathi Donnelly-Cohen told the Telecommunications Advisory Commission on August 4, 2005 that until a new franchise agreement is in effect, Comcast would meet all terms of the existing franchise after the transfer. Area of concern: There is one customer benefit Time Warner offers that probably will not continue if the system is transferred to Comcast: a choice of high speed data internet service providers (ISP’s). When America Online purchased Time Warner in 2000, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) required that customers have a choice of ISP’s, a unique arrangement in the cable television industry. An FTC press release on December 14, 2000 summarized the issue this way: "In the broad sense, our concern was that the merger of these two powerful companies would deny to competitors access to this amazing new broadband technology," said Robert Pitofsky, Chairman of the FTC. "This order is intended to ensure that this new medium, characterized by openness, diversity and freedom, will not be closed down as a result of this merger." Under the proposed order, the Commission's antitrust concerns would be resolved by: (1) requiring AOL Time Warner to make available to subscribers at least one non-affiliated cable broadband ISP service on Time Warner's cable system before AOL itself began offering service, followed by two other non-affiliated ISPs within 90 days and a requirement to negotiate in good faith with others after that… As a result, Time Warner high speed data customers can choose between these ISP’s: Road Runner, AOL Broadband and EarthLink. Comcast customers do not have a choice of ISP’s. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that cable companies are not required to offer competitive ISP’s in the “Brand X” case. As reported in C/net news.com on June 27, 2005: The cable industry can breathe a sigh of relief, as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that cable companies will not have to share their infrastructure with competing Internet service providers. In a 6-3 decision, the court overturned a federal court decision that would have forced cable companies to open up their networks to Internet service providers such as Brand X and EarthLink. The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas. Dissenting justices were Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Antonin Scalia and David Souter. The decision likely will not affect consumers immediately, since cable companies have long been exempt from having to share their networks. But Brand X and its supporters believe that over the long term, the decision will hamper competition and will ultimately lead to higher broadband prices. Traditional “common carrier” telephone companies like Qwest and Verizon must allow competing ISP’s on their systems. A recent Federal Communications Commission ruling may remove this requirement within a year, thereby removing the requirement for ISP competition for both the cable and telephone industry. Cable systems lead in the competition for residential high St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 6a - Comcast transfer Page 3 speed data customers with 18.7 million customers compared to the telephone companies’ 11.8 million customers (December 31, 2004 figures reported by Pike & Fischer). The City has no direct authority over the high speed data or telephone services offered by Time Warner due to Federal Communications Commission rulings or Federal law. However, City staff has received an email stating the customer’s desire to continue to receive EarthLink after the system is transferred to Comcast. Process and Recommendation: Brian Grogan’s Comcast report and a Time Warner franchise fee review are both expected about September 1. Staff expects to collect and analyze further information and report back to the Council on September 19, 2005. Staff recommends Council continue this public hearing to that date, because after the public hearing is closed, the City must give notice to Comcast within 30 days of closing the public hearing. Also, Council action is required by October 15, 2005 or the transfer is deemed approved. Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator Through: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 6b - Time Warner Franchise Renewal Page 1 6b. Time Warner Cable TV Franchise Renewal Update Public hearing to discuss the status of the franchise renewal process with Time Warner Cable, Inc. Recommended Action: Motion to continue the public hearing and extend the term of the franchise agreement to September 19, 2005. An alternate motion would be to direct staff to proceed to the formal franchise renewal process (Staff will provide a more specific recommendation during the meeting). Background: Council was last updated on the status of the franchise renewal process with a written report for the July 18, 2005 regular meeting and at its study session on July 25, 2005. The current franchise agreement with Time Warner expires on August 27. As indicated at both meetings, recent progress on the 2-year franchise renewal process has been slow. Staff reported there was finally some major progress made when Time Warner Cable, Inc. did submit to the City a marked-up version of the existing franchise on Thursday, July 21. This had been an outstanding request to Time Warner for several weeks. On Monday, July 25, consultant Brian Grogan and staff verbally reported to Council at a study session on matters of the transfer of the franchise to Comcast, and franchise renewal with Time Warner. Staff and Council discussed the current state of the franchise renewal process and options. Staff indicated that it may be in the best interest of the City and its constituents to recommend a different, more “formal” approach to negotiations, given the lack of progress to date. Further, staff indicated the date for initiating such an approach may be as soon as the August 15, 2005 public hearing on this topic. Staff indicated the actual recommendation would rest on the amount of progress made between July 25 and preparation of the public hearing report. Following the July 25 study session, John McHugh and Counsel Joel Jamnik met and prepared a City response marked-up version to the Time Warner document, and after staff consultation, sent the City version (proposal) to Time Warner on Friday, July 29. This allowed time for Time Warner’s review prior to the August 3, 2005 negotiations session. City and Time Warner met on Wednesday August 3 and covered several outstanding issues, including but not limited to local origination, studio facilities, and the production van. Todd Hartman and David Pinto, Time Warner legal counsels, reviewed the July 29 City version with City staff and Joel Jamnik, verbally agreeing to some items, indicating to Mr. Jamnik where Time Warner would submit revisions, and indicating that some items would need further consideration by Time Warner. Time Warner staff and counsel explained their own scheduling constraints, indicated they would be working on their proposed response, and do their best to get St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 6b - Time Warner Franchise Renewal Page 2 their latest version to the City by Wednesday, August 10. City staff indicated it was necessary for Time Warner to follow-up the August 3 meeting with its revised version in order for significant progress to be demonstrated to Council. Current Status: As of the writing of this report on Thursday, August 11, 2005 at 10:15 a.m. no response, verbal or written, has been received from Time Warner. Joel Jamnik attempted to contact multiple Time Warner staff and received no response on both August 10 and August 11. For its part, City staff committed to following up on local studio options with the School District. That follow-up occurred, and the attached letter from the School District indicates support for some use of the High School studio and another alternative City staff and the Pavek Museum of Broadcasting have been pursuing. City staff believes primary use of a studio at the Pavek Museum in tandem with secondary use of the Senior High School studio (current use) would successfully address the studio requirements. The Pavek Museum Board of Directors is planning to consider this concept at its August 17 meeting. Construction, equipment, and operational costs would also need to be discussed. Meantime, there is every expectation that the current Time Warner studio will continue to be available for use until any alternative studio that may be constructed is fully ready. Recommendation: City staff has made significant some progress on the local studio issue as a follow-up to the August 3 meeting. Time Warner has not submitted any response to the latest marked-up version of the franchise or communicated with the City since the August 3 meeting. While there is work to complete by both Time Warner and the City, City staff has no significant progress to report on written renewal provisions from Time Warner since the August 3 meeting. Consistent with the July 25 study session, it is staff’s responsibility to present to Council two options: 1. Council continues the public hearing and extends the term of the franchise agreement to September 19, 2005, with the hope that Time Warner will be able to make significant progress on its role in the franchise renewal process. 2. Direct staff to proceed to the formal process for franchise renewal as discussed at the July 25 study session. Staff will provide a more specific recommendation during the Council meeting based on a response we might receive from Time Warner prior to the Council meeting. Staff will be present at the Council meeting to answer questions. Attachment: School District letter regarding Studio Facilities 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: 081505 - 8a - Park Summit Condos Page 1 8a. Request by SilverCrest Properties for a Major Amendment to a Planned Unit Development Location: 3601 Park Center Boulevard Applicant: SilverCrest Properties Case No: Case No. 05-33-PUD Recommended Action: Motion to adopt Resolution No. 000, authorizing a Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the elimination of age restrictions at the Park Summit Condominiums and changes to the underground parking structure. Zoning Designation: R-C, Multi-Family Residential Comp. Plan Designation: High Density Residential PROJECT SUMMARY: SilverCrest Properties has requested a major amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to remove the age restriction clause for the Park Summit Condominiums within the previously approved final PUD agreement for the Parkshore Campus. The proposal for the Park Summit Condominiums, part of that final PUD, was first approved by the City in 2004. SilverCrest has now requested the removal of the age restriction clause; otherwise, the final PUD will not be changed except to add conditions relating primarily to parking. Staff identified two main issues regarding conversion to a non-age restricted building; parking and traffic. Parking had originally been designed for an age-restricted building. More parking is needed for a non-age restricted building. As a result, additional parking is provided in the new plan. Traffic studies were completed under the premise that persons living in an age-restricted building take fewer trips than persons in a non age- restricted building. The City’s traffic consultant was asked to re-evaluate the traffic impact of the proposed project under the new assumption that the building will not be age-restricted. Both the parking and traffic issues are discussed further below. Staff completed a review of the new parking scenario and judged that it would be acceptable under the Zoning Code. Changing traffic conditions were first reconsidered by a consultant retained by SilverCrest Properties; subsequently, a city-hired consultant also reviewed the updated traffic information. It was determined that a new condominium building, even without age restrictions, would slightly reduce the number of PM peak hour trips to and from the site, in comparison to the existing office building. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Major Amendment at its July 20, 2005 meeting. No interested parties spoke at the meeting. After voicing its concerns, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Major Amendment. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 8a - Park Summit Condos Page 2 BACKGROUND: SilverCrest Properties received approvals for a PUD along Park Center Boulevard just south of 36th Street West in 2003 and 2004. The proposal was for a three-building complex marketed specifically towards persons 55 years of age and older. At the present time, the first two structures have been built and currently serve residents of St. Louis Park in an age-restricted setting. SilverCrest Properties now believes that the age restrictions placed on the third building will make sales difficult, and so is requesting the removal of those age restrictions. Mr. Mike Gould of SilverCrest Properties has indicated that it is the company’s intent to continue marketing towards older residents, particularly those older than age 55; however, it will not be limited to buyers over the age of 55. The only changes proposed to the originally approved Park Summit condominium building features are changes to the parking ramp. The building will remain the same height and have the same number of units. The following table details the proposed changes: Development Summary Site Characteristic Pre-Amendment Post-Amendment Site Area 83,127 sq. ft. Same Open Space Provided 23,200 sq. ft. Same Open Space Required 22,010 sq. ft. Same Surface Parking 15 spaces Same Indoor Parking 210 spaces 240 spaces Total Parking Provided 225 spaces 255 spaces Total Parking Required 218 spaces 255 spaces Floors 14 floors Same Height 145 feet Same Underground 2 levels Same Dwelling Units 150 dwelling units Same Density 78.5 units per acre Same Density Permitted met by PUD Same Ground Floor Area 26,000 square feet Same Floor Area 303,000 Same Ground Floor Area Ratio 0.31 Same Floor Area Ratio 3.65 Same St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 8a - Park Summit Condos Page 3 ISSUES ANALYSIS: The following is a summary of the major issues reviewed by staff to determine whether the proposed amendment is appropriate. The Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development 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: • What concerns arose during the public hearing before the Planning Commission on July 20, 2005? • Is the proposed Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development cohesive with the Comprehensive Plan and the previously adopted Preliminary PUD plan? • How will the use of the proposed 14-story condominium building change? • Will the removal of the age-restrictions affect off-street parking at the site? • How will the removal of age-restrictions affect the surrounding properties? • What traffic impacts are associated with the proposed amendment? Analysis: What concerns arose during the public hearing before the Planning Commission on July 20, 2005? The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment to the final PUD, removing the age-restrictions from the original development plan. No interested parties spoke during the public hearing. The Planning Commission addressed several concerns, including the effect of losing senior housing units, the redesign of Park Center Boulevard, the increase in traffic, the building floor plans and changes to the trail and green space. The Comprehensive Plan states only that the site should be developed at a high density for residential purposes, and does not address the type of high density units that should be placed on the site. In addition, staff explained that the redesign and reconstruction of Park Center Boulevard is not currently anticipated to occur for several years. Mr. Gould of SilverCrest properties explained that the building and floor plans may undergo minor changes from floor to floor, but that no major changes were planned nor would the number of units change; in addition, he explained that no changes were proposed to the existing trail and green space available on-site. The only major change is the removal of the tunnel connecting Park Summit to the buildings to the south. One result of the Planning Commission’s recommendations is the addition of the condition that the driveways between the Park Summit condominium building and the driveway to the two properties to the south be connected, as shown in the original development plans. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 8a - Park Summit Condos Page 4 Is the proposed Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the previously adopted final PUD plan? Approval of the final PUD plan relied on Chapter P of the Comprehensive Plan, which specifically addresses the redevelopment the proposed Park Summit Condominium site. The redevelopment plan for the site includes factors such as density, floor area ratio, building height, location and appearance, and open space. The current proposal solely addresses the age-restriction clause in the final PUD plan; it does not affect density, a primary concern of the guidelines adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The density of the project is 78.5 units per acre. During the prior review of the proposed Park Summit building, this density was permitted because the total site density, including Park Summit, remains below the goal of 75 units per acre. How will the use of the proposed 14-story condominium building change? Few changes in use are anticipated in light of the removal of the age-restriction clause. The building will remain completely residential with minor services offered on the first floor. Age-restricted buildings condominiums may differ slightly from non age-restricted condominiums. In age-restricted condominiums, fewer trips per day from the building are expected. For example, in a non age-restricted building, 4.18 trips per day are expected for each dwelling unit, while in an age-restricted building, only 3.48 trips per day are expected per dwelling unit. Non age-restricted condominiums may also have additional trips during peak traffic hours and may attract residents who tend to spend less time within the building as compared to typical residents of an age-restricted building. The primary change in the building’s use, therefore, is a question of trips to and from the building and time spent within the building. Because it is the City’s responsibility to ensure that any new development remains within the confines of existing transportation networks, an update was completed to the traffic study completed for the final PUD approvals. Traffic impacts are discussed below. Will the removal of the age-restrictions affect off-street parking at the site? City code allows for reductions in parking for age-restricted buildings. In the case of the final PUD approved for the Park Summit Senior Cooperative, 218 parking stalls were to be provided. A reduction of 30% was taken by SilverCrest Properties for the 14-story Proposal PUD Reduction Transit Reduction Bicycle Reduction Required Parking Required After Reductions 150 Senior Units 15% 10% 5% 300 spaces 218 spaces 150 Market- rate Units 15% 0% 0% 300 spaces 255 spaces St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 8a - Park Summit Condos Page 5 structure, resulting from its proximity to transit, the provision of bicycle parking, and the use of PUD. The new request allows for a 15% reduction in required off-street parking. Off-Street Parking Details for Park Summit As a result of the alteration of the proposed building to non age-restricted, additional parking is required. The proposal is for 150 dwelling units, which requires 300 spaces based on the existing Zoning Code. SilverCrest proposes to take a 15% reduction from the required number of spaces due to its use of PUD, bringing the total required spaces to 255. The plans for the building have been altered to increase the amount of parking in the underground ramp, bringing the total spaces provided in the two-level underground structure to 240 spaces. Staff believes that the parking plans submitted for Park Summit will be sufficient to handle the number of resident and visitor vehicles on-site at any given time. New development projects are required to reserve 10% of the total required parking for guest parking. Consequently, some of the guest parking would need to be accommodated in the underground ramp. The developer has proposed various methods to enable visitors to enter the ramp. In addition to that guest parking, the developer has also stated that some of the above-ground parking at the ParkShore Senior Housing complex will be available to guests at Park Summit. How will the removal of age-restrictions affect the surrounding properties? Impacts to Senior Campus Plan It is unlikely that the removal of age-restrictions will have negative implications for the properties surrounding Park Summit. The Park Summit Condominium building will not be connected through an underground tunnel to the ParkShore Assisted Living building to the south. A tunnel had been planned between the two buildings to enhance the senior ‘campus’ plan that was a large part of the final PUD. Removing the tunnel from the building’s plan eliminates any grading problems associated with the trail, which would have passed over the tunnel. Impacts to surrounding land uses The removal of age-restrictions will have few impacts on the Target and Byerly’s stores across Park Center Boulevard from the development. The primary impact of the proposed condominium building on both retailers is a result of additional vehicle trips, which is addressed below. Impacts to surrounding and transportation corridors SilverCrest Properties intends, as required by the final PUD, to change the trail connection running between the Park Summit building and the ParkShore Assisted Living building. The trail connection will be realigned due to the new building’s alignment, parking, and lack of an underground tunnel. Building setbacks from the trail provide sufficient room for access to and from the trail; additionally, it is a continued requirement that SilverCrest will install appropriate lighting and landscaping along the trail where it passes by Park Summit Condominiums. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 8a - Park Summit Condos Page 6 During the review of the previous PUD proposal by SilverCrest Properties, it was indicated that the proposed driveway from the site entering onto Park Center Boulevard will be moved from its present location approximately 80 feet to the south. The alteration of the driveway location will serve to improve traffic conditions on Park Center Boulevard. At some point in the future, the City intends to reconstruct Park Center Boulevard, creating a new connection to the south. Upon the City’s initiation of construction, it is expected that the proposed entrance to the Park Summit building will be combined to a single entrance at the ParkShore Assisted Living building. It is planned that this entrance could align with the primary entrance to Target directly across Park Center Boulevard. At the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the connection between the Park Summit building and the buildings to the south is included as a condition of the resolution, to be completed at the time of construction. Such a requirement was not included in the conditions of approval during the first approval process. What traffic impacts are associated with the proposed amendment? Traffic impacts were analyzed for the initial proposal during the PUD process in 2003. At that time, SilverCrest intended for the three-building complex to focus on life cycle housing for seniors. Trip data indicates that residents of age-restricted buildings often make fewer trips than residents living in a non age-restricted building. With the requested change to a non age-restricted building, staff requested an update to the traffic data. The following table summarizes trip information for 3601 Park Center Boulevard, taken from the update to the traffic analysis by SRF Consulting Group. Trip Generation Estimates Scenario Land Use Size Daily Trips P.M. Peak Trips (1 hour) In Out Total 1 Office 36,000 sq. ft 396 15 43 58 2 Senior Condos 150 Units 522 10 7 17 3 High Rise Condos 150 Units 627 35 22 57 While overall trips rise as a result of the change from an office building to a high rise condominium building, it is expected that high rise condo trips would be spread throughout the day – occurring with slightly less intensity during the peak traffic periods in the morning and the evening. The change to high rise condos from senior condos results in approximately 20% more trips per day (627 vs. 522). The update to the traffic study completed by RLK Consulting on behalf of SilverCrest Properties and a review of that update completed by SRF Consulting Group on behalf of the City are attached for review. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 8a - Park Summit Condos Page 7 SUMMARY: Changing the proposed Park Summit condominium building from age-restricted to non- age restricted will result in an increased number of trips to and from the building each day. However, it will ultimately result in a very minor reduction in the number of peak hour trips taken to and from the site and will spread traffic flow to and from the site evenly throughout the day. Parking at the site is improved, resulting from the inclusion of additional parking spaces below ground. Staff does not anticipate problems with off-street parking as a result of the new plan. It remains likely that residents of the proposed condominium will utilize the nearby transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and staff recommend a motion to adopt Resolution No. 000, authorizing a Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the elimination of age restrictions at the Park Summit Condominiums. Attachments: • Resolution No. XX, a resolution authorizing a Major Amendment to the PUD for Park Summit Condominiums. • Draft minutes of the July 20, 2005 Planning Commission meeting • Review of revisions to the 2003 traffic study, discussing non age-restricted traffic rates, completed by SRF Consulting (retained by the City of St. Louis Park) • Revisions to the 2003 traffic study, discussing non age-restricted traffic rates completed by RLK Consulting • Location Map • Development plans • Resolution No. 04-024, A Resolution Granting Final PUD Approval for a Senior Housing Condominium at 3601 Park Center Boulevard. (Case 03-38-PUD). Prepared by: Adam W. Fulton, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 8a - Park Summit Condos Page 8 RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NOS. 96-153, 96-189, 03-139, AND 04-024, ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 7, 1996, DECEMBER 2, 1996, OCTOBER 7, 2003, AND FEBRUARY 2, 2004, APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE AND CONSOLIDATING CONDITIONS FROM AN EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT AND PUD FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-C, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL GRANTING FINAL PUD APPROVAL FOR A SENIOR HOUSING CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AT 3601 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD AND COMBINING PROPOSED AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARKSHORE CAMPUS AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 3601, 3633 AND 3663 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD MAJOR AMENDMENT TO PUD FOR ELIMINATION OF AGE RESTRICTIONS AT THE PARK SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS 3601 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD WHEREAS, SilverCrest Properties, LLC has made application to the City Council for a Major Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow ___________ at 3601 Park Center Boulevard within a R-C, Multi-Family Residential Zoning District having the following legal description: Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Silvercrest Addition WHEREAS, the City Council has considered information related to Planning Case No. 05-33-PUD and the effect of the proposed _______________________________on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Major Amendment to the Final PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The Council has also determined that the proposed amendment to the Final PUD is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 8a - Park Summit Condos Page 9 Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply with the requirements of Section 36-367(b)(5) and 36-266(16). WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 86-62 on May 19, 1986 approving a special permit to allow construction of a 207 unit senior citizen apartment building at 3663 Park Center Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-153 on October 7, 1996 approving an amendment to the existing special permit for the 207-unit senior apartment building at 3663 Park Center Boulevard to allow certain site design changes (realignment of an existing trail and certain concrete curbs; construction of an additional sidewalk connection; and modifications to the approved landscape plan) in association with separate PUD approval of a 45 unit assisted living building on a portion of 3601 Park Center Boulevard (now 3633 Park Center Boulevard); and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-152 on October 7, 1996 approving the Final PUD for the existing office building, removal of the bank with in- vehicle service and new 45 unit assisted living building at 3601 Park Center Boulevard (now also 3633 Park Center Boulevard); and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-189 on December 2, 1996 rescinding Resolution No. 96-152 approving the Final PUD in order to correct the legal description and address; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 99-101 on September 7, 1999 approving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt a Redevelopment Plan for 3601, 3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard allowing certain modifications to ordinance requirements and parameters for future redevelopment of the office building at 3601 Park Center Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-102 on September 7, 1999 approving the preliminary and final plat for Silvercrest Addition to reconfigure internal lot lines allowing a 46 unit addition to the assisted living building on Lot 2 for a total of 91 units and requiring trail easements over Lots 1, 2 and 3 (3601, 3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard respectively), a road easement over Lot 3, trail construction over Lots 1 and 2, a parking agreement between Lots 2 and 3, certain maintenance agreements, and cooperation with the City regarding future construction of the north- south roadway and trail on Lot 3; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2143-99 on September 7, 1999 vacating certain drainage, utility and trail easements at 3601, 1633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard effective upon recording new easements; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-140 on December 6, 1999 amending and restating the conditions of Resolution No. 99-102 to extend the plat filing deadline to January 6, 2000; and St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 8a - Park Summit Condos Page 10 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 03-138 on October 7, 2003 approving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to revise the text of the Redevelopment Plan to allow density and floor area ratio (FAR) averaging over the 3601, 3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard properties, to increase the allowable average floor area ratio for all three properties, to increase allowable height for future redevelopment of the 3601 Park Center Boulevard, and to allow a curb cut on the south edge of the 3601 Park Center Boulevard property (until such time as access consolidation could be achieved), and to adopt an overall Redevelopment Plan for the three properties; WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 03-139 on October 7, 2003 approving a Preliminary PUD for redevelopment of the 3601 Park Center Boulevard office building for a 150 unit senior housing condominium building and consolidating conditions from the PUD for 3601 and 3633 Park Center Boulevard and special permit for 3663 Park Center Boulevard granting Preliminary PUD approval for proposed and existing development of the Parkshore Campus at 3601, 3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard; and WHEREAS, a Final PUD was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 04-024 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated February 2, 2004 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now necessary, requiring the amendment of that Final PUD; and WHEREAS, it is also the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of Resolution Nos. 96-153, 96-189, 03-139, and 04-024 to add the amendments now required, to reference the required conditions of Resolution No. 99- 140, and thereby to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject properties into this resolution, and WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 86-20-SP, 96-16-PUD, 96-25-CUP, 99- 14-CP, 99-15-S, 99-16-V, 03-37-CP, 03-38-PUD, and 05-33-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 04-024 (filed as Document No. 8440134) is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a Final Planned Unit Development to the subject property for the purpose of permitting ___________________________________ within the R-C, Multi- Family Residential Zoning District at the location described above based on the following conditions: A. From special permit Res. 96-153 3663 Park Ctr. Blvd. (now also 3633 Park St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 8a - Park Summit Condos Page 11 Center Blvd.): 1. That the site be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A - Site Plan; Exhibit B - Ground Floor Plan; Exhibit C - Ground Floor Plan; Exhibit D - First Floor Plan; Exhibit E - Typical Floor Plan; Exhibit F - West Elevation and North Elevation; Exhibit G - East Elevation and South Elevation; and Exhibit H - Landscape Site Plan, (the floor plans are for general purposes only.) except as amended by conditions C. 1-11 adopted on February 2, 2004 and as modified by the following conditions: 2. The use of the site shall be for senior citizen housing containing 207 units. 3. That all trash be stored inside the building and there be no outdoor storage of trash or trash containers. 4. That all lighting be directed perpendicular to the ground and no direct rays shall extend beyond the property line. 5. That the driveway and private entrance contain concrete, poured-in-place curbing measuring six inches above and below the adjacent roadway surface. 6. That the upper portions of the ramp in the interior of the parking lot contain 5% landscaping and pedestrian circulation and additional ornamental trees be provided along the south and east lot lines as shown on the revised plan, and that up to 20 parking spaces be permitted to be eliminated to provide for the additional landscaping. 7. That erosion control provisions be employed during the construction phase to protect Wolfe Lake and to minimize erosion on the site and runoff of erosion material into other private or public property. 8. That the entrance road be designed and constructed in a manner so as to protect the City storm sewer system and as specified by the Director of Public Works. 9. That driveways be constructed at a grade not to exceed 6%. 10. That the link from the cul de sac to the sidewalk be constructed at a grade not to exceed 5% and that all other walkways be constructed at a grade not to exceed 4% and curb drops be provided at all intersections with the private and public roads. 11. That the east-west walkway along the north property line be at least as wide as the adjacent trail in Wolfe Park to which it is to link with. Said walkway to be extended by the applicant to the walkway in Wolfe Park and be lighted using decorative lighting to match the lighting in Wolfe Park. 12. That prior to construction, an easement be provided to the City permitting the five feet parallel to Park Center Boulevard to be used for pedestrian purposes and that a pedestrian easement approximately 25 feet wide be provided along the north property line for pedestrian purposes. (The width is wider to accommodate the curvilinear nature of the design.) 13. That all improvements including buildings, landscaping, parking, curbing and other improvements as contained on the improved exhibits be completed by May 15, 1988; however, if a certificate of full occupancy is received by September 1, 1987, all landscaping and other improvements must be completed by October 15, 1987. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 8a - Park Summit Condos Page 12 14. The continued special permit shall be amended pursuant to Planning Case No. 96-25-CUP to permit realignment of an existing trail and certain concrete curbs; construction of an additional sidewalk connection; and modifications to the approved landscape plan to allow construction of a 45 unit Assisted Living facility on 3633 Park Center Boulevard subject to the following conditions: a) The northern portion of the site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit I: Demolition Plan, Exhibit J: Site Plan, Exhibit K: Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Exhibit L: Landscape Plan such documents incorporated by reference herein. b) Prior to issuance of an erosion control permit and commencement of site work, a 14 feet wide trail easement shall be dedicated to the City in a form acceptable to the Director of Park and Recreation and the City Attorney. c) Prior to issuance of utility permits, details of the proposed storm sewer connection shall be approved by the City Engineer. d) Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit for the adjacent Assisted Living facility, the trail realignment shall be completed by the applicant in accordance with City specifications and in a manner acceptable to the Director of Park and Recreation, unless a letter of credit in an amount equal to 125% of the cost of said trail construction has been submitted in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. 15. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant prior to issuance of erosion control permit and commencement of site work. B. From Res. 96-189 final PUD for 3601 Park Center Blvd. (now also 3633 Park Center Blvd.): 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A: Demolition Plan, Exhibit B: Site Plan, Exhibit C: Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Exhibit D: Landscape Plan, Exhibits E and F: Elevations, Exhibit G: Fence, Enclosure Designs, except as amended by conditions C. 1-11 adopted on February 2, 2004, and the following conditions: a) Approval of the Final PUD does not grant any concept approval for future phases of development involving this property. b) Approval of the Final PUD is contingent upon City Council approval of an amendment to the Continued Special Permit for the Parkshore Place apartment property to address associated improvements involving that property; approval of the Final PUD is further contingent upon adherence by the applicant to any conditions of such Special Permit approval. c) Approval of the Final PUD includes modification of the lot width requirement in the "R-C" District from 80 feet to 40 feet and allows for administrative approval of a subdivision to create a separate lot for the Assisted Living property (3633 Park Center Boulevard) as shown on Exhibit B. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 8a - Park Summit Condos Page 13 d) Approval of the Final PUD is contingent upon termination of the drive thru bank lease, once the current term expires, and removal of the drive thru building. e) Evidence of Watershed District approval shall be submitted prior to issuance of erosion control and building permits; the project shall comply with other City, State, and Federal agency requirements as applicable. f) Final Utility Plans and evidence of property owner consent to sanitary sewer connections shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of utility and building permits. g) Samples of final building materials and colors and potential minor changes to the exhibits, as needed, shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of buildings permits. Use of vinyl siding is expressly prohibited. h) A development agreement between the applicant and EDA shall be executed prior to issuance of building permits. i) Irrigation and Site Lighting Plans (including photometric) shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits. j) Sprinkler and Fire Alarm Plans shall be approved by the Fire Marshall prior to issuance of building permits. k) Joint parking and access agreements between the office/bank property, Assisted Living Property, and Parkshore Place apartment property, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be executed prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit for the Assisted Living facility. l) All improvements shall be completed in a manner acceptable to the City prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit, except that a temporary Occupancy Permit may be issued prior to completion of landscaping improvements provided a letter of credit in an amount equal to 125% of the cost of said improvements is submitted in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. C. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on February 2, 2004 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and to grant Final PUD approval for a 150 unit senior condominium development (“Park Summit Condominiums”) at 3601 Park Center Boulevard and consolidation of access and related improvements at 3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Final PUD official exhibits, which shall include the revised Parking Structure plan sheet stamped as Received by the City December 22, 2003 and the Proposed Access and Internal Circulation Plan stamped as Received by the City December 30, 2003. The Proposed Access and Internal Circulation Plan may be revised based upon more detailed future roadway design work. The Official Exhibits shall also include the revised Description Sketch survey showing existing trail and roadway easements stamped as Received by the City January 16, 2004, and the revised Dimensional Site Plan stamped as St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 8a - Park Summit Condos Page 14 Received by the City on January 16, 2004. The Proposed Alternate Entrance on the Dimensional Site Plan is not approved. 2. Prior to any site work, including demolition, the developer shall meet the following requirements: a) Development and maintenance agreement(s) shall be executed between the developer and the City. The agreement(s) shall include, but not be limited to, conditions for the developer meeting the following requirements: i) Construction vehicles shall access the site from Hwy. 100, 36th Street, and Park Center Blvd. utilizing the interim curb cut as a left- in, right-out only. Construction vehicles shall not be permitted on Park Center Blvd. south of the senior condominium property. ii) Public sidewalk and trail construction. iii) Repair and cleaning of public streets. iv) Tree replacement. v) Constructing a consolidated driveway access to all three properties as shown conceptually on the Proposed Access and Internal Circulation Plan (dated December 30, 2003) of the Official Exhibits. vi) Cost sharing for the road improvements to Park Center Boulevard and the possible traffic signal at the consolidated access driveway. vii) On-going responsibility for maintaining the strip of park land located east of the condominium and west of the park access drive off of 36th Street. viii) Adherence to the parking management plan and requirements to convert the proof-of-parking spaces if directed by the City in response to on- or off-site parking problems. ix) Agreement to pay the equivalent of special service district fees previously paid by the office development for the 3601 Park Center Blvd. property. x) Adherence to required conditions in the homeowner’s association declaration documents. b) Submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of public sidewalk and trail installation, repair/cleaning of public streets/utilities, and tree replacement/landscaping. c) Required tree protection, erosion control fencing, trail closed signs, and safety fencing shall be in place and approved by the City prior to any grading and demolition activities. d) The homeowners association documents shall be as approved by the City Attorney and shall prohibit the rental or sale of guest parking spaces and the sale or rental of any parking spaces to non-residents. The homeowners association documents shall also address continued payment of Special Service District fees equivalent to fees previously paid by the office development at 3601 Park Center Blvd. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 8a - Park Summit Condos Page 15 e) Record all cross-easement agreements for utilities and drainage for the three lots within the PUD and record any required changes to the joint parking and access agreements, maintenance agreement, and trail easement. f) Reimburse the City for City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents. g) Obtain demolition, work in the right of way and erosion control permits, Watershed District permit and other necessary permits from the City and other agencies. h) Sign Assent Form and Official Exhibits. i) Meet City and Public Works Department requirements for utility connections and disconnects, including pavement restoration, protection of sidewalk, trail, lighting and streetscape elements and replacement of any damaged elements, j) Meet solar shading requirements or obtain approval of a variance. k) Meet any other conditions of the development agreement required prior to site work. 3. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the developer shall comply with the following: a) Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements during construction. b) Building materials samples to be submitted to and approved by the City. c) Lighting plans, including photometrics to be submitted to and approved by the City for the entire development. Lighting design is to be compatible throughout the development, and shall meet all City standards. d) Meet any other conditions as required by the Development Agreement prior to building permit. 4. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a) All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. b) Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times. c) The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties including the City aquatic facility. d) Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. e) Construction vehicles are prohibited from entering the site from park land property. f) The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 8a - Park Summit Condos Page 16 becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. g) A left-in, right-out temporary construction entrance is allowed on the 3601 Park Center Blvd. property (Lot 1) in accordance with the approved grading plan and Condition C.2.a) i) of this resolution. 5. A PUD modification to allow a sign setback of 15 feet is approved subject to approval of a sign permit. Sign permits are required prior to installation of any temporary or permanent signs and shall include designation of guest parking spaces. 6. The developer shall comply with the following conditions prior to occupancy of the senior condominium building: a) All permanent site and building improvements shall be complete, other than landscaping, and a letter of credit for 125% of the cost of landscaping shall be submitted. b) Submit as-built plans to the City in electronic or Mylar format for all civil infrastructure. c) Meet any other conditions as required by the development agreement prior to occupancy. d) If reasonably possible, complete improvements in Condition 7. Otherwise, make the temporary construction access "permanent" until such time as the consolidated access is completed. 7. The developer agrees to close the driveway access on the 3601 Park Center Blvd property (Lot 1), repair the right-of-way, and construct the consolidated PUD access, at developer's or property owners' expense, at the time of reconstruction of Park Center Blvd. adjacent to the PUD site. 8. The developer or property owners agree to pay a fair share of any future traffic signal at the consolidated PUD access. 9. The developer or property owners agree to continue paying the equivalent of special service district fees previously paid by the office development at 3601 Park Center Blvd. 10. The developer or property owners agree to comply with the conditions of Resolution 99-102, including but not limited to cooperation with the City regarding future construction of the north-south roadway and additional trail construction on the 3663 Park Center Blvd. property (Lot 3). 11. The developer or property owner(s) shall pay an administrative fine of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. D. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on August 15, 2005 to incorporate St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 8a - Park Summit Condos Page 17 all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: 1. No age restrictions shall be placed on future residents at the Park Summit Condominiums, to be located at 3601 Park Center Boulevard. 2. At the time of the construction of the Park Summit Condominiums, the developer shall construct the consolidated PUD access to the site, including all internal circulation patterns required as part of the original PUD. 3. The developer shall be allowed to maintain the separate entrance to 3601 Park Center Boulevard until such time as the City reconstructs Park Center Boulevard. 4. The developer shall provide a minimum of 255 parking spaces for the 150-unit condominium building at 3601 Park Center Boulevard. A minimum of 240 of those spaces shall be provided underground. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit. Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements. Adopted by the City Council August 15, 2005 ___________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Reviewed for Administration: St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 081505 - 8a - Park Summit Condos Page 18 _______________________________ City Manager