Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/09/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, September 6, 2005 7:30 p.m. Council Chambers 7:15 p.m. EDA Meeting 1. Call to Order a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call 2. Presentations a. Evergreen Awards b. EVR Grant Award – Commissioner Dorfman 3. Approval of Minutes a. City Council Minutes of August 15, 2005 b. City Council Study Session Minutes of August 15, 2005 c. City Council Study Session Minutes of July 25, 2005 d. City Council Study Session Minutes of August 1, 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 - nond 6. Public Hearings 6a. 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. 6b. Public Hearing to consider a wine and beer license for YUM!, Inc., operating at 4000 Minnetonka Blvd. Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve the wine and beer license for YUM! Inc. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Approve preliminary property tax levy and budget for the 2006 fiscal year, revisions to the 2005 adopted budget, set Public Hearing date for proposed budget and property tax levy, and approve HRA levy for taxes payable in 2006 Resolution approving the preliminary property tax levy and budget is required by Truth in Taxation legislation. Information contained in the resolution will appear on the individual tax notices prepared by the County. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolutions establishing the preliminary tax levy and budget for 2006, approves revisions to the 2005 adopted budget, sets public hearing date for proposed budget and property tax levy, and approves preliminary HRA levy for taxes payable in 2006. 8b. First Reading of an Ordinance amending Section 24-342 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances relating to snow removal on public sidewalks revising effective accumulation depth to reflect current and past city practices. Recommended Action: Motion to approve First Reading of proposed Ordinance Code text amendments related to Snow Removal on Public Sidewalks and set Second Reading for September 19, 2005. 8c. Request of RKL Landholdings, LLC (Emad Abed) and ARCA for Preliminary and Final Plat approval for “MODA of St. Louis Park” and Preliminary and Final PUD approval for Meadowbrook Lofts for property located at 7000, 7002, 7050, 7052 Excelsior Boulevard and 3985 Meadowbrook Road. Case Nos. 05-44-PUD and 05-45-S Description: Plat property, construct a 6-story, 107 unit condominium project, mitigate existing floodplain and wetland Recommended Action: ü Motion to approve resolution for Preliminary and Final Plat for “MODA of St. Louis Park” ü Motion to approve resolution for Preliminary and Final PUD for Meadowbrook Lofts 8d. Request by Sam’s Club for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a retail store in excess of 20,000 square feet in the C-2 General Commercial Zoning District Case No. 05-46-CUP 7115 W. Lake St. and 3745 Louisiana Ave. S. Recommended Action: • Motion to adopt a resolution of approval for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a retail store in excess of 20,000 square feet in the C-2 General Commercial Zoning District, subject to conditions recommended by staff. 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 September 6, 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 approve a contract with Three Rivers Park District to clear and remove snow from the LRT and Cedar Lake Extension Trails through the City of St. Louis Park for 2005-2006 winter season 4b Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Minor Amendment to Park Tavern’s Special Permit to allow a change in security requirements relating to an approved building addition 4c Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Cool Air Mechanical, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $85,200.00 for the 2005 Police Department HVAC Upgrade Project - Project No. 2005-1600. 4d Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Total Construction & Equipment, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $553,740.00 for the purchase and installation of standby natural gas generators at Water Treatment Plant No. 1 & 4 including ASD Alternate #4 - Project No. 2005-1500. 4e Motion to adopt resolution approving the preliminary and final plat of Belt Line Industrial Park Third. Case Nos. 05-38-S. 5100 36th Street 4f Motion to adopt the attached resolution rescinding parking restrictions along the north side of Walker Street adjacent to Louisiana Oaks Park. 4g City Engineer’s Report: Alley Paving – 2900 block between Ottawa and Princeton Avenues – Motion to adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report, establishes this Improvement Project, directs staff to proceed with an informational meeting with abutting property owners, and sets a Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing date of September 19, 2005. – Project No. 2005-1800. 4h Approve plans and specifications for the reconstruction of the parking lot at Cedar Knoll Park and authorize solicitation of bids for the project 4i Approve plans and specifications for the purchase and installation of a generator for the Rec Center and authorize solicitation of bids for the project 4j Motion to accept Housing Authority Minutes of June 8, 2005 for filing 4k Motion to accept Planning Commission Minutes of August 3, 2005 for filing 4l Motion to Accept Vendor Claim Report for Filing (Supplement) AGENDA SUPPLEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 6, 2005 Items contained in this section are those items which are not yet available in electronic format and which are identified in the individual reports by inclusion of the word “Supplement”. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3a - City Council Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA August 15, 2005 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Jim Brimeyer, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger and Sue Santa Staff present: Associate Planner (Mr. Fulton), City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Civic TV Coordinator (Mr. Dunlap), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Community TV Coordinator (Mr. McHugh), Director of Technology and Support Services (Mr. Pires), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations 2a. Day One Celebration Alex Byers, Day One Committee, invited council and community members to welcome students back to school on Thursday, September 1st. Mayor Jacobs commented this is a great event that people should attend and thanked organizers. 2b. Junior Leader Program John Bartholow, Park and Recreation Dept. Playground Leader, presented certificates to participants of the Junior Leader Program. Mayor Jacobs thanked Junior Leaders and their families. 2c. Presentation of Met Council TBRA Grant – Peggy Leppik Commissioner Leppik presented a Tax Based Revitalization Account for clean up of contaminated soils. The County and State had also approved matching grants. Mayor Jacobs thanked the Met Council and Hennepin County Representatives for the $4.75 million grant to assist in clean up of the National Lead site. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of August 1, 2005 Councilmember Finkelstein noted on page five, the second full paragraph should be “several page explanations of what they will let people do. Four lines down, it should St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3a - City Council Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 2 read, “but that Mr. Webber would be there 24 hours…” and “they had a concern about going forward that they might go from one smoking lounge to five or six and ultimately all of us in the community paying the costs of this.” In the last paragraph of page ten, instead of “adding”, it should be “limiting” after hour drops. Councilmember Sanger noted in item 8d, 6th paragraph, insert "was concerned" after, “She goes through … to make a left turn”. The minutes were approved as corrected. 3b. Study Session Minutes of July 11, 2005 Councilmember Sanger indicated in the seventh paragraph of item one, insert "unless the resulting lots were in compliance with the current zoning requirements" after “Councilmember Sanger was opposed to any...” Mr. Harmening indicated on page three in the first sentence, it states, “partial projects need to be 1.5 miles long” and it should be “.5 miles long”. The minutes were approved as corrected. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 4a Adopt Resolution No. 05-108 appointing election judges for the Primary and General Elections to be held September 13 and November 8, 2005 4b Adopt Ordinance No. 2299-05 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, approve second reading. approve summary, and authorize publication. Case No. 05-29-Z 4c Approve Resolution No. 05-109 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 Adopt Resolution No. 05-110 support for Trunk Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue Interchange Improvements 4e Adopt Resolution No. 05-111 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 Adopt Resolution No. 05-112 accepting construction of enclosed park building and open picnic shelter at oak hill park contract no. 50-04 4g Accept Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes of May 11, 2005 for filing 4h Accept Telecommunications Commission Minutes of May 5, 2005 for filing 4i Accept Planning Commission Minutes of July 5, 2005 for filing St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3a - City Council Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 3 4j Adopt Resolution No. 05-113 authorizing the installation of stop signs on Cedar Lake Road at Quentin Avenue, Traffic Study No. 598 4k Accept vendor claims for filing (supplement) It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, 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. Proposed Transfer of Cable Television System Mr. Dunlap indicated there would be a report at the end of the month regarding Time Warner’s franchise fee review and the legal, technical and financial ability of Comcast to operate the new cable system. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to continue the public hearing to September 19, 2005. The motion passed 7-0. 6b. Time Warner Cable TV Franchise Renewal Update Mr. Pires indicated the Council received a status report of the franchise renewal. Subsequent to the receipt of the report, a proposal was made by Time Warner and additional information provided that staff was reviewing. Based on preliminary review, they see significant progress on the various business points. Staff recommended the public hearing be continued to September 6th. Brian Grogan, Moss and Barnett, stated timing was fairly crucial. A concerns was that they cannot use the past performance issues of Time Warner against Comcast once they approve the transfer. If they don’t get the renewal done and are unable to negotiate informally, the transfer deadline comes October 15th. If they accept it, they would be served by Comcast and could not hold them responsible for Time Warner actions. They need to protect the City’s rights. On September 6th they will come forward with options and return on September 19th to reconsider the transfer. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. Phillip Hogland, 2716 Vernon Av. S, concerned that Time Warner was under obligation to offer multiple ISP choices and would like Comcast to offer multiple ISP choices. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3a - City Council Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Pires noted the franchise agreement only applied to television and did not apply to other Information Services. Mr. Grogan indicated that an Information Service is also a broadband or high-speed data service. The Federal government classified that as an information service meaning it is only regulated at the federal level. Despite the fact that the Council may wish to impose requirements to have a greater numbers of ISPs or to otherwise affect how these companies deliver information services, the Federal government preempts that authority and they would have to take those arguments to them. Mr. Hogland indicated he was under the impression that a Supreme Court ruling said that the FCC could not require cable companies to carry more than one ISP and could be accomplished through contractual means. Mr. Grogan responded that the Brand X case was about whether or not the FCC had authority to impose this regulation which was a declaratory ruling classifying broadband services and information services. They said that the FCC had authority to regulate this type of service. You can do a lot by contract, if not preempted by State or Federal law. If they said the transfer is not effective unless Comcast provides a certain number of ISP choices, it would not be an enforceable obligation because it runs contrary to Federal law. They could voluntarily enter into such an agreement, or chose to provide the ISP’s, but the City of St. Louis Park lacks the authority to impose that requirement. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Sanger asked if they have indication of Comcast’s intention regarding multiple ISP’s? Mr. Grogan responded in questions raised throughout the Country, the answer was, “you don’t have a right to ask the question, because you don’t have authority.” They hadn’t gotten a written answer because the position of the Companies has been that is outside the purview of their regulatory review and “off-limits.” Councilmember Brimeyer asked if they only have some small negotiating points like local access and local studios? Mr. Pires responded laws have changed significantly in the last 20-30 years. The real question becomes what is negotiable and what have they had in St. Louis Park and what can they convince Time Warner to continue? Councilmember Brimeyer asked if they couldn’t come to an agreement, does FCC say that they wouldn’t have cable? Mr. Grogan replied no, the FCC has no authority to franchise a cable operator, that was done at a local level. Companies need written authorization from the Council to run a cable system, which expires August 27th. They need an extension if they chose to continue, otherwise the company would probably exercise legal rights to seek an injunction to continue to operate. If both parties say no, there are two ways to handle it. Informally, but if they both say no, that can’t be done. The other is more formal, where they put down their written needs and interests and the past performance of the operator and the operator submits a written proposal. The company can challenge the decision. That was what staff was preparing them for. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3a - City Council Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 5 Councilmember Brimeyer asked if the Council says no and the company pulls out or they go to court, can the court order the City to allow them to operate? Is that the final recourse? Mr. Grogan replied yes, a court ultimately decides whether you were right or wrong to grant or deny the franchise. There were only three reported cases in the country in the last twenty years where a company has been denied renewal. In those cases, there is a fair amount of deference given to local elected officials to decide what is right for their community. The likelihood of any company walking away from a sizable investment and infrastructure and subscriber counts is slim and none. They just wanted to make sure that the local interests are properly protected. Councilmember Finkelstein stated they need the Councils permission to convert the ownership to Comcast at the same time they were trying to negotiate their agreement for cable TV watchers. An important part of the negotiation is retaining the right to local origination which is about 20 hours/week covering community events. They have also had a local studio allowing people to do independent programming. He didn’t believe they wanted to have the fourth reported case in the County or set that precedent and they would come to a deal. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if they became the fourth case, was there another cable company for this market? Mr. Grogan replied it would be unprecedented that the parties wouldn’t ultimately resolve the dispute. Even in cases where they have gone to court and a decision had gone down favorable to cities, cities have never lost in court as it relates to a franchise non-renewal. It is highly unlikely they would see a gap in service. If the City prevails, Time Warner or Comcast could walk away, but with a sizeable asset, he didn’t think they would. Councilmember Brimeyer stated they needed to work to an agreement. Mr. Grogan indicated settlement was always the best alternative. The question that will be left to staff and ultimately the Council is whether the offer that the company puts forward is acceptable and how hard they want to fight to make sure the offer is acceptable. Councilmember Basill thanked staff for their continued work. Local origination is important for this community and for the children. Keep negotiating for it. Mr. Pires replied they would keep working at it and that players on the other side of the table understand the importance of local origination as well. Mayor Jacobs agreed it was a big deal. A lot of people watch these channels and it is a very important issue and an integral part of who we are and the way we operate. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to continue the public hearing and extend the term of the franchise agreement to September 6, 2005 The motion passed 7-0. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3a - City Council Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 6 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 3601 Park Center Boulevard Case No. 05-33-PUD Mr. Fulton presented the staff report. Councilmember Santa recalled when this was initially discussed she had concerns about sufficient guest parking and about using some of the attached parking spaces. Would that continue to be an option with this proposal? Mr. Fulton replied there is more parking at the assisted living and at the apartment. One of the conditions of approval is for a connection in the parking areas to use some of those for guest parking. Councilmember Finkelstein stated this project came before the Planning Commission over two and a half years ago. It was approved at that time as a senior condominium project. That was what they used to get it approved. Instead, this is another condo adding more traffic and congestion to an area that is ill equipped to handle it. He thought it was ill advised. They were still giving them a 15% parking reduction when they would have an additional 100 trips a day. This isn’t the deal they approved and he didn’t think they were obligated to approve this. Councilmember Sanger asked Mr. Gould to explain why they wanted this change? Mike Gould, SilverCrest Properties, replied the market had changed. As they developed the market study and the site, an age restricted building versus non age restricted buildings, they came to the conclusion that even though their market would be empty nesters, the risk involved in trying to segment it out as an age restricted building is huge. They were told not to have the age restriction. Parking and traffic issues would still be met within the constraints they initially had. Additional parking could still be used in the same way they talked about before. They would probably make minor adjustments to units to make some more affordable. Councilmember Sanger stated if this is not targeted at seniors, one of the pushes they have in the community is to have bigger units to accommodate families. Do you plan to have larger units to accommodate families? Mr. Gould replied they had not finalized the unit mix. Given the constraints of the size of the building and the number of units, they would need to stay with much the same unit mix. Councilmember Sanger asked if they would consider having some larger units? Mr. Gould responded some of the units were approximately 2500 square feet. Councilmember Omodt recalled last time he and Councilmember Basill voted against this was primarily for height and traffic concerns. The tunnel between the two buildings was to ease parking. Was that something they were still thinking about? Mr. Gould replied St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3a - City Council Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 7 when they were initially looking at the tunnel, they were looking at moving services back and forth between the assisted living and the senior condo. Councilmember Basill asked the price point? Mr. Gould replied $250,000 - $700,000. Councilmember Finkelstein asked the applicant if it had been over two years ago when they were here? Mr. Gould replied it had been a length of time. They never finished the development agreement. When they started this, it was not going to be a senior building. It was originally slated to be a market rate facility. Since that time the marketplace has changed and there aren’t a lot of age restrictions for condominiums. They were still going to target seniors and felt empty nesters would be a big portion of the residents, they just couldn’t have the restriction. Councilmember Finkelstein asked what their current plans were for finishing this? Mr. Gould replied they were prepared to move forward now. The development agreement needed to be finished with the City. Councilmember Basill believed this was a policy question. The Council had an outside agency perform study, which states in the conclusions: Don’t allow any one site to overload the market with a lot of units at once; Try to spread out new projects over several years, ideally through the remainder of the decade; and, keep projects spread out geographically. Current proposals are fairly well distributed. There were parking issues with the tunnel not being there. Traffic was going from 396 to 627 daily trips. They needed to study this further with the condo study to see if it made sense to have market rate condominiums and an additional fourteen-story building. He was also concerned about Equity Marketing saying, “While a significant number of eventual buyers currently reside in St. Louis Park, the communities population size alone cannot sustain a successful sales program.” They also talked about providing senior housing for residents of St. Louis Park. A building this size would take people from outside the community, which was OK, but they had to look at the balance of traffic and at the condo market globally and where they were positioned. They needed more time. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to continue the item to the soonest date feasible to allow further discussion at a study session. Mayor Jacobs asked if there was a time frame? Ms. McGonigal responded it could be extended an additional 60 days. Councilmember Basill stated 60 days to study this would make sure they understood what this meant. Mr. Gould responded they had been in the community for a long time and they were willing to work with them. Ms. McGonigal requested the Council indicate what information they were looking for. Mayor Jacobs replied they had talked about how this fit with the condominium study and the impact traffic would have, and parking. There were also concerns raised about height the last time. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3a - City Council Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 8 Councilmember Sanger added there was also a discussion last time regarding the cross traffic between the three buildings. With the additional vehicles associated with a non- age restricted building, would they anticipate more cross traffic and would that clog the driveways for people making turns in and out? Councilmember Finkelstein stated when they were discussing this with the three separate buildings and the common campus, they also discussed Target and working in new drive- in and drive-outs. Mr. Harmening indicated they should also look at the overall PUD. To provide for the densities on this site, they created a PUD that involved all three parcels. That may have been done based on the assumption this would be a senior campus. Councilmember Brimeyer stated they could get past the height issue because they reluctantly agreed to that. Those that voted for this anticipated it would be senior housing. He would go along with the motion, but not without direction. The only factors for additional discussion were traffic and parking impacts, which can be looked at separately. They should demonstrate parking was handled. The marketplace does what it wants to and he didn’t think government controlled that. If age restricted housing or non- age was good for the market restricted, he didn’t care. They could take their chance. If they didn’t occupy them, that was their problem. The other issue was in terms of a land use and as a policy issue if ten years from now they say this is a quality senior campus, which was what they started out with. Councilmember Basill indicated they should defer this for the reasons about the senior housing and if they wanted to change that concept. They were making significant changes and needed to look back at the PUD. They were eliminating the tunnel and needed to know the effect. They were increasing traffic. Where was that going to go? The policy question of condos was a larger issue. It was their issue if a building fails or if they didn’t do a good job of where they put condos. There are a number of condo proposals and they needed look at the study and find a balance. What happens to the building that fails and the neighboring properties when those properties turn from good to blight? They needed to talk about this more. Councilmember Brimeyer disagreed. Whether this or any other building failed, if no public money is involved, he didn’t think it was governments concern. They built office buildings in the 1990’s and there is 17-20% vacancy rate. Were they concerned about that as a government? No. They shouldn’t use that as an argument. Councilmember Finkelstein stated their bad investment is their decision, but after they are done with the development and condos have been sold, the community and the condominium project are still here. It is an appropriate role for government to look into the future and say, “What are we doing to be stewards of our community?” It was their job. Councilmember Sanger wanted to understand the larger market forces turning away from senior condos. In the housing summit process they talked about the need to have more senior housing to attract seniors and create more single-family homes for families. If that was not a viable concept, they needed to know for community planning purposes. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3a - City Council Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 9 Councilmember Finkelstein believed they had an obligation to get their own information and do their own analysis. Mr. Gould indicated Tom Malkyer does most of the studies in the Twin Cities for condominiums and other housing. Tom Malkyer, Larson, Allen, Wisher, stated it was his idea to drop the age restriction because the absorption rate for senior condos is slow. With a150-unit project it becomes a big deal. A prudent lender won’t give them their money until 50 or 60% of the units are sold. Once the building is built and up and they can see it, sales accelerate. To wait for 75 units to be sold from seniors who want to see the product, could be very difficult. The other important issue is that most of the market is still going to be people over age 55. The project will be a high-end condominium building attracting mostly empty nesters. That was not to say there wouldn’t be younger people, but the majority of residents would be over 55 and therefore would fulfill the idea of an older adult type campus. Councilmember Finkelstein noted in yesterday’s newspaper, they were talking about everyone going after the $300-$500,000 condominium and studies are showing that sales are dramatically slowing. Mr. Malkyer replied from his work, he didn’t see that sales were dramatically slowing. There is a slow down, it has gone from white hot to hot. This is an excellent location and very desirable for all ages. Having the senior campus already in place will be a marketing tool for older adults who would want to live there. The idea is to broaden the market to make the pre-sale requirement easier. Councilmember Brimeyer believed the community needed to dictate and drive what they wanted to see in ten years, no matter what the market says. There were other occasions where the Council wanted something different than the developer proposed and they had a right to say it. Mr. Malkyer said that they could market a market-rate, non-age restricted complex or development quicker than they could an age restricted, which told him that a senior age restricted development is saleable, although not as fast. One of the compromises could be that they agree that a certain percentage be age-restricted so that it is still seen as primarily a senior campus with options for other people. Mayor Jacobs felt the idea of deferring this to talk about it made sense given the changes in the project. It made sense to talk about traffic, parking and the land use. There were assumptions made about the senior part of this that lead to the height, the number of units, the amount of traffic, the amount of parking and now those assumptions have changed. He didn’t disagree that they would probably market this largely to an over 50 crowd because of the nature of what was next to it. Can they do a date certain? Mr. Harmening responded they had a time period under which they had to make a decision. The City Attorney has indicated this could be continued without specifying a specific date, other than to say that staff should bring it back when they are ready and to the soonest date feasible. The motion passed 7-0. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3a - City Council Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 10 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs reported on the incident at Excelsior Boulevard and the fuel spill. Emergency response staff contained the spill quickly and he commended them. His understanding was that no one was hurt. Mr. Harmening added with the help of the PCA, they were able to contain all of the fuel that dumped into the storm sewer system before it got to Bass Lake. They were taking precautions and monitoring to be sure it hadn’t gotten there. They were in the process of cleaning out the storm system. Mayor Jacobs thanked staff and the neighborhoods for another successful National Night Out. Councilmember Basill attended the Park and Rec Twilight Swim and Skate, which was a great event. He commended Park and Rec Commission. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3b - Study Session Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION August 15, 2005 The meeting convened at 6:32 p.m. Councilmembers present: John Basill, Jim Brimeyer, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Finance Director (Ms. McGann) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 1. 2006 Budget and 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Program Ms. McGann noted at the last meeting, they were over $600,000 out of balance, now it was down to $154,000. New assumptions were that 3% of the operating levy would be a general operations increase and 4% for infrastructure and improvements. 2.53% was included as a property tax levy increase, thus they would not have to renegotiate or increase franchise fees. Ms. McGann indicated $1.5 million to fund programs would be collected in advance for the next year. They would maintain a $600,000 reserve. The 2.53% increase would be tax deductible. Councilmember Brimeyer had a problem because they sold the program on franchise fees, and would be going back on their word. People like pockets of money for pockets of projects. If it goes down, pavement management might need to be less aggressive. He suggested there be an increase in franchise fees and utility rates and no increase in property taxes. Councilmember Omodt asked if franchise fees were stable? Ms. McGann replied at this point in time. The only way a fee can increase is if the Public Utility Commission does an increase or to renegotiate franchise agreements with utility companies. Mr. Harmening stated that Centerpoint could increase fees $.50. An agreement was put in place with Excel in 1997 and would have to be renegotiated. The franchise fee was more stable than a levy. Public Works staff believed either they do pavement management or they don’t. If they levy “x dollars”, they need to stick with it. Ms. McGann indicated there would be a transfer of funds to the pavement management program in ‘05-’06 and they would need to find alternate funding. Councilmember Sanger asked if they would still have the option to renegotiate franchise fees in the future or if it was either/or? Mr. Harmening indicated they have levy limits. Councilmember Sanger stated that was a reason to add to the levy now. She was concerned about difficulties renegotiating with the utility companies and the criticism for doing that. Councilmember Brimeyer would rather work with utility companies than upset citizens. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3b - Study Session Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 2 Councilmember Santa noted when they negotiate with utilities companies, there were a lot of issues about charges. Mayor Jacobs hadn’t gotten complaints about that. Councilmember Santa believed most people were OK with that, but a tax is a tax. Councilmember Basill stated unless they were getting rid of it, if they did a levy and eliminated franchise fees, people want to know how much they were paying and not being "nickeled and dimed" with fees. Did one of the two utilities not have to pay? Councilmember Santa responded Excel didn’t pay as many permit fees. Mr. Harmening stated Minnegasco had the most underground utilities and paid the bulk of the fees. Councilmember Sanger believed whether they did franchise fees or not, they still raise taxes and would take heat. Her preference was to raise taxes and not franchise fees. Mayor Jacobs would go either way. The question was which was better and more efficient. Councilmember Brimeyer argued for a dedicated funding source and to raise the franchise fee. Councilmember Finkelstein preferred the method designed by Ms. McGann and wanted to continue pavement management. Councilmember Basill asked which protects it most? A future Council could change or eliminate a levy. Mr. Harmening responded they could use it for general operations in the future. Ms. McGann stated each year they allocate a portion of the general levy to the park improvement fund. They continue to fund capital improvements. Even when there is a budget crisis, they still fund the infrastructure. Mr. Harmening stated they could certify a preliminary levy and talk about it more and if necessary, drop it later. People will see the potential 7% levy increase. Councilmember Sanger asked what the percentage would be without this? Ms. McGann replied 4.58%. Councilmember Finkelstein indicated on the debt services and general principals, where do you get concerned? Ms. McGann replied the debt margin looks at overall tax capacity. St. Louis Park is well below and the amount outstanding was very low. The current outstanding is issued for ten years. Councilmember Finkelstein noted they should keep it under 10% and asked if there was a way to tell if there was too much TIF? Ms. McGann responded that was not reflected with this. Mr. Harmening indicated with pavement management, 6.98%. Should staff certify that preliminarily? The Council preferred a flat rate of 7% (3% operation and 4% capital). St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3b - Study Session Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 3 Councilmember Brimeyer indicated they could say that it was in lieu of an increase to the franchise fees. Councilmember Santa said that some would see it as a regressive tax because it is a flat tax. Ms. McGann indicated an average value home in 2005, would have an increase of $95-100, with a 7% property tax increase. If it were only 5%, it wouldn’t go down much. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if they allocate a percentage or dollar amount? Ms. McGann replied the percentage was 1% additional for parks and recreation. Pavement management is based on a dollar amount. They figured $415,000 based on a five year CIP. She projected over a longer period to allow adequate cash flows. Park and Recreation did a ten-year master plan, which was $1 million a year for five years and $1.5 million after. Councilmember Finkelstein requested that staff provide a written iteration regarding the Park Improvement fund, not just a project list. Ms. McGann replied staff would provide that August 22nd. Councilmember Sanger asked if the figures included expansion of the Rec Center? Ms. McGann replied no, it was part of the general obligation bond. Councilmember Santa asked if they could provide more information when they replace park equipment and how often it is required. Ms. McGann would direct the request to Ms. Walsh. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if there was a time frame to use the bonds? Ms. McGann replied there is a three-year spend down. Councilmember Finkelstein asked what they could consider park improvements? Ms. McGann replied it was a pretty broad definition. Ms. McGann reported on the general operating budget. The Council requested there be a liaison officer for the junior high. They incorporated a .5 time officer. They analyzed the revenue collections and future development projects to see if things were adequate. Councilmember Sanger asked what was cut? Ms. McGann replied they reviewed items such as maintenance contracts, revenue from permit and license fees. Mr. Harmening stated that revenue, reassessment, cuts or reapportionment would pay for one time items in 2005, not 2006. Councilmember Sanger asked if they were changing other major assumptions? Ms. McGann replied allocation regarding wages. Her wages come from the general fund and EDA. They analyzed her duties and were now increasing the EDA percentages. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3b - Study Session Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 4 Councilmember Santa asked if the School District was willing to assist with funding the liaison officer? Mr. Harmening responded they might reconsider and discuss it. Councilmember Brimeyer asked about other additional staff. That is a permanent fixed cost. He requested a one-page description on what would happen if they didn’t have a position and what was not getting done. Ms. McGann reported on the police and fire pension fund. In 2004 the total transfer to support dispatch, GIS and other goals was $765,500. There was a 50% decrease in overall reliance. The hope is to decrease that. If you look at dispatch, in 2004 the general fund funded 23%. In 2006, it is up to 39%. Anything left at end of year goes to the technical fund. If they eliminate reliance for dispatch, would need $300,000 (2%) additional property tax to pay for that. They are working with the Chief on a master plan for the funds. Mr. Harmening stated the next expense was likely for a fire station upgrade. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if there were restrictions on how it is used? Mr. Harmening replied for Police and Fire Programs and public safety. Councilmember Sanger asked if there was a deadline? Mr. Harmening replied no. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they could use it to fund wireless for the Police? Mr. Harmening replied conceivably they could. Ms. McGann indicated they could, but they didn’t have to. Councilmember Brimeyer using it for 800 MgHz and $300,000 to fund dispatch, will that get into principal? Ms. McGann responded $500,000 does. Councilmember Sanger asked if that included re-roofing? Ms. McGann indicated they allocated part of that to the 2005 GO bond. It can be reallocated, but is minimal expense. They should have a big plan for the dollars. Ms. McGann stated she would round the property tax increase to 7%. People would receive notice around November 1st. Councilmember Basill asked which was better from a marketing standpoint? Mayor Jacobs indicated people needed to justify what they were paying for. Ms. McGann stated that next week the entire packet would be given to Council to see the proposals. If need to talk about special projects, they will schedule a meeting in September. The meeting adjourned at 7:23 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3c - Study Session Minutes July 25, 2005 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 25, 2005 The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m. St. Louis Park Councilmembers Present: John Basill, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, Paul Omodt, Sue Sanger, Jim Brimeyer and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Golden Valley Councilmembers Present: Mike Freiberg, Scott Grayson, Paula Pentel, Bob Shaffer and Mayor Linda Loomis. St. Louis Park Staff Present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening); City Planner (Mr. Fulton); Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal); Community Development Director (Mr. Locke); (Mr. Morrisson); and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert). Golden Valley Staff Present: City Manager (Mr. Burt); City Attorney (Mr. Barnard); Assistant City Manager (Ms. Andre); Public Works Director (Ms. Clancy); Community Development Director (Mr. Grimes). 1. Joint Meeting of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley City Councils Joint Golden Valley and St. Louis Park I-394 Traffic Management Ordinance The purpose of the discussion was to review the current status of the ordinance and whether any changes may be appropriate. Mr. Barnard provided an historical background on the overlay district. Marie Cote of SRF provided an overview of a recent traffic analysis. Councilmember Grayson asked if the service levels included in the original ordinance are still valid. Mr. Harmening responded that the SLP Comprehensive Plan states that a level D is acceptable, but that level of service is not preferred. Councilmember Sanger stated that the original intent was for the ordinance to be evaluated annually. That was not happening. Councilmember Finkelstein asked how the ordinance would apply in the event Duke Realty submitted a development proposal. Mr. Harmening responded that when any proposal comes in the Task Force is called to study the traffic impacts of the development. The Task Force had met 3-4 times during the past 10 years. The original intent of the ordinance was not to ensure equal development on either side, but was intended to allow for collaboration in addressing impacts of the development from both cities’ perspective. Councilmember Brimeyer also pointed out that the ordinance applies only to office development. Under the current ordinance, if a proposal for retail or residential uses were proposed the ordinance provisions would not apply. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3c - Study Session Minutes July 25, 2005 Page 2 Councilmember Pentel asked if the ordinance should be revised to include other kinds of development, such as hotel or housing. Mr. Harmening responded that it would be difficult to include other uses as the ordinance was intended to apply to peak traffic times. Hotel, retail and housing would not necessarily affect peak travel times. Councilmember Pentel believed that adding other uses to the ordinance would help to get developers to the table in terms of offering enhanced transit options for residents and customers. Councilmember Finkelstein agreed, saying that the current ordinance presupposes that all travel will be by automobile. There are other transit options that developers could be providing enhancements for. Perhaps bus shelters, ped crossings and the like should be considered, as well. Mayor Loomis stated that revisions to the ordinance could provide opportunities to help make transit more convenient. Mr. Locke stated that St. Louis Park ordinances already exist related to transit planning, but they are not necessarily tied to the Travel Demand Management Ordinance. Councilmember Grayson asked if it was possible to add incentives for better transit planning. Mayor Jacobs asked for suggestions for next steps in reviewing the ordinance. Councilmember Pentel suggested looking at the effects of other uses on the p.m. peak and to also look at the a.m. peak. Councilmember Sanger suggested reconvening the Task Force to study the ordinance and make a report to the combined councils at a later date. She also was in favor of considering the a.m. peak. Councilmember Grayson asked that recommended enhancements to transit in the area be included in that study. Mr. Harmening summarized stating that staff would move toward reconvening the task force. Minneapolis West Joint Powers Agreement The two city councils discussed efforts to prepare a joint powers agreement between Golden Valley and St. Louis Park to deal with issues of land use approvals, permitting, service delivery, property taxes, etc. A draft agreement had been created in the recent past, but efforts to finalize that agreement had stalled due to staff changes. Mr. Harmening and Mr. Barnard suggested renewal of efforts to form the JPA. Mr. Harmening presented a history of the negotiations as well as an overview of provisions contained in the draft agreement. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3c - Study Session Minutes July 25, 2005 Page 3 Councilmember Pentel asked how public safety issues would be addressed. Mr. Harmening responded that the cities of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park already shared dispatch services and operated under a mutual aid agreement for emergency service deliver. Response on either side of the freeway would not change from the current model. Councilmember Sanger was concerned about a possible 16th Street Extension. Mayor Loomis believed that the developer should be responsible for costs associated with roadway changes and that neither city should be required to contribute to a roadway required by a developer. Councilmember Grayson believed that the JPA should be in place prior to a development proposal coming forward. He agreed with the currently proposed provisions in concept and would like to see the agreement finalized. Mr. Locke asked whether the two councils believed staff should move forward with negotiations. Both Mayor Jacobs and Mayor Loomis agreed that staff from the two cities should go forward with negotiations and bring the agreement forward for adoption in the near future. Update on Golden Valley I-394 Corridor Planning Study Mr. Grimes presented an overview of a Golden Valley initiative to study the I-394 corridor in terms of future needs. The process includes input from residents, and businesses and should result in a plan to help guide the Golden Valley City Council as they make future decisions affecting the corridor. Councilmember Sanger suggested that St. Louis Park undertake a similar study. She also asked if the study results will include guidelines for architectural standards. Mr. Grimes responded that it may, but that the process is just beginning. Deer Management Mr. Harmening began the discussion by offering help to the City of Golden Valley as they move forward with discussions regarding management of their deer herd. Councilmember Sanger believed that the deer issue cannot be addressed by any one municipality, and that she believed jurisdictions needed to cooperate together to create a management plan that addresses travel patterns of deer across municipal boundaries. Mayor Loomis stated there was no good place to hunt deer in Golden Valley. Mr. Vaughan responded that it had proven more effective in SLP to trap and dispatch deer. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3c - Study Session Minutes July 25, 2005 Page 4 Councilmember Sanger stated that the issue of determining how management efforts would play out is minor compared to the emotional response of residents. Mayor Loomis stated that the issue is already divisive in neighborhoods and that city hall has been receiving lots of calls. Councilmember Schaffer added that car/deer crashes were up in number as well. Councilmember Grayson stated that the GV City Council had not yet had an opportunity to discuss the issue and that it was scheduled for discussion on August 9th. Mr. Vaughan pointed out that deer population is directly correlated to overgrowth of buckthorn due to over browsing by deer of native plant populations. Adjournment Members of both city councils expressed their appreciation for the productive meeting and agreed that it would be worthwhile to meet again in the future. Mayor Jacobs adjourned the joint meeting at 8:00 p.m. 2. Cable TV Renewal and Franchise Transfer Updates Mr. Pires introduced Brian Grogan, Special Counsel to the City. Also present were Reg Dunlap and John McHugh. Mr. Grogan explained his role in the procedure. He also stated that as of October 15th, the city must act to approve the transfer or, if the city does not act, it would imply approval and end the process. A meeting is to be held on August 15th, the results of which would determine whether the city should come to agreement or begin the formal process council had discussed some time ago. Mr. Grogan went on to explain how various decisions the council might make would play out. The entire council was in agreement that Local Origination is an important component of the agreement. Councilmember Omodt believed that if the city were to take on local programming, that the cable company would need to provide some kind of funding for that effort. 3. Wireless Study Update Tom Asp of Virchos Krause was at the meeting to present results of an initial feasibility survey to the council. Mr. Pires stated that the study indicated that the implementation of a wireless system would be feasible. Over the next 30 to 45 days, staff would be completing the scientific St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3c - Study Session Minutes July 25, 2005 Page 5 portion of the survey and compiling results. More information on the wireless plan would be brought forward to council at a future meeting. 4. Review Status of the Louisiana Court Development Staff and council discussed the status of Project for Pride in Living’s Louisiana Court Development Stabilization Plan and current financial status. PPL is requesting $400,000 in funding to assist with capital improvements and replenishing of reserve funds. Mr. Locke introduced Mark Ruff of Ehlers and Associates and Steve Bubul of Kennedy and Graven who were present to answer questions council may have during the discussion. Councilmember Sanger was disappointed that PPL was asking for money from the city and was not inclined to grant an additional $400,000 to the organization. She was also not in agreement that the city should limit the liability of US Bank as proposed. Mr. Locke explained that the $400,000 could leverage up to $1.8 million in funding from other agencies that would go toward improving the property. Even if the city were to decide to foreclose in the future, improvements to the properties would only be in our best interest. Council discussed several options including foreclosure and conversion of the units to condos. Mr. Harmening asked council to consider what the city had tried to accomplish by entering into the agreement with PPL in the first place. That was to consolidate ownership, to improve the property management at Louisiana Courts, and to provide for physical improvements. The city has also intended to ensure long-term affordability. He reminded the council that the city that, other than the loan, the city has invested only $140,000 in the property to date. He asked them to consider the political aspects of any decision they might make and how it could affect our relationships with other government agencies that were involved. A $400,000 investment would leverage much more funding and make improvements possible that would increase the value of the city’s investment. Councilmember Finkelstein believed there should be an “exit strategy” should things not work out as planned. Councilmember Omodt believed that Louisiana Court was a concentration of poverty. He did not support additional improvements at that location and was more inclined to provide affordable housing units around the city than fix these particular units. Following discussion council asked that staff determine our options, how far would other agencies go if PPL was no longer a partner, and how might US Bank and other agencies would react if the city did not agree to provide the $400,000. 5. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 3d - Study Session Minutes August 1, 2005 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION August 1, 2005 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: John Basill, Jim Brimeyer, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Finance Director (Ms. McGann); Assistant Finance Director (Ms. Bursheim); Accountant (Ms. Monson); and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert). 1. Budget and Capital Improvement Program Discussion Ms. McGann asked council to provide direction regarding a possible property tax levy and utility rate increase for 2006. The materials that had been prepared were a snapshot of the budget and CIP planning, and were subject to change as we move forward. Council discussed use of the Police and Fire Pension Fund, Dispatch costs, public art and parktacular costs. Regarding public art, Councilmember Finkelstein wanted a staff member assigned to carry forward the public art initiative. Councilmember Sanger also wanted to move forward and wanted to see involvement at the neighborhood level. Mr. Harmening stated that a major initiative will be to move forward with changes to the Park Perspective and the concept of “branding” our image. Greater efforts will be made to market ourselves and to make changes to bring our website up to date. Council asked that work be done to ensure a Police Liaison Officer be placed at the Jr. High. Ms. McGann stated that utility rates will need to be increased to implement an infrastructure improvement plan. Councilmember Sanger wanted a public education initiative so that members of the public understand why we have extraordinary costs to maintain our utility systems. Council generally agreed that they preferred a raise in the tax levy to a raise in fees. The meeting adjourned at 7:29 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4a - Three Rivers Park District Plowing Contract Page 1 4a. Motion to approve a contract with Three Rivers Park District to clear and remove snow from the LRT and Cedar Lake Extension Trails through the City of St. Louis Park for 2005-2006 winter season. Background The Southwest LRT and the Cedar Lake Extension trails are owned and maintained by Three Rivers Park District. However, Three Rivers Park District does not clear or remove snow from their trails during the winter. They will allow cities to plow snow from their trails under the terms of a contract. Trail Clearing Contract The City of St. Louis Park has cleared and removed snow from the regional trails since 2000. This service is appreciated by many of our residents who use the trails all year. As a part of the snow removal policy, staff recommends the City of St. Louis Park continue to clear the regional trails through our City since Three Rivers Park District does not. Approving this contract would allow us to do so for the winter of 2005-2006. Clearing or removing snow from the LRT trail would be done in much the same manner and priority as previous years. The trails would be cleared as a part of the Public Works snow removal policy. Clearing the Cedar Lake Extension is a bit more difficult. There are some areas where the trail is 10 feet wide with only a 12-foot wide easement. If there are times when the City gets several inches of snow at one time, it may be difficult for maintenance staff to remove the snow since there is no room to store it and no way to access the trail to remove it. Staff will keep the City Manager and City Council informed if the snow accumulations are significant and maintenance staff are not able to remove the snow. The contract with Three Rivers Park District states that the City must repair any damage to the trail while plowing snow. Staff will take precautions to prevent damage in our snow removal process. Attachments: Contract (supplement) Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Department Secretary Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4b - Park Tavern Page 1 4b. Motion to adopt a resolution approving a Minor Amendment to Park Tavern’s Special Permit to allow a change in security requirements relating to an approved building addition. Background: At its August 1st regular meeting, the City Council authorized a Major Amendment to a Special Permit for Park Tavern to permit the construction of a small building addition. At the time, Park Tavern requested that the Council amend the conditions of approval to eliminate the requirement stating that windows be required between the existing restaurant and the proposed addition. Mr. Phil Weber, owner of Park Tavern, stated that windows would provide insufficient visual surveillance of the addition, and that a video camera in the room which could be monitored at the bar would provide better visual control of the addition. During the discussion of the proposed resolution authorizing the Major Amendment, the Council did not take specific action to amend the condition regarding the use of video cameras instead of windows to monitor the building addition. To enable this alteration to the Special Permit, Park Tavern has requested a minor amendment to allow for the installation of video cameras instead of windows. Recommendation: Staff recommends the adoption of a resolution approving a Minor Amendment to Park Tavern’s Special Permit to allow a change in security requirements relating to an approved building addition. Attachments: Resolution No. 05-__, Amending and restating Resolution Nos. 6805 and 05-101. Prepared By: Adam Fulton, Associate Planner Reviewed By: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4b - Park Tavern Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 05-117 Amends and Restates Resolution Nos. 6805 and 05-101 A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 6805 ADOPTED ON APRIL 6, 1981 AND RESOLUTION NO. 05-101 ADOPTED ON AUGUST 1, 2005 AND GRANTING AMENDMENT TO EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-36 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW A CHANGE IN SECURITY REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO AN APPROVED BUILDING ADDITION AT 3401 LOUISIANA AVENUE SOUTH FINDINGS WHEREAS, Philip Weber (Park Tavern – Philips Investment Co.) has made application to the City Council for an amendment to an existing special permit under Section 36-36 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow a change in security requirements relating to an approved building addition at 3401 Louisiana Avenue South within a C-2 General Commercial Zoning District having the following legal description: Lot 1, Block 6, Oak Park Village (Abstract) WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case Nos. 79-22-SP, 05-15-CUP, and 05-55-CUP and the effect of the change in security requirements relating to an approved building addition on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a special permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 6805 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated April 6, 1981 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the special permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 05-101 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated August 1, 2005 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now necessary, requiring the amendment of that special permit; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the permit granted by Resolution Nos. 6805 and 05-101, to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4b - Park Tavern Page 3 WHEREAS, the contents of Case Nos. 79-22-SP, 05-15-CUP, and 05-55-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution Nos. 6805 and 05-101 (documents not filed) are hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a special permit to the subject property for the purpose of changing the security requirements relating to an approved building addition within the C-2 General Commercial District at the location described above based on the following conditions: A special permit for a restaurant/bowling alley and a Class I restaurant is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the site be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A, Site Plan; Exhibit B, Topography Plan and Utility Plan; Exhibit C, Elevation Plan, except as modified and as stamped received by the Planning Department on June 20, 1979 and except as modified by Exhibit D, New Site Plan, which permits construction of the southerly wall up to eleven feet off from the south property line and the northeasterly wall for up to six feet off from the east property line and provided that said area between the lot line and the building line be properly backfilled and compacted to guarantee against settlement, be graded for proper drainage, and be landscaped with trees and grass and maintained thereafter, and except that the basement shall be eliminated and comparable square foot area added at the northeast corner of the structure as shown on Exhibit E, New Site Plan No. 2; and Exhibit F, New Floor Plan; and further except that the sidewalk on the east side of the parking lot south of the entrance area may be deleted. 2. That a chain link fence be allowed against the building and extending above the rooftop along Oak Leaf Drive and 2nd Street Northwest. 3. That Exhibit A, Site Plan, with respect to the landscape items can be amended as follows: a. Seven sunburst locust can be changed to seven seedless ash. b. Nine mountain ash can be changed to seven skyline locust. c. Four black hill spruce can be added—three at the north end of the building and one along the southwest wall. d. Planting of ivy along the northeasterly and southeasterly wall where the chain link fence exists. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4b - Park Tavern Page 4 4. That all improvements, including development of the bowling alley and restaurant and landscaping, paving, curbing, lighting and other items shown on the exhibits be completed by June 15, 1981. 5. The special permit shall be amended on August 1, 2005 to allow for construction of a 410 square foot building addition to Park Tavern’s northwestern corner, and shall incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional requirements, Park Tavern shall: 1. Meet all Public Works Department/Utility requirements as recommended by staff. 2. Building and architectural screening materials samples and colors must be submitted to and approved by Zoning Administrator. 3. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during construction. 4. Revise building plan to include a minimum of three windows measuring no less than 6 square feet to act as a means of viewing the interior of the building addition from the existing restaurant. b. Park Tavern shall comply with the following conditions during construction: 1. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. 2. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times. 3. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. 4. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. 5. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. c. Park Tavern shall at all times remain in compliance with Hennepin County Ordinance #24, “Hennepin County Smoke-Free Ordinance” and all related Hennepin County enforcement policies. d. Park Tavern shall at all times remain in compliance with all laws governing the sale of alcohol in the State of Minnesota and the City of St. Louis Park. e. Park Tavern shall repair any portions of the existing on-site parking lot that are currently in a state of disrepair, by November 1, 2005. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4b - Park Tavern Page 5 f. No future building expansions, not including interior and exterior remodeling, shall be permitted without Park Tavern or future occupant first coming into full compliance with parking requirements of the Zoning Code. g. No future building expansions, including any exterior remodeling and any improvements to the site’s landscaping or parking lot, but not including any interior remodeling, shall be permitted without Park Tavern or future occupant first coming into full compliance with the City’s requirements for stormwater. 6. The special permit shall be amended on September 6, 2005 to allow for a change in the security requirements relating to an approved building addition and shall incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: a. The conditions for a building addition approved on August 1, 2005, shall be amended by removing requirement 5(a)(4), requiring three windows measuring no less than six square feet each between the proposed building addition and the existing restaurant. b. The building addition approved on August 1, 2005 shall be monitored at all times using a camera mounted within the building addition and a video monitor located such that Park Tavern staff shall have access to it at all times. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 6, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4c - Bid Tab PD HVAC 2005-1600 Page 1 4c. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Cool Air Mechanical, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $85,200.00 for the 2005 Police Department HVAC Upgrade Project - Project No. 2005-1600. Background: The Police facility was built in 1993. The AC compressors and related mechanical components were sized and specified to bare minimum requirements; thus, the equipment that was installed was undersized and inefficient. This resulted in a system that could barely handle the normal load requirement, let alone high demand situations. This has been known since the end of the first cooling season. The situation is so bad that in order to keep the condensers operating, staff runs sprinklers on the coils when external temperatures reach 85 degrees or higher. The system problems are further compromised by the fact that the condensers are in an enclosed space which restricts air flow to them. Proposed Solution: Replacement of the equipment with components that are properly sized to meet the heating and cooling demands and relocation of the equipment to allow for proper air flow. City Staff has hired a mechanical engineer to design and prepare specifications for replacement equipment as well as to coordinate necessary electrical and structural engineering requirements. Council authorized this project and receipt of bids at the Council meeting of June 6, 2005. Special Note: This project is being coordinated with the Police Facility Re-Roofing project (CIP Project 20051700) so as to include the necessary roof modifications to accommodate the new equipment and thus reduce redundant costs. Bid Analysis: The project was advertised for bids in the Sun-Sailor on August 11, 2005 and in the Construction Bulletin on August 12, 2005. Bids were received on August 24, 2005. Summary of bid results are as follows: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT Cool Air Mechanical, Inc. $85,200.00 Alliance Mechanical Services, Inc. $85,305.00 Northern Air Corporation $92,700.00 Engineer’s Estimate $76,650.00 Recommendation: Staff recommends this contract be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, Cool Air Mechanical, Inc. Staff has checked references for the contractor and has received positive feedback. Funding: This project is included in the 2005 Capital Improvement Program and funded by the Municipal Building Fund. Project Timing: This project is scheduled for completion by October 31, 2005. Prepared By: John Altepeter, Facilities Superintendent Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4d - Bid Tab Backup Power Supply 2005-1500 Page 1 4d. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Total Construction & Equipment, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $553,740.00 for the purchase and installation of standby natural gas generators at Water Treatment Plant No. 1 & 4 including ASD Alternate #4 - Project No. 2005-1500. Background: Bids were received on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 for the purchase and installation of standby natural gas generators at Water Treatment Plant (WTP) No. 1 & 4. Under this project, the installation of the standby generators will meet the recommendations of the Vulnerability Study to provide the average daily demand for water during a major power outage. At the April 4th Council meeting, the City Council authorized staff to solicit bids for this work. A total of six (6) bids were received for this project. An advertisement for bids was published in the Sun Sailor on July 21st and 28 and in the Construction Bulletin on July 29th and August 5, 2005. A summary of the bid results is as follows: CONTRACTOR BASE BID ALTERNATE # 4 TOTAL Evaluation of Bids: A review of the bids indicates Total Construction and Equipment Company, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid. The City’s consultant, TKDA, has reviewed the contractor’s qualifications and has determined that they are qualified to perform the work necessary to complete the project. The addition of Alternate #4 allows for the installation of an Adjustable Speed Drive (ASD) on well SLP 11 at WTP #1, which will provide additional controls and increase efficiency of the well operation. The City h as a significant number of ASD’s on other wells in the City. Even when including ASD Alternate #4, in the amount of $38,640, the total project cost will still be less than the originally projected cost of $557,000. This project was presented to Council in April for $557,000, not including engineering costs of $43,600 or the ASD enhancement to SLP #11. Financial Considerations: This project will be paid for out of the Water Fund Construction Timeline: Construction to begin in mid November with projected completion by April 2006. Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Superintendent of Utilities Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager Total Construction. & Equipment Inc. $515,000.00 $38,640.00 $553,740.00 Electric Resource Cont. $540,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $595,000.00 Premier Electrical Corp. $575,650.00 $47,500.00 $623,150.00 Electric Installation & Maintenance Co. $605,000.00 $19,800.00 $624,800.00 Vinco, Inc. $662,320.00 $43,500.00 $705,820.00 Phaser Electrical Co. $662,500.00 $45,800.00 $708,300.00 Engineer’s Estimate $557,000.00 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4e - Prelim and Final Plat Belt Line Industrial Park Third Page 1 4e. Motion to adopt resolution approving the preliminary and final plat of Belt Line Industrial Park Third. Case Nos. 05-38-S. 5100 36th Street Site Map: Zoning: IG General Industrial Comprehensive Plan Designation: Industrial St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4e - Prelim and Final Plat Belt Line Industrial Park Third Page 2 Proposal: The applicant is asking to re-plat the property in order to combine two previously platted lots into one. The new lot will be occupied exclusively by the new Elmwood Post Office. In addition to combining the lots, this plat will also improve a situation along 36th Street where the sidewalk and part of the road is contained within an easement on private land. The proposed re-plat will dedicate additional right-of-way so that all street, sidewalk and utility improvements will be within dedicated street right-of-ways. History: In 2004, an application was received and approved to construct the new Elmwood Post Office at the northwest corner of 36th and Raleigh. This application required the demolition of two industrial buildings and the combination of both lots into one. In order to meet area service needs, the post office put together an expedited process that would have the post office operational by April of 2005. The re-platting of the property, however, represented a significant delay to the project, and staff was interested in doing what we could to speed up the construction of the new facility. As a result, staff agreed to allow an administrative combination of the two lots so construction could begin. The administrative combination, however, couldn’t accommodate the dedication of additional right-of-way, so the administrative combination was allowed with the condition that the property owner follow up with a re-plat of the property that shows the right-of-way dedication. Existing Conditions: The subject properties have been administratively combined, and construction of the post office is complete and is open for business. The re-plat has been submitted, and reviewed by the city, utility companies, Hennepin County and MNDOT. Staff believes the re-plat contains all necessary dedications, and no comments were received from any of the utility companies, Hennepin County or MNDOT. Planning Commission Action: No comments were received at the public hearing. The Planning Commission recommended approval with a 4-0 vote. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4e - Prelim and Final Plat Belt Line Industrial Park Third Page 3 Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached Resolution approving the Belt Line Industrial Park Third preliminary and final plat. Attachments: • Resolution • Proposed Plat Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator 952-924-2592 gmorrison@stlouispark.org Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4e - Prelim and Final Plat Belt Line Industrial Park Third Page 4 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4e - Prelim and Final Plat Belt Line Industrial Park Third Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 05-118 RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF BELT LINE INDUSTRIAL THIRD BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. Kenneth Glaser (Jane M. Mooty Family Limited Partnership), owner and subdivider of the land proposed to be platted as Belt Line Industrial Third have submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder. 2. The proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit: Lot 2 and Lot 3 of Block 3 of Beltline Industrial Park Conclusion 1. The proposed preliminary and final plat of Beltline Industrial Park Third is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4e - Prelim and Final Plat Belt Line Industrial Park Third Page 6 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled. 4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 6, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4f - Walker Street (Louisiana Oaks) Parking Page 1 4f. Motion to adopt the attached resolution rescinding parking restrictions along the north side of Walker Street adjacent to Louisiana Oaks Park. Background: Over the past year, staff have been working with the property owner at Louisiana Oaks Apartments to resolve a parking issue raised by the owner. Louisiana Oaks is located between Walker Street and T.H. 7 on the west side of Louisiana Avenue North. At periodic times, usually on some evenings, the existing internal parking within the apartment complex is maximized. As a result, Community Development and Public Works have worked with the owner to try to mitigate this problem. These efforts have included the gaining of additional spaces within the existing complex parking lot by maximizing the available space, and by allowing some limited amounts of permit parking in the Louisiana Oaks Park parking lot directly across the street. Walker Street is currently posted no parking on both sides of the street. These efforts have generally been successful in correcting much of the problem. However, there are sometimes instances (particularly some evenings) when the available parking is full and guests are faced with the issue of where to park. Normally, a resident or guest would obtain a permit from the complex office to park in the City parking lot across the street. However, at certain times (such as late evening), the office is not open and permit parking cannot be attained. As a result, the property owner of the Louisiana Oaks Apartments has made a request to allow at least some parking along Walker Street. The owner feels that space along the street for 7-10 vehicles would sufficiently solve the problem. Analysis: If parking were to be allowed on Walker Street at this location, the north side of the street is a viable option. Space limitations and the roadway curvature are not conducive to allowing parking on the south side of the street. However, parking on the north side of Walker Street cannot be accommodated without at least some widening and improvement to the street. This location is at the beginning of a curve, is not of sufficient width to safely allow parking, and also experiences drainage issues. Under the City’s Capital Improvement Plan and Pavement Management Program, Walker Street is scheduled to be reconstructed in 2009. It is not reasonable to spend additional significant dollar amounts on this street now when a permanent street design and construction are scheduled relatively soon. However, because of the property owner’s urgency and need, he has expressed a willingness to construct a widening improvement to the street at his own expense in order to allow for parking. Staff has met with the property owner at the site on this issue and outlined the improvements that would be needed to safely accommodate parking and correct the drainage issue. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4f - Walker Street (Louisiana Oaks) Parking Page 2 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution providing for rescinding parking restrictions on the north side of Walker Street between the Louisiana Oaks Park parking lot driveways, as shown per the attached map. The Resolution provides for allowing parking on the north side of Walker Street, contingent upon the construction of roadway improvements to City standards at private expense, and upon full acceptance of the work by the City of St. Louis Park. This work will be authorized through the City’s Right of Way Permit Process. The owner has expressed the desire to complete the work yet this year. Attachments: Map (Supplement) Resolution Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4f - Walker Street (Louisiana Oaks) Parking Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 05-05-119 RESOLUTION RESCINDING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WALKER STREET ADJACENT TO LOUISIANA OAKS PARK WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has received a request, has studied, and has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to rescind certain parking restrictions at this location. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to remove “No Parking” restrictions on the north side of Walker Street from 200 feet west of the centerline of Louisiana Avenue to 500 west of the centerline of Louisiana Avenue, contingent upon the following: a) Roadway improvements per City requirements are constructed at the above location and financed privately at no cost to the City of St. Louis Park. b) Upon completion, said roadway improvement is accepted by the City. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 6, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4g - CER 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Paving Page 1 4g. City Engineer’s Report: Alley Paving – 2900 block between Ottawa and Princeton Avenues – Motion to adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report, establishes this Improvement Project, directs staff to proceed with an informational meeting with abutting property owners, and sets a Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing date of September 19, 2005. – Project No. 2005-1800. Background: On April 8, 2005, the residents in the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenues submitted a petition to the City requesting that the alley adjacent to their properties be paved in accordance with the City’s standard for alleys. The petition was signed by enough property owners (74%) to advance the project. The City’s policy states that at least 51% of the properties must sign the initial petition. The alley is an “L” shaped alley that runs south from W. 29th Street to the rear property line of 4800 Minnetonka, then west to Princeton Avenue. Twenty-one (21) properties abut the alley of which all would be assessed under our policy. City Alley Paving Special Assessment Policy: The City’s Alley Paving Special Assessment Policy is as follows: A. The cost of alley improvements for residential properties shall be assessed when at least 51 percent (alley front feet) of the property owners petition for the improvement: 1. Thirty (30) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against all properties abutting the alley. (INDIRECT BENEFIT) 2. Seventy (70) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against directly benefited properties as defined in paragraph 5(B). (DIRECT BENEFIT) B. A property is directly benefited if it has an existing garage with direct access to the alley, if an access to the alley could be constructed from an existing garage, or if no garage exists, there is sufficient area on the lot to build a garage with access to the alley. C. Commercial and multi-family property owners shall be assessed 100 percent of the cost of the improvement. D. Alleys shall be constructed of concrete and shall be assessed for a period of 20 years. Analysis: The City’s standard design for alley paving specifies a six (6)-inch thick concrete pavement, 10 feet in width, with driveway apron connections between the paved alley and abutting paved driveways. In accordance with City practice, the driveway connections will match existing materials and grades. Pavement grades will be established to provide positive drainage without requiring additional storm sewer construction, whenever possible. Staff has recently completed plans and a detailed estimate of the proposed alley. Public Involvement Process: Staff has scheduled an informational meeting for September 7, 2005, prior to the Public Hearing/Assessment Hearing, to inform residents of the process and to review the preliminary plans. The meeting will be held in the Community Room at City Hall from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. Once the project is awarded, staff will schedule another meeting with the affected property owners to discuss the construction schedule. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4g - CER 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Paving Page 2 Financial Considerations: The City’s Policy for funding alley improvements requires the abutting property owners to pay 100% of the improvement costs. The Policy also provides for the assessments to be levied as direct and indirect benefits based upon abutting frontage. To assist the petition sponsor, City staff provides the petition forms and a rough estimate of the alley construction cost before the sponsor begins to gather signatures. Our initial rough estimate which considers only concrete paving with a limited amount of grading work was $48,530. Now that preliminary plans are complete, staff has prepared a detailed estimate that puts the cost at $69,000. The increased cost is a result of additional grading work which is required to provide positive drainage throughout the length of the alley. An estimate of the assessment amount for each property is attached. A summary of the estimated costs and revenue sources is as follows: Estimated Costs: Construction Costs $50,350 Engineering & Administrative (12%) $ 6,050 Contingencies $12,600 TOTAL $69,000 Revenue Sources: Special Assessments $69,000 Alley Improvement Project Timetable: Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated that the following schedule could be met: • City Engineer’s Report to City Council September 6, 2005 • Informational meeting with residents September 7, 2005 • City Council holds Public Hearing & Assessment Hearing September 19, 2005 • Advertise for bids September 29, 2005 • Bid Opening October 11, 2005 • Bid Tab Report to Council, Council can award the bid and order the project or delay the project if there are any assessment appeals October 17, 2005 • End of 30 Day Appeal on Assessments October 19, 2005 • Construction Early November, 2005 Feasibility: The project, as proposed herein, is cost-effective and feasible under the conditions noted and at the costs estimated. Attachments: Resolution Property owner list with estimated assessments Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4g - CER 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Paving Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT, ESTABLISHING AN ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 05-18 AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING AND ASSESSMENT HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the City Engineer related to the alley paving in the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenues NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the alley paving in the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenues is hereby accepted. 2. This proposed alley paving improvement project is hereby established. 3. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvements on the 19th day of September, 2005, in Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:30 p.m. and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvements as required by law. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 6, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4g - CER 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Paving Page 4 Estimated Cost: $69,000 March 2005 Revised Aug. 19,2005 70% Direct Benefit (garage or access) 30% Indirect Benefit (dust, noise, and mud) (A) Direct Benefit: 721 total footage and $66.99 per front foot (B) Indirect Benefit:1074 total footage and $19.27 per front foot. total $69,000.00 direct $48,300.00 indirect $20,700.00 ********* Indirect ************ ******** Direct ********** Total Indirect Direct Direct & Address Ind feet % Indirect Allocation Dir feet % Direct Allocation Indirect 2901 Princeton Ave. S 40 3.72 $771 0 0.00 $0 $771 2905 Princeton Ave. S. 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2909 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2913 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2917 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2921 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2925 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2929 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2933 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2939 Princeton Ave S 86 8.01 $1,658 86 11.93 $5,761 $7,419 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4g - CER 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Paving Page 5 ********* Indirect ************ ******** Direct ********** Total Indirect Direct Direct & Address Ind feet % Indirect Allocation Dir feet % Direct Allocation Indirect 2900 Ottawa Ave. S 70 6.52 $1,349 0 0.00 $0 $1,349 2908 Ottawa Ave. S. 45 4.19 $867 45 6.24 $3,015 $3,882 2912 Ottawa Ave. S. 45 4.19 $867 45 6.24 $3,015 $3,882 2916 Ottawa Ave. S. 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2920 Ottawa Ave. S. 40 3.72 $771 0 0.00 $0 $771 2924 Ottawa Ave. S. 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2928 Ottawa Ave. S. 80 7.45 $1,542 0 0.00 $0 $1,542 2936 Ottawa Ave. S. 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 4800 Minnetonka Blvd 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 4806 Minnetonka Blvd 65 6.05 $1,253 65 9.02 $4,354 $5,607 4820 Minnetonka Blvd 123 11.45 $2,371 0 0.00 $0 $2,371 Total 1074 $20,700 721 $48,300 $69,000 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4h - Cedar Knoll Park Carlson Field Parking Lot Page 1 4h. Approve plans and specifications for the reconstruction of the parking lot at Cedar Knoll Park and authorize solicitation of bids for the project Background: The 2005 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes the reconstruction of the existing parking lot. The City has budgeted $80,000 to be spent on the reconstruction with utilities providing $20,000 and the park improvement fund providing $60,000. Improvements: The parking lot is breaking up and is in need of reconstruction to better serve the users. Our Utilities Division also utilizes this area to access their water tower and pump house. Next Steps and Timelines: Park staff will work with Public Works engineering staff to finalize the plans and specifications for the parking lot with bids received in September. The Council will be asked to approve the low bidder and authorize the project to begin at their October 3, 2005 council meeting. Project construction will begin following council approval. Recommendation: Staff recommends approving the plans and specifications for reconstruction of the parking lot at Cedar Knoll Park and authorizes solicitation of bids for the project. Prepared By: Stacy M. Voelker, Department Secretary Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4i - Rec Center Generator Plans and Specs Page 1 4i. Approve plans and specifications for the purchase and installation of a generator for the Rec Center and authorize solicitation of bids for the project. Background: City staff advised the Council of the need for the Rec Center to be serviced by a back up generator. The 2005 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) now includes the purchase of a generator for the Rec Center per Council directive. The City has budgeted $280,000 to be spent on the new generator which will be funded through the Park Improvement Fund. The generator will provide a back-up source of power in the event of an emergency power outage at the Rec Center and provide the opportunity to maximize savings as an energy source for the Xcel Energy Electric Reduction Savings program. The addition of a generator will bring the Rec Center in line with other major City facilities with regards to being able to operate without being dependent on Xcel Energy. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will work with TKDA to finalize the plans and specifications for the purchase of a generator with bids received in October. The Council will be asked to approve the low bidder and authorize the project to begin at their November 7, 2005 council meeting. The generator project will begin following council approval. Recommendation: Staff recommends approving the plans and specifications for the purchase of a generator for the Rec Center and authorizes solicitation of bids for the project. Prepared By: Stacy M. Voelker, Department Secretary Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4j - HA Board Minutes June 8, 2005 Page 1 MINUTES Housing Authority St. Louis Park City Hall, Westwood Room St. Louis Park, Minnesota June 8, 2005 5:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Steve Fillbrandt, Anne Mavity and Judith Moore STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Jane Klesk, Kevin Locke, Nancy Nelson and Michele Schnitker 1. Call to Order Commissioner Courtney called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes for May, 2005 The May 11, 2005 minutes were unanimously approved. 3. Hearings – None 4. Reports and Committees – None 5. Unfinished Business – None 6. New Business a. Approval of Contract Award for Window Replacement at Hamilton Houses Ms. Anderson stated that four bids for window replacement at Hamilton House were received, with Crossroads Construction submitting the lowest bid in the amount of $206,630. Additionally Ms. Anderson explained that the Board previously approved a contract for architectural services with Studio Five, Inc. for $18,170, but that the architect has requested an additional $2,000 due to difficulties experienced in the bidding process. Commissioner Mavity moved to approve the Contract Award for Window Replacement at Hamilton House with Crossroad Construction, in the amount of $206,630, and to approve an additional $2,000 fee for Studio Five, Inc. Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion, and the motion passed 4-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Fillbrandt, Mavity and Moore voting in favor. b. Training and Resources for Individual Long Term Success (TRAILS) Contract Approval 2 Ms. Schnitker explained that until the past year the HA had successfully secured funding to support the TRAILS program through a HUD Section 8 FSS Coordinator grant, but HUD has eliminated this funding source. The HA has secured enough funding through last year’s allocation and 2005 Community Development Block Grant Funds to fund the program through June, 2006, and has applied for continued funding under HUD’s Super NOFA. The coordinator position will be reduced to a .4 FTE position (2 days per week). A six-month contract is being proposed to coincide with Resource, Inc.’s fiscal year. Commissioner Mavity motioned to approve the contract with Resource, Inc., Employment Action Center, to administer the TRAILS program for the period from July 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005, and Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0, with Commissioner Courtney, Fillbrandt, Mavity and Moore voting in favor. c. Approval of Hamilton House Caretaker Contracts Ms. Anderson stated it is staff’s consensus that Samir and Azemka Music are the most qualified applicants for the caretaker position. Additionally, Israel Akinbola has requested that Clement Nwafor be added to his contract. Commissioner Moore moved to approve a contract with Samir and Azemka Music for caretaking duties at Hamilton House effective June 10, 2005, at a fee of $450 per month plus free rental of Unit 422, contingent upon submission of a Certificate of Insurance; and to approve adding Clement Nwafor to Israel Akinbola’s contract at a fee of $450 per month plus free rental of Unit 222, contingent upon completion of reference checks and submission of a revised Certificate of Insurance. Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion, and the motion passed 4-0, with Commissioner Courtney, Fillbrandt, Mavity and Moore voting in favor. d. Collection Loss Write-Off – Resolution No. 538 Ms. Anderson explained that the HA writes off on an annual basis collection losses for damages, unpaid rents and other charges it has incurred from tenants who have vacated. This year, there are five tenant accounts for a total amount of $10,919.76. Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to approve Resolution No. 538, Collection Loss Write-Off, and Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0, with Commissioner Courtney, Fillbrandt, Mavity and Moore voting in favor. 7. Communications from Executive Director a. Claims List No. 6–2005 Commissioner Moore moved for ratification of Claims List No. 6–2005, and Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Fillbrandt, Mavity and Moore voting in favor. b. Communications 1. October Board Meeting – Yom Kippur 3 The October 2005 Board meeting has been rescheduled for Wednesday, October 19, 2005. 2. Commissioner Reappointment – Steve Fillbrandt Commissioner Fillbrandt has been reappointed to a five-year term ending June 30, 2010. 3. Remodeling Tour Ms. Schnitker and Nancy Nelson provided an update on the remodeling tour. 4. Update – Excess Public Land Task Force 5. Monthly Report for June, 2005 6. Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report) 7. Draft Financial Statements – Report 8. Other 9. Adjournment Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Mavity seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Fillbrandt, Mavity and Moore voting in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 5:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Anne Mavity, Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 4k - PC Minutes August 3, 2005 Page 1 OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA August 3, 2005--6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian STAFF PRESENT: Judie Erickson, Adam Fulton, Meg McMonigal, Nancy Sells 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of July 20, 2005 Chair Carper made a motion to approve the minutes of July 20, 2005. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0-1 (Commissioner Kramer abstained). 3. Hearings A. Hoigaard Village - Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning for Mixed Use and Multiple Family Development Location: 5616 36th Street West, 3550 State Highway No. 100 South, 3501 Xenwood Avenue South, 5626 36th Street West Applicant: Union Land II, LLC Case Nos: 05-36-CP and 05-37-Z Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented the staff report Chair Carper asked about the future of industry in the area. Ms. Erickson said the findings of the Elmwood Study concluded that the area would not be industrial in the future. She said the study is a 30-year vision. The City Council made a decision to wait for development proposals to come forward rather than to rezone existing industrial uses prior to development. Chair Carper asked if there was a concern about residential properties being developed next to an industrial area which may generate noise and odors. Ms. Erickson responded that redevelopment is a complex process and that over time land uses do change. She said in the short term there might be some Official Minutes Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Page 2 complaints. She added that she believed the nearby industrial uses are heavily regulated, however. Ms. Erickson said no complaints have been received from properties on the north side of the railroad track. She said the facility close to the development that does generate an odor is McGarvey Coffee. She said overall, if a transit station is to be located on Wooddale Ave., it is still necessary to go forward with the redevelopment processes as they occur. Commissioner Johnston-Madison referred to trip generation estimates from the traffic study. She asked for clarification about the additional trips. Ms. Erickson said the trips being generated are spread out throughout the day and go in the opposite direction of some of the other commercial uses. Residential trips are not concentrated heavily during peak hours. She said if Hoigaards had a more intense retail, it would generate many more trips. Office development would also generate more trips. The traffic consultant said the redevelopment would not generate peak hour trips. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about office compared to high density residential evenings and weekends. Ms. Erickson responded that more trips are generated by high density residential. She went on to say that 36th Street is a commercial street, so those trips are not being generated on residential streets. The proposed development is still looked at as more advantageous than office, in terms of traffic. Ms. Erickson said the traffic issues are very complex and a lot of the traffic on 36th Street is cut-through traffic from Hwy. 100. She said once Hwy. 100 is reconstructed, some of the cut-through traffic will go away. She commented that the intersection improvement at Hwy. 7 and Wooddale will help significantly with congestion. Ms. Erickson said there are a lot of plans in the works that are going to help traffic congestion. In the meantime, a development like Hoigaard Village is going to be a better solution than to put office use there. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she isn’t against the project and she knows that the area will be redeveloped, but for the record she wanted to say the City needs to look long range at the effect of continuing to put high density residential on existing streets. She said the City needs to come up with a better way to move people throughout the City. In response to Commissioner Morris’ question about the Elmwood stormwater plan, Ms. Erickson said the low point of the central drainage in the area is on the proposed site. As much as possible, staff would like to address stormwater as part of this development. This will be discussed further with the PUD application. Official Minutes Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Page 3 Commissioner Morris asked about retention of the C2 zoning separating M-X zoning. He asked if it was a conforming use to have off-site parking with a retail development. Ms. Erickson responded that as part of the PUD and part of the platting process, the sites could perhaps be platted with one PID number even though they are separated. She said that is not the most desirable way to do it, but it is possible. She added that generally within the PUD you can do away with property lines and look at how the development works. The lot wouldn’t be looked at as an individual parking lot, but as parking for the mixed use development. Commissioner Morris asked about the inclusion of the Hoigaards store in the Elmwood Study. Ms. Erickson said that during the Elmwood Study, Hoigaards was looked at as a very long term retail destination well-recognized by people all over the Twin Cities area. They are currently looking for new facilities, so as part of this process one of the options they have is to stay on the first floor of the 36th Street mixed- use building. They are looking at other properties as well. Commissioner Morris asked if Hoigaards were to move and a retail element were to stay, would it satisfy the desire of the Elmwood Study to keep a retail presence in that location? Ms. Erickson said the conclusion of the Elmwood Study was that if Hoigaards left, the site should be re-used as another use. Chair Carper asked if there should be any additional investment in traffic control devices on 36th Street to accommodate traffic turning onto the street. Ms. Erickson showed the concept plan for the entire Elmwood Area. The concept plan shows the upgrading of Wooddale Ave. to have a planted median in the center. Xenwood Avenue would be extended to the south. She discussed plans for a grade separated intersection and relocation of a frontage road. She reviewed traffic movements related to Hwy. 7 which create current congestion. She referred to planned changes to Highways 7 and 100. Chair Carper asked about the large brick chimney at Hoigaards and whether or not it has landmark status. Ms. Erickson said that hasn’t been evaluated. Hoigaards has discussed reproducing the chimney on their new building. Official Minutes Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Page 4 Chair Carper mentioned the series of recent requests to change the zoning of industrial properties. Commissioners have voiced their concern about the trend of losing industrial. He asked about the status of the Industrial Study. Ms. Erickson said the first phase of the Industrial Study will be presented at a City Council study session on August 8th. An inventory of industrial property has just been completed. She said the next step would probably be to look at a market study. She said the Hoigaards site was part of a Comprehensive Plan study (Elmwood Study) which was concluded in 2003. The City Council adopted the land use change proposals into the Comprehensive Plan. She suggested staff could review the Elmwood Study, including market analysis, with the Planning Commission. She went on to say that for now staff is making its recommendation based on the Comprehensive Plan and the Elmwood Study findings. Frank Dunbar, Union Land LLC, said at some point in time the Hoigaard family will have to make a decision whether or not to stay or relocate. Union Land’s effort is to attempt to accommodate them, and encourage them to stay. He said two alternative site plans have been provided. He remarked that the developer plans on removing the chimney. Hoigaards has discussed an option of recreating that chimney. In response to a question from Commissioner Morris, Mr. Dunbar listed several developments which he has been involved with. Commissioner Kramer asked Mr. Dunbar his view on the current condominium market. Mr. Dunbar said the development team is meeting regularly with market researchers as the plan evolves. He said it appears that the downtown condo market and the suburban condo market are two distinct markets. He said the condo market seems to be about the price point and diversification of product type. Chair Carper opened the public hearing. John Standal, owner of two buildings to the west of the proposed development (former Clothing Distribution building and building at Xenwood and 36th Street), said he believes the project will be good for the area. He said he is concerned about parking for his smaller building. Currently vehicles need to park on the street to satisfy the parking needs of the smaller building. Currently the building is half full and parking is one of the reasons. Mr. Standal said he is very concerned that the small amount of existing street parking will be taken away with the development. He said he hopes the Planning Commission and City Official Minutes Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Page 5 Council will address that and take some precautions for the people who have been here many years, working hard, and paying taxes. Ms. Erickson said site issues will be addressed thoroughly during the PUD application process. She said there will be underground parking for all of the residential units. There will also be some surface parking lots. She said there will be on-street parking on Webster Ave. and probably on 36 ½ Street within the development. Mr. Standal said parking is a big issue in that part of town. He said that many years ago there was vertical parking on 36th Street which was taken away when the municipal parking lot was built. He stated that in the end it didn’t work as people weren’t willing to park one block away. Mr. Standal said it seemed that the mixed use component seemed to hinge on Hoigaards interest in maintaining a retail store in that area. He said he had hoped to see retail on 36th Street with or without Hoigaards. He said he had anticipated mixed-use similar to Excelsior and Grand. Ms. Erickson said retail will be on 36th Street on the first floor of the building whether it is Hoigaards or some other retail use. She said it is anticipated that there would be a parking bay in front of the retail building. If redevelopment continues, the City would like to see parking on 36th Street again. She said there will be more streetscape planning for 36th Street as well. Ms. Erickson said that on-street parking will not be removed from Xenwood Ave. Mr. Standal said he wasn’t concerned that it would be removed, but rather that visitors and residents of the new condominiums would take what little on-street parking there is on Xenwood Ave. when they are coming and going. Ms. Erickson said his point was taken. Bob Tenner, owner of 3536 Webster, asked for clarification about the status of his property’s zoning as presented by staff. Ms. Erickson said his property is not being looked at for rezoning and reguiding. It would remain zoned as C-2. He asked if that was indefinitely or until further development. Ms. Erickson said properties are rezoned either as a result of a decision by the City Council or by an owner wanting to redevelop their property. The application for the subject rezoning and reguiding came from the property owners. Official Minutes Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Page 6 There has been no City action to reguide Mr. Tenner’s property. She said in the future if someone wants to develop it, it will be looked at again. Commissioner Morris asked Mr. Tenner if his building had any kind of formal agreement with Hoigaards to use the rear parking area. Mr. Tenner said no, that they consider that area Hoigaards parking lot. Mr. Tenner said prior to the widening of Hwy. 100 there was off-street parking on the frontage road. As no one else was present who wished to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Morris said he was very uncomfortable with the future traffic situation on 36th as it relates to the Quadion site, the proposed Hoigaard Village project, the proposed LRT station, and the implementing of a transit way. He said currently the bottleneck on Wooddale and 36th is the railroad crossing. If it is going to be both a commercial rail crossing and a LRT crossing, that will create a significant bottleneck in this neighborhood. He said traffic studies have been based on individual developments, but not a neighborhood study which anticipates complete residential development along the 36th St. corridor. Ms. Erickson said traffic studies have been done for the area. She said the studies look forward to the year 2020 and look at the proposed developments in the Elmwood Study, Methodist Hospital, Sam’s Club parking study and proposed developments further away, such as the Al’s Bar site. The studies look at all kinds of traffic that would end up using 36th Street in the future. She said one of the things that those studies found is that as long as there is a signal at Wooddale Ave. there will be traffic problems. A bridge is proposed to provide a grade separated intersection. When LRT comes in the freight rail will have to go probably. Ms. Erickson said staff understands there is a problem and is continually trying to figure out what is going to be the overall long term best solution. She added that in the process if we are going to have development it is desirable to have development that does not impose additional problems. Ms. Erickson stated that the City is moving forward with an application for Federal dollars to do a grade separation by 2008. Commissioner Morris said he is trying to emphasize the point that right now there are three developments on 36th Street. He said he is concerned that from 36th St. to Highway 7 there are only two access points. Access to Excelsior Blvd. is either by Monterey or Alabama. He said he didn’t know if the traffic studies were anticipating what is going to happen to that residential street (Alabama) because it is a natural corridor for people traveling to Excelsior Blvd. The only feeder street is 36th St. to Monterey. Official Minutes Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Page 7 Ms. Erickson said the traffic studies don’t look at today’s numbers. The studies look at a year past full built and then project and ask will it still work in 2020, etc. She said that staff understands there are traffic issues and they are working toward getting those fixed. Ms. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, added that the City is working on the following: a bridge over Hwy. 7 at Wooddale, a new frontage road at Wooddale along Hwy. 7, light rail is under study right now, the possibility of having grade differences for the rail, a temporary solution along Hwy. 100 to make three lanes instead of the two in the crunch area, trying to get MnDOT to get the Hwy. 100 widening moved up, and an additional bridge over Hwy. 100. She said the City is working on all of these different fronts on traffic, in addition to the traffic studies mentioned. She said the traffic study for this development concluded that this type of development will not exacerbate the p.m. peak hour traffic problem. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she is aware of some of the activities mentioned, and that some of them are a little more realistic than others. Commissioner Kramer said he is concerned about traffic, the loss of the industrial base, turns in and out of the development driveways, and more saturation of condos. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she would not want the City to revisit the loss of industrial with the Elmwood Study because that was examined for over a year with much work by a task force. Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to recommend approval of Comprehensive Plan Map amendments to change the land use designation from Commercial and Industrial to High Density Residential and Mixed Use subject to review by the Metropolitan Council and approval of a zoning map amendment to change the zoning designation from IP –Industrial Park and C2—General Commercial to RC—Multi Family Residential and MX—Mixed Use. Commissioner Morris seconded the motion, and the motion passed 3-0-1 (Kramer abstained). B. Holiday Station - Conditional Use Permit for Rebuilding Convenience Store and Variance for Off-Street Parking Location: 5430 Minnetonka Boulevard Applicant: Apollo Oil Company Case No. 05-41-CUP and 05-42-VAR Official Minutes Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Page 8 Adam Fulton, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. There was a discussion about existing parking spaces. Commissioner Morris said from the plans it appeared there were 28 parking spaces. Ms. McMonigal said the spaces on Minnetonka Blvd. aren’t truly counted spaces. She said she believed there were currently 14 parking spaces. Mr. Fulton stated that presently the parking lot is in a poor state of repair making it difficult to determine spaces. He said regardless of the plans, people typically park only on the west and south side of the building. The applicant has explained that very little parking occurs on the north side where parking is striped except for the occasional employee parking. The north side isn’t used because it is the car wash entrance. The spaces shown on the site plan by the car wash are not parking spaces. Commissioner Kramer asked if the drive through on the south side was wide enough for two cars to pass. Mr. Fulton responded that the plan showed the width at 16 feet which would be a tight squeeze for two cars, but possible. Commissioner Johnston Madison asked the height of the current and the proposed building. Mr. Fulton said the proposed height is 26 feet. He said he didn’t know what the current height is, but that the C-2 district allows up to 75 feet and the current building is significantly under 75 feet. Commissioner Kramer asked about future changes to the southbound ramp and how that would affect the car wash area. Mr. Fulton said that staff discussed this with the applicant extensively. It was determined that if the exit is straightened out the applicant will need to come back and change the site. The applicant has fully acknowledged that may happen. Commissioner Morris asked about the bus stop at the north end, and the lack of sidewalk. Mr. Fulton said that sidewalk was not discussed but that it could be added in. Commissioner Morris said he felt if a two and one-half parking space credit is given for transit oriented location, that sidewalk should be installed. Official Minutes Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Morris discussed stormwater management. He said there are many opportunities for rain water retention on the site such as rain leaders, roof storage, canopy storage, rain gardens and landscaping swales. He commented on the frequency of flooding from the site onto the ramp. He sees a lot of opportunity for stormwater capture and thinks the new site has to accommodate it. Mr. Fulton said the applicant could speak to these questions. Mr. Fulton said he believed the applicant was proposing a prototype Holiday station construction. John Baregi, Director of Engineering for Holiday Stores, introduced himself. Mr. Baregi said a hip roof with gutters to capture rain is proposed. He said they had not planned to touch the canopy or car wash building. He suggested that they could capture water out of the rain leaders off of the canopy and tie it into the catch basin that is being installed on the south side of the building. Commissioner Morris said he was requesting a requirement for capturing stormwater runoff. Mr. Baregi said he would have to have Holiday’s civil engineer look at the suggestion, but he thought it was a possibility. Commissioner Morris asked about swale or rain garden techniques. Mr. Baregi said with the steep grade of the property and the greenspace on the property, they have created a trench drain on the entire length of the northside that would capture all of the water off of the carwash roof and the parking lot. Currently the lot is all sheet drained. The proposed construction is lowered two feet which enabled them to put in a catch basic for the southside. The trench drain consists of fabric and rock which acts as a retention area. He said the exact calculation has been provided to staff. Ms. McMonigal said subsequent to writing the report, staff also thought about looking at the north of the site which is MnDOT property, to see if the City could work with MnDOT to create a rainwater garden in that area. It is expected that the right-of-way will eventually come back to the City. Commissioner Morris commented on parking spaces being eliminated due to driveway design. He said that the variance isn’t a hardship to the land but rather a design issue. He discussed the five spots along the carwash which are actually cleaning stations. He said he felt with some modifications the applicant can come up with the necessary parking spaces. Mr. Baregi said parking stalls that are to the south side of the car wash could be added back. They weren’t considered parking but could be added back. On the Official Minutes Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Page 10 north side, some spaces can be used for parking but because of the car wash it would make exiting the spaces very difficult. To redesign the building to accommodate that the applicant would have to cut out 20 feet of the building to keep the buffer on the north property line. Commissioner Morris asked if the mechanical equipment shown on the north end of the building couldn’t be put on the roof, which would accommodate some more space for the lane. Mr. Baregi said it could be put into the back side of the roof but they had chosen not to do so. Mr. Baregi said a buffer would still need to created off of the building. Chair Carper opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnston-Madison referenced condition C. and asked what the applicant would have to do to be in full compliance with the City’s stormwater requirements. Mr. Fulton said typically the requirements state that the site shall contain the 100 year storm event and release at the 10 year rate. To accomplish that the applicant would have to do some substantial underground storage and substantial rooftop storage beyond what the applicant has indicated is financially feasible at this time. Ms. McMonigal said that a condition could be added that the applicant look further into additional stormwater ideas that were discussed by the Commission. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if the recommendations discussed would keep the north side from ponding. Ms. McMonigal said that was correct. Commissioner Morris said he didn’t support the request for Conditional Use Permit and Variance and said he was hesitant to send it forward with the items that had been discussed. He preferred that the changes be made to a plan and be presented back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Morris said such items as a drainage plan and revised parking plan should be provided, or at least the applicant should address issues and explain why certain things are not feasible to do. Ms. McMonigal said the next meeting is August 17th and staff would need new plans by August 10th. Official Minutes Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Page 11 Mr. Baregi commented that at some point it is not economically feasible to do the project. He said they will work with staff but he isn’t sure how far it can be taken. They were hoping to construct this year. Commissioner Morris said he couldn’t see how it would be economically feasible to come into compliance later if it isn’t feasible now. Mr. Baregi said it was still an operating facility and changes wouldn’t have to be made. Commissioner Morris discussed the possibility of MnDOT rebuilding the ramp which would eliminate the car wash. Mr. Baregi said he had not seen any plans and couldn’t comment on that possibility. Mr. Fulton clarified that trench drain plans and calculations had been submitted by the applicant, but were not provided to Commissioners. Commissioner Morris recommended that better information be provided, that issues be addressed about on-site parking, and that attention be given to better storm water management on site. Commissioner Kramer agreed but said he also felt the applicant was acting in good faith. He said any control of stormwater would be an improvement. He said the building will be an improvement and some benefits will come to the intersection as a result of a better building. He said if the applicant comes back to the next meeting he anticipates and hopes that a reasonable compromise can be found. Mr. Baregi said the applicant was willing to continue the request until the August 17th meeting. Chair Carper said the issues regarded installing sidewalk on the west side, proposals for retention of stormwater, and the addition of better on-site parking spots to avoid such a large variance. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said it’s important to treat everyone consistently in handling stormwater. Commissioner Morris moved to continue the Conditional Use Permit and Variance requests to the August 17, 2005 meeting. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a 4-0 vote. Official Minutes Planning Commission August 3, 2005 Page 12 4. Unfinished Business Ms. McMonigal said Commissioners were invited to the Aug. 8th Council study session for continued discussions regarding zoning. A discussion at that meeting will also be held on the work done on the Industrial inventory as the first step of the Industrial Study. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she is very concerned about continuing to look at projects on 36th Street without real plans on the books for addressing traffic issues. She said she is concerned with the overall road infrastructure in moving people throughout the City. Ms. McMonigal said traffic issues are being worked on many different fronts. The traffic analysis for the Hoigaard development indicated it would not make it a worse situation at the peak hours which gave a comfort level to go ahead with the redevelopment. Commissioner Morris said he was concerned about putting too much faith in MnDOT’s pledges for projects, and the risk of the City putting projects through without traffic calming. Further discussion was held about development and traffic issues. Chair Carper said historically transportation is usually reactive. Commissioner Morris said other elements are required for development proposals, and transportation must also be included. 5. New Business: None 6. Communications A. Recent City Council Action – Aug. 1, 2005 B. Other 7. Miscellaneous: None 8. Adjournment Commission Johnston-Madison moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:22 p.m. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed 4-0. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Administrative Secretary St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 6a - Time Warner Franchise Renewal Page 1 6a. 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. Background: Council was last updated on the status of the franchise renewal process with a written report for the July 18, 2005 regular meeting, at its study session on July 25, 2005, and at its regular meeting of August 15, 2005. The current franchise agreement extension with Time Warner (TW) is due to expire on September 6 unless extended by Council. As indicated at all meetings, progress on the 2+ year franchise renewal process has been slow. TW provided a “Public and Community Programming Support Proposal” on Friday, August 12, too late to analyze and include in the City Council’s agenda packet. Staff was able to indicate to Council that since TW had provided a response that had the potential for some progress, it recommended a continuation of the public hearing to September 6, 2005. Council concurred. Latest Negotiations: City and TW negotiations teams met on August 25 in an attempt to find common ground on major business points, major of which is the pass-through access fee level to support what is currently referred to as Local Origination (LO) programming. A new piece of data available for this meeting was from the recent Virchow-Krause (wireless study consultant) survey of St. Louis Park residents (a subset which subscribes to cable tv). It reflected that the average contribution they were willing to make for community programming is $1.76 per month. Cable TV subscribers currently pay 76¢ per month. Eighty-three percent of subscribers indicated that this is a good value for the cost. At the August 25 meeting, TW indicated it was willing to offer a 40¢ per month access fee in any franchise renewal. Whenever the issue of access fees has been discussed, TW has never indicated a willingness to go beyond a 40¢ per month access fee. They cite the competitive nature of the cable TV business, particularly from the satellite industry, which by Federal law is currently exempt from paying access fees or franchise fees, as satellite does not make use of City right-of-way. Thus, the City team felt it would be helpful to provide recent data to indicate what subscribers are willing to pay in access fees. In the analysis to date, staff indicated that for the necessary equipment and staff to provide replacement LO programming would require an access fee of $1.16 per month. This level would enable the City to both provide local programming and make the City “whole”, per Council request. While this access fee is higher than the current 76¢ per month level, it is substantially less than the $1.76 per month level survey respondents indicated they were willing to pay on average. What follows are some examples of access fees agreed to in other TW cities: • SW Suburbs of Edina, Richfield, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka & Hopkins 38¢ • Carver, Shakopee, Chaska 40¢ • Minneapolis 41¢ • Bloomington 55¢ (Time Warner has indicated they would not agree to this in today's environment). St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 6a - Time Warner Franchise Renewal Page 2 • SLP 76¢ this year; $1.38 last year due to amortization of last capital grant (Note the willingness of subscribers to pay even more than $1.16 per month). • Fridley $1.61 this year, 43¢ upon adoption of new franchise expected in September. As TW is in the process of transferring the St. Louis Park franchise to Comcast, staff found the range of access (or “Community TV”) fees ranged from 81¢ in Golden Valley to $3.32 in Roseville. An (8-30-2005) email from Comcast legal counsel to TW was shared with us and the explanation given for these higher fees was “prior company's settlement of disputes, then continued due to demonstrated community needs in renewal based on actual utilization” and “prior company's rate settlement.” TW and City staff left the August 25 meeting far apart, with TW offering a reduction in access fees from the current level of 76¢ to 40¢ due to the competitive nature of their business, versus the City’s offer of $1.16 for replacement LO programming at a level that makes the City whole. TW and City staff left the meeting agreeing to use the time until Wednesday, August 31 to determine if common ground could be found. Latest Developments: Since the August 25 meeting, TW staff indicated that the City’s offer of $1.16 per month for the access fee remains unacceptable and that 40¢ per month is TW’s upper limit. TW also submitted (8-30-05) an improved version of their 8-12-05 “Public and Community Programming Support Proposal” where they offered a transition period for up to two years where they would continue to provide their studio, production van, and LO staff. They also proposed that channel 16 would be designated to the City (tentatively monikered “PARK-TV”), but in exchange for one of the other local channels currently in use. A staff phone conversation (8-30-05) with TW legal counsel revealed “No decision at this point on the pass through of transition LO costs or if the company would cover them. However, those costs would NOT be deducted from the proposed $ .40 PEG fee or the 5% franchise fee. The intent is that the 2 year transition would be an extra thing for the community.” Recommendation: Consistent with the July 25 study session and August 15 regular meeting, staff recommends to Council to continue the public hearing and extend the term of the franchise agreement to September 19, 2005, with the hope that Time Warner and the City can present an agreement on that date. Furthermore, staff and legal counsel plan to discuss the refranchising matter with the City Council at its September 12 study session Staff will be present at the Council meeting to answer questions. Attachment: School District letter regarding Studio Facilities (supplement) 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: 090605 - 6b - YUM!, Inc. Wine and Beer License Page 1 6b. Public Hearing to consider a wine and beer license for YUM!, Inc., operating at 4000 Minnetonka Blvd. Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve the wine and beer license for YUM! Inc. Background: The City has received an application for an on-sale wine and beer license from corporate applicant Yum!, Inc., a Minnesota corporation planning to operate a delicatessen and gourmet food market in the commercial building located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Minnetonka Blvd and Glenhurst Ave. The corporate officers are Chairman Robert C. Pohlad and President/CEO Patti Soskin. Compliance with Licensing Requirements There has been some question as to whether this applicant will be able to meet the requirements of the liquor license which states that wine establishments must have a minimum of 30 seats for the service of food to the public. The proof of parking formula which must be applied through the zoning ordinance required the applicant to limit seating inside the restaurant which caused the applicant to be out of compliance in terms of the 30 seat minimum required in the liquor ordinance. Since that time, plans have been revised and staff is now comfortable that the applicant meets all requirements contained in the zoning and liquor portions of the ordinance. The Police Department has conducted a criminal and financial background check and has found no reason to deny the license. Response from the Public The City Clerk has received one call from a member of the public about the establishment and the liquor license. That caller was opposed to the service of liquor and to the business in general and had organized a neighborhood meeting to discuss the issue. The Assistant Zoning Administrator has received one call from a resident who was opposed and two calls from other residents who were in favor of a small café in the neighborhood. Prepared by: Cindy Reichert, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8a - Preliminary Property Tax Levy Page 1 8a. Approve preliminary property tax levy and budget for the 2006 fiscal year, revisions to the 2005 adopted budget, set Public Hearing date for proposed budget and property tax levy, and approve HRA levy for taxes payable in 2006 Resolution approving the preliminary property tax levy and budget is required by Truth in Taxation legislation. Information contained in the resolution will appear on the individual tax notices prepared by the County. Recommende d Action: Motion to adopt resolutions establishing the preliminary tax levy and budget for 2006, approves revisions to the 2005 adopted budget, sets public hearing date for proposed budget and property tax levy, and approves preliminary HRA levy for taxes payable in 2006. Background: The 2006 proposed budget and the 2005 revised budget were reviewed by the City Council at the August 1st and August 15th study sessions. By law, the City Council must approve a preliminary tax levy and budget for 2006 and submit the tax levy certification to the County by September 15, 2005. The County will mail out parcel specific notices to affected taxpayers after November 11 and on or before November 22, 2005. Final action of the levy and 2006 budget will not occur until the second Council meeting in December. In addition to the General Property Tax levy, the City will levy for the 1999 General Obligation Bond, 2003 General Obligation Bond, 2005 General Obligation Bond, and an HRA levy. Property Tax Levy: For fiscal year 2006, a total levy of $ 18,515,211 is proposed. The overall property tax levy increase is 7%. 3.03% of the levy increase helps to support the operations of the General Fund, Park and Recreation operations, and Park Improvements. The remaining portion of the levy is dedicated to the retirement of General Obligation Debt and the funding of infrastructure improvements (pavement management program). The allocation of property taxes is indicated in the chart below. 2005 Adopted 2006 Proposed Percent Increase General Operations Levy General Fund 12,730,102$ 13,139,286$ Parks and Recreation Fund 2,735,828 2,840,725 Park Improvement Fund 999,708 1,010,000 Total operations levy 16,465,638$ 16,990,011$ 3.02% Debt Service Levy 1999 GO Bond 326,300$ 326,500$ 2003 GO Bond 511,200 513,900 2005 Go Bond - 269,800 Total Debt Service Levy 837,500$ 1,110,200$ 1.58% Pavement Management -$ 415,000$ 2.40% Total Property Tax Levy 17,303,138$ 18,515,211$ 7.00% St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8a - Preliminary Property Tax Levy Page 2 Truth In Taxation (Budget) Hearing Legislative requirements provide that cities hold a “Truth in Taxation” public hearing related to the budget. Staff is recommending holding the budget (Truth in Taxation) hearing on December 5, 2005 to discuss the proposed 2006 budget as well as the legislative changes. This will assist in clarifying the budget status for, and allow input from, the public. Staff also recommends setting December 12, 2005 as a continuation date for the Public Hearing if needed. HRA Levy: At the August 1st and August 22nd study sessions, staff provided information to the Council related to the HRA levy. If approved, this will be the fifth year the Council has authorized a HRA levy. The HRA levy was implemented for the first time in 2002. The HRA levy is based on market value. This levy was originally implemented due to legislative changes in 2001 which significantly impacted future tax increment revenues to be received by the City. When the HRA levy was first implemented, the Council elected to use the proceeds for future infrastructure improvements in redeveloping areas. Thus far, some of the HRA levy proceeds have been used to fund infrastructure studies and analysis for future improvement projects. By law these funds could also be used for other housing and redevelopment purposes therefore, staff is recommending that the HRA levy continue for the 2006 budget year. The EDA is required to approve this levy as well as the City Council. As outlined in the resolution, the HRA levy cannot exceed .0144 percent of the taxable market value of the City. As of August 10, 2004, the market value of the City is $4,452,125,000. This market value allows the City to levy $641,106. This compares to a 2005 levy of $598,543. The proposed 2006 levy amount of $641,106 is $42,563 higher than 2005. This is due to increased taxable market valuation. Staff will review market values prior to final certification in December. The levy amount is included as part of the Development Fund budget. Levy proceeds are to be used for infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. Next Steps Staff will continue to refine the budgetary numbers and bring information back to Council the first part of October. Council has the option of reducing the property tax levy after the initial certification; however it cannot be increased. September 15 Certification of tax levy and budget to County September – November Study session(s) on proposed budget and related issues October – November Presentation for Business Council, Neighborhoods and/or other community groups November 25 Notice of truth in Taxation published December 5 Public Hearing (truth in taxation) December 12 Continuation of Public Hearing (if necessary) December 19 Council adoption of 2006 property tax levy, HRA levy, and budget December 23 Certification of tax levy and other required forms St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8a - Preliminary Property Tax Levy Page 3 Attachments: Resolution Preliminary Draft Budget (Binder – Supplement) Prepared By: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8a - Preliminary Property Tax Levy Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 05-114 RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED 2005 TAX LEVY, COLLECTIBLE IN 2006, APPROVING PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2006, REVISED BUDGET FOR 2005 AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR PROPOSED BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAX LEVY WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by Charter and State law to approve a resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require approval of a proposed property tax levy and a preliminary budget on or before September 15th of each year; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the proposed budget document; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the preliminary 2006 budget for all Governmental Funds (including the Economic Development Authority), Enterprise funds, and Internal Service funds shall be as follows: Revenues:Appropriations General Property Taxes 18,359,016$ Personal Services 22,330,094$ Tax Increments 5,568,454 Supplies Services and other Charges 19,474,058 Licenses and Permits 2,472,600 Capital Outlay 6,910,976 Intergovernmental 3,971,218 Debt Service 5,294,484 Charges for Services 3,960,590 Transfer Out 7,660,908 Fines, Forfeits and penalties 280,300 Contingency 227,871 Enterprise 10,032,237 Rental Revenue 2,159,418 Special Assessments 785,362 Investment Earnings 1,123,787 Miscellaneous 966,163 Transfer In 7,660,908 Total Revenue 57,340,053$ Total Appropriations 61,898,391$ Fund Balance/Reserves - Jan. 1 142,870,139$ Fund Balance/Reserves - Dec. 31 138,311,801$ Total Available 200,210,192$ Total Available 200,210,192$ AVAILABLE RESOURCES:REQUIREMENTS: And as supported by the proposed budget document; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing required by Truth in Taxation legislation will be held on December 5, 2005; and St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8a - Preliminary Property Tax Levy Page 5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied in 2005, collectible in 2006 upon the taxable property in said City of St. Louis Park for the following purposes: General Fund 13,139,286$ Park and Recreation Fund 2,840,725 Park Improvement Fund 1,010,000 GO Debt Service 1,110,200 Pavement Management 415,000 Total 18,515,211$ And BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota and to the Local Government Aids/Analysis Division, Department of Revenue, State of Minnesota as required by law. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council September 6, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8a - Preliminary Property Tax Levy Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. 05-115 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HRA LEVY FOR 2006 WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA Act”), the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "Authority"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of the powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and WHEREAS, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the Act authorizes the Authority to levy a tax upon all taxable property within the City to be expended for the purposes authorized by the HRA Act; and WHEREAS, such levy may be in an amount not to exceed 0.0144 percent of taxable market value of the City; and WHEREAS, the Authority has filed its budget for the special benefit levy in accordance with the budget procedures of the City; and WHEREAS, based upon such budgets the Authority will levy all or such portion of the authorized levy as it deems necessary and proper; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the St. Louis Park City Council: 1. That approval is hereby given for the Authority to levy, for taxes payable in 2006, such tax upon the taxable property of the City as the Authority may determine, subject to the limitations contained in the HRA Act. Approved this 6th day of September, 2005, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8b - Sidewalk Snow Removal Page 1 8b. First Reading of an Ordinance amending Section 24-342 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances relating to snow removal on public sidewalks revising effective accumulation depth to reflect current and past city practices. Recommended Action: Motion to approve First Reading of proposed Ordinance Code text amendments related to Snow Removal on Public Sidewalks and set Second Reading for September 19, 2005. BACKGROUND: Currently, Section 24-342 of St. Louis Park City Ordinance requires home and business owners to clear away all snow and ice from sidewalks abutting their property. Such wording can be construed as requiring sidewalks to be kept clean down to bare pavement. Past and current Public Works’ operational and citywide enforcement practices, however, have been to allow up to a maximum of 2” snow accumulation before the commencement of sidewalk snow removal operations. We have not been requiring ice removal from walks. These practices are also reflected in the service level requirements described in the Special Service District sidewalk snow removal contracts. Without ordinance revisions reflecting our current practice, it is possible the City and residents may be held to a bare sidewalk practice or face liability concerns associated with this discrepancy. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS: Public Works is proposing to modify the sidewalk snow removal ordinance to reflect the current citywide operational and enforcement practices by allowing a maximum 2” accumulated depth of snow before requiring sidewalk cleaning. The proposed modification also removes the current requirement for ice removal from sidewalks. Property owners have been and will continue to be encouraged to remove snow accumulations of less than 2” as well as ice, to the extent practicable. The City Attorney has previously reviewed and approved the attached ordinance illustrating the proposed changes. ISSUES / CONCERNS: Staff views this code revision as non controversial as it simply codifies our current citywide sidewalk snow removal practices. NEXT STEPS: The tentative schedule below shows past actions in this process and necessary future steps in pursuing the proposed ordinance changes. Study Session Report August 22, 2005 First Reading, Set Second Reading September 6, 2005 Second Reading, Adopt Ordinance, Authorize Summary Publication September 19, 2005 Publish Summary September 22, 2005 Ordinance Effective Date (15 days) October 06, 2005 Attachment: Proposed Snow Removal Ordinance Prepared By: Mark Hanson, Operations Superintendent Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8b - Sidewalk Snow Removal Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. _____-05 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 24: STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Chapter 24 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code is hereby amended to read: Sec. 24-342. Snow, ice and rubbish a public nuisance on sidewalks; removal by owner. (a) All snow, ice and rubbish being on a public sidewalk or public right-of-way in such quantities, or in such a manner, as to render the use of the sidewalk by a pedestrian unsafe, is hereby declared a public nuisance. (b) The owner or occupant of any property abutting a public sidewalk shall remove and clear away all snow, ice and rubbish from so much of the sidewalk as is in front of or abuts on the property as follows: (1) Snow and ice shall be removed from all sidewalks in all business and industrial districts within four business hours after the cessation of any fall of snow snowfall, sleet or freezing rain that has reached an accumulative depth of two inches or more or by the beginning of business hours of the next business day following such fall, whichever period is shorter. Snow and ice shall be removed from all other sidewalks on the same day of the cessation of any fall of snow snowfall, sleet or freezing rain that has reached an accumulative depth of two inches or more when at least six hours of daylight remain after the cessation, or otherwise by noon on the following day, whichever period is longer. (2) Rubbish shall be removed from all sidewalks within 12 hours after its accumulation thereon. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council-_______________ City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 1 8c. Request of RKL Landholdings, LLC (Emad Abed) and ARCA for Preliminary and Final Plat approval for “MODA of St. Louis Park” and Preliminary and Final PUD approval for Meadowbrook Lofts for property located at 7000, 7002, 7050, 7052 Excelsior Boulevard and 3985 Meadowbrook Road. Case Nos. 05-44-PUD and 05-45-S Description: Plat property, construct a 6-story, 107 unit condominium project, mitigate existing floodplain and wetland Recommended Action: ü Motion to approve resolution for Preliminary and Final Plat for “MODA of St. Louis Park” ü Motion to approve resolution for Preliminary and Final PUD for Meadowbrook Lofts BACKGROUND On April 20, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the land use designation from Office to High Density Residential and a zoning map amendment from O - Office to RC - Multi-Family Residential for the developable portion of the subject property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of both. On June 20, 2005, the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Second reading for a zoning map amendment was approved on July 5, 2005. This proposal is in conformance with those approvals. Prior to the public hearing, the developer distributed plans to the presidents of the Creekside and Brooklawns Neighborhoods. No neighborhood meetings were requested or pursued. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Plat and PUD applications on August 17, 2005, and recommended approval on a vote of 5-1. Most of the discussion about the project centered around open space requirements. This is discussed below. Comprehensive Plan: High Density Residential and Industrial Zoning: RC - High Density Residential, IG – General Industrial, and FF – Flood Fringe Site Area: 11.6 acres for plat 12.4 acres in PUD (Incl. 0.8 acres ApplianceSmart property) Current Use: Vacant, except for a non-conforming billboard Proposed Use: 107 residential units (condominiums) St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 2 Density: Allowed: 50 units/acre Proposed: 32 units/acre (based on building lot only, 9.2 units per acre based on PUD area) Floor Area Ratio: Allowed: 1.20 Proposed: 1.12 (based on building lot only, 0.3 based on PUD area) Ground Floor Area Ratio Allowed: 0.25 Proposed: 0.21 (based on building lot only, 0.06 based on PUD area) Building Height: Allowed: 6 stories or 75 feet (modification allowed via PUD) Proposed: 81 feet Parking: Required: 214 with up to 30% allowable reductions (150) Proposed: 172 (134 underground and 38 surface) Reduction sought: 20% Open Space: Required: 0.37 acres (16,204 square feet) Provided: 8.5 acres PROPOSAL: The developer is proposing to remove the existing billboard and to construct a 6-story, 107 unit condominium project on the site. (Removal of the billboard is required by Zoning Ordinance.) Both floodplain and wetland mitigation are required for this site. The developer will meet requirements for floodplain mitigation on the property located at 3985 Meadowbrook Road (see below and attached exhibits). A wet stormwater pond is proposed on the southwest corner of the property adjacent to Excelsior Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to place an art object within the pond. ISSUES: Ø Are the Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD proposals in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable ordinances and policies? Ø Does the proposed PUD meet the requirements of zoning? Is the applicant requesting PUD modifications and are they justified? Ø What are the likely impacts on adjacent neighbors? Ø What are the impacts to the adjacent wetland and floodplain? o Does the proposal meet zoning ordinance requirements for floodplain mitigation? o Does the proposal meet requirements for wetland mitigation? o How will a new building on this property be protected from flooding? St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 3 Analysis of Issues: Ø Are the Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD proposals in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable ordinances and policies? The attached development conforms to the recent reguiding and rezoning of the property. The PUD covers additional land owned by ApplianceMart where floodplain mitigation is being proposed. Plat The proposed plat is establishing a property line along an existing school district boundary line. The southern parcel, zoned RC and located within the Hopkins School District, will be developed. The northern parcel, which is zoned General Industrial, will be platted as an “outlot” with a utility and drainage easement over the entire parcel. The City will also require a conservation easement over the entire Outlot A as a condition of approval. The conservation easement will allow creek bed alterations to occur on the property and will prohibit the placement of any permanent structures on the property. The condominium association will continue to own Outlot A. Staff finds the proposed preliminary and final plat to be acceptable. Since the plat is not technically a subdivision because it is combining two existing parcels, park and trail dedication are not required. Public Works has found that the proposed drainage and flood storage meets City requirements. The applicant will be required to apply to the City for an erosion control permit and also needs a permit from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. A copy of the PUD application was sent to MCWD and several comments were forwarded to the developer. The proposed plat was also sent to Hennepin County for its review because access to the parcel is from a county road. Hennepin County responded to the City with a letter stating that the plat was acceptable, and that the applicant would be required to apply for an access permit from the County. Ø Does the proposed PUD meet the requirements of zoning? Is the applicant requesting PUD modifications and are they justified? PUD modifications. The applicant is requesting a PUD modification to reduce required parking by 5%, to allow a building height increase of 6 feet, and to reduce the required side yard setback from 55 feet to 50 feet (based on average setback) along the west side of the building. Parking. The zoning code requires 2 parking spaces per unit with the following allowable reductions (107 units). o A 10% parking reduction is allowed if the development is located within ¼ mile of a frequently operating transit route, if there is a dedicated pedestrian route to the bus stop. The Route 12 bus operates on Excelsior Boulevard and is frequently operating. The St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 4 applicant is proposing to construct an on-site sidewalk that will connect to the existing sidewalk on Excelsior Boulevard. o The zoning ordinance allows up to a 5% parking reduction if the development constructs bicycle parking on site. The site plan does not show any area designated for bicycle parking, although the developer has agreed to include an area on the plan. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that bicycle parking be added to the plan as a condition of approval. o An additional 15% parking reduction is allowed via PUD, if the City Council finds this reduction is warranted based upon the development. The applicant is seeking a 20% total parking reduction. This would include a PUD modification of 5% in addition to the 10% allowed for transit and 5% for bicycle parking. Generally staff has found that parking reductions do not cause a parking shortage as long as one parking space per bedroom is provided and at least 10% of the parking provided is accessible to guests. The developer is proposing 172 parking spaces, 38 of which or 22% are accessible to guests. The development will have 137 bedrooms and 29 dens. Even if all of the dens were converted to bedrooms, the total number of bedrooms would be only 166, which means there will be more than one parking space per bedroom. 30 2-bedroom units 48 1-bedroom units 29 2-bedroom plus den units 137 bedrooms plus 29 dens - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Parking required (107 units) 214 spaces Less 20% - 43 spaces 171 spaces Proposed 172 spaces - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 space per bedroom analysis Number of bedrooms 137 Spaces per bedroom 1.25 Number of bedrooms + dens 166 Spaces per bedroom + den 1.04 The City Council has also stated that if the trail extending to Minnehaha Creek is accessible to the public, then parking should be made available to the public. The applicant has stated that the outdoor parking lot would be accessible to the public for parking for trail use. Building Height The RC zoning district allows building heights of 6 stories or 75 feet whichever is greater. The PUD process allows modifications to this building height. The proposal is for a 6-story building. However, due to the desirability of higher ceiling heights (9 feet), 2 levels of structured parking St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 5 under the building, and architectural features on top of the building, the developer is requesting a 6-foot building height modification. The building is proposed to be 81 feet high to the upper parapet measured from the ground along the front elevation. In the RC zoning district, building setbacks are determined based on building height. Since the proposed building will be set back 160 feet at its closest point from the east property line (about 2 times building height), staff does not anticipate any adverse impacts and finds the building height modification to be reasonable. Setback Reduction The applicant is seeking a 8-foot setback reduction along the west property line. The RC district requires a 56-foot average sideyard setback (based on building height), but the PUD allows modifications to reduce side-yard setbacks to 0 feet if the property does not abut a residential property. The west side of the property abuts a parking lot and loading dock for the adjacent industrial property. In this location, the lowest occupied floor of the proposed building is 14 feet above ground. The developer is proposing an average sideyard setback of 48 feet. Due to the limited buildable area of the lot and minimum impacts to adjacent land use, staff finds the setback modification reasonable. Bufferyards. The proposed landscape plan show that bufferyard requirements are being met. Landscaping. A revised landscape plan has been received that responds to comments made by staff and the Planning Commission. This plan has been forwarded to the Environmental Coordinator for further comments. Staff has included as a condition of approval that the Environmental Coordinator approve the plant species proposed prior to the City signing the final plat. Tree Replacement. The tree inventory shows a total of 3,185 caliper inches of trees on the site and 1,660 inches are subject to removal. The replacement requirement is 800 caliper inches. The landscape plan indicates 318 caliper inches being replaced (provided minimum size plants, 2.5 caliper inch for over-story trees, 6 feet minimum height for evergreen trees, and 1.5 caliper inch for ornamental trees are used). The applicant can either replace additional plants on site, or can contribute $90 per caliper inch in lieu of tree replacement. Traffic When the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the developer’s request for a rezoning of the property, issues related to traffic were discussed, specifically comparing the old Comprehensive Plan and zoning of Office to the new High Density Residential designation. The Institute of Transportation Trip Generation manuals indicate that residential development generates fewer peak hour trips than an office use. The proposed 107-unit condominium project would generate 627 weekday trips, 47 a.m. peak hour trips, and 56 p.m. peak hour trips. The same size office building (based on the previous zoning) would generate 1,163 weekday trips, 234 a.m. peak hour trips and 225 p.m. peak hour trips. Site access to the site is right-in and right-out only from Excelsior Boulevard. A residential use on this property would generate fewer peak hour trips and would result in fewer U-turns on Excelsior Boulevard during rush hour St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 6 in order to access or exit the site. This would be beneficial as current traffic counts in Excelsior Boulevard were 25,600 vehicles per day in 2001 in this section. Open Space (DORA) The Zoning Code requires 12% of the building lot to be developed as “Designed Outdoor Recreational Area”. This is defined as outdoor space intended for passive or active recreation that is accessible and suited to the needs of residents and/or employees. The area shall be functional and aesthetic, designed with clear edges, relate to the principal building or buildings, include sidewalk connections, seating, landscaping, and other amenities. The area should be compatible with or enlarge upon existing pedestrian links and public parks or open space and may include swimming pools, tot lots, courtyards, plazas, picnic areas, and trails within natural areas. Outdoor recreational areas shall not include driveways, parking areas, steep slopes, or ponds designed solely for stormwater retention. (Ord. No. 2267-04, 4-12-04) Based upon the building lot, 0.37 acres of area is required for DORA. The developer is proposing that the entire Outlot A (8.5 acre parcel containing wetland and other low, natural area) be left as a natural area and will construct a pedestrian trail/boardwalk across the property to gain access to it and to Minnehaha Creek beyond. Passive seating/picnic areas will also be provided along the trail to enhance the outdoor experience. The definition of DORA does include “trails within natural areas” to be considered as part of the DORA. The developer is also proposing an outdoor plaza approximately 3,600 square feet in area that overlooks the wetland. Of the total 11.6 acre site, more than 10 acres will remain “green”. The Planning Commission was concerned that if the public had access to the open space, it could interfere with the enjoyment of the space by residents. They concluded that since access would be provided by an easement agreement, future residents could request a vacation of the easement if problems did arise. Public Art The applicant is proposing a public art sculpture within the pond located along the southwest portion of the site. Public art is a measure of “superior” development as identified in the Zoning Ordinance as a means to measure whether or not PUD modifications are warranted. The sculpture would be owned and maintained by the condominium association. Building Materials The proposal meets City requirements for Class 1 materials (see elevation plan) by using stucco, brick and glass on more than 60% of each building elevation. Ø What are the likely impacts on adjacent neighbors? The magenta image on the aerial photo below indicates the approximate location of the proposed condominium building. The yellow and orange buffers indicate distance from the existing parcels, yellow is 350 feet and orange is ¼ mile. Note that there are no single family residential St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 7 parcels within ¼ mile of the proposed development within St. Louis Park. The closest single family is located in Hopkins. Several buildings at Excelsior Townhomes and one at Meadowbrook Manor are located within 350 feet (the common notice requirement for public hearing notices). Due to the location of the proposed building and changes in topography, this building will not impact views to Minnehaha Creek or to the Meadowbrook Golf Course for any other residents. Due to the distance (over a quarter mile) from other single family residents in St. Louis Park, presidents of the Brooklawns and Creekside Neighborhoods did not have interest in holding a neighborhood meeting for the project. The closest single family neighborhood is located in the City of Hopkins. These are still a distance greater than the normal notification of 500 feet for a new plat. Ø What are the impacts to the adjacent wetland and floodplain? o Does the proposal meet zoning ordinance requirements for floodplain mitigation? o Does the proposal meet requirements for wetland mitigation? o How will a new building on this property be protected from flooding? In order to construct the proposed project, both a portion of an existing wetland and floodplain will be filled. City Ordinances allow for fill in the floodplain provided compensating storage is St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 8 provided in an area outside the floodplain. The applicant has proposed a plan that provides compensating storage in an area outside the floodplain on the adjacent property (see attached exhibits). The proposed plan does meet the City requirements for floodplain mitigation. The developer will be required to provide to the City evidence of an ownership right over the proposed mitigation site to allow this excavation to occur and to be maintained. Wetland mitigation is proposed to be provided on site and must be approved by Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the regulating authority for wetlands. Due to the proposed ground elevations surrounding the building and the proposed building openings and flood-proofing of the garage level, staff finds that the proposal is acceptable. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final PUD and Plat for Meadowbrook Lofts, subject to the conditions in the resolutions. Attachments: Ø Proposed Resolution approving Preliminary and Final PUD Ø Proposed Resolution approving Preliminary and Final Plat Ø Aerial Photo Ø Proposed Plat and PUD Exhibits Ø Planning Commission unofficial minutes Prepared By: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator 952-924-2574 jerickson@stlouispark.org Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 9 RESOLUTION NO._____________ A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED RC – HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, IG – GENERAL INDUSTRIAL, AND FF – FLOOD FRINGE LOCATED AT 7000, 7002, 7050, 7052 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD and 3985 MEADOWBROOK ROAD WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) was received on July 18, 2005 from the applicant, and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the Preliminary and Final PUD was mailed to all owners of property within 350 feet of the subject property plus other affected property owners in the vicinity, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary and Final PUD at the meeting of August 17, 2005, and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the Preliminary and Final PUD was published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on August 4, 2005, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing at the meeting of August 17, 2005, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final PUD on a 5-1 vote with five members present voting in the affirmative and one opposed, and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments in the record of decision. BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. RKL Landholdings, LLC (Emad Abed) and ARCA have made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit Development under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the RC – High Density Residential, IG – General Industrial, and FF – Flood Fringe districts located at 7000, 7002, 7050, 7052 Excelsior Boulevard and 3985 Meadowbrook Road for the legal description as follows, to-wit: St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 10 Tracts B and C and a portion of Tract D, RLS No. 167 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 05-44-PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The City Council has determined that the 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 nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The Council has also determined that the proposed PUD is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply with the requirements of Section 36-367(b)(5). 4. The contents of Planning Case File 05-44-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development at the location described is approved based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Final PUD official exhibits, except that the landscape plan may be revised to reflect comments by the Environmental Coordinator related to proposed plant species. 2. Parking, building height, and setback modifications are approved as follows: a. A 20% total parking reduction including a 10% reduction for transit, 5% for bicycle parking provided that bicycle parking is provided for residents. b. Building height of 81 feet measured from the front elevation c. A sideyard setback modification of 8 feet on west side. 3. Prior to signing the Final Plat, the following conditions shall be met: a. Condominium association papers and other Final Plat documents shall be received and approved by the City Attorney. b. The applicant shall submit cash in lieu of tree replacement the meets the current replacement formula. c. An easement over all sidewalks and trails proposed on private property and intended for public access shall be submitted and approved by the City Attorney. d. A conservation easement over all of Outlot A is submitted and approved by the City Attorney. e. An easement document is submitted and approved by the City Attorney showing the ability to use the property at 3985 Meadowbrook Road for floodplain replacement. 4. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met: a. The Planning Contract shall be signed that address, at a minimum, construction staging/routes/hours/duration, required completion of improvements prior to St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 11 occupancy, allowable administrative amendments, prevention of garage space sales to non-residents, the publics use of the conservation easement, specifics related to the City’s review of the proposed public art for the project, and consistency between documents as required by the City Attorney. b. A copy of permit from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District must be provided. c. An erosion control permit must be secured from the City. 5. The hours of construction shall be limited as follows: All outdoor activity and loud equipment operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 5:00 pm weekdays and 9:00 am and 5:00 pm on holidays; no such activity shall take place on weekends. Indoor construction activity that does not involve loud equipment shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm on weekdays and 9:00 am and 10:00 pm on weekends and holidays. 6. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional conditions, the following conditions shall be met: a. Evidence of filing the final plat shall be submitted. b. Evidence of filing easements over all sidewalks proposed on private property to be used by the public. c. Color samples of all materials, shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator. d. An Irrigation Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator. e. A Lighting Plan, including light fixture details shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator. f. The existing billboard shall be removed. 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. Pursuant to Section 36-367(e)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution of a development agreement as a condition of approval of the Preliminary and Final P.U.D. The development agreement shall address those issues which the City deems appropriate and necessary. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the development agreement. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 6, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 12 City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 13 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF MODA OF ST. LOUIS PARK BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. RKL Landholdings, LLC (Emad Abed) and ARCA, owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be platted as MODA of St. Louis Park have submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder. 2. The proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit: Tracts B and C, RLS No. 167 Conclusion 1. The proposed preliminary and final plat of MODA of St. Louis Park is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: a. Drainage and utility easements shall be located over the entire Outlot A. b. A conservation easement shall be located over the entire Outlot A. c. Approval of the Final Plat is subject to the conditions of Meadowbrook Lofts PUD (Case No. 05-44-PUD) approval, the planning contract, and requirements of other agencies including the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Hennepin County Department of Transportation. d. 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. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 14 provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled. 4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 6, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 15 Unofficial Excerpts Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2005 3. Hearings A. Meadowbrook Lofts – Preliminary and Final Plat and Planned Unit Development to Construct 6-story, 107 unit Residential Condominium Building Location: 7200, 7202, 7250, 7252 Excelsior Boulevard and 3985 Meadowbrook Road Applicant: RKL Landholdings, LLC Case Nos.: 05-44-PUD and 05-45-S Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator, presented the staff report. Dean Dovalis, project architect, provided details regarding the sculpture by Nick Legeros which is proposed for the public art/gateway part of the project. Mr. Dovalis said that units have been enlarged since the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal in connection with the Comp Plan and rezoning applications. Larger units have resulted in fewer units than were originally proposed. Mr. Dovalis commented on the wetlands and the incorporation of a boardwalk to re-establish the creek as a central piece of the project. Commissioner Morris asked about the conservation easement. He asked what in the condominium covenants will give access rights to the residents, or would it just be open to the public. Mr. Dovalis responded that the easement would be open to the public. Commissioner Timian asked how the public would exit. Mr. Dovalis said at this point the trail is a one-way walk. Commissioner Morris asked about vegetation management. Mr. Dovalis said the developer does not want to adapt or modify the area. It is a wild and natural space. Commissioner Morris said he asked the question because the 12% open space requirements are for recreational use of residents. If the area is open to the public, is not accessible to residents, and is not maintained, he asked how the 12% open space requirement is met. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 16 Mr. Dovalis said the boardwalk and path provide the recreation. Some maintenance would occur along the edges of the boardwalk and the pathway. It isn’t an active area, it is a passive recreational area for observation of wildlife and the creek. It would be the first phase of opening up the creek area. Ms. Erickson stated that the Park and Recreation Dept. discussed the proposal. The City Attorney will draft the easement document. Commissioner Morris said he was concerned about the intent of the zoning requirement for 12% recreational open space and a new view of how that requirement is being utilized. Ms. Erickson said the staff report suggests further development of passive areas like a picnic area, tables, or gazebos that make the walk more desirable. She added that there is land available for an informal trail along the creek on the southside to Meadowbrook Lane. The DNR owns the property right next to the creek so that eventually the trail could be connected. Chair Carper asked if buckthorn removal included both lots. Ms. Erickson responded that it mostly included the outlot. Commissioner Robertson asked if the area along the trail measures out to 12% open space. Ms. Erickson said it is difficult to measure along the trail but it does seem to meet the 12% open space requirement. Ms. Erickson said prior to City Council consideration of the request, she will make the calculation of the area along the trail. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked why Ms. Erickson equated the area to Excelsior & Grand in terms of parking. She also asked about parking for public access. Ms. Erickson said what seems to have worked at Excelsior & Grand, and other developments as well, is parking based on one car per bedroom. The 30% reduction for this project would have been a little high, but staff was comfortable with the parking because the project exceeds the one car per bedroom measurement. She went on to say that the City Council expressed a concern that there should be some parking available for public use of the trail. The developer has stated that they will make some of the spaces available for the public. She said there is a sidewalk all along Excelsior Blvd. so there is pedestrian access for people at adjacent properties wanting to use the trail. Ms. McMonigal added that when looking at parking reductions related to bedroom size, just as another standard, staff asks if the development has 1 parking space per bedroom. Often that equates to the number of cars. Staff has used that informally as a check on how much of a reduction should be given. Chair Carper asked about overflow parking. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 17 Ms. Erickson said given the number of spaces provided, staff did not think there would be a problem with overflow parking. Commissioner Timian said the project has the same issue as the existing project to the east, in that it has no green space. He went on to say that when that developer made his presentation he said there would be no need for any green space because no children would be living in the building. Commissioner Timian said that building does have many children living in it with no recreational area. He said he assumes Meadowbrook Lofts is being marketed for 55+. He said that many of these developments do end up having children and they end up playing in the parking lot. He concluded by saying that once again a development is proposed with no green space for children or adults. Chair Carper opened the public hearing. Barry Berg, marketing representative for the development team, said that he has represented a number of condominium projects in Minneapolis and the western suburbs. It has been his observation that there are very few young children living in the projects. He gave the example that often a couple with an infant or toddler will move before the child would be old enough to be playing outdoors. Commissioner Timian said his concern didn’t regard the next 5-10 years of the project, but the next 40 years. He said the developer of the adjacent property had made the same remarks as Mr. Berg and there are many children living there. He said the reality of this project is that the building is totally isolated with no connecting point to a park or other amenities. Daniel Le, attorney for the development team, said the lack of green space is an issue they have considered, but the majority of the property is wetland. They are constantly exploring ways to create more of a recreational area. He said they aren’t short sighted and haven’t stopped thinking of how to improve the project. They are trying to satisfy all the criteria of the PUD process. He said there is potential in the future to address Commissioner Timian’s concerns. Commissioner Timian acknowledged that the developer cares about the future and has a very difficult piece of property. But the development is not meeting the needs of the City in what has been proposed so far. Mr. Le said that the team will meet the needs of the City in working with the landscape architects as long as the development can do something on the wetland area that is in compliance with Watershed District regulations. Commissioner Morris asked about future plans and his understanding that the land would be encumbered as a conservation easement. He asked where expansion would occur. Mr. Le said the project absolutely would not go into the wetland area that has been set aside. There are adjacent properties that may one day open up for development. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 18 Scott Nelson, project architect, said they were asked by the Council at a study session how the project helped family housing in St. Louis Park. Mr. Nelson said they explained at that session that the project isn’t about providing family housing. It is providing opportunities for empty nesters and freeing up approximately 107 homes in St. Louis Park for families. Commissioner Timian said he had no disagreement with that, but wondered who is going to end up living in the building. He said at this point very few amenities are provided. Ms. McMonigal said that it is mentioned in the report that staff recommends passive seating and picnic areas around the immediate building. Mr. Nelson illustrated where a picnic area or gazebo could be added. He mentioned that along the back of the building a very large deck for picnics and observation has been provided. He said the proposed gateway/public art area at the west could be screened off and used as a recreation area, but originally the development team felt it wouldn’t get that much use. Mr. Nelson and Commissioner Timian talked about possibilities for recreational space near the wetland edge at the northwest side of the building. Mr. Nelson commented that the property presents itself as a natural area of views and walkways and the developer is trying to maximize that. Laura Ricker, building owner, 3965 Meadowbrook Rd., asked for details regarding floodplain mitigation on the property located at 3985 Meadowbrook Rd. She also asked about average estimated cost per unit. Barry Berg, marketing consultant, said pricing has not yet been finalized. Ms. Ricker asked if the project would receive any tax deferment or perks from the City. Ms. Erickson said the project would not receive any tax deferment or perks from the City. Ms. Ricker was given a copy of the staff report. Ms. Ricker said that the path along the creek runs parallel to her building’s driveway. She said she wanted the Commission and Council to know what the driveway was like. Large industrial trucks use the driveway hourly so the idea that this area be used for public recreation is questionable to her. She mentioned that when she bought the property there was a history of contamination in the area. Her property has several wells which have been capped. She believes that many of those wells lie in the area planned for floodplain mitigation. Chair Carper asked what kind of business is located in her building. Ms. Ricker said the building, located just north of Appliance Mart, houses a manufacturing company called Electric Wire Products. It is 75,000 sq. ft. with 200 employees and two manufacturing shifts. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 19 As no one else was present wishing to speak, Chair Carper closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the property is difficult. She suggested that one of the reasons an office building hasn’t been built on the site is because it is a difficult property, especially as regards parking for office. She said she believes the amount of traffic that will be generated by this project will not be as great as that produced by an office building, but right now this particular project will have a big impact on Excelsior Blvd. She said this fits into some of the previous discussions the Commission has had regarding the continuation of projects for medium to high density in the area and areas east of this location. She said the City can’t continue to put additional cars on the road. She believes this project will be spectacular but she has concerns about the site, parking, and public access to the trail Commissioner Robertson said the project was well designed. Buildable space is maximized but much open space remains available. It may not provide the amenities found in a single family home, but hopefully other things are being done in the City which address that. He said it would be a choice to live here and people with children wouldn’t necessarily be stuck living there. Commissioner Timian said we don’t know how the building will operate in 30 years. He added that sometimes people don’t have choices. Commissioner Morris asked about the compensatory storage area being provided outside the boundary lines of the developed property. Ms. Erickson stated that the compensating storage is on the Appliance Smart property. Appliance Smart is a co-signer of the application for the PUD and they will have to provide a legal framework for the storage to happen. It is a condition of approval in the resolution. Commissioner Morris said he envisions problems in the future between residents and the public walking right adjacent to the property. There may be conflicts over the use of the parking lot, crowding boardwalks, and activities or behavior that the residents don’t enjoy or encourage. He said he is concerned about residents having no control over an area in which they want to do recreation. He has always envisioned the 12% open space as space on one’s property that is exclusive to the use of the residents and owners. Ms. Erickson said in a PUD the open space often isn’t on the same lot. The condominium association will not be giving up ownership. The City will not take ownership of the conservation easement. The willingness of the development team to make the area open and accessible to the public was a request of the City Council. Commissioner Morris said he understood. He said his concern was that the buyers may not like that idea when conflicts start arising. He said he isn’t opposed to the concept but he is uncomfortable with its workability. He recommended that a provision be brought forward that public access is not permanent but has a trial period. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 20 Commissioner Robertson agreed that the City shouldn’t force that issue on the condo association, but that they should have the right to change the provision. Chair Carper said some of the concessions he is willing to give the developer for height and setbacks are contingent upon the public access being provided. Commissioner Kramer said he is worried about a path that goes nowhere. He thinks the idea of a shared common space is a great idea. As space becomes more and more precious residents should be open to new ideas about sharing some space. He said he isn’t worried about parking. He said it is an attractive project and people will want to buy there. It will free up other houses in the City. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if there was any discussion about a smaller footprint and higher building. Mr. Nelson said at various times they studied building up to 10 stories. The proposed size is a compromise between the available land, the amount of units, and cost of construction. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she would support a recommendation for a provision regarding a trial period for the public access. Ms. Erickson pointed out possible future trial connections. She showed the park on the other side of the creek which has a canoe landing. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if the recommendation for a trial period isn’t made, is there another way to recommend that the Council take another look at the idea of public access. Ms. McMonigal said the conservation easement would be dedicated to the City so the City is the party that could lift it, not the developer. Ms. Erickson added that the conservation easement isn’t an easement for public access. It is an easement for protection of the wetland. There would have to be a separate easement for a trail on the property to be accessible to the public. That easement would also be dedicated to the City. Ms. Erickson explained that the conservation easement needs to cover certain things such as the ability to restore the meanders in the creek. There are a lot of reasons to have the legal mechanism of the conservation easement. It is separate from public access. Commissioner Morris asked if Ms. Erickson’s explanation was covered by Condition No. 3c, with the correction that the easement shall be dedicated to the City. Ms. Erickson replied that was correct. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8c - Meadowbrook Lofts Prelim and Final PUD and Plat Page 21 Commissioner Morris said that gives any future property owner the right to make an application to vacate an easement. He said that satisfies the citizen input as to whether that is a functional easement or not. He said he is agreeable to that condition. Jim Benshoof, traffic consultant, showed an illustration of peak hour trip generation projections, which shows the effects of traffic on Excelsior Blvd. to be minor in nature. Commissioner Johnston-Madison thanked Mr. Benshoof for his comments. Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat for MODA of St. Louis Park and Preliminary and Final PUD for Meadowbrook Lofts subject to conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-1 (Timian opposed). Commissioner Morris left the meeting at 7:30 p.m. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8d - Sam's Club Page 1 8d. Request by Sam’s Club for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a retail store in excess of 20,000 square feet in the C-2 General Commercial Zoning District Case No. 05-46-CUP 7115 W. Lake St. and 3745 Louisiana Ave. S. Recommended Action: • Motion to adopt a resolution of approval for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a retail store in excess of 20,000 square feet in the C-2 General Commercial Zoning District, subject to conditions recommended by staff. Zoning: C-2 General Commercial Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial Description of Request: Sam’s Club is proposing a new 148,898 square foot warehouse-retail store for its site at Louisiana Avenue and Lake Street. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required by the Zoning Code for retail operations exceeding 20,000 square feet. In 2004 an addition to the existing building was approved by the City; subsequent to that approval, Sam’s Club determined that the expansion and remodel plans were insufficient for the company’s long-term needs. The proposed new building is relocated to the north, along Lake Street, with the parking to the south. The building includes a liquor store, a tire/lube facility, and an unattached gas station located in the southeast corner of the site, along Monitor Street. Sam’s Club intends to continue operations at the existing store throughout the construction process. When completed, Sam’s Club will move its operations into the new store and raze the old store, and additional stormwater and parking lot improvements will be made in the location of the existing store. Substantial disruptions to customer parking will occur at the existing store and new store during the construction period and until all site work is completed. Sam’s Club has indicated that off-site parking will be provided for all employees. A condition of approval is that prior to a building permit being issue, Sam’s Club provide a plan showing where off-site parking will be for employees and how shuttling of employees will be managed. All previous conditions required in the 2004 CUP approval have been incorporated into the proposed resolution. A development agreement between the City and Sam’s Club will be executed following the approval of the CUP. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8d - Sam's Club Page 2 Zoning Analysis: Zoning Regulation Required Provided Setbacks Front (Lake Street) 5 feet 20 feet Rear (South side) 0 feet 30 feet to motor fuel station canopy Sides abutting a street 15 feet 22 feet (Louisiana Ave) 35 feet (Monitor St.) Building Height Six stories or 75 feet, maximum One story; highest point is 38.4’. Parking Retail and Tire Sales (122,609 sf) 681 spaces Office (5,955 sf) 24 spaces Tire Mounting Area (2,877 sf) 22 spaces 8 adjacent Storage (17,157 sf) 12 spaces Subtotal 739 spaces Transit Deduction (10%) -74 spaces -74 spaces Subtotal 665 spaces 744 spaces Minus cart corral areas -20 Total 665 spaces 724 spaces Handicapped 15 spaces 15 spaces Bufferyards Total units required: 2112 Total units provided: 2460 Total plant units required: 1070 Total plant units provided: 1176 Lighting Maximum 1 foot candle at property line Maximum of 0.9 foot candles at property line Pole height May not exceed 45 feet Poles are 42 feet high Building Materials Minimum of 60% class I materials Met with brick, stucco, and colored textured concrete block Sidewalks Required along public streets Will be constructed Refuse Collection Screened; appropriately sized; Met; provided in loading dock area Tree Replacement Removing: 911 caliper inches: Required – 928 caliper inches. 551 inches; 377 inches additional tree planting required off-site. Signage Max. 400 square feet 393.27 square feet St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8d - Sam's Club Page 3 Issues: • What was permitted by the Conditional Use Permit adopted by the Council last year? • What will be the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan? • What will be the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety and welfare of occupants of surrounding lands? • What is the status of the Southwest Light Rail System? What is its relationship to the Sam’s Club project? • What will be the effect of the proposed use on local traffic patterns? • What potential impacts may result due to the size of the proposed retail operation? • What are the impacts during construction? • Does the proposed site plan provide sufficient bufferyards to meet the requirements of the CUP? Issues Analysis: What was permitted by the Conditional Use Permit adopted by the Council last year? The CUP adopted by the Council last year allowed Sam’s Club to expand the existing store, and included plans for the liquor store, tire and lube, and gas station. The CUP also included numerous conditions. The conditions required in last year’s approval have been incorporated into the current conditions. What will be the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan calls for the property in question to remain as a commercial property. The proposed development meets several goals for commercial property in the Comprehensive Plan, including goal E, (page E-11), “concentrate all large commercial and office development providing good design, efficiency, and compatibility within the area and to abutting property,” goal G, “insure that commercial developments are adequately served with public transit facilities,” and goal H, “minimize the adverse impacts associate with commercial strip development using design, performance standards, site planning techniques, and buffering.” The characteristics of the proposed building most applicable to the Comprehensive Plan’s requirements are the improved architectural character of the building and the enhanced site design. Both will improve the safety and welfare of the surrounding properties. What will be the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety and welfare of occupants of surrounding lands? No negative effects are expected as a result of the proposed retail operation. The proposed use will provide benefits in comparison to the existing site; including improvements in terms of parking, landscaping and stormwater. Monitor Street is currently in poor condition. At its southern end, Monitor Street drastically decreases in width and is overgrown by trees and brush. To accommodate the new site layout, Sam’s Club is required to rebuild Monitor Street, which will greatly increase the safety and access to and from Monitor Street. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8d - Sam's Club Page 4 Besides site-specific improvements, the conditions require Sam’s Club to participate financially in the construction of improvements at Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue to address traffic and pedestrian safety issues. What is the relationship of the Southwest Light Rail Corridor to the Sam’s Club project? The Sam’s Club property is located adjacent to the Southwest Light Rail Corridor. The light rail corridor runs from downtown Minneapolis to Eden Prairie, passing through St. Louis Park. Louisiana Avenue has been identified as a future transit station. The location of the transit station has not been determined. The Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority is considering entering into an agreement with the City to study station locations for the Louisiana Avenue area. This study would ultimately identify the best location for the station and a supportive park and ride. Sam’s Club is expected to be a part of the study process. Sam’s Club employs a large number of people and is visited by numerous patrons every day. The availability of regular transit service in close proximity to Sam’s Club would improve access to the site for both customers and employees. What will be the effect of the proposed use on local traffic patterns? A traffic study was completed for the proposed expansion of the Sam’s Club in April of 2004. Staff and SRF Consulting determined that this traffic study remained valid for several reasons: first, the store’s size will decrease in comparison to the size of the approved expansion; second, because the traffic conditions in the area have not changed significantly since the time of the study; and third, because no additional entrances or exits are shown in the new plans, except for the two entrances reserved for truck traffic only located on Lake Street and on Monitor Street. SRF Consulting provided a brief review of the new proposal. A memo from SRF Consulting is attached. The traffic study of April of 2004 determined that most of the intersections in the proximity to the proposed Sam’s Club are functioning at an appropriate level of service. Except during construction, no traffic impacts are expected of the new Sam’s Club building. The new store will not generate a significantly greater amount of traffic than the store presently on the site. The traffic study from April of 2004 is attached. What are the impacts during construction? During construction, Sam’s expects to have 304 of its existing 462 parking spaces available for customer use; 158 spaces will be lost for the interim period. Staff has included a condition for approval that Sam’s Club provide a copy of documents showing how and where off-street parking for all employees will be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. The shortage of parking spaces will last for the duration of the construction period. Until the new store is completed, the old store razed, and underground stormwater storage installed, the new parking will not be available to customers. Sam’s Club has indicated that construction on the new store will take approximately 9 months. Subsequent to its completion, demolition of the old store will take approximately 6 weeks, including construction of the new parking lot. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8d - Sam's Club Page 5 Traffic impacts during construction include the movement of construction vehicles on, off, and through the site and regular business at the existing Sam’s Club building. The prevention of conflicts between the two uses will be the responsibility of the on-site construction personnel. As a condition of the CUP, Sam’s Club must maintain separation between the construction work and the existing business to ensure the health and safety of its customers. A condition of approval includes submitting a plan showing how this will be accomplished. Does the proposed site plan provide sufficient bufferyards to meet the requirements of the CUP? Sam’s Club is proposing to include a substantial amount of landscaping on all sides of the site and meets the zoning requirements for landscaping and bufferyards. Though the site will include a great deal of impervious surface, Sam’s Club has provided a reasonable landscaped perimeter. Additionally, Sam’s Club has also included sidewalks along all sides of the site that have frontage along a public street. Engineering Issues: The following engineering items were addressed in the 2004 approvals and continue to be a part of the CUP approvals: • Monitor Street will be reconstructed by Sam’s Club with this redevelopment. • Sidewalks will be installed on the three street sides of the site. • Stormwater will be handled by an underground collection system. • Water lines will be moved to accommodate the new building location. • Sam’s Club will participate in off-site improvements to address traffic and pedestrian safety issues at Hwy 7 and Wooddale. All of these items are subject to final approvals before construction by the City Public Works Department; a development agreement will be executed to address all of the improvement items and collect the necessary financial guarantees to ensure installation of the required improvements. Planning Commission Consideration: The Planning Commission considered Sam’s Club’s request for a CUP on August 17, 2005, and recommended approval with conditions. Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting are attached for review. The Planning Commission raised several concerns including: the broad expanse of brick walls, the gas station’s location, and the lack of parking during the construction period as the primary issues faced due to the reconstruction. To address the Planning Commission’s concern for broad expanses of brick walls, Sam’s Club has modified the site plan to include an additional brick screening wall along Monitor Street. The proposed wall is indicated on the attached site plan. This wall will provide screening for drivers and pedestrians traveling west along Lake Street, reducing the visual impact of the truck loading docks at Sam’s Club. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8d - Sam's Club Page 6 The Planning Commission also recommended additional vegetation along the Lake Street bufferyard; however, doing so is difficult because there is not additional room for more landscaping. To address the interim parking issue, a parking lot capacity study was suggested by the Planning Commission. The intent was to obtain an indication of how much parking is used on a typical basis to see that if the amount provided will suffice during construction. Sam’s Club did not submit a study, but indicated its busiest months are November and December and construction will not begin until the end of December. Sam’s Club indicated that the parking lot is not fully used except during those months, indicating a reduced demand for parking during non-holiday periods. Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adopting the attached resolution of approval for the Conditional Use Permit to allow a retail store in excess of 20,000 square feet in the C-2 General Commercial Zoning District, subject to conditions found in the resolution. Attachments: • Resolution No. ___, Granting a Conditional Use Permit for a Retail Store in Excess of 20,000 square feet • Site Map • Site Plan (7 pages) • Interior Layout Plan • Temporary Parking Plan • Proposed Gas Station Elevations (Color Incorrect) • Proposed Building Elevations • Memo from Carla Stueve, PE, SRF Consulting, to Adam Fulton • Traffic Study Completed by SRF, Inc. in April, 2004 • Draft Minutes from the August 17, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8d - Sam's Club Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. 05-116 A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-194 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT A RETAIL STORE IN EXCESS OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET FOR PROPERTY ZONED C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 7115 WEST LAKE STREET AND 3745 LOUISIANA AVENUE SOUTH BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. Sam’s Club (Sam’s Real Estate Business Trust) has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 36-194 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of allowing a retail store in excess of 20,000 square feet within a C-2 General District located at 7115 West Lake Street and 3745 Louisiana Avenue South for the legal description as follows, to-wit: Lot 1, Block 1, Sam’s Club Addition 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 05-46-CUP) and the effect of the proposed retail store on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Council has determined that the retail store will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and the proposed retail store is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The contents of Planning Case File 05-46-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The Conditional Use Permit to permit a retail store over 20,000 square feet at the location described is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall meet the following requirements: St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8d - Sam's Club Page 8 a. Stormwater design details must be submitted and approved by the Public Works Director. b. Final sidewalk construction specifications must be approved by the Public Works Director. c. Final roadway designs for Monitor Street shall be approved by the Public Works Director. d. A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City. e. Obtain the required demolition permit, erosion control permits, utility permits and other permits required by the City, which may impose additional conditions. f. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained. g. Sign Assent form and official exhibits. h. Specifications for tree protection and erosion control fencing must be submitted and approved by the City Forester. Required tree protection and erosion control fencing must be installed prior to grading activities. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional requirements, the applicant shall: a. Meet all Public Works Department/Utility requirements as recommended by staff. b. Meet all Fire Department requirements as recommended by staff. c. The developer shall supply the City with copies of all necessary permits from other governmental agencies or bodies prior to any site work, including the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and MPCA. d. Building materials samples and colors must be submitted to and approved by Zoning Administrator. e. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during construction. f. Sign a development agreement that addresses all of the improvement items included in the entire Conditional Use Permit and provide the necessary financial guarantees to ensure installation of those required improvements. g. Submit for City Staff approval a construction staging plan demonstrating that construction will not interfere with normal operations at the on-site Sam’s Club store that will remain open during the construction period. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8d - Sam's Club Page 9 h. Submit a copy of the lease agreement for additional, off-site parking to be used during the construction period. i. Submit for City Staff approval a plan demonstrating how off-site parking will be used for employee parking for the duration of the construction period. Such a plan shall include details of how employees are to travel to and from the off-site parking. 3. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 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. d. Public streets shall at all times be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as often as is necessary during the construction process. e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. f. The applicant shall maintain complete separation between all construction activities and all activities at the active Sam’s Club store. 4. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit: a. Fire lanes shall be in accordance with the signed Official Exhibits. b. Landscaping and irrigation shall be in accordance with the signed Official Exhibits and approved irrigation plan except that a temporary Certificate of Occupancy can be issued prior to completion of landscaping and irrigation improvements provided an irrevocable, automatically renewable letter of credit is submitted in the amount of 125% of all landscaping and irrigation improvements. c. Exterior building improvements shall be completed in accordance with the signed Official Exhibits and approved materials and colors except that signs shall be approved as part of a sign plan. d. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, as-built drawings of the relocated public utilities shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8d - Sam's Club Page 10 e. The applicant must indicate a construction timeline for the reconstruction of Monitor Street. f. A maintenance plan for the on-going maintenance of the stormwater system shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department. g. The applicant shall submit an irrevocable, automatically renewable letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the cost of certain site improvements, including those improvements relating to utility construction, street construction, sidewalk construction, and parking lot construction. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the motor fuel station, the applicant shall complete construction of Monitor Street. 6. During operation of any motor fuel station, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. Outdoor public address systems are prohibited. Intercom systems between pumps and gas attendant are allowable provided it is not audible from any parcel that is zoned residential. b. No outside sales or display shall be permitted except for goods consumed in the normal operation of a car as specified per the Ordinance. Products shall not be sold or displayed in any required yard nor shall the total display of any one or combinations of such products occupy more than 150 square feet in area or be more than 5 feet in height. 7. The applicant shall adhere to the Fire Department’s requirements for the motor fuel station, including: a. Fire hydrants must be located as required by the Fire Marshal. b. Fire lanes must be indicated on the approved plans. c. All underground tanks and piping shall be of double wall construction. d. Emergency pump shut off with signage and fire extinguisher shall be located on the south side of the building next to the emergency phone. e. Fire extinguisher shall have minimum f a 3A 40BC rating. f. Dispensing hose nozzle valves shall not be capable of being opened unless the deliver hose is pressurized. If the pressure to the hose is lost, the nozzle shall close automatically (OPW 11B nozzle or equivalent). g. Signs shall be posted on each dispenser stating: No Smoking, Stop Engine and Do not leave dispenser unattended while fueling. (MN Statue 299F.011.) St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8d - Sam's Club Page 11 8. The applicant must provide the required number of replacement trees on site unless off- site trees are approved by the Community Development Director and Parks and Recreation Director and cash-in-lieu of trees have been paid. All plant materials planted on-site shall have been cultivated and come from sources within 100 miles of the site. 9. Prior to the installation of any signs, including temporary signs or new sign faces, a sign plan must be approved by the Zoning Administrator and sign permits must be obtained. 10. All roof top equipment must be screened from off site views. Such screening shall utilize either a parapet wall or a fence designed to incorporate the architectural features of the building. No roof top equipment shall be screened solely by painting it. 11. Adequate screening is required for the tire/battery storage area at all times to prevent direct views from on or off-site of any items being stored. Doors to the tire/battery storage area shall remain closed at all times except those when items are placed in or taken from the storage area. 12. The applicant must agree to participate in the payment of a portion of the cost of future infrastructure improvements at Hwy 7 and Wooddale which address traffic and pedestrian safety issues at this intersection and across Hwy 7. 13. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this resolution, the approved Official Exhibits as modified prior to signing to meet the required conditions of approval, and the City Code; documents incorporated by reference herein. 14. No outdoor sales shall be permitted. 15. Except for the temporary storage of empty carts and those exceptions governing the motor fuel station, no outdoor storage or display shall be permitted. 16. Upon City Council approval of the CUP, the applicant shall request that the City vacate an existing utility easement located in the same location as the proposed store. The applicant must also dedicate a new utility easement to the City for purposes of water provision. 17. In addition to any other remedies, the applicant shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 090605 - 8d - Sam's Club Page 12 Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit. The approval of a Building Permit may impose additional requirements. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council , 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk