HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/10/10 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
October 10, 2005
7:30 p.m.
7:10 p.m. Economic Development Authority
Study Session Immediately following – Westwood Room
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
a. Resolution Recognizing Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Task Force
Members
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of September 19, 2005
b. City Council Study Session Minutes of August 8, 2005
c. City Council Study Session Minutes of August 22, 2005
d. City Council Study Session Minutes of September 12, 2005
e. City Council Study Session Minutes of September 19, 2005
f. City Council Study Session Minutes of September 26, 2005
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need
no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
Action: Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items listed on
the consent calendar
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items
from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items
remaining on the consent calendar).
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. 2006 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 1
This report considers the approval of the 2006 budget and property owner service charges
for Special Service District No. 1.
Recommended
Action:
Close Public Hearing. Motion to approve resolution setting the 2006
Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District
No. 1 and directing staff to certify the annual service charge to Hennepin
County.
6b. 2006 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 2
This report considers the approval of the 2006 budget and property owner service
charges for Special Service District No. 2.
Recommended
Action:
Close Public Hearing. Motion to approve resolution setting the
2006 Operating Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for
Special Service District No. 2 and directing staff to certify the
annual service charge to Hennepin County.
6c. 2006 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 3
This report considers the approval of the 2006 budget and property owner service
charges for Special Service District No. 3.
Recommended
Action:
Close Public Hearing. Motion to approve resolution setting the
2006 Operating Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for
Special Service District No. 3 and directing staff to certify the
annual service charge to Hennepin County.
6d. Public Hearing to Consider Ordinance modifying Compensation of the Mayor
and City Councilmembers and Resolution revising salaries for the Economic
Development Authority President and Commissioners
First reading of an ordinance increasing the annual salaries of the Mayor from
$9,760 to $10,985, and Councilmembers from $6,365 to $7,165, and consideration
of a resolution increasing the annual salaries of the Economic Development
Authority President from $5,092 to $5,731 and Economic Development Authority
Commissioners from $3,819 to $4,299.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing.
1) Motion to approve the first reading of the ordinance
modifying Mayor and City Councilmember
compensation, and set second reading for October 17,
2005.
2) Motion to adopt a resolution to modify Economic
Development Authority Commissioner compensation.
6e. Public Hearing to Consider 2006 Fees
Proposed revisions to fee schedule to reflect adjustments to fees
charged for programs and services called for by ordinance.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve 1st reading of
an ordinance adopting fees for 2006 and set second reading for
October 17, 2005
6f. Time Warner Cable TV Franchise Renewal
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 November 7, 2005.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. Proposed Transfer of Cable Television System
Proposed transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance and cable
system from Time Warner Cable, Inc. to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to extend the date to consider transfer of the Cable
Communications Franchise Ordinance and cable system from
Time Warner Cable, Inc. to Comcast Cable Communications,
LLC to the November 7, 2005 Council meeting.
8b. Resolution confirming the appointment of Nancy J. Stroth to the position of
City Clerk.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolution confirming the appointment of
Nancy J. Stroth to the position of City Clerk, effective October
10, 2005.
8c. 1st Reading of an ordinance authorizing payment of claims by the Finance
Director and adoption of a resolution allowing the use of facsimile signatures
on orders for payment.
Adoption of these instruments is duplicative of past council action and current
practice. Adoption will bring the city into compliance with statute and charter.
Recommended
Action:
§ Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance adding Article
V to Chapter 2 of the City Code delegating authority to the
Finance Director to pay all proper obligations of the city
without prior council approval, and to set second reading for
June 6, 2005.
§ Motion to adopt a resolution allowing the use of facsimile
signatures on orders for payment
8d. Resolution approving the updated City Emergency Preparedness Plan
This resolution approves the revised Emergency Preparedness Plan
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the revised Emergency
Preparedness Plan
8e. Request by SilverCrest Properties for a Major Amendment to a Planned
Unit Development
Location: 3601 Park Center Boulevard
Applicant: SilverCrest Properties
Case No: Case No. 05-33-PUD
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing a Major
Amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the
elimination of age restrictions at the Park Summit
Condominiums and changes to the underground parking
structure.
8f. Holiday Station - Conditional Use Permit for Rebuilding Convenience Store
and a Variance for Off-Street Parking.
Case Nos. 05-41-CUP and 05-42-VAR
Recommended
Action:
1. Motion to adopt a resolution of approval for a parking
space variance, reducing the required number of parking
spaces by 10 spaces, for a total of 16 available parking
spaces.
2. Motion to adopt a resolution of approval of the
Conditional Use permit to reconstruct the convenience
store at the Holiday Station located at 5430 Minnetonka
Boulevard, subject to conditions.
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 OCTOBER 10, 2005
SECTION 4: CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need
no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a Motion to adopt the attached Resolution No. accepting the Vision for Minnehaha Creek.
4b Bid Tabulation: Purchase of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Supply Contract.
Motion to authorize execution of a contract with Calgon Carbon Corporation for the
purchase of GAC in the amount of $69,568.00
4c Motion to designate Frattalone Paving as the lowest responsible bidder and to authorize
execution of a contract for the reconstruction of the parking lot at Cedar Knoll Park /
Carlson Field in an amount not to exceed $87,518.00.
4d Adopt the Resolution No. that accepts this report and authorizes the purchase of
equipment scheduled and budgeted for 2006.
4e Motion to approve 2nd Reading of an Ordinance No. Amending the Local Tax on Lawful
Gambling, approve the summary and authorize summary publication
4f Motion to approve purchase of up to thirty four 800 MHz portable radios for Emergency
Management purposes
4g Resolution of the St. Louis Park City Council in recognition of dedicated service toward
planning the future of the City of St. Louis Park as members of the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District Task Force
4h Motion to accept Vendor Claim report for filing (supplement)
4i Motion to accept PRAC minutes of 5/18/05 for filing.
4j Motion to accept Planning Commission minutes of 9/21/05 for filing.
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 10, 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: 101005 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes September 19, 2005
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
September 19, 2005
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan
Sanger and Sue Santa
Councilmember Jim Brimeyer was absent.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Joel Jamnik), Civic TV
Coordinator (Mr. Dunlap), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Director of
Technology and Support Services (Mr. Pires), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt),
Finance Director (Ms. McGann), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Planning
Coordinator (Ms. Erickson) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson).
2. Presentations
a. Junior Naturalist Recognition
Michelle Frank, Activity Specialist at Westwood Hills Nature Center and Mayor Jacobs
presented awards to Junior Naturalist volunteers and thanked them for their work.
b. Judie Erickson Recognition
Mayor Jacobs presented a resolution recognizing Ms. Erickson for her years of service.
Ms. McGonigal, Mr. Harmening, and Councilmember Sanger added comments about
working with Ms. Erickson.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of September 6, 2005
Councilmember Finkelstein noted item 8(a) was missing, “The motion passed 7-0.”
Councilmember Santa noted on page three, the word “soul” should be “sole”.
The minutes were approved as corrected.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes September 19, 2005
Page 2
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Traffic Study No. 591: Motion to adopt the Resolution No. 05-126 authorizing
continuation of temporary permit parking in front of 3128 Idaho Avenue South.
4b. City Engineer’s Report: Alley Paving – 2900 block between Ottawa and
Princeton Avenues – Motion to adopt Resolution No. 05-127 that accepts this
report, establishes this Improvement Project and sets a Public Hearing and
Assessment Hearing date of October 17, 2005. – Project No. 2005-1800.
4c. Planning Commission Minutes of August 17, 2005
4d. Human Rights Commission Minutes and Meeting Notes
4e. Accept vendor claims for filing (supplement)
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 6-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing – Knollwood Place Apartment Project Private Activity
Revenue Bond
Resolution No. 15-120
Ms. McGann presented the staff report.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was
closed.
Councilmember Santa asked for clarification that the City was not responsible for
repayment of this in any way? Ms. McGann replied correct.
Councilmember asked if there is a cap? Ms. McGann responded the cap she was
referencing was the $10 million cap where you have the tax-exempt status up to the $10
million cap. The City did issue bonds in 2005 already. If they were to issue additional
bonds in 2005, they would be subject to the $10 million cap.
Councilmember Santa asked if that would have an effect on the City or its financial
standings or bond rating? Ms. McGann replied no it did not.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein to
approve Resolution No. 05-120 authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of variable
rate demand multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds in the amounts of
$12,300,000 and a Housing Revenue note in the amount not to exceed $1,700,000.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes September 19, 2005
Page 3
The motion passed 6-0.
6b. Proposed Transfer of Cable Television System
Mr. Pires presented the staff report.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Phillip Hogland, 2716 Vernon Av. S, stated a concern about disruption when Email
accounts and web sites are affected by the change.
Mr. Pires stated they notified Comcast of that concern. It appeared that they go through a
process of requiring people to change their Email domains. They would reiterate the
concern to Comcast prior to the next meeting.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to refer the
item to the October 10, 2005 Council meeting.
The motion passed 6-0.
6c. Time Warner Cable TV Franchise Renewal
Mr. Pires reported he just met with Kim Roden from Time Warner who presented
something with potential that had not been approved by Time Warner Corporate. The
recommendations were to continue or to direct staff to proceed to the formal process.
They didn’t have a firm offer that would meet the needs of the City; however, he felt they
were making some progress. It was important for Council to consider both options.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was
closed.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein to
continue the public hearing and extend the term of the franchise agreement to October
10, 2005 and directed staff to proceed to the formal process for the cable TV franchise
renewal.
Councilmember Finkelstein indicated City staff had been working diligently on the
negotiations, much of which is regulated by Federal law. They were trying to get as
much as they could to benefit residents and retain local programming.
The motion passed 6-0.
Mayor J acobs commented on the importance of local origination in this community.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes September 19, 2005
Page 4
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. Canvass of City Primary Election Results
Resolution No. 05-121
Mr. Harmening stated that Charter required canvassing of election results within a certain
amount of time.
It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein to
approve Resolution No. 05-121 declaring results of the Municipal Primary Election held
September 13, 2005.
Councilmember Basill indicated the total for Ward 4 did not add up to 100% and staff
should make sure that was correct.
The motion passed 6-0.
8b. 1st Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Local Tax on Lawful Gambling
and Adoption of a Resolution Concerning its Collection
Resolution No. 05-122
Ms. McGann presented the staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to approve
first reading of an ordinance concerning local gambling tax and set second reading for
October 10, 2005; and, to adopt Resolution No. 05-122 suspending collection of the
gambling tax effective immediately.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the suspension was retroactive to January 1, 2005? Ms.
McGann replied it would be for fees going forward.
Councilmember Omodt indicated he was officer of a nonprofit with charitable gambling
and would be abstaining.
The motion passed 5-0-1, with Councilmember Omodt abstaining.
8c. Wireless Internet Service Feasibility Study
Mr. Pires presented the study findings.
Carol Coffey, 4140 Xenwood, stated she was concerned about health hazards related to
wireless electrical fields and the process including: deficits in the process and that the
report was “skewed” in favor of wireless; conflict of interest of those who conducted the
study; no credible search done of existing medical research literature; health care
practitioners had been unable to provide input; issues with liabilities if acting as a private
business and as elected representatives responsible for the health and safety of citizens;
and, the survey was sent out without information about the health hazards.
There was much information provided to staff regarding health hazards. She discussed
how her electrical sensitivities were diagnosed and requested a reasonable
accommodation under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) if they voted yes. She
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes September 19, 2005
Page 5
made a formal request that the Council have a reasonable accommodation contingent for
those needing and seeking a reasonable accommodation and that they inform the St.
Louis Park citizens a reasonable accommodation can be sought. She asked the Council
to: Look at the process; construct a balanced, equitable process by assessing the health
hazards (i.e. hire an expert); invite knowledgeable people (health professionals) to a study
session; do an unbiased search of literature; inform citizens; follow through on reasonable
accommodation; and, practice and employ a Precautionary Principal in decision making.
Barb Overshaw, representing the Twin West Chamber of Commerce, stated that the
Board of Directors discussed a business position and approved the position: “We believe
as stewards of the tax payer dollars, city’s should assure essential services to meet
community needs. We believe the public sectors role should be to encourage a vibrant,
competitive marketplace for business, not copy nor compete with private businesses in
the actual providing of services.” They had four belief statements: 1) We support the
role of local government to increase responsiveness to community businesses and
residents, however they believe the notion that the public sector should enter a vibrant
competitive market as a service provide is perhaps ill-advised; 2) We believe the
municipal role is to spur service providers to meet the needs of the community. The city
should not become a player in an arena where it taxes, franchises, licenses and regulates
its competitors; 3) We believe that there is considerable risk as technology rapidly
changes and requires ongoing financial commitments to update infrastructure and adopt
new technologies; however, 4) They also believe the City of St. Louis Park should
explore wireless for City operations to increase efficiencies and reduce city operations
costs. If the Council decides to go in this direction, they would like to remain engaged
and help develop the outcomes.
Oran Miller, building biologist and environmental inspector, member of Building,
Biology and Ecology, asked if he could attend the study session meeting? Mayor Jacobs
replied it was open to the public, but public comment was discouraged. He could provide
staff with information to be distributed to the Council.
Edna Bernstein, Excelsior & Grand, stated that she could provide information from The
Green Guide and perform a search on their web site for information they had studied.
They would be an unbiased party for information.
Bonnie Wexler, indicated that she read the mission statement for St. Louis Park and it
stated that the community of St. Louis Park is responsible for its citizens. She suffered
from Electrical Sensitivity. She had done research on WiFi and learned more and more
hazards caused to people. She compared it to things in the past that were later found to
be harmful. They should wait until studies prove that WiFi is a safe system to use in the
human environment. She noted she is an Orthodox Jew and this is the only community
she can live in. She didn’t know where she would go if they had WiFi. It should be up to
the individual whether they want to put wireless in their homes, not be forced on people.
Phillip Hogland, 2716 Vernon Av. S, indicated he was an engineer and believed much of
what had been said was inaccurate. He was very interested in radio frequency (RF)
safety. One core concept that hadn’t brought up was the concept of the inverse square law
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes September 19, 2005
Page 6
and intensity decreases the further away you move from it. There is no cloud of RF
floating around. Routers respond to a computer querying them, there is not a constant
flow of RF. It is done at a very low power level. There are two important concepts of RF
safety: 1) Thermal RF exposure which occurs from RF with a high intensity. This does
not occur at an antenna power input of 250 watts or less. 2) A-thermal RF exposure. He
believed that the antennas would not be harmful. Thermal RF exposure does not occur at
any frequency when you have an antenna input of less than seven watts. There had been
research about A-thermal RF exposure, which is a theory when you have RF frequencies
that are at a low enough power that they do not cause a heating of the cell, that RF energy
can in some way modify the biology and the immune system and the behavior of cells.
The cause and effect relationship had not been established in any study. Mayor Jacobs
asked Mr. Hogland to provide any information pertinent to staff.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested in reference to Ms. Coffey’s request for
accommodation, that she provide it in writing with what the accommodation should be
and on what basis.
Mr. Miller stated he had worked with people with electrical and magnetic and radio
frequency sensitivity and had reviewed research that linked the issues of radio frequency
exposure to human health effects. He would provide that information to staff.
Councilmember Sanger asked if that information from a medical and health perspective
had been submitted and reviewed? Mr. Pires replied the health care information that had
been provided this far had been a result of the July 26th Town Hall meetings and the
issues raised. The consultant had looked at other sources of information at the State and
Federal level to get responses to the questions that were raised.
Tom Asp, Virchow Krause, indicated they looked at a variety of resources on the internet
including the Minnesota Department of Health, they talked to people at the AVMA,
looked at the FCC reports and University of Wisconsin sites and they had also received
information from the American Pediatric Association independently. They did a
summary of all of their collective research and opinions.
Mr. Pires stated there were hundreds of pages of information.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to
receive wireless study report and refer it to September 26 study session for further
review, analysis, and discussion of issues and options. Direct staff to conduct any follow-
up activities Council feels appropriate at this time.
Councilmember Basill made a friendly amendment to direct staff to continue to study
whether the City will provide it, whether it’s going to be a private/public partnership or if
it will be left to the private sector; and, continue to study health concerns brought
forward.
Councilmember Finkelstein accepted the friendly amendment.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes September 19, 2005
Page 7
Councilmember Omodt clarified that the motion was accepting the report and the
information on the CD Rom? Mr. Pires replied yes.
The motion passed 6-0.
8d. Request of Union Land II, LLC on behalf of Hoigaards, Inc, The Franz
Family Partnership, David Turbenson Enterprise LLC, Larry H. Hjelle, and
Avis K. Ahrndt for a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment for a Mixed-Use
and Multi-Family Residential development for property located at 3550 State
Hwy 100 S, 3547 Xenwood Avenue S, 3555 Xenwood Avenue S, 3501
Xenwood Avenue S, 5616 West 36th Street, 5626 West 36th Street. Case Nos.
05-36-CP
Resolution No. 05-123
Ms. Erickson presented the staff report.
Councilmember Basill asked if the two parcels that would remain C2, what would be
involved if they wanted to change the Comp Plan, and could it be done with this project?
Ms. Erickson replied it would involve a public hearing at the Planning Commission and
then brought to Council. A change could be initiated by Council.
Councilmember Basill stated he was concerned about the new development and where
the people in the businesses would park. Ms. Erickson replied that they currently park on
the street or in the Hoigaard’s parking lot.
Councilmember Basill stated it was a concern for the neighborhood. They were
concerned about the two buildings remaining and about traffic, although because it was
so bad already it would not have a significant impact. He had spoken with staff about
doing things in the interim. They also needed to do more analysis on the existing
buildings.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if at a later date someone comes back with an office
plan, was there anything to prohibit them from changing it back? Ms. Erickson replied
no.
Councilmember Finkelstein noted that the City has a larger role to play in development
and projects like this when they were being asked to be an investor. He was concerned to
read that a lot of the Comprehensive change being planned was being based upon
Hoigaard’s continuing to be on 36th Avenue and thought they needed to make the
decision regardless of what happened to Hoigaard’s. He supported the Comp Plan
change, but was not saying that the proposed development was appropriate or that it was
appropriate for TIF.
Councilmember Sanger commented that she would also support the Comprehensive Plan
change, but did not want it to be construed that she was in full support of the proposed
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes September 19, 2005
Page 8
plan, TIF financing or the continued exclusion of the outlying buildings from the plan. A
lot more work needed to be done with the planning of the proposed development.
Councilmember Santa indicated she was not as concerned with the outlying buildings.
Changing the Comp plan made sense and she was in support. She had the same
reservations as other Councilmember’s had noted and didn’t want this construed as
approving a project or making a commitment to public financing.
Councilmember Basill clarified what they were saying was that this needed more
discussion and concerns to be addressed.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to approve
Resolution No. 05-123 and summary for publication for amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan 2000 – 2020 land use map from C – Commercial and I – Industrial
to CMX – Commercial Mixed-Use and RH – Residential High Density with conditions as
stated in the resolution.
The motion passed 6-0.
8e. Cancelled
8f. 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
Resolutions No. 05-124 & 05-125
Ms. Erickson presented the staff report. She noted that an additional condition was added
by the Fire Department to add fire lanes.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the conservation easement was permanent? Ms.
Erickson replied the conservation easement would be approved by the legal staff and
would be a permanent easement. The City would be the beneficiary of the easement and
to give up the easement, the City would have to vacate it and they would not have an
interest in doing so.
Councilmember Finkelstein noted in the report, although there was a guarantee of public
access, there was no guarantee of public parking. Was that a requirement of the PUD
approval? Ms. Erickson replied it was not currently in the resolution. Staff considered
adding a condition to the development agreement that parking be signed for public and
guest parking.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they could require six spaces for people to use and
access the park.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes September 19, 2005
Page 9
The developer agreed to that condition.
Councilmember Finkelstein noted the applicant agreed to public art as part of the project.
He suggested a condition be added that the art be reviewed by The Friends of the Art.
The developer agreed.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the City was guaranteeing the project wouldn’t
flood? Ms. Erickson responded that the City never guaranteed that something wouldn’t
flood. They are required to do a two-foot free board, to fill to two feet above the flood
plain elevation. Overland flooding would be greatly reduced given that.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked what happened if the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District doesn’t approve the plans? Ms. Erickson replied that they would have to make
modifications to the plan until the Watershed District was in favor of it. If the
modifications were significant, they would need to bring back an amendment to the PUD.
Councilmember Basill indicated a concern about the public art. Scott Nelson, DJR
Architecture, stated they had commissioned Nick Legaros to do the art.
Mr. Harmening added the resolution stated under 4(a) a planning contract needed to be
entered into, including the City’s review of the proposed public art for the project.
Councilmember Basill wanted to be clear they were looking for a nice piece of art and
that seemed to be the developer’s intent. He asked if the compensatory storage for water
was on their property or had they secured an agreement to use that area? Ms. Erickson
replied it was not on their property. They were negotiating an easement and it was a
condition of approval before they would receive building permits.
Councilmember Sanger stated she opposed the project on several grounds including the
possibility of harm to the wetland and potential flooding of the residential building.
Secondly, it didn’t make sense to put housing in a location with industrial on both sides,
which would have the potential of land use conflicts. Third, the development as currently
proposed had the potential for conflicts because there was not a lot of planned
recreational open space for residents separate from the public trail. The Planning
Commission had a concern that this should not be a permanent easement with the
potential for conflict.
Councilmember Basill stated this was next to housing on the East. If they were
squeezing it in between two industrial properties, he would have a different feeling.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to approve
Resolution No. 05-124 for Preliminary and Final Plat for “MODA of St. Louis Park”;
and, to approve Resolution No. 05-125 for Preliminary and Final PUD for Meadowbrook
Lofts, with additional conditions: 1) Fire lanes are added; and, 2) Six public parking
spaces be provided with appropriate signage.
Councilmember Finkelstein made a friendly amendment to add a condition that the
applicant work with “Friends of the Arts” on the public art.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes September 19, 2005
Page 10
Councilmember Basill accepted the friendly amendment.
The motion passed 5-1 with Councilmember Sanger opposed.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs stated that the annual senior summit is September 21 at Lennox Community
Center. They were discussing property taxes and how they were calculated and pedestrian and
traffic safety.
He thanked staff for the work on the David Dey memorial.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3b - Study Session August 8, 2005
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
August 8, 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), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin); City Engineer
(Mr. Brink); Community Development Director (Mr. Locke); Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson);
Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal); Economic Development Coordinator (Mr.
Hunt); Planning Intern (Ms. Johnson); and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Lake Street Reconstruction
Mr. Brink and Mr. Rardin provided council with an overview of the proposed project, and asked
for council feedback on a public process.
Mayor Jacobs said that the businesses along West Lake street would like to see an enhanced
streetscape. He asked if a special service district could be established at that location. He
pointed out that many persons from outside the city use that street to attend school sporting
events.
Councilmember Sanger said some residents would like to see the roadway narrowed and
sidewalks placed along the street.
Councilmember Finkelstein said that future changes to the intersection at Wooddale and Hwy 7
needed to be considered.
Councilmember Basill said that whatever we do must tie into an at-grade crossing. He believed
that pedestrian safety was paramount. He was concerned that narrowing the street would restrict
passage and wanted staff to look at other ways to calm traffic.
Staff will keep council informed as we move forward through the public process.
2. Industrial Study
Jaci Johnson, Planning Intern, presented to council the Industrial Study she had conducted over
the course of her internship with the city. The Study is a profile of St. Louis Park’s current
industrial buildings with photographs and other information about each site. Council was very
pleased with the result of her work.
Ms. Erickson explained that next steps will be to conduct a market study of the properties and to
determine direction based on the assets of each property.
Mayor Jacobs encouraged staff to include stakeholders in the process as we move forward.
Councilmember Finkelstein suggested that the President of the local AFLCIO be included as we
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3b - Study Session August 8, 2005
Page 2
move forward to provide perspective regarding jobs. Councilmember Santa suggested we
include leaders from surrounding neighborhoods.
Councilmember Sanger questioned why we are undertaking further study. She asked how the
study results would affect requirements for zoning that come up prior to completion of the study.
Mr. Harmening suggested that during the data analysis and study portion of our efforts we should
be looking at requests on a case by case basis. A full study with guidance for future council
action will be attractive to business and could help in future marketing efforts.
Councilmember Basill believed information gathered by further study would help council to
determine where industry should occur in the city.
Councilmember Finkelstein also believed that it is good to be proactive to help with business
attraction and retention.
Councilmember Sanger also stated that funds would be needed to attract businesses and to clean
up industrial sites in the future.
Councilmember Santa said future transportation needs should be considered as part of the study.
Councilmember Omodt asked that the real estate perspective also be considered. He also
suggested council consider whether we view industrial businesses as an asset or as a liability.
Mr. Harmening said that we will need to enlist the help of a consultant to add to the very good
information we already have.
Council again thanked Ms. Johnson for her fine work in putting together the information.
3. Zoning Code Issues Related to Housing Summit
Religious Institutions in C1 District - Councilmember Sanger had asked that council consider
implications of a request from her ward for a zoning change to allow religious institutions in
areas zoned C-1. Ms McMonigal explained the request which relates to the ERUV designation
in portions of ward 1.
Council and staff discussed various options for accommodating the request including revising
both the commercial and mixed use requirements to allow for this use.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the use could be allowed with limitations on square feet. Mr.
Locke agreed to look as restrictions that could minimize conflict if the use were to be allowed.
More will come to council at a future date.
Garage Expansions – Staff brought forward modifications to the zoning ordinance which would
allow for greater creativity with garages. After viewing pictures of structures which are and are
not allowed in St. Louis Park, council directed staff and the planning commission to move
forward with more suggestions for revisions to the ordinance.
4. Louisiana Court Stabilization Plan
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3b - Study Session August 8, 2005
Page 3
Council was asked to discuss alternative courses of action to address problems at Louisiana
Court, PPL’s request for $400,000 in funding to assist with capital improvements, US Bank’s
request that the city not take action to foreclose on the property prior to 2015 and feedback from
a recent meeting held with the project’s funders. Steve Bubul of Kennedy and Graven and Mark
Ruff of Ehler’s and Associates were in attendance.
Ms. Schnitker described the proposed stabilization plan which consists of several facets
including additional capital improvements, replacing management efforts to retain current
residents and reduce operating expenses, and the introduction of a limited number of rent
subsidies.
In addition, a task force comprised of the funding partners, PPL, US Bank and industry experts,
would collaborate on determining the project’s needs, create new initiatives and establish
performance benchmarks and goals. MHFA staff would play a key role in initiative, and
coordinating this effort.
Councilmembers expressed concern about what would happen if the stabilization plan was not
successful. They were concerned about PPL’s participation in the project going forward and
asked what steps could be taken to remove PPL from the mix entirely.
Ms. Schnitker responded that PPL would need to continue as a partner moving forward, but that
the new management company that had been put in place was doing very well. She believed that
the stabilization plan would be successful even if PPL continues as a partner.
Mr. Locke stated that the task force would be key in ensuring the future success of the project.
Councilmember Finkelstein did not want PPL to manage any of the construction projects related
to improvements on the property.
Ms. Schnitker stated that MFHA was comfortable with construction plans and that checks and
balances were in place to ensure the construction would be carried out as it should be. MHFA
employs an inspecting architect to oversee the project and PPL has retained a general contractor
to facility the rehabilitation.
Councilmember Omodt was opposed to additional investment on the part of the city. If the
contribution is made he wanted to see an exit strategy. He did not feel the problem was with
PPL, rather the buildings themselves. Scattered housing was a better option and the model at
Louisiana Court was a concentration of poverty. He believed the city’s choice was to invest
additional money on Louisiana Courts or to invest in other types of low-income housing. He
thought the only was these units would ever be full would be if the economy is so bad that
people had not choice but to live there. He also did not want mentally ill persons housed in a
development where crime may be a problem.
Councilmember Sanger also wanted more information on the proposal to house mentally ill
persons at the site. She also wanted an exit strategy and wanted to receive regular updates on the
progress made by the new management.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3b - Study Session August 8, 2005
Page 4
Mayor Jacobs believed that a better job could be done managing the property and hoped the new
management company was successful. He would vote to approve the additional city investment
if he felt there was appropriate accountability. The oversight task force may be able to provide
that.
Councilmember Santa hoped that with this investment, the partners could move toward a more
positive relationship. The history at the Meadowbrook site showed that community investment
in that site had resulted in positive benefits. She hoped the same positive outcomes would occur
at Louisiana Courts.
Councilmember Sanger stated there is a need for social services at the site. Mr. Locke responded
that the oversight task force would also be addressing social issues.
Councilmember Basill wanted to know what would happen if the city did not invest the
$400,000.
Mr. Locke stated that we have two choices: invest in the property or do nothing. If we do
nothing we risk default on the original bond in the amount of $4.3 million, and no improvements
will have been made leaving the city holding a very expensive redevelopment project.
Mr. Harmening said the council was being asked to spend $400,000 to leverage approximately
$1.2 million dollars of improvements which would protect our $4.3 million dollar investment.
He also stated this would be coming forward to the council for approval within the next few
weeks.
5. Council and EDA Salaries
Council discussed options for adjusting salaries of councilmembers and EDA commissioners. A
public hearing will be held in early October to consider an ordinance amending those salaries.
The meeting adjourned at 10:06 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3c - Study Session August 22, 2005
Page 1
OFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
August 22, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Councilmembers present: John Basill, Jim Brimeyer, Phil Finkelstein, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa,
Paul Omodt, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Finance Director (Ms. McGann); Accountants (Mr.
Simon, Mr. Swanson); Housing Coordinator (Ms. Larsen) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Reichert).
1. 2006 Budget and 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Program
Ms. McGann introduced Mr. Simon and Mr. Swanson saying that they had significant
participation in putting together the CIP. She also informed the council that she intended this to
be a big picture perspective discussion and that more details will be provided to the council at a
later date.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if there would be impacts to our water and sewer costs if
Novartis chose to leave the city. Ms. McGann responded that there would indeed be impacts.
Regardless of what Novartis plans to do in the future she was recommending a bond sale to fund
Future improvements to the system. The sewer system in particular was in need of funds to
replace and repair infrastructure.
Councilmember Sanger asked if we should have a structured program for maintenance and repair
of our utility systems like we do for pavement management. Ms. McGann responded that there
is already such a program in place.
Council also discussed how they might reduce the fund reserves in the solid waste program and
fund the stormwater utility.
2. Excess Land Findings
Staff presented the findings from the technical analysis of the excess land parcels as requested by
the Council in May. The report included findings and analysis of the geotechnical work, title
work, historical review for each parcel as well as input from neighborhood meetings and public
comments.
Ms. Larsen informed council that a public meeting would be held at the Recreation Center on
September 20th. Council would receive comments from the public at a public hearing to be held
on October 17th.
Following the PowerPoint presentation a number of questions were raised by councilmembers.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3c - Study Session August 22, 2005
Page 2
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if a special use district could be created for the city’s parking
lots similar to the special service districts located in the city. Mr. Locke responded that staff was
currently pursuing that option.
Councilmember Santa believed that if businesses were using city lots as part of their proof of
parking for zoning they should also be required to contribute to maintenance of those lots.
Councilmember Sanger wanted councilmembers to consider neighborhood concerns for tree
retention and protection of deer habitat when they were considering sale of the excess land.
Councilmember Sanger wanted floodplain issues to be placed on the list of criteria for studying
the properties.
Mayor Jacobs believed that if lots were sold for housing, design criteria would be very
important.
Councilmember Sanger also wanted any lots developed as multifamily to adhere to design
standards set by the city.
Councilmember Finkelstein said that the original purpose of the study, as it came out of the
housing summit, was to find appropriate places for single family move up housing to be built in
the city. The highest use of the properties should be considered. He reminded everyone that the
entire city owned the lots – not just the adjacent residents. He urged the council to show courage
of conviction when considering the sale of the properties.
Councilmember Sanger asked to what extent is neighborhood opposition a reason to remove a
site from the list.
Mayor Jacobs believed that for most persons in the neighborhoods, the major concern is that
houses get built which fit the character of the neighborhoods. The idea here is to create move up
housing in the city. He believed that’s what the majority of citizens in the city would support.
3. Wireless Study Update
Mr. Pires presented findings from the Wireless Study which had been recently conducted. Some
of the topics discussed were an appropriate business model under which to operate, cost,
competition, customer base, vendor selection, contract provisions for performance of vendor,
security of system (virus/firewalls), and bond market risk.
Councilmembers also discussed the benefit to community connections, the appropriate role of
government in providing wireless service.
Council will be asked to accept the report at a future meeting and will also be asked to provide
direction for next steps.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3c - Study Session August 22, 2005
Page 3
4. CM Evaluation
Council discussed the process used last year to evaluate the city manager’s performance.
Councilmember Brimeyer suggested they not use a city employee as mediator. It was agreed
that Councilmember Brimeyer and Mr. Harmening would move forward in choosing a consultant
to facilitate the process.
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3d - Study Session September 12, 2005
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
September 12, 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), Civic TV Coordinator (Mr. Dunlap), Community TV
Coordinator (Mr. McHugh), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Director of Parks and
Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Director of Technology and Support Services (Mr. Pires), Environmental
Coordinator (Mr. Vaughan), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Planning Coordinator
(Ms. Erickson) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson).
1. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Task Force Report
Ms. Walsh introduced Michael Wyatt, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Planner who
presented the Visioning Process and recommendations.
Councilmember Omodt asked if they controlled creek flow? Mr. Wyatt responded base flow
is controlled, but not with a rain event, which was a challenge.
Councilmember Omodt asked if they would open the dam to regulate flow when the creek is
low? Mr. Wyatt replied the DNR defines the operation.
Councilmember Basill asked if the creek goes dry because there is a minimum elevation over the
dam? Mr. Wyatt replied yes, it is mandated by the DNR. The dam also has a physical barrier.
Councilmember Sanger noted a concern for future recreational opportunities. She questioned
plans for flood control if they didn’t do sediment removal, was there assurance the Army
Corp of Engineers wouldn’t build dams and was there input from groups such as the Sierra
Club? Mr. Wyatt replied they solicited applicants from a broad audience including the Sierra
Club and Audubon Society.
Recreation was one of the most important issues identified, defined as using resources around
the area for bird watching and hiking. There was no clear recommendation to improve
canoeing, fishing, swimming, etc.
Councilmember Santa stated there was an interest in canoeing, but there is a flow issue and
canoeing can only be done a small period of time. They could encourage other activities
such as bird watching and hiking. The creek has three very different areas.
Helen Pitt, Task Force Member, stated that the list talked about providing recreation and
serving as a gathering place. They didn’t talk about specifics, but the City could look at that.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3d - Study Session September 12, 2005
Page 2
Councilmember Finkelstein indicated they were looking at more access, such as was done
with Meadowbrook.
Councilmember Sanger felt they needed a larger vision for the whole creek.
Mr. Wyatt indicated that the group didn’t have full agreement about providing full access or
having more natural settings. It is part of the vision statement to provide recreational
opportunities and places for people to gather.
He indicated they were asking the Council to approve the resolution, adopt the recommendations
and use it as a tool in their comprehensive planning. There would be no financial commitment.
They would like the city’s to be partners and work to implement the vision.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested they provide the changes other Councils had made to
the resolution.
Mr. Harmening indicated staff could look at the model resolution and make changes based on
this discussion and bring the resolution to City Council.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated the group did good work and they needed to really consider
any revisions to the resolution.
2. City Property – Minnehaha Creek
Ms. Walsh discussed the background of the city owned property and asked for Council
regarding properties with encroachments.
Councilmember Basill expressed concern about property owners and people having access to
“back yards” of residents living on the creek. There are other areas to access the creek.
Councilmember Sanger believed the policy needed to back up the vision and how they used
the land along the creek. This may be a way to increase access to the creek.
Ms. Walsh suggested they use the land to create a buffer zone.
The Council expressed a concern regarding property owners with buildings or other
permanent structures on city property and issues of liability.
Mr. Harmening stated many property owners were probably unaware the City owned that land.
Councilmember Basill stated many residents would agree to help if they viewed this as a
collaborative process for shoreline management.
Councilmember Santa believed a larger group should be engaged and made aware how
important this was.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3d - Study Session September 12, 2005
Page 3
Councilmember Sanger suggested creation of a board or commission to work on
environmental issues in the community to protect the natural environment.
Ms. Walsh indicated one enforcement letter had been sent to a property owner with a fence
encroaching on city property. There are many other similar situations.
The Council agreed a task force should be set up to work on educating property owners along
the creek, but more discussion was needed on the expectations. Staff should continue working
with the property owner who had already received a letter regarding the encroachment.
3. Hoigaards Village Project and Review of Elmwood Area Study
Ms. McGonigal updated the commission on the project.
Ms Erickson provided an overview of the Elmwood Study.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if Hoigaards were not there, would this be more suitable as
an office use? Ms. Erickson responded that had not considered.
Councilmember Basill expressed concern that the neighborhood believed this site would an
office use and this would be a change from the study. He had a concern about traffic levels.
The neighborhood was concerned about the amount of condos being built in the area.
Councilmember Sanger indicated that Hoigaards brought people to the community and was a positive.
Councilmember Finkelstein believed they couldn’t make a decision based on memories of Hoigaards.
Councilmember Basill stated another concern was about rezoning the property before they
had a plan.
Ms. Erickson stated the site is zoned C2, the most intense zoning for retail. Businesses such
as Walmart or Target could build with that zoning, which would generate even more traffic.
Frank Dunbar presented his plan. He noted they believed office development should be done
on the Burlington site and housing on this site because of issues with access. Hoigaards
needed to make a decision by November. This plan would include neighborhood services
such as coffee shops and the phasing would be done from South to North. The project would
consist of 71 loft condos, 70 flat condos, 24 units of row houses and an apartment unit.
Staging would be done over time for the market to digest this. They had applied for a
Livable Community grant to do the pond.
Councilmember Finkelstein expressed a concern about too many condos and the use of TIF.
Councilmember Sanger asked price points and unit sizes? Mr. Dunbar replied: $200-
$350,000 (800-1500 sq. ft), $250-380,000 (900-1600 sq ft); and, $400,000 (1900 sq ft).
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3d - Study Session September 12, 2005
Page 4
Mayor Jacobs and the Council expressed concern about the lack of open space. Mr. Dunbar
indicated if Hoigaards was not a part of the project, they could enhance green space. If they
were a part of the project they would require more parking.
Councilmember Basill indicated the neighborhood had an issue with the properties that were
not part of the project. Mr. Dunbar responded they had attempted working with the property
owners, to no avail.
Mr. Harmening indicated that the issue was the land use and if they should rezone the site.
Ms. Erickson stated that they could bring forward the change in the Comp Plan and wait to
bring forward the rezoning with the PUD.
Councilmember Basill stated that the neighborhood had trusted them and there were too
many loose ends. Residents were OK with this if they limited the densities and the project to
four stories. The project did not fit a superior standard for TIF funds.
Councilmember Omodt was in favor of the project. This was a good location for a project
with more density and was along a corridor with the future potential of LRT.
4. Park Summit Condominiums – PUD Amendment
Ms. McGonigal reported the project background. The total number of condos, if all projects
being discussed now were built would increase from 12% to 15.7%. There are 257 under
construction, 456 have been approved and not yet built, for an overall total of 877 units.
At the Council meeting, it was asked if this would still be a campus. They would have a
common drive and shared parking. The proposed project would include 30 additional
parking spaces, with surface parking for guests.
Tom Malkyer, Larson, Allen, Wisher, stated this would attract a range of buyers, but the
higher price units generally attract older buyers. Removal of the age restriction would help
broaden their market.
Councilmember Finkelstein expressed concern about the market softening and selling time
being longer. Mr. Malkyer replied it had a little, units under $300,000 were still selling well.
Councilmember Santa stated the issue was if it were appropriate to remove the age restriction.
Mayor Jacobs was concerned because the project was approved conditioned on being a
senior property and questioned if they should still have a 14-story building.
Councilmember Sanger asked what changed? Mike Gould, SilverCrest Properties, stated that
more condos were available on the market. When they looked at the market study they found
there was a limited market for age-restricted buildings, which would be a huge risk his
partners couldn’t take.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3d - Study Session September 12, 2005
Page 5
Councilmember Sanger indicated she believed they wanted it both ways, not labeling it age
restricted, but still market to an older group. This would generate more traffic. She had a
concern that they didn’t have bigger units for families. They could possibly drop the age
restriction if they had bigger units less floors. Mr. Gould stated there would be less traffic
for this use than if it were an office.
Councilmember Santa expressed a concern about social and cultural issues with two existing
senior buildings and adding a different age mix. She had been impressed with the senior
campus. Mr. Gould believed they would still attract an older market.
Councilmember Omodt believed the over 50 market would determine this and he didn’t see
many younger people going there. He had no problem dropping the age restriction and didn’t
believe that would change the demographic.
Councilmember Basill suggested doing a percentage of age-restricted. Mr. Gould stated that
the mechanics was an issue. The length of time for absorption and sales became a risk. Mr.
Malkyer indicated a disclosure in marketing that it was an age-restricted building became a
concern for some buyers because of resale issues.
Mr. Locke noted this was an appropriate place for a high-rise being next to employment and
services, recreation facilities and transit.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated they approved a 14-story building integral for a senior campus.
Mr. Locke stated they could turn down they project and they could come back with a new
proposal that was not part of the PUD. The plan calls for high-density housing and traffic
was not a problem.
Councilmember Sanger liked the idea of a high-rise, but was concerned about traffic and
parking if it were not seniors. She asked if there was flexibility in design or making it shorter
with fewer, but bigger units? Mr. Gould replied they could look at that.
Mayor Jacobs noted if there were more bedrooms, there might be more cars and with families
the possibility of cultural differences, which may not be a good mix.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked what percentage of condos were sold to families? Mr.
Malkyer replied not many.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated the market should dictate this. If they didn’t have an age
restriction, maybe the should not build units larger than 1,000 sq. ft.
Councilmember Sanger believed smaller units may attract seniors. Maybe they could lower
the age to 50. Mr. Malkyer responded that HUD defines the age. There is also a stigma
attached with an age restriction.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3d - Study Session September 12, 2005
Page 6
Councilmember Finkelstein asked the unit break down? Mr. Gould replied $250-$700,000
(900 sq. ft – 2,000 sq. ft.). Larger units were 2 BR with den, often desired by older buyers.
Councilmember Omodt stated this was what they were looking for when they did Excelsior
and Grand. It was more on the tax roles and wouldn’t be that much more traffic. Parking
was addressed. The only change was the ability to market it. They were not requesting TIF.
Mayor Jacobs was still concerned about parking and if people would park in neighboring lots
(such as Target). Ms. McGonigal stated there were 80 surface parking spaces that were
underutilized. Staff would park underground and there would be a system for guest parking.
Councilmember Basill believed if they brought this forward they should require more from
the developer such as 2:1 parking, better design, public art, etc. He requested they see
options regarding unit counts and parking ratios for 150 and 138 units. Ms. McGonigal
noted they met the standards.
Mr. Harmening indicated they would bring this back to Council and work with the applicant
on parking and other “value added” improvements.
5. Cable TV Franchise Renewal
Mr. Pires updated the Council on the franchise renewal.
Kim Roden, Vice President of Public Affairs, Time Warner, stated the biggest issue was the
public education government (PEG) access fee, which has been higher. It puts them at a
competitive price differential and they were competing with different regulatory rules.
Customers are concerned about their bills and will switch providers for as little as $1/month.
They believed the .40 pass through was generous. The franchise fees can go toward the local
origination and there are other sources of revenue to fund public access programming.
Todd Hartman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Cerisi, representing Time Warner, indicated the
survey stated that 50% of the customers would not pay the pass through. They tried to find
creative ways to make money, meet the needs and continue the same programming, so it was
a win/win. Local origination (LO) would continue to be on channel 16. They would
transition from Time Warner to City staff with a .40 pass through and they would equip a
studio for production and a mobile van.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they had to give up another channel? Mr. Hartman
responded they have five PEG and LO channels and Time Warner was asking to reclaim one
of the existing channels. They could fit PEG programming onto existing channels.
Ms. Roden noted they would offer video on demand and people could get programs when
they wanted to view them.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3d - Study Session September 12, 2005
Page 7
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they would collect revenue from the channel they got
back? Mr. Hartman responded they pay fees to put programming on. They wouldn’t
increase revenue unless they raised their rates.
Councilmember Sanger stated people were upset with the prices, but not for LO. They were
upset because of customer service issues. Comcast has higher LO fees. Have they produced
evidence if that had decreased subscribership? Ms. Roden replied she could not comment on
fees and subscribership for Comcast. Time Warner attempted to be consistent and the range
for PEG pass through is .30-.40.
Mr. Hartman believed it made sense for the City to do the LO programming because they
were the experts and had the studios.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if there were any “wiggle” room on the pass through fee?
Mayor Jacobs asked if other cities had settled for higher than .40? Ms. Roden replied they
typically have a package and if one piece shifts, another one has to. There is always
flexibility on the numbers, but something else would need to change. Fridley pays .45.
Bloomington has an agreement of .55, which Time Warner wouldn’t agree to today.
Mr. Pires stated it would be useful to know last year’s subscribership with the change of fees.
Ms. Roden indicated that the number of subscribers had been flat. They had gained
customers on the Internet and phone side. There was more competition.
Councilmember Basill stated he had never heard complaints about people paying the LO fee.
That could be a marketing tool for Time Warner as a reason not to go to dish.
Ms. Roden stated from a legal perspective, a cable company is no longer able to provide LO.
They are getting out of that business. They will try to find a funding mechanism to help the
City do it. Only a small percentage of people see it as a value.
Mr. Hartman stated that St. Louis Park is a unique community. They tried to demonstrate up
to two years to provide LO and find ways to have more funding.
Mayor Jacobs stressed the importance of LO in St. Louis Park and he didn’t believe people
would switch because of an increase.
Ms. Roden understood that, but the issue was LO versus their concern to have fairness for all
cities. To use your own money meant LO was very important. 50% of the franchise fees go
to LO and more could. She asked if the City would entertain using a larger portion of
franchise fees toward LO.
Mr. Pires stated staff was working to find solutions. The last best offer provides a two-year
transition. They hadn’t raised the .40 rate. They lose a channel. Staff can try to come up
with the same result and provide similar programming for $55,000/year, which would fund a
position to have the same level of programming.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3d - Study Session September 12, 2005
Page 8
The Council discussed various options for the franchise agreement and local origination.
Brian Grogan, Moss and Barnett, stated that the deadline on the transfer is in October. The
Council needed to take action or extend the deadline. He discussed the pros and cons of
formal versus informal negotiations.
Council asked staff to continue negotiations regarding all points of the agreement, including
issues of customer service, etc.
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3e - Study Session September 19, 2005
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
September 19, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:18 p.m.
Councilmembers present: John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa
and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Councilmember Jim Brimeyer was absent.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke),
Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal),
and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson).
1. Top “10” Future Development Sites
Ms. McMonigal indicated staff was planning ahead to avoid surprises and anticipating sites
for future development.
Councilmember Sanger asked what the goal was? Councilmember Finkelstein believed they
had been reacting to developers coming forward. This would provide basic ideas and plans
to give developers.
Ms. McMonigal indicated they would look at the site and the Comp Plan then decide if they
should study it further and determine what kind of study should be done.
Councilmember Finkelstein used the dog park as an example of a site they should begin
considering what should be done on, such as move up housing or single family homes.
Councilmember Sanger asked if this would result in change of zoning or in the Com Plan?
Ms. McMonigal replied yes. They would be prioritizing. They would not be committing to
any financial aide.
Mr. Harmening stated the Elmwood study was a good example because they were prepared if
a developer came in.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated a location where this should have been done was where
Home Depot and Cosco were developed.
Mayor Jacobs agreed that site should have been developed differently and they could be
ahead of the curve for other developments.
Councilmember Sanger commented a study was done at Texa Tonka and nothing had
happened and she didn’t want that to happen again.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3e - Study Session September 19, 2005
Page 2
Councilmember Santa noted that work had been done on that study. If the site changed
ownership, they had a study and the work was not wasted.
Councilmember Finkelstein believed they needed to consider the feelings of the
neighborhood and the effect on the entire community.
Major Jacobs asked if they should have a task force? Mr. Locke replied that staff would
work with the Council to identify prospective sites and a task force would be a possible
second step.
Ms. McMonigal indicated some sites would be small and other would be larger and require
more study.
Councilmember Basill believed they needed to realize what this would do to staff time. The
Elmwood study was very taxing. If a site was more controversial, they should consider
having a task force.
Councilmember Santa believed it might also raise expectations of the neighborhood if they
don’t get a task force and other areas do. They needed to be aware of the expectation that the
city may buy businesses, which may not be the case. They also needed more discussion
about industry.
Major Jacobs thought they needed to determine how proactive they wanted to be to
encourage development.
Councilmember Sanger added a task force many raise expectations of neighbors that
something was going to be done. She suggested they decide parcels, which was done several
years ago on a policy of economic assistance.
Councilmember Omodt asked if this would be coordinated with Hennepin County and the
Met Council? Mayor Jacobs replied it should be.
Councilmember Omodt asked how they would prioritize? Ms. McMonigal responded that
staff began a list and would provide more information and make suggestions. The Council
will prioritize the list and can also make suggestions about sites.
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3f - Study Session September 26, 2005
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
September 26, 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), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke),
Director of Technology and Support Services (Mr. Pires), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr.
Hunt), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson).
Others present: Carl Robertson and Claudia Johnston-Madison, Planning Commissioners;
Wayne Norris and Tom O’Keefe, MnDOT; Paul and Mack Hyde, Representatives of Real Estate
Recycling; Tom Asp, Virchow Krause
1. Zoning Code Updates Related to the Housing Summit
Ms. McMonigal presented the report and explained the guidelines and criteria.
Councilmember Santa asked about an occurrence in Councilmember Basill’s ward with two
lots? Ms. McMonigal responded there were two platted lots in conformance with zoning and
consistent with other lots in the neighborhood. They could get two lots and build if the
homes met the design guidelines.
Councilmember Finkelstein expressed a concern about joining two lots and putting in houses
that were not in character and believed this would allow that.
Carl Robertson, Planning Commissioner, stated they would look at the surrounding houses
and they couldn’t be smaller.
Councilmember Sanger felt this was a bad idea. There are zoning standards for lot sizes and
she was concerned about people asking for variances and that they would squeeze houses in.
Councilmember Brimeyer believed they could do homes that would fit architecturally and
could be start up homes.
Councilmember Basill noted a 40’ lot could hold a large house and they could build it to match
the existing houses. What he believed needed to be included was that they have a 2-car garage,
three bedrooms with a den and include additional amenities.
Mr. Locke noted that a home would need to fit the existing character of the neighborhood,
but they didn’t want to get too specific to allow Council discretion.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3f - Study Session September 26, 2005
Page 2
Councilmember Brimeyer believed at the Housing Summit they said to relax zoning and be more
flexible. One way was to have a CUP. He believed they should move ahead and staff and
Planning Commission could work out the details. The desired end result was more available land.
Claudia Johnston-Madison, Planning Commissioner, suggested that they get both the
standards and design guidelines in sync.
Councilmember Finkelstein suggested they review what authority they would have with a
CUP process. Mr. Locke replied staff would refine that.
Mr. Robertson suggested they be held to a higher architectural design, with additional amenities.
Mayor Jacobs believed the standards couldn’t be too loose and there needed to be discretion
and a basic criteria. He was concerned with big houses on small lots
Councilmember Sanger asked how it would work with the subdivision ordinance and larger
homes on big lots? Ms. McMonigal responded it land wouldn’t be subdivided. These were
existing lots. If it meets zoning, it can be built on.
Councilmember Sanger asked what happens if a homes was destroyed? Ms. McMonigal
indicated they wouldn’t change the lot and the same rules would be applied.
Councilmember Sanger was concerned about people tearing down homes to be able to build
more on a lot and make a profit.
Councilmember Basill disagreed and stated a home needed to be the same as those existing
in the neighborhood.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested finding out the underlying lots.
Councilmember Basill suggested they look at the reverse, if someone wanted to build a larger
home and if they could use a CUP process for that as well.
2. TH100 Interim Improvements
Tom O’Keefe, MnDOT, discussed the project and indicated it would require municipal consent.
The full build project is scheduled for 2014. A change since April was the advanced design
project, which had funding assigned. If there is more funding, it will advance further.
Wayne Norris, MnDOT, discussed the project design and schedule.
Mayor Jacobs stated concerns about Hwy 7 believed traffic would back up. Mr. O’Keefe
indicated that they keep the ramp in the SW quadrant. The outside right lane will clog with
traffic that wants to exit at Excelsior. This gives an opportunity for less volume interaction
and the signal provides enough left turn capacity.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3f - Study Session September 26, 2005
Page 3
Councilmember Brimeyer asked if it would be left turn only? Mr. O’Keefe replied it would
be phased.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there would be a buffer between the freeway and the
residences? Mr. O’Keefe replied they were expanding to the West to the limits of the guardrail.
Councilmember Sanger asked if they were shortening the merge lanes? Mr. O’Keefe replied
they were increasing them and would facilitate the shoulders as much as possible. The goal
was to keep widening within existing pavement.
Councilmember Finkelstein indicated he was concerned about the bridges and not enough
room to add lanes. Mr. O’Keefe replied they had 39’ to work with.
Mayor Jacobs was concerned about the width of the shoulders and if a car broke down.
Could they make the medians wide enough for vehicles to get off the road? Mr. O’Keefe
responded they looked at that issue and were designing curbs that could be driven over. The
shoulders were fine South of the railroad and lighting was being considered for the bridge.
The Council expressed concerns about the homeowners in the area who were waiting to sell.
They were also concerned with noise and fumes. Residents were living in limbo and were
not able to sell their homes.
Mr. O’Keefe stated this is an advanced design project and the City could design the layout
and request funding from the Met Council to buy the houses.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the project kept getting pushed out and wondered if they
should wait until they had all of the necessary funding and the project could be done at once.
Mr. O’Keefe indicated that the interim project provided benefit for the city and the region.
Councilmember Basill was concerned about a delay because of the temporary fixed and
asked if there was a commitment and what the process was? Mr. O’Keefe noted that every
project with advanced design had advanced.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked if the final design had noise walls? Mr. Norris replied yes.
Councilmember Brimeyer believed the interim project should be done and they could commit
to buy homes and pursue an agreement with MnDot to pay for homes and put up noise walls.
Mr. O’Keefe encouraged the city to think about what they needed to approve the project.
Councilmember Sanger was not in favor without funding for the whole project.
Mayor Jacobs asked if they did this project, what would improve? Mr. Norris responded that
currently the road handles 3500-4500 at peak. With the addition of the third lane, they would
add an additional 1,000 vehicles per hour in each direction. There will be a traffic analysis
done when they submit the layout.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3f - Study Session September 26, 2005
Page 4
Councilmember Sanger suggested that the analysis be done independently. Mr. O’Keefe
responded that a consultant was doing the traffic analysis and the safety assessment was
being done internally.
Mr. Harmening clarified that staff would continue to work with MnDOT on the arrangements
with the permanent project in consideration on the interim and explore options with MnDot.
The Council felt this needed more discussion.
Councilmember Basill asked what the staff perspective was and if it was a good design for the
city? Mr. Rardin responded that they had begun discussions and there were not many options.
3. Real Estate Recycling
Mr. Hunt indicated they needed preliminary TIF approval for redevelopment of the Golden
Auto site and to pursue additional grant funds. He reviewed the staff report.
Mack Hyde reviewed the project overview and contamination issues. They were proceeding
as part of the States voluntary cleanup project and it was important to assemble all funding
sources (State, Federal, local, etc.).
Paul Hyde discussed the proposed development, which would include 99,000 sq. ft of
office/warehouse. They received grant money and were submitting more applications. They
were also addressing the lease with Methodist Hospital.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked what happened if they didn’t get all of the grant money?
Paul Hyde responded that they were committed to the project and had a significant amount
of money invested.
Mr. Hunt continued with the staff report and reviewed the actions required by Council.
Councilmember Basill asked what the value of the property would be when completed? Mr. Hunt
replied $6.3 million.
Councilmember Sanger asked why they were investing $12 million of tax money when it
would only be worth half of that? Mr. Hunt responded that the site would not get cleaned up
on its own. The grant money being provided was amazing. Mr. Harmening added to get
anything of value on the site they would need to invest in it. Paul Hyde added the site was
going from retail to industrial which also lowered the value. Mr. Hunt stated that if they
didn’t do it now, they would need to wait many years for the lease to expire with the hospital.
Councilmember Sanger asked about the parking on the SW quadrant. Mr. Hunt responded
they agreed not to use that property until the intersection was improved. Mr. Harmening
added that interim parking was a reasonable use.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3f - Study Session September 26, 2005
Page 5
Councilmember Sanger asked if there was a provision that the parking would change after
they complete the intersection? Mr. Harmening responded it was in the agreement, although
the property did not have a lot of value.
Councilmember Sanger asked if this would interfere with the ability to do rail interconnects?
Mr. Hunt replied they were providing for rail right of ways in the agreement and was subject
to future discussion.
Councilmember Sanger indicated in the business points it needs to provide for future rail
connections. Mr. Harmening indicated it would provide North and South interconnects.
Councilmember Omodt asked if there would be more traffic than currently existed? Mr.
Hunt responded it would be negligible.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked why they weren’t keeping the property at its highest use?
Mr. Hunt replied that staff wanted to create industrial property. A retail use would affect
Methodist Hospitals parking needs.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked what kind of tenants there would be? Paul Hyde replied
tenants with office, showroom and warehouse space. There would be three to five tenants.
Mayor Jacobs asked where the impound lot would go? Mr. Hunt responded it would remain
where it was.
Mr. Hunt stated the next step would be to continue working on the project and pursuing TIF.
In October they would request authorization to submit for grant funds and a letter of intent.
4. Wireless Study
Mr. Pires indicated the four main issues that had been raised were: legal, security, health and
the role of government. Staff had found no harmful effects. Some believe the government
does sometimes have a role. In the study, 36% of household believed there was a need.
Councilmember Omodt stated he had been contacted by a Qwest lobbyist who indicated this
would not have a sufficient cash flow. Mr. Pires believed that was a generality. The study
indicated people were interested.
Councilmember Sanger asked if they would consider doing a pilot project? Mr. Pires replied
staff would recommend that.
Mr. Pires stated that Qwest or Time Warner can make a proposal, although it seemed new
entrants were more interested. The City also needs to have an exit strategy.
Councilmember Santa stated in the past they had been approached by other providers
(MetroComm), but they hadn’t ever followed through. Mr. Pires responded that the system they
offered was very slow. Mr. Asp added they had resurfaced and probably would contact the City.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3f - Study Session September 26, 2005
Page 6
Mr. Pires indicated there were municipal and education benefits including: notifying the
public of emergencies, public safety, public works and park and rec, meter reading, video
monitoring, teacher/student/parent, and Powerschool. He suggested a pilot project be done
so they can work through any issues.
Councilmember Santa believed they weren’t talking about competing. They were discussing
a public/private partnership and Qwest could partner with the city.
Councilmember Brimeyer believed this could be used to improve public service. Many
people can’t afford this service. He believed they should do a pilot project.
Councilmember Sanger had heard many positive comments and believed this was a good
project. She also received an Email from Qwest and asked them what their plans were to
establish DSL in the community and hadn’t gotten a response.
Councilmember Finkelstein thought the role of government was the most legitimate issue and
there were many advantages to wireless. He believed wireless was such low wattage and it
hadn’t been proved that health issues existed. There is a role for government with a pilot project.
Councilmember Sanger asked about the 1st amendment issue and if they would be filtering?
Mr. Asp replied other communities have done this. A municipality cannot chose
programming line-up or block sites. The user chooses where to go and what to do.
Councilmember Sanger asked if they would block illegal sites? Mr. Asp replied if they are
known to be illegal.
Councilmember Sanger suggested they have a clear policy if they block sites. Mr. Asp noted
that there is a history in other communities.
The Council agreed to move forward with a pilot project.
Councilmember Santa requested more information on a private partnership: Who? What to
expect? What they would bring to the table?
Councilmember Omodt stated he looked at the health information submitted and asked if
there was a difference between what there is now and what they would add? Were they
adding that much more and was there an incremental exposure? Mr. Pires replied that an
accumulation was the concern.
Councilmember Basill noted his concern was if the risk for the city made sense from a
financial standpoint. Technology changes very fast. He agreed with the other
Councilmember’s about health concerns. He asked how much they would spend on a pilot?
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 3f - Study Session September 26, 2005
Page 7
Councilmember Sanger stated the intent was to finance this from user fees and subscriptions.
The up front costs would be reimbursed and it was like a utility. A private company could
buy them out down the road.
Mayor Jacobs shared Councilmember Basill’s concerns. They shouldn’t be thinking about it
to make money. He could support it if they were able to improve services and increase
communication among city workers. Some areas have limited service. He was willing to
support a pilot project, but believed if they did a public/private partnership they should own
the equipment. Mr. Pires replied that was what they were looking at.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked if they could sell commercial space? Mr. Asp responded
there were additional revenue streams if they sold advertising and some cities did that.
Mr. Pires stated staff would do additional follow-up such as: business models, partnerships,
risks, what the pilot project would look like and the down sides. They would return to
Council on 10/24 with a follow up and recommendations and then in December for direction.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they could work with those concerned about health
issues on the location of the pilot project? Mr. Pires replied they could design the pilot areas.
If they did it citywide, there would be a proliferation.
The meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4a - Minnehaha Creek Vision Resolution
Page 1
4a Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting the Vision for Minnehaha Creek.
Background
In October of 2004, the City Council adopted a resolution agreeing to participate in a partnership
to benefit Minnehaha Creek. The partnership is between the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District and all the cities the creek passes through. The intent of the partnership is to improve
water quality by restoring aquatic ecosystems and reducing flood damage to the Minnehaha
Creek Corridor.
Creek Vision Outcomes
Mike Wyatt from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) was at the study session on
September 12, 2005 to present the recommendations from the visioning process. Task Force
members from the City of St. Louis Park were also present at the meeting to present the vision.
The next step for the MCWD is to have all of the cities pass a resolution of support for the
vision.
Council asked staff to incorporate some of their comments into the resolution prior to submittal
and approval. I have added two areas to the resolution based on council comments. The first
states that passing this resolution does not commit us financially to any future improvements
along the creek unless the City of St. Louis Park approves of them and wants to financially
contribute. The second comment stresses that using the creek for recreational purposes is a high
priority for the City Council. Council also asked staff to review the resolutions from other cities.
The City of Minnetonka added a section similar to ours on working cooperatively and having the
MCWD inform and seek concurrence from the cities on future actions. I have also added this in
the resolution for you to consider.
Approval of Resolution
Staff recommends approving the attached resolution from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District to show support for the vision.
Next Steps
Staff will be setting up a task force to discuss promoting the vision in St. Louis Park and creek
encroachments. At a future meeting we will review with the Council the approach for
undertaking this process.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4a - Minnehaha Creek Vision Resolution
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-138
RESOLUTION ADOPTING MINNEHAHA CREEK VISION
WHEREAS, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District [MCWD] City of St. Louis Park
previously adopted a resolution to create the Minnehaha Creek Visioning Partnership to provide
guidance and recommendations on policy development, technical issues, and public involvement
to create a common vision and implementation plan for the Minnehaha Creek Corridor;
WHEREAS, the Partnership's Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), comprised of 23
representatives from the cities of Minneapolis, Edina, St. Louis Park, Hopkins and Minnetonka,
the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Hennepin County, and the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District, held twelve workshop meetings to develop a recommended creek vision;
WHEREAS, the Partnership's Technical Advisory Committee also met to review the
technical feasibility of the vision recommendations developed by the CAC, and has concluded
that these recommendations are technically feasible;
WHEREAS, the CAC also convened a public Open House to gather further public input
and review of the proposed creek vision and the CAC's recommendations;
WHEREAS, the CAC has now produced a detailed report that sets forth a creek vision as
follows:
The Vision for Minnehaha Creek includes both an existing and desired sense of place.
With respect to the existing sense of place, the creek;
• Is a corridor with various reaches and destinations;
• Serves as a gathering place for people;
• Provides recreational opportunities;
• Is a contemporary cultural resource, yet it also reflects our history; and
• Provides natural and aesthetic experiences unique to its setting.
Within the creek corridor it is also desired to:
• Provide balanced opportunities to experience the creek;
• Improve the natural environment;
• Improve water quality;
• Have variation and physical differences; and
• Be reflective of our history and a priority for our future.
WHEREAS, the CAC's creek vision recommendations also include management
priorities, stream bank erosion improvements, aquatic habitat management, riparian vegetation
management, woody debris management, study of weir and dam removal, stream flow
management, water quality management, and decision making criteria; and
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4a - Minnehaha Creek Vision Resolution
Page 3
WHEREAS, the CAC's creek vision recommendations will be considered by both the
MCWD and the USACE as they move forward with plans and designs, and it is also intended as
guidance for other organizations, such as cities and the Minneapolis Park Board, which share
creek corridor management responsibilities, with the hope is that all organizations can work
together toward a common vision for the creek;
WHEREAS, the MCWD will inform and seek support from St. Louis Park and other
respective cities in the district on actions required or options available to implement the vision;
WHEREAS, supporting this vision does not obligate the City of St. Louis Park to pay for
any further studies or improvements that the City of St. Louis Park does not agree is a priority
for the use of City funds;
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park would like to see an emphasis placed on the
recreational amenities of the creek and encourage use and enhancement to promote recreational
use throughout the City of St. Louis Park section as well as other sections of the creek;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the MCWD City of St. Louis Park
hereby adopts the general creek vision recommendations presented by the CAC as the general
conceptual framework to guide creek corridor management, and thanks the 23 citizen members
of the CAC for their hard work, thorough study, and carefully-considered recommendations;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park supports the inclusion of
these recommendations in the Water Resources Management Plan being developed by the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the MCWD City of St. Louis Park agrees to
continue to work with the other members of the Minnehaha Creek Visioning Partnership,
through its policy board, technical advisory committee, and citizens advisory committee, to
coordinate the implementation of these recommendations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the MCWD City of St. Louis Park hereby
expresses its support for the United States Army Corps of Engineers Feasibility Study within the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to pursue the investigation of the potential Federal interest
in assisting with the implementation of Minnehaha Creek Visioning Partnership
recommendations in the Minnehaha Creek corridor.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council September 19, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4a - Minnehaha Creek Vision Resolution
Page 4
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4b - Bid Tab 2005 GAC
Page 1
4b Bid Tabulation: Purchase of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Supply
Contract. Motion to authorize execution of a contract with Calgon Carbon
Corporation for the purchase of GAC in the amount of $69,568.00
Background: Granular Activated Carbon Treatment Plants are located at 2935 Jersey
Avenue (Water Treatment Plant No. 1) and at 4601 W. 41st Street (Water Treatment Plant
No. 4). These plants came on line in 1986 and 1993, respectively. These GAC plants
treat drinking water contaminated by the Reilly Tar and Chemical Plant. This treatment
is effective in removing polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contaminants. The
GAC absorbs the PAH’s as the contaminated water passes through the filters. The GAC
eventually becomes loaded with the PAH particles, is no longer effective in the removal
of the PAH’s, and must be replaced. The GAC treated water is continually monitored to
measure the amount of PAH’s removed. When the level of PAH’s in the treated water
increases to the Drinking Water Advisory Level the GAC has to be scheduled for
replacement. Based on years of experience, the replacement of the GAC is now done
annually at these plants.
Bids were received on September 22, 2005 for the supply and regeneration of GAC for
Water Treatment Plants No. 1 and 4. An advertisement for bids was published in the St.
Louis Park Sun-Sailor on September 8, 2005. Specification and bid documents were sent
to Calgon Carbon Corporation and Norit Americas, Inc. which are the only two qualified
suppliers of GAC. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
Bidder Bid Amount
Calgon Carbon Corporation $69,568.00
Norit Americas, Inc. NO BID
Financial Considerations: The bid amount of $69,568.00 reflects an increase from past
costs essentially due to significantly increased production and delivery costs (last years
approved bid was $51,440). The production of the GAC is an energy intensive process
and combined with increased trucking fuel costs have significantly contributed to the
GAC increase this year. The funding source for this bid is the Water Fund.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to the low bidder,
Calgon Carbon Corporation for the contract amount of $69,568.00
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent
Reviewed by: Michael Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4c - BT Cedar Knoll Parking Lot
4c Motion to designate Frattalone Paving as the lowest responsible bidder and to
authorize execution of a contract for the reconstruction of the parking lot at Cedar
Knoll Park / Carlson Field in an amount not to exceed $87,518.00.
Background: The 2005 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes reconstruction of the parking
lot by Carlson Field in Cedar Knoll Park. The parking lot is breaking up and is not large enough
to accommodate the park users. Also, the Utilities Division utilizes this area to access their water
tower and pump house. This is a joint project with the Utilities Division.
Bid Analysis: Bids were opened Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 10 a.m. in the City Hall
Council Chambers. Six firms’ submitted bids, with the amounts shown as follows:
Company Amount Bid
Frattalone Paving $87,518.00
DMJ Corporation $95,000.00
Barber Construction Company Inc. $95,870.00
Bituminous Roadways $107,060.00
Northwest Asphalt $113,696.75
Hardrives, Inc. $113,972.25
The apparent low bid was received from Frattalone Paving. Frattalone Paving has successfully
and satisfactorily completed projects for the City in the past.
Costs and Funding: The City has budgeted $80, 000 to be spent on construction of the parking
lot, $60,000 from the Park Improvement Fund and $20,000 from the Utility Division. The bid
from Frattalone Paving is $7,000 higher than the amount budgeted. The Parks and Recreation
Department will access the additional funds in the amount of $3,500 from the Utility fund and
$4,018 from the Park Improvement fund.
Next Steps and Timelines: Reconstruction will begin as soon as the contract is executed and
will be completed by November 1, 2005.
Prepared By: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Rick Beane, Parks Superintendent
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4d - 2006 Equipment Replacement
Page 1
4d Adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report and authorizes the purchase
of equipment scheduled and budgeted for 2006.
Background: Procurement of vehicles is accomplished in a variety of ways. By Statute,
Charter, and Ordinance, all purchases over $50,000 have to be authorized by the Council and are
bid in accordance with public contracting laws. This means that after equipment purchases are
authorized by Council, the City can either call for bids or equipment may be purchased through
other agencies that have already legally bid for this equipment (i.e. State of Minnesota contracts,
Hennepin County contracts, etc.).
Replacement of equipment costing less than $50,000 does not require Council authorization.
Staff replaces this type of equipment by purchasing it through State or County contracts or by
obtaining competitive quotes.
Budget: In the first quarter of 2005, Public Works staff met with each equipment-using
department to discuss fleet management as well as short term and long term planned
replacements. From this discussion, Public Works revised the planned replacement list. From
this list, year 2006 replacements were placed in the budget proposal earlier this year. The source
of funding for the equipment replacement is the Equipment Replacement Fund.
Final List for Replacement: The final list for year 2006 contains 32 units estimated to cost
(gross) $1,412,819. This listing is attached for your information. Of those, there are 8 vehicles
that will cost close to or more than $50,000 and require Council authorization to purchase.
Recommendation: Adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report considering major
equipment replacement scheduled and budgeted for 2006 and authorizes staff to acquire
equipment as allowed by Statute, Charter, or Ordinance.
Attachments: Resolution Year 2006 Major Equipment Replacement
2006 Equipment Purchase Spreadsheet
Prepared by: Mark P. Hanson, Operations Superintendent
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4d - 2006 Equipment Replacement
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-139
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING REPORT, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS,
AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENTS FOR BIDS FOR
YEAR 2006 MAJOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has received a report from
the Director of Public Works related to major equipment scheduled for replacement during year 2006,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, MN,
that:
1. The Director of Public Works Report regarding year 2006 equipment replacement is hereby accepted.
2. The following eight (8) pieces of equipment costing close to or more than $50,000 are authorized for
replacement or addition during year 2006:
Old Vehicle
Unit No.
New Vehicle Description
Estimated Cost
1. 8162 COMMUNICATIONS VEHICLE $158,620
2. 9711 TRUCK, 1-TON, MINIDUMP $48,816
3. 9008 LOADER $198,006
4. 9318 TRUCK, TANDEM DUMP $140,689
5. 9708 SEWER VACTOR $186,310
6. N/A TRAILER-MOUNTED VACTOR $50,000
7. 8329 TRUCK, VIDEO CAMERA INSP. $130,000
8. 9712 SWEEPER, SELF-PROPELLED $116,699
3. The Director of Public Works is further authorized to acquire all year 2006 equipment purchases as
allowed by Statute, Charter, or Ordinance through the following methods: by bid, by purchase from
State of Minnesota Contract, Hennepin County Contract, or by quotations.
4. The necessary specifications for year 2006 equipment purchases as prepared under the direction of
the Director of Public Works are approved.
5. When necessary, the City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the
official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin advertisements for bids for said equipment listed
above under said specifications. Advertisements shall appear not less than twenty-one (21) days prior
to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless
sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified
check payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
6. Bids received for the equipment listed above shall be tabulated by the Director of Public Works who
shall report his tabulation and recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 10, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4d - 2006 Equipment Replacement
Page 3
No.
Old
Unit
No. Old Description Rpl.
Cycle Age Primary
Department New Vehicle Description Est. Cost
2006
1 0325 SEDAN,POLICE SQUADS 2 3 POLICE DEPT SEDAN,POLICE SQUADS 26,265 2 0401 SEDAN,POLICE SQUADS 2 2 POLICE DEPT SEDAN,POLICE SQUADS 26,265 3 0402 SEDAN,POLICE SQUADS 2 2 POLICE DEPT SEDAN,POLICE SQUADS 26,265 4 0403 SEDAN,POLICE SQUADS 2 2 POLICE DEPT SEDAN,POLICE SQUADS 26,265 5 0404 SEDAN,POLICE SQUADS 2 2 POLICE DEPT SEDAN,POLICE SQUADS 26,265 6 8162 COMMUNICATIONS VEHICLE 10 25 POLICE DEPT COMMUNICATIONS VEHICLE 158,620 *
7 9717 TRUCK,1/4T,4X4 SPORT-UTL 8 9 POLICE DEPT TRUCK,1/2T,4X4 SPORT-UTL 35,275 8 9711 TRUCK, 1-TON, MINIDUMP 10 9 POOL TRUCK, 1-TON, MINIDUMP 48,816 *
9 9008 LOADER 15 16 POOL LOADER 198,006 *
10 9318 TRUCK, TANDEM DUMP 15 13 POOL TRUCK, TANDEM DUMP 140,689 *
11 9514 TRUCK, 1/4T, 4X2 10 11 ENGINEERING TRUCK, 1/4T, 4X4 17,356 12 9404 SEDAN, MIDSIZE 8 12 ENGINEERING TRUCK, 1/4T, 4X4 17,356 13 0414 TRUCK, 3/4T, 4X4 2 2 FACILITIES MTCE TRUCK, 3/4T, 4X4 30,719 14 0510 VAN, CARGO / CLUB 1 1 FACILITIES MTCE VAN, CARGO 19,020 15 0534 TRUCK, 1/2T, 2X4 1 1 FACILITIES MTCE TRUCK, 1/2T, 2X4 15,299 16 9708 SEWER VACTOR 10 9 SANITARY SEWER SEWER VACTOR 186,310 *
17 N/A TRAILER-MNTD VACTOR 10 N/A SANITARY SEWER TRAILER-MOUNTED VACTOR 50,000 *
18 8329 TRUCK, RODDER 10 23 SANITARY SEWER TRUCK, VIDEO-CAMERA INSP. 130,000 *
19 9712 SWEEPER, SELF-PROPELLED 8 9 OPERATIONS SWEEPER, SELF-PROPELLED 116,699 *
20 0209 ARTICULATED TRACTOR 6 4 OPERATIONS ALL-WHEEL STEER UTIL. VEH. 37,106 21 9927 SNOW BLOWER, ATCHMNT 6 4 OPERATIONS SNOW BLOWER, ATCHMNT 2,604 22 8439V V-PLOW, ATCHMNT 6 4 OPERATIONS SNOW PLOW, ATCHMNT 2,580 23 9415B HYDR. BROOM, ATCHMNT 6 4 OPERATIONS BROOM, ATCHMNT 2,604 24 0248 PLOW,UNDERBODY 15 4 OPERATIONS WING PLOW 6,168 25 130.21 SANDER, TAILGATE 15 13 OPERATIONS SPIN SANDER 3,939 26 93118 FRONT PLOW 15 13 OPERATIONS FRONT PLOW 6,323 27 97111 FRONT PLOW, SMALL 10 10 POOL FRONT PLOW, SMALL 3,795 28 9614 ROLLER, STEEL WHEEL 10 10 OPERATIONS ROLLER, STEEL WHEEL 38,192 29 9715 STRIPER, WALK BEHIND 15 9 OPERATIONS STRIPER, WALK BEHIND 6,144 30 0538 ALL-WHEEL STEER UTIL. VEH. 1 1 OPERATIONS ALL-WHEEL STEER UTIL. VEH. 3,200 31 0514 SKID-STEER LOADER 1 1 OPERATIONS SKID-STEER LOADER 2,444 32 0524 SKID-STEER LOADER 1 1 PARK MAINTENANCE SKID-STEER LOADER 2,231 Total
Notes: * For units estimated near or over $50,000, Council will be requested to authorize purchase.
2006 Equipment Purchases
1,412,819 $
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4e - 2nd Reading Local Gambling Tax
Page 1
4e Motion to approve 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Local Tax on Lawful
Gambling, approve the summary and authorize summary publication
Background:
In December of 1999 Council enacted a tax on lawful gambling in the city calculated at 2% of the
gross receipts of all licensed organizations less prizes actually paid out by the organizations. Council’s
stated intent in passing the tax was to ensure that city costs are recovered and adequate investigation
and enforcement activities are conducted.
The amount of tax to be collected was reevaluated in 2001 and reduced to .0075% (three quarters of
one percent). The city’s costs related to charitable gambling have continued to decline. Staff believes
the decline is directly attributable to the trade area restriction which has stabilized charitable gambling
activity in the city.
On September 19, 2005, council approved first reading of this ordinance reducing the amount of tax to
be collected from .0075% to .0010% (one tenth of one percent).
Attachments: Ordinance
Ordinance Summary
Prepared By: Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4e - 2nd Reading Local Gambling Tax
Page 2
ORDINANCE NO. 2300-05
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE CHAPTER 15 RELATED TO
CHARITABLE GAMBLING ORGANIZATION
AMOUNT OF LOCAL TAX
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Chapter 15 is hereby amended as follows
Sec. 15-9. Local tax.
Any organization authorized to conduct lawful gambling shall pay to the city on a monthly basis a
local gambling tax in the amount of .0075 0.0010 percent (one tenth of one percent) of the gross
receipts of a licensed organization from all lawful gambling less prizes actually paid out by the
organization. Payment shall be made no later than 25 days after the end of the preceding month and
shall be accompanied by a copy of the monthly return filed with the Minnesota Department of
Revenue.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after its publication.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 10, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4e - 2nd Reading Local Gambling Tax
Page 3
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2300-05
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE CHAPTER 15 RELATED TO
CHARITABLE GAMBLING ORGANIZATION
AMOUNT OF LOCAL TAX
This ordinance reduces the amount of tax paid by lawful charitable gambling organizations to the city
from three-quarters of one percent to one tenth of one percent of the gross receipts of the organization
less prizes paid out. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council October 10, 2005
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: October 13, 2005
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4f - Radio Purchase
Page 1
4f Motion to approve purchase of up to thirty four 800 MHz portable radios for
Emergency Management purposes
Background:
For the past several months, staff has been discussing the Emergency Plan and how
communications would take place in case of a disaster. As part of these discussions, the current
communication system was reviewed and concluded that it is a strong possibility that public
communication carriers will not be functional during a major natural or terrorist event (e.g.
Nextel, cell phones etc). Therefore, Department Directors have developed a plan as to how
emergency wireless communications will occur during a major event in which the City of St.
Louis Park Emergency Management Plan is activated.
Staff is recommending that up to thirty-four 800 MHz portable radios be purchased and deployed
throughout the various City departments. These radios will be used on a daily operational basis
in conjunction with existing Nextel communications.
By deploying the radios out to the Departments and using them on a consistent basis in
conjunction with the current communication system, staff will know how to use the 800 MHz
system and not have a learning curve in case of a disaster.
Funding
The cost per radio, including the batteries and charger is $2,124.21. The maximum initial capital
outlay for the radio equipment will be $72,223.14 based on the acquisition of thirty-four radios.
In addition to the initial cost of the radios, there is an annual state/county access charge. The
2006 charge per radio is $224.56. The total recurring annual cost for this group of radios will be
$7,635.04.
Staff is recommending purchasing up to thirty-four radios directly from the 2005 General Fund
budget. This will require a budget revision to the General Fund for 2005. Given the conscious
effort staff has made in expending dollars in 2005, there are sufficient dollars to cover this
purchase directly from the General Fund in 2005. Staff is also recommending that the 2006
annual access charge, as well as future years access charges be paid for through the Technology
Support Services General Fund Budget.
Attachments: none
Prepared By: Jean McGann, Director of Finance
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4g - MCWD Task Force Thanks Resolution
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 05-140
RESOLUTION OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL
In Recognition of Dedicated Service
Toward Planning the Future of the
City of St. Louis Park
As Members of the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Task Force
The City Council Hereby Provides This
Resolution of Commendation and Appreciation To
Mary Karius
Helen Pitt
John Iacono
Dan Salmon
Tony Goldenstein
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 10, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4i - Accept 5-18 PRAC Minutes For Filing
Page 1
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
MAY 18, 2005 at 7 P.M.
REC CENTER PROGRAMMING OFFICE
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Cornwall, George Foulkes, Steve Hallfin, Kirk Hawkinson,
Richard Johnson, Sarah Lindenberg, and Dana Strong
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Worthington
STAFF PRESENT: Rick Birno, Stacy Voelker, Cindy Walsh
1. Call to order
Mr. Strong, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
2. Adjustments to the agenda
None.
3. Approval of Minutes from April 20, 2005
Mr. Foulkes advised he was not present at the April meeting, Ms. Voelker will correct the
names on the Members Present/Absent portion of the minutes. Mr. Hawkinson moved to
approve the minutes with the change from the April 20, 2005 meeting, Ms. Lindenberg
seconded. The motion passed 7-0.
4. New Business
A. Discuss May through August Meeting Dates
Mr. Strong inquired if there is any item that would need to be discussion over the
summer. Mr. Johnson was concerned about the Swim/Skate event taking place in
August with no meeting. Mr. Foulkes indicated he will take Mr. Johnson’s place
while he is on vacation. Members discussed and agreed to hold the next meeting
on September 14. The meeting will start at 5 p.m. to tour park developments.
Members suggested pizza be delivered to the final facility location during the
official meeting.
5. Old Business
A. Update on the Commissioners’ Swim/Skate Event
Mr. Johnson verified all members will attend the event on August 6. Mr. Johnson
distributed assignments and packets to all members. Members discussed the
procedure to post flyers and discussed the number of complimentary passes to
distribute. It was decided the members will distribute at their discretion. Mr.
Foulkes inquired when to distribute the posters. Mr. Strong indicated they were
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4i - Accept 5-18 PRAC Minutes For Filing
Page 2
posted two weeks prior last year and suggested three weeks this year. Members
discussed and suggested posting 3-4 weeks in advance of the event. Mr. Johnson
asked for specific volunteers the evening of the event. Members discussed what
food to serve and all agreed to serve hot food and understand what clean up is
necessary. Mr. Johnson asked for suggestions from last year. Members discussed
all aspects of the event. Mr. Johnson thanked members for their work; all thanked
Mr. Johnson for his work also.
B. Discuss a letter to the Youth Associations
Mr. Strong gave a brief background of the past Soccer issues and indicated
accountability was the key. He felt a letter could be sent to all youth associations
asking for their by-laws, elections, annual funding report, etc. The letter could be
sent either annually, or semi-annually. He does not want the letter to be
accusatory. Mr. Strong had drafted a letter and shared it with some of the
association presidents for feedback. Reactions were varied. Mr. Strong will redraft
the letter initiating the feedback received and will e-mail to all Commission
members to discuss at their September meeting.
Mr. Johnson inquired on comments received and wanted to know what they
wanted to see in the letter. Mr. Strong indicated they didn’t want to receive the
letter; just wanted to be left alone. Mr. Johnson inquired if it’s the member’s
responsibility to police youth associations. Mr. Strong feels that making the
associations accountable to youth would be beneficial. Mr. Hallfin responded, as
president of the Little League Association, that it would not be an issue for them
and they would provide the information if the Commission requested.
Mr. Cornwall suggested meeting with associations individually by inviting them
to Commission meetings one association per meeting to allow more one on one
time. Mr. Johnson agreed and feels the Commission could find more ways to help
them or find what their needs are. Members discussed and agreed to continue the
January Association meeting. Mr. Strong will revise the letter to serve two
purposes: request information from them and inquiring when they could attend a
Commission meeting. Mr. Foulkes feels the associations can chose to attend or
not and the members agreed. Mr. Johnson inquired if there is a City policy stating
associations need to provide that information. Mr. Strong advised the field usage
policy states it should be available upon request. Mr. Birno indicated it has been
provided when staff requests in the past.
Mr. Cornwall motions that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission invite
youth athletic associations on a personal basis to provide an update on their needs
and how they are structured; Mr. Foulkes seconded. Motion passed 7-0.
C. Review and Discuss 2005 Commission Goals
Mr. Strong reviewed the goals with the members as follows.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4i - Accept 5-18 PRAC Minutes For Filing
Page 3
Adult Athletic Fee Review: Mr. Hallfin will review with staff and update at
October meeting.
Annual Youth Association Meeting: Commission will continue to host annually.
City Owned Property / Excess Land: The Task Force has forwarded their
recommendations to the Council. Recommendations indicate staff will do
additional research then provide information to Council. Task Force has
concluded.
Code of Conduct: Implemented.
Events:
5 K Run: implemented. Members commented that the event was great.
Campfire / Bonfire Event: Members discussed having event in fall. Mr. Strong
suggested Commission plan the event and staff execute. Members inquired on
purpose of the event and decided to discuss for a 2006 goal.
Drive-in Movie: Ms. Lindenberg advised the event is not a great fundraiser as
it is expensive (need permit, projector, etc.) but could be an event. The school
held a similar event in the field house at school. Mr. Birno advised staff has
researched having a similar event at the Wolfe Park Amphitheater and agreed
there are many expenses and issues (permits, licenses, etc.). Members
discussed and agreed to remove from the list.
Twilight Swim: To be held August 6.
Winter Skating: Implemented this year to be included in the Twilight Swim
event.
Explore Park Usage / Park Data Collection: Members discussed what information
would be needed. Staff can provide data from permits issued, registrations, or
winter ice skating. Ms. Walsh indicated a staff person would be needed in parks to
survey specific usage. Mr. Foulkes mentioned group participation would be
different data that could be collected and agrees it would be difficult to collect
data on personal use.
Mr. Strong inquired if staff could provide a 45 minute presentation on usage as he
is interested in ensuring the City is meeting the needs of the residents. Mr. Hallfin
feels it is the duty of the Commission to give residents what they want or expect.
Mr. Strong is interested in the big picture and the entire picture. Mr. Hallfin
suggested holding an open meeting of the Commission to invite people to make
suggestions and to include the meeting date in a publication. Mr. Cornwall
indicated they have a round table with Associations and inquired if neighborhood
associations should be invited. Ms. Walsh advised neighborhood associations
hold an annual meeting that Commission members could attend. Members
discussed and decided against a staff presentation.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4i - Accept 5-18 PRAC Minutes For Filing
Page 4
Mr. Strong feels it is an internal point of review to see if the City is doing a good
job serving the children. Mr. Birno feels the Commission is good about bringing
issues to the table and having staff address. Mr. Foulkes feels youth athletics is
regularly discussed and the need is fulfilled. He inquired if community families
are utilizing facilities or suggested additional publicity. He also feels programs are
well run. Mr. Johnson inquired if facility rental data is available and Ms. Walsh
indicated we have records on facility rentals.
Commission members discussed and feel this item needs definition and will
address in 2006.
Hold monthly Commission Meetings at Different Locations: Accomplished.
Permanent Off-Leash Dog Park: The Task Force will forward their
recommendations to Council on May 23. Task Force has concluded.
Promote better sports attitudes / sponsor sports advocate programs: Members
discussed the Code of Conduct has been promoted; they will discuss sports
advocate programs with each association during their visits at the meetings.
Staff Appreciation Breakfast: Will be held Thursday, May 19.
Tighten relationship with Youth Sports Association: This item will begin in fall
with the youth association visits to the Commissioners meetings.
Mr. Cornwall suggested tightening the relationship with the neighborhood
associations also. Staff suggested adding to the Commissions 2006 goals. Mr.
Strong suggested asking associations when meetings are and having members
attend those meetings to inquire on neighborhood park usage and suggested
improvements. Members discussed dividing meetings amongst members to obtain
input. They will list as a 2006 goal.
D. Off-Leash Dog Park Update
Ms. Walsh advised the task force reviewed comments received and recommended
the southeast corner of Dakota Park as their first choice for a site. They would like
the permanent site opened as soon as possible. The off-leash area would be
located to the east of the playground; the wet area would be removed; no
additional parking will be added at this time (at interim site there were a
maximum of 8 people at one time); and keep interim site open for another year in
which the City Manager agrees. This would alleviate stress at one site. It was
recommended that staff continue to work on the France Avenue site. If
Minneapolis shows no interest in one year, then the Cedar Knoll site would be
their choice. The site(s) will not have a separate area for big and little dogs (all
dogs will play together); the fence height would be 5’ (same as interim site); staff
will research adding growing vines on the fence to make it more visually pleasing;
double gated entrance (one entrance by parking lot); staff will research lighting
the parking lot (not entire site); and will research adding light to the interim site.
The task force recommends to keep the permit fees the same ($25 residents/$50
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4i - Accept 5-18 PRAC Minutes For Filing
Page 5
non-residents); they would like staff to work with the Inspections Department to
coincide the off-leash permit with the City dog license (they are unconcerned with
tag color); they indicated the owner would need to have the license on themselves
if they prefer it to not be on their dog; recommended offering Internet registration;
they suggested sending the dog owner a reminder letter of the off-leash permit
expiring along with their dog license renewal; and indicated self policing seems to
work well. Mr. Strong feels the license tags should be numbered. Mr. Foulkes
inquired if there is a situation for not having a license. Staff is unsure what type of
ticket or fine it would be. The task force also asked staff to review offering a
discount for a second dog. Mr. Foulkes recommended offering a discount for
multiple dogs of St. Louis Park residents, but not for non-resident.
Ms. Walsh indicated the next step is to present to the Council at their Study
Session on Monday, May 23 to review recommendations. If Council approves the
recommendations at their Study Session, the recommendations will go to Council
on June 6 for final approval. Ms. Walsh advised that holding off on the Cedar
Knoll site also leaves the space open for the Excess Land Task Force to make
recommendations. The City Manager would like staff to meet with the residents
around the proposed site prior to the June 6 Council meeting. This meeting may
help answer resident questions. The task force will be completed at that time.
Mr. Strong inquired what role the Commission should play and wondered if it
would add merit to the recommendations if the Commission were to make a
motion to back up the task forces recommendations. Mr. Strong inquired if
members have any questions. Mr. Hawkinson questioned if water will be available
at the site per a comment received. Ms. Walsh advised water was not discussed.
Members indicated that responsible dog owners would or should bring their own
water. Ms. Walsh indicated wood chips will be added if the area gets too muddy,
otherwise the area will remain grassy.
Mr. Hallfin moved to approve the recommendations of the Off-Leash Dog Park
Task Force, Mr. Foulkes seconded. The motion passed 7-0.
6. Communications
A. Chair
None.
B. Commissioners
Mr. Johnson reviewed details of appreciation breakfast.
Mr. Foulkes advised his role on the Commission has been fun.
Mr. Hawkinson reminded members this was Sarah’s last meeting as she is
graduating this year.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4i - Accept 5-18 PRAC Minutes For Filing
Page 6
Ms. Lindenberg advised she will get PRAC applications to interested students.
She advised it has been fun serving on the Commission and appreciated being part
of the Commission. Members thanked s. Lindenberg and complimented her on her
efforts.
C. Program Report
Mr. Birno advised the Park ‘N Run generated approximately $3,600 to be put into
fee assistance from contributors/donations received. The event was great and will
become an annual event. The Ice Cream Social served 2,200 ice cream cones and
the Kids’ Garage Sale was also a success. The second summer soccer program has
good registration at this point but the older soccer program is struggling.
Registration will help predict if an activity will be offered in the future. Adult
program registration has increased this year. The summer playground program has
more than doubled in registration this year which may be due to the inexpensive
fee we charge from a grant received and a donation from Park Tavern this year.
The Aquatic Park opens June 4 and it is fully staffed with training beginning
shortly. Mr. Birno also advised the programmers will meet soon to prepare for fall
brochure activities.
D. Director’s Report
None.
7. Adjournment
Moved by Ms. Lindenberg and seconded by Mr. Johnson to adjourn. The motion passed
7-0. With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 8:48 p.m.
Minutes prepared and
respectfully submitted by,
Stacy M. Voelker, Department Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4j - Accept 9-21 Planning Commission Minutes For Filing
Page 1
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
September 21, 2005--6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert
Kramer, Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Jerry Timian
STAFF PRESENT: Adam Fulton, Meg McMonigal
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of September 7, 2005
Carl Robertson moved approval of the minutes. The motion passed on a vote of
5-0.
3. Hearings
A. Urban Lofts - Preliminary and Final Plat and Planned Unit Development
for 12-unit 3-Story Condominium Building
Location: 1324 and 1332 Kentucky Ave. S.
Applicant: Parrish Hemmeke
Case Nos.: 05-52-PUD and 05-53-S
Adam Fulton, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Mr. Fulton discussed parking. He showed a time chart for parking during
construction. The applicant will seek other parking off site during construction.
He said that SRF, traffic consultant, has reported that the project will have a
negligible impact on the surrounding traffic.
Mr. Fulton discussed the proposed retention pond on the southeast corner of the
site. He discussed parking impacts, staging issues, and the location of heavy
equipment during construction.
Commissioner Morris asked about the tree removal plan. He asked if the City
will be compensated for the removal of public trees on Kentucky Avenue.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4j - Accept 9-21 Planning Commission Minutes For Filing
Page 2
Mr. Fulton responded that compensation has not been discussed. He said those
trees were included in the replacement that the applicant is required to provide.
Commissioner Morris asked about sidewalk. He said it appears that there isn’t
sidewalk on the northeast end of the site.
Mr. Fulton said he believed the site plan could be adjusted to accommodate a
sidewalk.
Commissioner Morris asked about the easement for the retention pond. He said
he thought the retention pond would be private and an easement would not be
needed unless some City utility is being fed into the developer’s retention pond.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said the City usually does
take easements over stormwater ponds in the City.
Commissioner Morris said he didn’t remember that was the case for the proposed
NordicWare site.
Mr. Fulton said the difference is that the applicant for the Urban Lofts project is
requesting a replat.
Commissioner Morris said on the plat there is a 10’ drainage and utility easement
on the rear property line but he didn’t see any drainage and utility easements
around the plat. He thought a drainage and utility easement was required around
the periphery of a new plat.
Commissioner Morris said in the Comprehensive Plan and Rezoning requests for
the property, it appeared that parts of the Kentucky cul-de-sac encroached into the
property line. At that time, it was discussed that the new plat would probably
dedicate that street easement to the City. He said he didn’t see that indicated on
the plat.
Mr. Fulton said those two items were not included in the plat but could be
included as a condition of approval.
Ms. McMonigal confirmed that utility easements of at least 10 feet along all lot
lines are required. She said that could be added as a condition of approval.
Commissioner Robertson asked if plans had been reviewed by the building
department. Mr. Fulton responded that plans had been circulated to the building
department and comments had not been received.
Chair Carper asked about the current parking capacity in the cul-de-sac.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4j - Accept 9-21 Planning Commission Minutes For Filing
Page 3
Mr. Fulton said he believed the cul-de-sac is a standard size based on
requirements for the turning radius of Fire Dept. vehicles. At the present time the
cul-de-sac is not used for parallel parking, which is the only legal type of parking
in a cul-de-sac. With parallel parking it would probably hold 4-5 vehicles.
Chair Carper asked about time limit restrictions if construction workers were to
park in that location.
Mr. Fulton said there weren’t time limit restrictions except restrictions in City
Code on the amount of time a vehicle can park in one place. He suggested that
within a cul-de-sac there would be a time restriction of something like 24 or 48
hours.
Chair Carper asked if the developer had indicated any construction parking
restrictions.
Mr. Fulton said no absolute restrictions have been included in the conditions.
Something more restrictive could be added if that is the Commission’s desire.
Parrish Hemmeke, applicant and owner, said concerns from staff, Commissioners,
and the community regard parking and construction staging. He showed a flow
sheet of construction staging. Construction is anticipated to be just short of nine
months. He explained that during the first 4-6 weeks of site demolition, parking
will have to be on site. He said as soon as the garage is capped, worker vehicles
will be able to park underground. They expect a fork lift and a dumpster will be
parked continuously on the northeast corner of the lot. He expects that a crane
will come in from the south side of the lot. They have contracted with 80401
Wayzata Blvd. for additional worker parking in a ramp. Mr. Hemmeke said that
construction materials will arrive on the northerly cul-de-sac from Wayzata Blvd.
Mr. Hemmeke said the sidewalk will be connected to Wayzata Blvd., although
that may not be specified on the plan.
Chair Carper asked if the City allows off-street parking of construction vehicles.
Ms. McMonigal said it is common practice that a construction site will have a lot
of equipment, vehicles and materials on it for a short period of time.
Mr. Fulton added that the site is very small so there isn’t a lot of space for that
kind of parking. Most of the site will be needed for construction staging.
Mr. Hemmeke said during the late framing stages they will be suggesting that
worker’s carpool.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4j - Accept 9-21 Planning Commission Minutes For Filing
Page 4
Commissioner Morris said the sidewalk should extend all the way down
Kentucky to the south property line adjacent to the retention pond but that isn’t
indicated on the plans. He discussed the connection of the sidewalk from the
existing sidewalk on Wayzata up to the point of stairs. He asked how
handicapped accessibility would be installed.
Vieren Gore, architect, said the handicapped accessible route would have to go
down Louisiana and around the other side. It can’t go right through the site
because of the grade change which is about 4 ½ ft. between cul-de-sacs. The
accessible route will be a little lengthy.
Commissioner Morris said sidewalk is required and it has to be handicapped
accessible. He asked if a variance was needed. He said the applicant didn’t
appear to comply with the requirements of the zoning code for construction of the
site.
Commissioner Robertson asked what exception from the building code allows
only one means of egress from upper levels.
Mr. Gore responded that it goes by the occupant load. He said all exits to the one
means of egress are within 20 feet. If the distance was more than 20 feet, two
means of exit would be required.
Commissioner Robertson said he thought two means of egress from upper floors
were always required. He asked about the exit from the basement in the case of
a power outage.
Mr. Gore responded that in the basement the maximum distance is approx. 250 ft.
to an exit. The garage door can be operated manually. A “man door” will be
provided near the electrical room. This still needs to be shown on the plan.
Commissioner Robertson said two exits are required from the basement. He said
that you should not have to travel more than 100 ft. to an exit. Diagonals across
the garage are more than 100 ft. He said the applicant is required to have a
second “man door” out of the garage.
Mr. Gore said those were building code issues that he was still refining. He
commented that one of the storage units will serve as an egress at the southwest
corner. He said one stall area could serve as an egress as well.
Commissioner Robertson said that would result in the loss of a parking space. He
mentioned that the handicapped space as drawn is not a van accessible space, so
another space would be lost. There are fewer parking spaces than what is listed.
He stated that if the solution of the building code issues demands a change in the
plans, than the design has not been finalized.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4j - Accept 9-21 Planning Commission Minutes For Filing
Page 5
Mr. Gore said the exiting changes will be resolved without affecting the design
very much. The only area where a variance might be needed is the accessible
sidewalk going to the site.
Chair Carper opened the public hearing.
Ms. McMonigal distributed a letter dated September 20, 2005, from Dennis
Hansen, property owner of Viking Discount Blinds, 7035 Wayzata Blvd. It was
noted that most of Mr. Hansen’s comments related to parking concerns,
particularly construction parking.
As no one was present who wished to speak, Chair Carper closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Morris commented on Mr. Hansen’s letter. Commissioner Morris
said it is a City prerogative as how to manage the cul-de-sac. It’s not an issue for
review of approval of the development.
Commissioner Morris said the plans appear to be preliminary. Many issues are
unresolved. An informal policy of the Planning Commission is not to vote on
items when materials have been presented to commissioners at the meeting. He
did not receive the final or preliminary plat in his packet and in looking at them he
notes deficiencies. He could give preliminary plat and PUD approval and
continue the final determination, which may include a variance, to the next
meeting.
Commissioner Robertson said he agreed. He said he had issues with the exiting
which could affect design and with the parking count. He wants to see the issues
resolved and see how they impact the design. He likes the project and believes it
is a handsome project which should move forward. He said it is a preliminary
plan, not a final plan.
Chair Carper also had concerns and said he couldn’t comfortably approve the
request at this time.
Mr. Hemmeke said he would like consideration postponed.
Commissioner Robertson moved that consideration of the requests be postponed
until October 5, 2005. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion.
Commissioner Morris asked if there would be renotification, especially since a
variance might be added.
The motion to postpone this item passed on a vote of 5-0.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4j - Accept 9-21 Planning Commission Minutes For Filing
Page 6
B. NordicWare -Conditional Use Permit for Parking Lot and Building
Expansion
Location: 5005 State Highway No. 7
Applicant: NordicWare
Case No.: 05-43-CUP
Mr. Fulton presented the staff report.
Commissioner Robertson asked about the total number of parking spaces.
Mr. Fulton said there were approximately 175 spaces.
Commissioner Morris asked why a new drive into the cul-de-sac was proposed.
Mr. Fulton said it was for truck access and for additional safety access for the
parking lot. He said the applicant could also speak about this.
Commissioner Morris asked about the east side trailer storage area. He felt that
was not allowed in an industrial district. He asked why the special permit should
be continued if the applicant is not in compliance. He asked for information
about the storage issue and drainage capabilities related to the new roof.
Mr. Fulton responded that the special permit states that no outside storage is
allowed, however the special permit is quite old so it isn’t understood exactly
what was meant by outdoor storage at that time. He discussed bufferyards. He
said the applicant does seem to be in compliance with the previous conditions of
the special permit.
Mr. Fulton said the new stormwater pond may not directly take all the stormwater
that is coming off the new roof. He said there may be some informal ponding
occurring on the City turn back area, otherwise it is probably going into the
stormwater system.
Chair Carper said by building the storage pond there may be hypothetically less
water going into the stormwater system.
Bob Clifford, Plant Manager, said the manufacturing company is doing well and
proud of its accomplishments. They have outgrown the facility. The second
half of the year is the busiest time, resulting in an excess of inventory which is
part of the trailer storage. They are looking forward to the building addition and
the improved aesthetics of the proposed parking lot.
Commissioner Robertson commented on the parking spaces and requested that the
accessible space be added on plans for City Council consideration.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4j - Accept 9-21 Planning Commission Minutes For Filing
Page 7
Commissioner Morris asked if storage is a seasonal issue.
Mr. Clifford said the trailer numbers vary from 20 to 50.
Commissioner Morris suggested that the outdoor storage would be minimized by
the addition, but would still continue.
Mr. Clifford said they would like to see the majority of the trailers go away but
whether or not they will be eliminated he can’t answer.
Commissioner Morris asked what NordicWare’s view would be on bringing the
site into compliance by creating bufferyards, walls, and separating the drive area
from the storage area. Outside storage is allowed but not in the manner it is
being conducted by NordicWare.
Commissioner Morris said he was also concerned about stormwater management.
The storm pond seems to capture a minimal amount of part of the new parking lot.
The drainage plan appears to sheet everything back out into the cul-de-sac which
goes down to the frontage road which he estimates puts 60% of the runoff back
into the stormwater system without treating it. He doesn’t know what the roof
will drain on to. The rear of the building has large storm drain outlets at the back
of the building and he assumes that is what will happen to the new roof drainage.
He said he’s hesitant to approve a major amendment to an existing permit when
he doesn’t see a great deal of effort to comply with current needs for stormwater
management or outside storage.
Mr. Clifford said he wasn’t involved in the decisions when the special permit was
granted 13 years ago. He did not know the site was non-conforming regarding
storage. He said NordicWare would make an effort to reduce the trailers and
come into conformance.
Ron Jansen, VP of Manufacturing, said they want to remove the trailers and will
do everything to make that possible. They will gain 10,000 sq. ft. of floor space
with 5 layers of racks. Trailer storage is highly inefficient as well as not being
aesthetic.
Mr. Jansen said Commissioner Morris was correct that stormwater runs off the
back of the building. He said they hoped some of the water would be caught off
the furthest western building which is one of the larger buildings in the complex.
Commissioner Morris said there seems to be better opportunity for stormwater
management, even if it is in conjunction with the railroad property and future trail
system.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4j - Accept 9-21 Planning Commission Minutes For Filing
Page 8
Dan Larson, Loucks & Asso., said the majority of the drainage will enter the
stormwater pond but he could look into improvements suggested by
Commissioner Morris.
Commissioner Morris discussed the architectural design for the rear of the
proposed building and didn’t see why the design couldn’t continue the materials
of the existing buildings. He discussed roof lines and said he thought the
Comprehensive Plan requires similar roof lines for additions.
Commissioner Robertson said every building has architectural qualities and it is
very difficult to join two buildings of different massing or different heights. For
the addition to be higher than the existing buildings is preferable. He said the
proposed panel material does complement the existing buildings. He said he
thinks the applicant has found a good solution to infill between the two buildings.
Chair Carper opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to
speak, he closed the public hearing.
Ms. McMonigal said prior to City Council consideration, staff would work with
the applicant on the trailer issue and determine what the appropriate bufferyard
would need to be.
Commissioner Morris proposed an additional condition that within one year of
completion of the addition, NordicWare will come into compliance regarding
outdoor storage.
Commissioner Robertson thanked Commissioner Morris for his comments on the
request. He said the issues seem to have solutions. He asked that the applicant
solve the issues before Council consideration, commenting that the issues don’t
seem enough to slow the process down. He likes the project and he applauds the
effort the applicant has made.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the Major
Amendment to the Special Permit with the conditions recommended by staff and
the addition of the condition regarding outdoor storage. Commissioner Kramer
seconded the motion and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
4. Unfinished Business: None
5. New Business: None
6. Communications: None
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 4j - Accept 9-21 Planning Commission Minutes For Filing
Page 9
7. Miscellaneous
Ms. McMonigal invited the Planning Commission to attend the Council Study
Session discussion on September 19th regarding zoning text amendments.
Commissioner Morris asked if Planning Commission study sessions regarding
proposed zoning text amendments might be held prior to public hearings.
Ms. McMonigal said the text amendments will have been discussed at joint study
sessions but they could be previewed by the Commission prior to the public
hearings.
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6a - SSD1 2006 Budget & Charges
Page 1
6a 2006 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 1
This report considers the approval of the 2006 budget and property owner service
charges for Special Service District No. 1.
Recommended
Action:
Close Public Hearing. Motion to approve resolution setting the
2006 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special
Service District No. 1 and directing staff to certify the annual
service charge to Hennepin County.
Background: On June 3, 1996, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service
charge for Special Service District No. 1. Annually, the City Council must adopt a service
charge for the District following a public hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service
District Advisory Board (Advisory Board) approved the proposed 2006 budget and service
charges by ballot following their July 21, 2005 meeting. The notice of public hearing was
published in the Sun Sailor on September 15, 2005 and September 29, 2005. The public hearing
notice was sent to all property owners within the District more than ten (10) days prior to the
meeting.
Special Service District No. 1 Financial Position: As of September 7, 2005, the Special
Service District No. 1 had an anticipated year-end fund balance of $82,000. Staff and the
Advisory Board have agreed that the operating reserve should be maintained at a level of at least
50% of the annual operating budget. The proposed 2006 operating budget is $126,000.
Maximum Budget / Service Charge Restriction Parameters: The budget and service charge/
special assessment do not have to be the same dollar amount, as has typically been the case in
past years. By ordinance, the maximum budget increase allowed per annum can not exceed the
Consumer Price Index increase up to a maximum of 5%. This adjustment is based upon the
applicable consumer price index (CPI) percentage increase for the Minneapolis/St. Paul
metropolitan area. Since the budget is proposed to remain the same for 2005, the inflation
adjustment allowance will not apply.
Proposed 2006 Budget and Service Charges: The Advisory Board recommended approval of
the 2006 budget amount of $126,000, unchanged from 2005. The Advisory Board approved the
2006 service charge amount of $108,000, an increase of $7,000 from 2005. The District will use
the reserve fund balance to cover any difference between revenues and expenditures.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6a - SSD1 2006 Budget & Charges
Page 2
2006 City Portion of Service Charge: The Parks Department incurs service charges for the
City property located at 3700 Monterey Drive (Recreation Center/Wolfe Park), which is in
Special Service District No. 1. The proposed fee for 2006 is $26,689. The 2005 charge was
$24,275.
Future Anticipated Activity: This District terminates effective 12/31/06. This budget and
service charges provide funds and services through the calendar year of 2006. Service District
members have shown interest in extending the District beyond 2006. Staff has initiated
conversation with the City Attorney regarding what is needed for reauthorization and will begin
working on the process with District members in early 2006.
Recommendation: Staff is not aware of any issues associated with this item and recommends
Council approve the resolution as requested.
Attachments: Resolution
2006 Proposed Budget
2006 Proposed Service Charges
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6a - SSD1 2006 Budget & Charges
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_____
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2006 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT No. 1
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2067-96, the City Council created Special Service
District No. 1 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the District are identified on Exhibit
“A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 96-87, the City Council is authorized to impose service
charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year 2007 for taxes payable in
said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 96-87, the maximum service charge to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price Index (CPI)
data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, an increase in the annual service charge for 2006 meets the requirements set forth
in the inflation adjustment cap; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 96-87, the Service Charges shall be
payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of
ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
November 30, 2005.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as
follows:
1. The 2006 Budget for Special Service District No. 1 of $126,000 is hereby approved as
recommended by the Special Service District No. 1 Advisory Board.
2. The authorized 2006 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 1 is $108,000 in the
amounts and against the properties specified on Exhibit “A” attached to this Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 10, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6a - SSD1 2006 Budget & Charges
Page 4
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
Special Service Service District No. 1
2006 Budget
No.Item
2005 Revised
Budget
2006
Proposed
Budget
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,200 1,200
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 8,000 8,500
6410 GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 29 29
6410.678 SSD Mgmt Services 4,000 4,500
6630.772 SSD - snow removal 54,000 54,000
6630.773 SSD Site Maintenance 5,461 5,660
6630.774 SSD - Banner install/removal 3,000 3,000
6630.775 SSD - Irrigation service 8,000 8,000
6630.776 SSD decorative install 7,000 7,500
6630.777 SSD - Landscape service 28,460 26,488
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 110 110
7106 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 440 413
7207.880 SSD infrastructure repair 4,000 4,000
7301.890 SSD pedestrian 1,700 2,000
7302 GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 600 600
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 126,000 126,000
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6a - SSD1 2006 Budget & Charges
Page 5
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Exhibit "A"
Special Service District #1
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Authorized 2006 Service Charge
PAR.OWNER PID PROPOSED ACTUAL
NO.NO.2006 2005
SERVICE SERVICE
CHARGE CHARGE
1 3601 Park Center Boulevard PCOB Properties LLC 06-028-24-33-0004 5,701 5,459
2 3601 State Hwy No 100 South Dayton Hudson Corp.06-028-24-33-0015 12,085 11,475
3 3777 Park Center Boulevard Park Center Ltd.06-028-24-33-0014 12,402 11,664
4 5400 Auto Club Way AAA Minneapolis 07-028-24-22-0004 6,206 5,916
5 3900 Park Nicollet Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0035 5,002 4,839
6 5300 Excelsior Boulevard Tower Place LLC 07-028-24-22-0036 7,003 6,701
7 5200 Excelsior Boulevard Tower Place LLC 07-028-24-22-0037 1,665 1,620
8 5100 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0034 2,027 1,864
9 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0031 5,360 4,665
10 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0031 1,190 1,036
11 5050 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0033 3,755 3,516
12 5000 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0032 866 820
13 4950 Excelsior Boulevard Koblas 07-028-24-21-0006 664 642
14 4920 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-21-0005 522 494
15 4916 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-21-0004 774 733
16 4951 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-21-0253 5,319 5,155
17 4961 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investment Prop.07-028-24-22-0023 703 662
18 4995 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investment Prop.07-028-24-22-0024 915 850
19 5001 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investment Prop.07-028-24-22-0025 654 616
20 5201 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investment Prop.07-028-24-22-0026 8,497 8,000
21 3700 Monterey Drive City of St. Louis Park 06-028-24-34-0017 26,689 24,275
TOTAL $108,000 $101,000
Note:
(1)The proposed 2006 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas used for the
initial service charge collection.
ADDRESS
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6b - SSD2 2006 Budget & Charges
Page 1
6b 2006 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 2
This report considers the approval of the 2006 budget and property owner service
charges for Special Service District No. 2.
Recommended
Action:
Close Public Hearing. Motion to approve resolution setting the
2006 Operating Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for
Special Service District No. 2 and directing staff to certify the
annual service charge to Hennepin County.
Background: On December 1, 1997, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service charge
for Special Service District No. 2. Annually, the City Council must adopt a service charge for the
District following a public hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service District Advisory
Board (Advisory Board) approved the proposed 2006 budget and service charges by ballot following
their July 21, 2005 meeting. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun Sailor on
September 15, 2005 and September 29, 2005. The public hearing notice was sent to all property owners
within the District more than ten (10) days prior to the meeting.
Special Service District No. 2 Financial Position: As of September 7, 2005, the Special Service
District No. 2 had an anticipated year-end fund balance of $13,000. Staff and the Advisory Board have
agreed that the operating reserve should be maintained at a level of at least 50% of the annual operating
budget. The proposed 2006 operating budget is $36,300.
Maximum Budget / Service Charge Restriction Parameters: The budget and service charge /
special assessment do not have to be the same dollar amount, as has typically been the case in past
years. By ordinance, the maximum budget increase allowed per annum can not exceed the Consumer
Price Index increase up to a maximum of 5%. This adjustment is based upon the applicable consumer
price index (CPI) percentage increase for the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. Since the budget
is proposed to remain the same for 2006, the inflation adjustment allowance will not apply.
Proposed 2006 Budget and Service Charges: The Advisory Board recommended approval of the
2006 budget amount of $36,300 compared to $35,200 in 2005. The Advisory Board also recommended
approval of the 2006 service charge amount of $36,300.
2006 City Portion of Service Charge: The Facilities Division incurs service charges for the City
owned property where the bus shelter is located at 3929 Excelsior Blvd., which is in Special Service
District No. 2. The proposed fee for 2006 is $82. The 2005 service charge was $95.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6b - SSD2 2006 Budget & Charges
Page 2
Recommendation: Staff is not aware of any issues associated with this item and recommends Council
approve the resolution as requested.
Attachments
• Resolution
• 2006 Proposed Budget
• 2006 Proposed Service Charges
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6b - SSD2 2006 Budget & Charges
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 05-129
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2006 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT No. 2
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2093-97, the City Council created Special Service District
No. 2 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the District are identified on Exhibit “A” attached
hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 97-165, the City Council is authorized to impose service
charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year 2008 for taxes payable in said
year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 97-165, the maximum service charge to be
imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) data for the
Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, an increase in the annual service charge for 2006 is not proposed and therefore is not
subject to the inflation adjustment cap; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 97-165, the Service Charges shall be payable and
collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes;
and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by November 30, 2005.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
1. The 2006 Budget for Special Service District No. 2 of $36,300 is hereby approved as
recommended by the Special Service District No. 2 Advisory Board.
2. The authorized 2006 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 2 is $36,300 in the
amounts and against the properties specified on Exhibit “A” attached to this Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 10, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6b - SSD2 2006 Budget & Charges
Page 4
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
Special Service District No. 2
2006 Budget
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 300 300
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 4,000 3,500
6410 GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 42 50
6410.678 SSD Mgmt Services 2,000 2,000
6630.772 SSD - snow removal 4,000 4,000
6630.773 SSD Site Maintenance 1,000 800
6630.774 SSD - Banner install/removal 648 640
6630.775 SSD - Irrigation services 4,000 4,000
6630.776 SSD decorative install 4,700 4,500
6630.777 SSD - Landscape services 12,977 12,981
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 110 110
7106 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCES 123 119
7207.880 SSD infrastructure repairs 2,000
7301.890 SSD pedestrian electric 1,300 1,300
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 35,200 36,300
2005
Revised
Budget
2006
Proposed
BudgetNo.Item
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6b - SSD2 2006 Budget & Charges
Page 5
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District #2
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
PAR.OWNER PID PROPOSED ACTUAL
NO.NO.2006 2005
SERVICE SERVICE
CHARGE CHARGE
1 3920 Excelsior Blvd Al's Liquor 06-028-24-41-002 1,706 1,557
2 3924 Excelsior Blvd American Inn 06-028-24-41-003 2,049 1,869
3 3542 Minikadha Ct.Sage Company
4 3551 Huntington Ave.Frank Murray
5 4100 Excelsior Blvd Sela Roofing & Remodeling 06-028-24-41-0008 1,232 1,148
6 4120 Excelsior Blvd Baldwin & Mattson 06-028-24-41-0009 1,221 1,116
7 3921 Excelsior Blvd Miller Management Co.06-028-24-41-0010 649 592
8 3939 Excelsior Blvd Anderson-Cherne, Inc.06-028-41-41-0014 1,046 970
9 3500 Glenhurst Ave Gary James
10 4011 Excelsior Blvd Richard Hogan
11 4015 Excelsior Blvd Jeffery Miller
12 4025 Excelsior Blvd Terrance Williams
13 4031 Excelsior Blvd Joann Armstrong
14 3601 Huntington Ave.Martin & Alice Fowler
15 3901 Excelsior Blvd Minikahda Union "76"06-028-24-41-0047 1,258 1,181
16 3900 Excelsior Blvd Modelette Inc./Anderson Cleaners 06-028-24-41-0053 271 288
17 3929 Excelsior Blvd City of St. Louis Park 06-028-24-41-0067 82 95
18 3925 Excelsior Blvd A & A Agency Inc.06-028-24-41-0068 731 654
19 3912 Excelsior Blvd Al's Liquor 06-028-24-41-0069 1,722 1,556
20 3947 Excelsior Blvd Miller Management 06-028-24-41-0070 1,664 1,505
21 4300 Excelsior Blvd Opitz Outlet 06-028-24-43-0017 638 636
22 4306 Excelsior Blvd Opitz Outlet 06-028-24-43-0018 500 476
23 4308 Excelsior Blvd Opitz Outlet 06-028-24-43-0019 641 583
24 4301 Excelsior Blvd S & S Investments 06-028-24-43-0020 1,339 1,292
25 4321 Excelsior Blvd Koval Furniture & Appliance 06-028-24-43-0021 721 657
26 3757 Kipling Ave S Bruce Remmington
27 4409 Excelsior Blvd JEM Enterprises LLC - Nevab 06-028-24-43-0040 755 757
28 4415 Excelsior Blvd Davis Chiropractic 06-028-24-43-0041 606 576
29 4419 Excelsior Blvd Smith Motors 06-028-24-43-0042 1,360 1,269
30 4424 Excelsior Blvd Al Roers Salon 06-028-24-43-0064 1,107 1,019
31 4331 Excelsior Blvd Furniture Liquidators 06-028-24-43-0091 1,071 986
32 4320 Excelsior Blvd Opitz Outlet 06-028-24-43-0186 1,981 1,911
33 4400 Excelsior Blvd Kamps/Craven Prop. Partnership 06-028-24-43-0187 4,280 3,862
34 4140 Excelsior Blvd Slumberland 06-028-24-44-0001 2,105 1,920
35 3600 Huntington Ave.Elmer Nordstrom
36 4115 Excelsior Blvd Kooros & Grace Rejali
37 4121 Excelsior Blvd Kooros & Grace Rejali
38 4131 Excelsior Blvd Roxanna, Kooros & Grace Rejali
39 4221 Excelsior Blvd Nat'l Gear Molding Inc.06-028-24-44-0088 405 402
40 4143 Excelsior Blvd Sam & Pearl Bix
41 4201 Excelsior Blvd Ackerberg & Assoc. Architects 06-028-24-44-0173 2,089 1,929
42 4200 Excelsior Blvd Dijomi 06-028-24-44-0175 1,391 1,271
43 4150 Excelsior Blvd 4150 Excelsior Blvd. Partnership 06-028-24-44-0176 1,678 1,523
TOTAL 36,300 33,600
(1)The proposed 2006 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas
used for the initial service charge collection.
ADDRESS
Authorized 2006 Service Charge
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6c - SSD3 2006 Budget & Charges
Page 1
6c 2006 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 3
This report considers the approval of the 2006 budget and property owner service
charges for Special Service District No. 3.
Recommended
Action:
Close Public Hearing. Motion to approve resolution setting the
2006 Operating Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for
Special Service District No. 3 and directing staff to certify the
annual service charge to Hennepin County.
Background: On April 15, 2002, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service charge for
Special Service District No. 3. Annually, the City Council must adopt a service charge for the District
following a public hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service District Advisory Board
(Advisory Board) approved the proposed 2006 budget and service charges by ballot following their July
21, 2005 meeting. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun Sailor on September 15, 2005
and September 29, 2005. The pubic hearing notice was sent to all property owners within the District
more than ten (10) days prior to the meeting.
Special Service District No. 3 Financial Position: As of September 7, 2005 the Special Service
District No. 3 had an anticipated year-end fund balance of $62,000. Staff and the Advisory Board have
agreed that the operating reserve should be maintained at a level of at least 50% of the annual operating
budget. The proposed 2006 operating budget is $61,500.
Maximum Budget / Service Charge Restriction Parameters: The budget and service charge /
special assessment do not have to be the same dollar amount, as has typically been the case in past
years. By ordinance, the maximum budget increase allowed per annum can not exceed the Consumer
Price Index increase up to a maximum of 5%. This adjustment is based upon the applicable consumer
price index (CPI) percentage increase for the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. Since the budget
is proposed to remain the same for 2005, the inflation adjustment allowance will not apply.
Proposed 2006 Budget and Service Charges: The Advisory Board recommended approval of the
2006 budget amount of $61,500 compared to $61,500 in 2005. The Advisory Board approved the 2006
service charge amount of $61,500 with $15,375 being charged to the property owners and the balance
being paid from the operating reserves. This is needed to draw down the operating reserve to the
desired level. This same thing occurred in 2005 where the property owners where charged $30,375 and
$30,375 was paid from operating reserves. This is not uncommon in the first few years of a new
District when repair / replacement costs are minimal. The District will use the reserve fund balance to
cover any difference between revenues and expenditures.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6c - SSD3 2006 Budget & Charges
Page 2
2006 City Portion of Service Charge: The City incurs service charges for the property located at 4760
Excelsior Blvd., which is undeveloped and owned by the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority. The proposed fee for 2006 is $335. The 2005 service charge was $670.
Recommendation: Staff is not aware of any issues associated with this item and recommends Council
approve the resolution as requested.
Attachments
• Resolution
• 2006 Proposed Budget
• 2006 Proposed Service Charges
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6c - SSD3 2006 Budget & Charges
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 05-130
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2006 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT No. 3
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2224-02, the City Council created Special Service District
No. 3 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the District are identified on Exhibit “A” attached
hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 02-043, the City Council is authorized to impose service
charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year 2012 for taxes payable in said
year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 02-043, the maximum service charge to be
imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) data for the
Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, an increase in the annual service charge for 2006 is not proposed and therefore is not
subject to the inflation adjustment cap; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 02-043, the Service Charges shall be payable and
collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes;
and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by November 30, 2005.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
1. The 2006 Budget for Special Service District No. 3 of $61,500 is hereby approved as
recommended by the Special Service District No. 3 Advisory Board.
2. The authorized 2006 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 3 is $61,500 with $15,375
being charged against the properties specified on Exhibit “A” attached to this Resolution and the balance being
paid from operating reserves.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 10, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6c - SSD3 2006 Budget & Charges
Page 4
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
Special Service District No. 3
2006 Budget
No. Item
2005
Revised
Budget
2006
Proposed
Budget
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 700 700
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 2,000 2,000
6410
GENERAL PROFESSIONAL
SERVICE 50 50
6410.678 SSD Mgmt Services 2,200 2,500
6630.772 SSD - snow removal 34,500 34,500
6630.773 SSD Site Maintenance 1,000 1,000
6630.774 SSD - Banner install/removal 1,000 1,000
6630.775 SSD - Irrigation service 4,000 4,000
6630.776 SSD decorative install 2,400 2,400
6630.777 SSD - Landscape service 11,026 10,798
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 110 110
7106 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 214 202
7301.890 SSD pedestrian 2,000 1,940
7302 GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 300 300
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES 61,500 61,500
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6c - SSD3 2006 Budget & Charges
Page 5
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District #3
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Authorized 2006 Service Charge
Address Business Owner Proposed Actual
2006 2005
Service Charge Service Charge
4911 Exc Blvd Old World Antiques J & F Reddy Rents In 215 429
4907 Exc Blvd Vogue Furniture C/O Carol Lindgren 199 399
4901 Exc Blvd Checks II Claudia Corrigan 211 422
4825 Exc Blvd German Autoworks DW Lindall 236 472
4821 Exc Blvd German Autoworks DW Lindall 232 464
4811 Exc Blvd Latitudes/Laundramat Ralph I Fine 419 838
4801 Exc Blvd Loffhagen Insurance Gordon Loffhagen 482 964
4725 Exc Blvd Excelsior Office Bldg Arnold Feinberg 1,004 2,008
4701 Exc Blvd Steve's Park Amoco Amoco Corp (Tax Dept)583 1,165
4637 Exc Blvd Jennings Liquor Michael J. Jennings 507 1,013
4617 Exc Blvd Flower Fair Michael J. Jennings 485 970
4615 Exc Blvd Judith McGrann & Friends Judith McGrann 364 728
4611 Exc Blvd Dilly Lilly T F James Co 456 913
4601 Exc Blvd Park Blvd Office Bldg Park Blvd LLP 911 1,822
4509 Exc Blvd Lang Nelson Office Lang Nelson Assoc.622 1,244
4501 Exc Blvd S & D Cleaners Chi Won Sohn 307 615
4900 Exc Blvd Bally Total Fitness Bally Total Fitness 1,315 2,630
4760 Exc Blvd Outlot H - Vacant SLP EDA 335 670
4730 Exc Blvd Retail/housing Meridian Properties 2,512 5,024
4630 Exc Blvd Retail/housing Meridian Properties 2,154 4,308
4500 Exc Blvd Retail/housing Excelsior & Grand IV LLC 1,825 3,650
15,375 30,750
Notes:
1. The cost allocation formula used for sidewalk snow removal is based upon the sidewalk area (square footage) of
All other costs are based on the front footage.
2. The 2006 service charge was $61,500 with 75% ($46,125) being paid from the reserves to lower the fund balanc
3. The 2005 service charge was $61,500 with 50% ($30,750) being paid from the reserves to lower the fund balanc
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6d - 1st Reading Council & EDA Salaries
Page 1
6d Public Hearing to Consider Ordinance modifying Compensation of the Mayor
and City Councilmembers and Resolution revising salaries for the Economic
Development Authority President and Commissioners
First reading of an ordinance increasing the annual salaries of the Mayor from $9,760
to $10,985, and Councilmembers from $6,365 to $7,165, and consideration of a
resolution increasing the annual salaries of the Economic Development Authority
President from $5,092 to $5,731 and Economic Development Authority
Commissioners from $3,819 to $4,299.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing.
1) Motion to approve the first reading of the ordinance
modifying Mayor and City Councilmember compensation,
and set second reading for October 17, 2005.
2) Motion to adopt a resolution to modify Economic
Development Authority Commissioner compensation.
Background:
According to the City Charter, City Council compensation is set by ordinance. This requires a
public hearing, along with a 1st and 2nd reading and becomes effective on December 1 following
the municipal election. The new salary amount would then be used effective January 1. City
Council compensation was last modified in 2001 and was effective January 1, 2002.
Compensation for the Economic Development Authority is set by resolution and was also last
modified during the same time Council salary was adjusted and was also effective January 1,
2002.
As discussed at recent Council Study Sessions, the last time Council reviewed salary for
adjustment, it was determined that increases should be consistent with the annual adjustment set
for City employees. Rates were adjusted consistent with increases to City employees through
2001 and were effective January, 2002. No adjustment was included at that time for 2002 even
though rates were set effective 2002.
What would a salary progression look like?
As we look at data to adjust the Council and EDA salaries, the annual salary adjustments given
to City employees were 3.5% in 2002, 3% in 2003, 2.5% in 2004 (split year increases – 2% in
January, 1% in July), and 3% in 2005. If this amount is applied to Council and EDA, the salary
would progress as follows:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6d - 1st Reading Council & EDA Salaries
Page 2
Annual Compensation
Council Mayor EDA EDA President
Current $6,365 $9,760 $3,819 $5,092
Progression
2002 – 3.5% $6,588 $10,102 $3,953 $5,270
2003 – 3% $6,786 $10,405 $4,072 $5,428
2004 – 2.5% $6,956 $10,665 $4,174 $5,564
2005 – 3% $7,165 $10,985 $4,299 $5,731
We do not have any contracts set for employees for 2006. Therefore, no increase is projected for
2006 at this time, even though, if approved, salaries shown would be effective January, 2006.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council:
A. Adopt an ordinance increasing the annual salary of the Mayor from $9,760 to $10,985
and Councilmembers from $6,365 to $7,165 annually, effective January 1, 2006.
B. Adopt a resolution increasing the compensation of the Economic Development Authority
President from $5,092 to $5,731 annually and Commissioners from $3,819 to $4,299
annually, effective January 1, 2006.
C. Continue to review and adjust Council salaries in the fall of each municipal election year
in amounts similar to other City employees.
Attachments: Ordinance
Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6d - 1st Reading Council & EDA Salaries
Page 3
ORDINANCE NO. _____-05
AN ORDINANCE SETTING SALARIES
FOR THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
Section 1. The annual salary of the Mayor shall be $10,985, and the annual salary of
each Councilmember shall be $7,165, until changed by ordinance as provided in Section 2.07 of
the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2006.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October , 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6d - 1st Reading Council & EDA Salaries
Page 4
RESOLUTION NO. 05-131
AMENDING THE COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT
OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota was officially
established on September 19, 1988 by Resolution 88-134; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Economic Development Authority by-laws the Economic
Development Authority shall hold its regular meetings the first Monday of each month; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes Section 469.097 (4), a Commissioner,
including the President, shall be paid for attending each regular or special meeting of the
Authority in an amount paid for compensation or reimbursement must be paid out of the
Authority’s budget,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park to
set the compensation and reimbursement of the Commissioners of the Economic Development
Authority at an annual salary of $4,299 and the President at an annual salary of $5,731, effective
January 1, 2006.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council October 10, 2005
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6e - Public Hearing Fees
Page 1
6e Public Hearing to Consider 2006 Fees
Proposed revisions to fee schedule to reflect adjustments to fees
charged for programs and services called for by ordinance.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve 1st reading of
an ordinance adopting fees for 2006 and set second reading for
October 17, 2005
Background:
Sec. 1-19 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code states that fees called for within individual
provisions of the Code are to be set by ordinance and listed as appendix A of the Code. Fees
must also be reviewed and reestablished annually. The Finance Director has worked with
individual departments to complete this review and their recommendations are included in the
attached ordinance.
A notice was published informing interested persons of our intent to consider fees. A separate
public hearing will be held to consider rates for water, sewer, storm water, and solid waste
collection utilities.
Notable Revisions to Fees
Planning Fees
The recommended fees increases in the planning area result in approximately $10,000 of
additional revenue for 2006. Each of the fees listed generally benefit only the receiving party.
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Current Fee Proposed Fee
$1,000 $2,000
Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendments
Current Fee Proposed Fee
$1,000 $2,000
Explanation - Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments take a significant amount of
research and analysis, and therefore time. This often includes 2-3 meetings with an applicant on
a minor request and innumerable meetings on a major request. It also includes traffic studies and
evaluating them, as well as neighborhood meetings in addition to Planning Commission and City
Council reports and presentation. With a significant land use decision, there typically will be a
City Council Study Session in addition to formal meetings. For all of these processes, an
increase in the fees collected is warranted.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6e - Public Hearing Fees
Page 2
Conditional Use Permits – Minor Amendments
Current Fee Proposed Fee
$500 $750
Explanation
Minor Amendments for Conditional Use Permits require coordination among internal city
departments, as well as a formal public hearing process, with reports and presentations for the
Planning Commission and City Council. Combined with typically two or more meetings with
the applicant, an increase in the fees from $500 to $750 likely will still not cover all of the costs
involved.
Planned Unit Developments and Major Amendments
Current Fee Proposed Fee
Preliminary $1,250 $1,500
Final 750 750
Combined 1,500 2,000
Major 1,000 1,000
Planned Unit Developments – Minor Amendments
Current Fee Proposed Fee
$500 $750
Explanation
Planned Unit Developments have increased in complexity in terms of City review. Preliminary
and combined PUDs represent significant land use rights conferred to a property owner, and
therefore require careful scrutiny and analysis. In addition there are a significant amount of
development meetings, and one or more neighborhood meetings, and typically a Council Study
Session in addition to the formal Planning Commission and City Council meetings.
Permits
The recommended fees increases in the permit area result in approximately $40,000 of additional
revenue for 2006. Each of the fees listed generally benefit only the receiving party.
Building Permit Plan Review Fee
Current Proposed
New Fee – Repetitive building 25% of permit fee
plan review for duplicate structure
Explanation
This proposed plan review fee is the maximum now allowed by changes in the Minnesota State
Building Code. The regular plan review fee of 65% (of the permit fee) would apply to the first
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6e - Public Hearing Fees
Page 3
Building Permit issued and the repetitive review fee for any additional permit applications with
identical plans for the same structure being constructed (track homes, townhouses, etc.). Due to
the nature of our redevelopment construction this reduced fee will rarely be utilized and should
not have a significant effect on annual revenue.
Property Maintenance Certificate (PMC) - Residential
Current Proposed
Single Family $185 Single Family $195
Duplex $250 Duplex $275
Explanation
This program, performed by City inspectors since 2002, has successfully supported itself with
revenue collected through permit fees. The proposed modest increases for both single family and
duplex property maintenance inspections are intended to keep the program self sufficient due to
slowly increasing overhead costs.
Certificate of Occupancy and Commercial PMC
Current Proposed
75,001 s.f. and greater - $800 75,001-100,000 s.f. - $800
100,001–200,000 s.f. - $1,000
(added tier)
200,001 s.f. & greater - $ 1,200
(added tier)
Explanation
Added tiers are being proposed because of the increasing number of larger commercial
properties (of over 75,000 s.f.) either being sold or needing a change in occupancy. These large
and multistory buildings require many days of inspection and administration time.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6e - Public Hearing Fees
Page 4
Business Licenses
Business license fees have been evaluated based on a comparison with other comparable cities
and Hennepin County, our internal fee analysis study, and expected average time to provide the
various services. Food & Beverage, Pools, and Lodging licenses are authorized under a
Minnesota Department of Health delegation agreement while Environmental Emissions and
Multi-Family Rental licenses are City specific.
Description Current Proposed Hennepin Co.Edina Minnetonka
Environmental Emmissions 175$ 275$ N/A N/A N/A
Food/Beverage
High + & Large Grocery 875 1,125 1,572 2,691 700
High + Small Grocery 750 825 814 N/A N/A
High 600 775 625 765 685
Medium 400 525 379 1,124 575
Low 175 275 175 N/A 350
Lodging
Building 100 125 121 - 170
Per unit 6 7 8 3 2
Massage Establishment 175 275 N/A N/A N/A
Multi-Family Rental
Building 100 125 N/A N/A N/A
Per unit 6 7 N/A N/A N/A
Public Sanitary Facility
PSF II 350 400 335 470 390
Comparative DateSt. Louis Park
Explanation
The program has been close to supporting itself since fee increases began occurring in 2001/2002
after 20 years of not changing. The proposed increase is intended to close the revenue/cost gap
while maintaining our service level.
Other Fees
Animals
Current Fee Proposed Fee
Initial Impoundment $35 $20
2nd offense within year 20 30
3rd offense within year 30 40
4th offense within year 60 60
Boarding per day 10 10
Explanation:
The change in fees is based on current contract costs.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6e - Public Hearing Fees
Page 5
Contract – Tree Maintenance
Current Fee Proposed Fee $50 $60
Explanation
This increase is related to the time spent performing inspections.
Tree Replacement – cash in lieu of replacement trees
Current Fee Proposed Fee
Per caliber inch $90 $105
Explanation
The cost of replacing trees has increased and the proposed fee is intended to cover the additional
expense.
Next Steps
The second reading of this ordinance is scheduled for October 17th. If approved, the fee
increases listed above will be effective January 1, 2006.
Attachments: Ordinance Setting 2006 Fees
Prepared By: Jean McGann, Director of Finance
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6e - Public Hearing Fees
Page 6
ORDINANCE NO. _____ - 05
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FEES CALLED
FOR BY ORDINANCE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2006
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
Section 1. Fees called for within individual provisions of the City Code are hereby
set by this ordinance for calendar year 2006.
Section 2. The Fee Schedule as listed below shall be included as Appendix A of the
City Code and shall replace those fees adopted November 1, 2004 by Ordinance #2281-04 which
is hereby rescinded.
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
1-14 Administrative Penalties
First Violation $25
Each Subsequent in Same Season add $10 to previous fine
CHAPTER 3: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
3-59 Liquor License
Non-intoxicating on-sale $750
Non-intoxicating off-sale $100
Intoxicating on-sale $7,500
Sunday Sale $200
Club (per # members)
1 - 200 $300
201 - 500 $500
501 - 1000 $650
1001 - 2000 $800
2001 - 4000 $1,000
4001 - 6000 $2,000
6000+ $3,000
Wine $2,000
Intoxicating off-sale $200
Temporary (On & Off sale) $50/day
New License Investigation $1,000
Store Mgr Investigation $500
CHAPTER 4: ANIMALS
4-88 Animal Impound
Initial impoundment $20
2nd offense w/in year $30
3rd offense w/in year $40
4th offense w/in year $60
Boarding per day $10
CHAPTER 6: BUILDINGS & REGULATIONS
6-32, 6-67 Plan Review
Building Permits
Repetitive building
65% of Permit Fee
25% of Permit Fee for
duplicate structure
Single Family Interior Remodel Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Plumbing Permits 35% of Permit Fee
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6e - Public Hearing Fees
Page 7
Mechanical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Electrical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Sewer and Water Permits 35% of Permit Fee
6-32 Building and Fire Protection Permits
Valuation Base Fee Plus For Each Additional
(or fraction thereof)
Up to $500.00 $35.50 -
$500.01 to $2,000.00 $35.50 $2.25 $100 over $500.01
$2,000.01 to $25,000.00 $69.25 $14.00 $1000 over $2,000.01
$25,000.01 to $50,000.00 $391.25 $10.10 $1000 over $25,000.01
$50,000.01 to $100,000.00 $643.75 $7.00 $1000 over $50,000.01
$100,000.01 to $500,000.00 $993.75 $5.60 $1000 over $100,000.01
$500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00 $3,233.75 $4.75 $1000 over $500,000.01
$1,000,000.01 and up $5,608.75 $4.25 $1000 over $1,000,000.01
6-32 Electrical permit
Installation, replacement, repair $40 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single family: one appliance $40
6-32 Mechanical Permit
Installation, replacement, repair $40 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Replace furnace, boiler or furnace/AC $55
Install single fuel burning appliance
with piping
$55
Install, replace or repair single
mechanical appliance
$40
6-32 Plumbing Permit
Installation, replacement, repair $40 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Repair/replace single plumbing
fixture
$40
Water treatment (softener or drinking
system)
$15
6-32 Sewer and Water Permit (all underground private utilities)
Installation, replacement, repair $40 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Repair/replace sewer or water service $40
6-32 Tent Permit
Tent over 200 sq. ft. $75
Canopy over 400 sq. ft. $75
6-35 After Hours Inspections $50 per hour (minimum 2 hrs)
6-69 Certificate of Occupancy
For each condominium unit completed
after building occupancy
$100
Change of Use (does not apply to 1 & 2 family dwellings)
Up to 5,000 sq ft $250
5,001 - 25,000 sq ft $400
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $600
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6e - Public Hearing Fees
Page 8
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft
100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft.
above 200,000 sq. ft.
$800
$1,000
$1,200
6-69 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $50
6-103 Building Moving $500
6-177 Certificate of Property Maintenance
Change in Ownership
Single Family Dwellings $195
Duplex (2 family dwellings) $275
Condominium Unit $115
All other buildings
Up to 5,000 sq ft $250
5,001 - 25,000 sq ft $400
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $600
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft
100,001 to 200,000 sq ft
above 200,001 sq ft
$800
$1,000
$1,200
6-187 Temporary Certificate of Property
Maintenance
$50
6-213 ISTS Permit (sewage treatment system
install or repair)
$125
CHAPTER 8: BUSINESS LICENSING
8-33 General License Fees
Commercial entertainment $250
Environmental emission $275
Food and Beverage
High + & large grocery store
(25,000 sq. ft. +)
High + small grocery store (to
25,000 sq. ft.)
$1,125
$825
Class H $775
Class M $525
Class L $275
Class V - Food vending machine $15
Public Sanitary Facilities
Class I $750
Class II $400
Class III $250
Massage Therapy Establishment $275
Lodging (Hotel/Motel)
Building Fee $125
Unit Fee $7
Rental Housing
Multiple Family Building $125
Multiple Family per Unit $7
Tobacco products & related device sales $450
Vehicle Parking facilities
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6e - Public Hearing Fees
Page 9
Parking ramp $125
Enclosed Parking $175
Dog Kennel $125
Billboards $125 per billboard
8-33 Temporary Use Permits
Temporary Outdoor Retail Sales $100
Circuses, Carnival and Amusement Rides $250
Petting Zoos $50
Commercial Film Production
Application
$50
8-37 Insurance Requirements
Solid Waste $1,000,000 General Liability
Tree Maintenance & Removal $1,000,000 General Liability
Vehicle Parking Facility $1,000,000 General Liability
Circus $1,000,000 General Liability
Mechanical Contractors $1,000,000 General Liability
8-66 Contractor
Solid Waste $175
Tree Maintenance $60
Mechanical $85
8-67 Exam Fees (Competency)
Mechanical per test $25
Renewal - 3 year Mechanical $15
8-138 Solid Waste - Vehicle Decal $15
8-163 Tree Maintenance & Removal -
Vehicle Decal
$5
8-191 Late fee 20% of license fee (minimum $25)
8-192 Transfer of Ownership $50
8-258 Restaurant Smoking Area Surcharge $700
8-349 Sexually Oriented Business
Investigation fee (High Impact) $500
High Impact $4,500
Limited Impact $125
8-428 Pawnbroker
License Fee $2,000
Per Transaction Fee $1.50
Investigation Fee $1,000
Penalty $50 per day
8-514 Temporary Food Service
3+ Days $125
1 - 3 Days $75
Prepackaged food only $35
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6e - Public Hearing Fees
Page 10
8-572 Solicitor/Peddler Registration $50
8-602 Dog License
Dog License - 1 year $15
Dog License - 2 year $25
Dog License - 3 year $35
Penalty for no license $35
Interim License $7
8-661 Courtesy bench $35 per bench
CHAPTER 12: ENVIRONMENT
12-1 Food and Beverage Equipment Permit
Installation (Used equipment valued as
new)
$50 +1.75% permit valuation
Plan Review Fee 35% of Permit Fee
12-1 Public Swimming Pools
Permit Fees Building permit fees apply
12-2 Private Swimming Pools
Permit Fees Building permit fees apply
12-131 Noise
Temporary Permit $50
CHAPTER 14: FIRE
14-103 Fireworks Display Permit Actual costs incurred
CHAPTER 16: LAW ENFORCEMENT
16-34 Criminal Background Investigation
(Volunteers & Employees)
$5
CHAPTER 18: OFFENSES & MISC PROVISIONS
18-153 False Alarm
First $0
Each subsequent in same year $90
Late payment fee 10%
CHAPTER 21: PLANNING
21-33 Official Map Amendment $500
CHAPTER 24: STREETS, SIDEWALKS & OTHER PUBLIC PLACES
24-92 Record deed transfer with Hennepin
County
$120 + Recording cost
24-122 Street, Alley, Utility Vacations $300
24-153 Installation/repair of sidewalk, curb
cut or curb and gutter
$100 per 100 linear feet (minimum $100)
24-251 Work in Public Right of Way
Hole in Roadway/Blvd $100 each
Trenching in Roadway $400 per 100 linear feet (minimum $400)
$200 per 100 linear feet (minimum $200)
Trenching in Boulevard
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6e - Public Hearing Fees
Page 11
CHAPTER 26: SUBDIVISIONS
26-42 Subdivisions/Replats
Preliminary Plat $500 plus $50 per lot
Final Plat $250
Combined Process and Replats $750 plus $25 per lot
Exempt and Admin Subdivision $250
26-158 Residential Subdivision Dedication Fee
Parks $900 per residential dwelling unit
Trails $225 per residential dwelling unit
CHAPTER 30: TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES
30-44 Permit to exceed vehicle weight
limitations
$30 each
30-158 Snowfall parking permit
No off-street parking available No charge
Off street parking available $125
Caregiver parking $25
30-160 Permit parking No charge
CHAPTER 36: ZONING
36-33 Conditional Use Permit $1,500
Major Amendment $1,000
Minor Amendment $750
36-33 Variances
Residential $300
Commercial $500
36-33, 36-36 Special Permit
Major Amendment $1,000
Minor Amendment $500
36-34 Zoning Map Amendments $2,000
36-34 Zoning Text Amendments $2,000
36-34 Comprehensive Plan Amendments $2,000
36-34 Filing Fee
Single Family $50
Other Uses $120
36-34 Time Extension $75
36-367 Planned Unit Developments
Preliminary PUD $1,500
Final PUD $750
Prelim/Final PUD Combined $2,000
PUD – Major Amendment $1,000
PUD – Minor Amendment $750
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6e - Public Hearing Fees
Page 12
36-80 Erosion Control Plan
Application and Review $150
36-81 Tree Replacement
Cash in lieu of replacement trees $105 per caliber inch
36-162 Zoning Permit
Accessory Structures, 120 ft or less $25
36-339 Traffic Management Plan
Administrative Fee $0.10 per sq ft of gross floor
32-361 Parking Lot Permit
Installation/Reconstruction $75
36-362 Sign Permit
Installation of permanent sign $75
Installation of permanent sign w/ footing
insp.
$100
Erection of Temporary sign $30
Erection of Real Estate, construction sign
40+ ft
$30
36-364 Fence Permit
Installation $15
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2006.
Reviewed for Administration:
Adopted by the City Council October 17, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6f - Time Warner Franchise Renewal
Page 1
6f. Time Warner Cable TV Franchise Renewal 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 November 7, 2005. Background: Council was last updated on the status of the franchise renewal process at its September 19, 2005 meeting. At that meeting, Council continued the public hearing and extended the term of the franchise agreement to October 10, 2005, and directed staff to proceed to the formal process for the cable TV franchise renewal. The current franchise agreement extension with Time Warner (TW) is due to expire on October 10 unless extended by Council. As indicated at all meetings, progress on the 2+ year franchise renewal process has been slow. At the September 19 meeting, City staff indicated that enough progress had been made to warrant continuation of the public hearing and extension of the franchise, and that it was also in the best interest of the community to direct staff to begin preparation for the formal process in the event the City and TW cannot resolve renewal issues in principle. Latest Negotiations: City and TW negotiations teams met on Monday, October 3 to discuss the latest proposal from TW, received that morning. City staff indicated that with a couple of changes, the proposal was something staff would feel comfortable presenting to Council for its consideration. TW indicated its awareness that it needed to respond to City staff’s request for the two changes by mid-week for timely preparation of the Council packet. City staff’s focus continues to be building a package of several major business points, in large measure, to meet the Council’s major concerns related to continuation of local programming and costs. It must also be made clear that there are several other operational business points in the interest of the community in this package. While City and TW staff move towards agreement on these other operational business points, the respective staffs must also agree to specific enabling franchise language. Latest Developments: Staff and the City Attorney have been in communications with TW in an attempt to hear their response to discussions at the October 3 meeting. As of this writing (Friday, October 7, 12:00 p.m.), there has been no final response or counter-proposal to the October 3 meeting. However, October 7 phone discussions with TW staff indicate interest on the part of corporate TW staff in the October 3 negotiations results. Those corporate TW staff members are expected to discuss the latest proposal and responses next week. Staff will e-mail Council with any new developments, should they occur, prior to Monday evening’s Council meeting. Based on progress made in reaching agreement in principle on some major business points, it is now critical and fair to both parties that TW and City staff have the opportunity to continue discussions and agree on remaining detailed franchise agreement language. In order to do that, be ready for the alternative formal process (which all hope is unnecessary), and protect the interests of the community, staff recommends that Council continue this franchise renewal process to its November 7 meeting with the action below. Staff will also continue preparations for the formal process per Council action on September 19.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 6f - Time Warner Franchise Renewal
Page 2 Recommendation: Consistent with the current status of negotiations, it is recommended that Council continue the public hearing and extend the term of the franchise agreement to November 7, 2005. Staff will be present at the Council meeting to answer questions. Prepared by: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager (by CEP)
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8a - Comcast transfer
Page 1
8a. Proposed Transfer of Cable Television System
Proposed transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance and cable
system from Time Warner Cable, Inc. to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to extend the date to consider transfer of the Cable
Communications Franchise Ordinance and cable system from
Time Warner Cable, Inc. to Comcast Cable Communications,
LLC to the November 7, 2005 Council meeting.
Background:
On June 15, 2005, Comcast notified the City about an agreement to purchase all of Time Warner
Cable’s Minnesota cable TV systems, including St. Louis Park’s franchise. Time Warner and
Comcast are purchasing the bankrupt Adelphia cable systems for about $12.7 billion in cash.
Adelphia has about 5 million subscribers, and the systems will be geographically divided
between Comcast and Time Warner so the systems can be clustered together. As part of the
clustering, Time Warner’s Minnesota, Florida and Louisiana franchises would be swapped for
Comcast’s Dallas, Los Angeles and Cleveland area franchises.
Some Minnesota cities have already granted Comcast’s request for franchise transfers, including
Helena, Jackson, Jordan, Lanesboro, Lewisville, Madelia, New Ulm, Sand Creek and Waverly.
Bloomington recently approved the transfer with the condition that the Time Warner franchise
fee review be settled to the satisfaction of the City.
The City has retained Brian Grogan of Moss & Barnett to assist with the franchise transfer
process. A report from Mr. Grogan is designed to comment on Comcast’s legal, technical and
financial ability to operate the franchise, the parameters set by federal law. In addition, a
franchise fee review has also been in process.
Comcast and Time Warner Cable are the two largest cable operators in the United States, and
offer similar services, including video, high speed data, and telephone.
Regarding St. Louis Park’s specific franchise, set to expire on October 10, 2005, Comcast’s
Director of Government Relations, Kathi Donnelly-Cohen told the Telecommunications
Advisory Commission on August 4, 2005 that until a new franchise agreement is in effect,
Comcast would meet all terms of the existing franchise after the transfer.
Area of Concern:
There is one customer benefit Time Warner offers that probably will not continue if the system is
transferred to Comcast: a choice of high speed data internet service providers (ISP’s). When
America Online purchased Time Warner in 2000, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) required
that customers have a choice of ISP’s, a unique arrangement in the cable television industry. As
a result, Time Warner high speed data customers can choose between these ISP’s: Road Runner,
AOL Broadband and EarthLink. Comcast customers do not have a choice of ISP’s.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8a - Comcast transfer
Page 2
Traditional “common carrier” telephone companies like Qwest and Verizon must allow
competing ISP’s on their systems. However, a recent Federal Communications Commission
ruling may remove this requirement within a year, thereby removing the requirement for ISP
competition for both the cable and telephone industry. Cable systems lead in the competition for
residential high speed data customers with 18.7 million customers compared to the telephone
companies’ 11.8 million customers (December 31, 2004 figures reported by Pike & Fischer).
The City has no direct authority over the high speed data or telephone services offered by Time
Warner due to Federal Communications Commission rulings or Federal law. However, City
staff has been contacted by several EarthLink customers that would like to continue with that
service after the system is transferred to Comcast. Other subscribers have addressed the City
Council on this item as well. Customers may well be forced to change domain names for their e-
mail addresses after the transfer, a disruptive process for both residents and business people.
Comcast has been notified of this concern multiple times and is aware of it. They have been
asked to address the City Council on its plans to assist subscribers make whatever domain name
transition may be necessary should the transfer actually be completed. As of this writing, staff
has not received any additional information or response from Comcast on this issue. The
attached information describes customer responses and how Comcast has handled this customer
transition in the past. This may shed some light on what to expect should a transfer be
completed.
Process and Recommendation:
At its September 19, 2005 meeting, Council closed the public hearing related to this issue. While
the City awaits Brian Grogan’s Comcast report, a final Time Warner franchise fee review has
been completed. Findings from the franchise fee review of 2002-2004 reveal that TW may have
underpaid the City “between $60,000 to $73,500 based on the limited information available to
estimate the underpayments,” according to Front Range Consulting. Front Range conducted a
fee review, which is less intensive than a fee audit and results in more rounded numbers than an
audit. This report has been shared with Time Warner and City staff expects to meet with the
company to discuss the report and work toward a settlement. St. Louis Park partnered with
Bloomington, Minneapolis and Shakopee on the fee review, and Shakopee has already received a
settlement check. Bloomington expects settlement in the next six months.
Since TW and City staff hope to reach settlement of fee review questions and the City expects to
receive Brian Grogan’s Comcast report during October, it is recommended that Council approve
extension of consideration of the request for transfer to Council’s November 7, 2005 meeting.
It should also be noted that some Council action is required by October 15, 2005 or the transfer
is deemed approved unless both parties agree to an extension, which is what Minneapolis and
Shakopee have done with Time Warner. The attached e-mail from Time Warner indicates their
and Comcast’s concurrence with this extension request with St. Louis Park.
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager (by CEP)
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8a - Comcast transfer
Page 3
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DIZ/is_6_15/ai_97384378/print
FindArticles > Cable World > Feb 10, 2003 > Article > Print friendly
AT&T Addresses Given Reprieve
Byline: SHIRLEY BRADY
Don't mess with the address.
That was driven home to Comcast during its attempt to transition former AT&T
Broadband high-speed Internet subscribers from their attbi.com addresses to
comcast.net addresses.
AT&T Broadband subscribers will start sending e-mail with the Comcast domain
name this spring, but will continue to receive e-mail sent to their old
attbi.com address until December 2004 - instead of a previously announced 60-
day window for e-mail forwarding.
The migration is happening in a market-by-market basis, with subscribers
being contacted in coming weeks with details.
The extension follows complaints by customers and media outlets in areas such
as California's Bay Area (which starts switching in April), Seattle, Denver
and Portland, Ore.
The outcry grew particularly fierce in the Northeast, where Comcast
executives took matters in hand last week.
Comcast Cable president Stephen Burke and Kevin Casey, who runs the company's
New England market (which has almost 500,000 high-speed subs in six states),
met with Boston Globe staff last Wednesday to announce the companywide e-mail
extension.
The extension comes as the company prepares to rebrand the former AT&T
Broadband systems. The Bay Area switches to the Comcast name on Feb. 14,
followed by Portland next month, according to company officials quoted in
local press reports.
=============================================================
http://networkingsmallbusiness.com/compendium/2003/002288.html
attbi.com stays on for awhile
By Adam Gaffin
Networking for Small Business, 02/05/03
The Boston Globe reports that Comcast, taking over from AT&T Broadband, will
let its users keep their attbi.com addresses at least through the end of
2004.
Comcast had originally threatened to drop attbi.com as early as this spring,
which for some users would have meant the third domain change in about a
year.
Moving to soothe outraged customers, Comcast Corp. said yesterday it has
reached a deal with AT&T to let millions of cable broadband Internet
subscribers across the United States -- including more than 200,000 in
Massachusetts and New Hampshire -- keep using their attbi.com e-mail
addresses through at least December 2004.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8a - Comcast transfer
Page 4
From: Roden, Kimberly [mailto:kim.roden@twcable.com]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 10:53 AM
To: Joel Jamnik
Cc: Clint Pires
Subject: St. Louis Park 394 Extension
Joel: This will confirm our earlier telephone conversation that Time Warner and Comcast have
agreed to extend the deadline for action by the City on the pending Form 394 application
until November 7, 2005. In addition, Time Warner Cable consents to a cable television franchise
extension with the City until November 7, 2005 as well. Please contact me if you have any
questions or concerns. Thank you. Kim Roden
PLEASE NOTE NEW ADDRESS, TELEPHONE AND FAX:
Kim Roden
Vice President, Public Affairs & Programming
Time Warner Cable - Mpls. Division
9705 Data Park Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55343
office: 952-607-4202
fax: 952-607-4359
e-mail: kim.roden@twcable.com
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8b - Confirmation of Nancy J. Stroth as City Clerk
Page 1
8b Resolution confirming the appointment of Nancy J. Stroth to the position of
City Clerk.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolution confirming the appointment of Nancy J.
Stroth to the position of City Clerk, effective October 10, 2005.
Background:
As you are aware, with the resignation of Cindy Reichert, we have a vacancy in the position of City
Clerk. After review of qualifications, work experience and professional development, we are
pleased to inform you that we are promoting Nancy J. Stroth, our Deputy City Clerk, to City Clerk,
subject to consent of the City Council.
Our City Clerk handles a variety of administrative work for the City. This position is responsible
for execution of administrative duties as required by charter, ordinance and operational needs of the
organization. The Clerk is responsible for Council and EDA agendas, minutes, records and
information. The Clerk also handles the operations of official records management, elections, voter
registration, contract assistance, bidding, public notices, and licensing along with other duties.
In her current capacity as Deputy City Clerk for St. Louis Park, Ms. Stroth handles elections, works
with election judges and training, manages records, ordinances, resolutions, bids, contracts and
other administrative activities. She handles the work of City Clerk as needed in our organization in
the absence of our City Clerk. Ms. Stroth also brings experience from her work in the City of
Richfield as Deputy City Clerk, when combined with her work in St. Louis Park totals over 20 years
of work and experience as a Deputy City Clerk. Ms. Stroth has memberships/certifications in
MCFOA (Minnesota Clerks and Finance Officer Association, IIMC (International Institute of
Municipal Clerks), and is a Certified Municipal Clerk of Minnesota.
The City of St. Louis Park is most fortunate to find the opportunity to promote Ms. Stroth, who will
continue to be willing to use her many talents and abilities for our City.
Recommendation:
Section 5.04 of the Charter states “there shall be a City Clerk…”. Section 5.02 (b) under Powers
and Duties of the City Manager, states that with the consent of the Council, the City Manager may
appoint all department heads and other officers of the City. At this time, the City Manager is
seeking confirmation from the Council of the appointment of Ms. Nancy J. Stroth as City Clerk.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8b - Confirmation of Nancy J. Stroth as City Clerk
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-132
CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF NANCY J. STROTH
TO THE POSITION OF CITY CLERK
EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 10, 2005
WHEREAS, St. Louis Park City Charter section 5.04 states there shall be a City Clerk and
under 5.02(b) of the Charter it states that the City Manager may appoint, with the consent of the
City Council, the City Clerk,
WHEREAS, the City Manager has reviewed the experience, service, education and
professional development of our Deputy City Clerk and as a result, wishes to promote Nancy J.
Stroth to the position of City Clerk.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park
that the decision of the City Manager to appoint Ms. Stroth to the position of City Clerk effective
October 10, 2005 is hereby confirmed.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 10, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8c - Payment of Claims and Facsimile Signatures
Page 1
8c 1st Reading of an ordinance authorizing payment of claims by the Finance
Director and adoption of a resolution allowing the use of facsimile signatures on
orders for payment.
Adoption of these instruments is duplicative of past council action and current
practice. Adoption will bring the city into compliance with statute and charter.
Recommended
Action:
§ Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance adding Article V
to Chapter 2 of the City Code delegating authority to the
Finance Director to pay all proper obligations of the city
without prior council approval, and to set second reading for
June 6, 2005.
§ Motion to adopt a resolution allowing the use of facsimile
signatures on orders for payment
Background:
City Charter Section 6.11 allows the council to delegate authority to pay certain claims without
direct council approval provided an ordinance has been adopted and the claims are presented to
council for review after the payment has been made. In November of 1997 Council adopted
Ordinance # 2105-97 granting this authority to the City’s Finance Director. Since that time our
practice has been to process and pay claims for budgeted expenditures and to present council
with a summary of those expenditures for their review after the fact. We are proposing no
change to our current practice.
Most cities make disbursements under Minn. Stat. § 412.271 which would have applied had the
city not had a charter provision in place specifically addressing disbursements. The statute is
nearly identical to our charter provision, but requires adoption of a resolution rather than an
ordinance. During recodification staff mistakenly deleted this provision from the code of
ordinances with the intent of adopting a resolution in its place, as is required under the statute.
We have since discovered the error of our ways and are presenting this ordinance for inclusion in
the code.
Use of facsimile signatures is regulated by Minn. Stat. § 47.41 and 47.42 which require adoption
of a resolution by the city council. This authority was previously included in Ordinance #2105-
97 and was also deleted from the code. Because we do not have a charter provision addressing
this issue, the authority is being presented here for adoption by resolution as is required under the
statute.
Attachments: Ordinance and Resolution
Prepared By: Cindy Reichert, City Clerk
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8c - Payment of Claims and Facsimile Signatures
Page 2
ORDINANCE NO. ______ - 05
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 2 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
BY THE FINANCE DIRECTOR
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Chapter 2 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code is hereby amended to add:
Article V. Finance
Sec. 2-350. Manner of Presentation of Claims
All bills, invoices, statements and claims for payment of money in discharge of any
obligation of the City shall be filed with the Director of Finance who shall examine the
same and enter each upon the record. Each claim shall be accompanied by either an
itemized bill or payroll, or time sheet, each of which shall be approved and signed by the
responsible City officer who vouches for its correctness and reasonableness and, except
in the case of salaries and wages of employees and laborers of the City, shall be
accompanied by the claimant’s verified statement of claim as required by law.
Sec 2-351. Payment of Claims
The Director of Finance is authorized to pay all claims determined to be proper
obligations of the City and consistent with the budget approved by the City Council. The
Director of Finance shall prepare a list of newly paid claims for Council review at each
regular meeting of the City Council.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after its
passage and publication.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council May 16, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8c - Payment of Claims and Facsimile Signatures
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 05-133
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF FACSIMILE SIGNATURES
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 47.41 and 47.42 regulate use of facsimile signatures on orders for
payment; and
WHEREAS, Council wishes payments made on behalf of the city to be processed in an efficient
and timely manner:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that facsimile signatures shall be allowed as
follows:
Facsimile Signatures on City Checks. The Director of Finance, who serves as Treasurer
for the city, shall prepare orders for payment of claims. Orders for payment may be
issued on behalf of the City by affixing facsimile signatures of the City Manager and
Director of Finance.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 10, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8d - Emergency Plan Adoption
Page 1
8d Resolution approving the updated City Emergency Preparedness Plan
This resolution approves the revised Emergency Preparedness Plan
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the revised Emergency
Preparedness Plan
Background:
The Emergency Preparedness Plan is a set of guidelines to be used in the event of a significant
emergency in our community. The purpose of this plan, which is an “all hazards” emergency
approach, is to maximize the protection of life and property; ensure the continuity of
government; sustain survivors; and repair essential facilities and utilities. Its intent is to assist
key city officials and emergency organizations to carry out their responsibilities during
emergency situations.
Periodically we need to review and update our plan as part of an ongoing evaluation process.
This provides us with an opportunity to clarify and refine the roles of Mayor and City Council
and to affirm the administrative plan structure with the appointment of the City Manager as
Emergency Preparedness Director.
This formal evaluation is a sound practice on an operational basis and is a required step to
continued receipt of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) state and local assistance
funds. It should also be noted that minor changes to the Emergency Plan are made on an as
needed basis.
We have also re-written or revised the chapters in the document to reflect changes in
organizational structure and personnel, ongoing refinement of the incident command process,
continuous shift in plan emphasis to an “all hazards” emergency approach, and
acknowledgement of updated response agreements between the City and other agencies such as
the Red Cross.
Recommendation:
The plan has been revised to reflect changes in city personnel and positions, and to reaffirm the
City Manager as the Emergency Director. The Council has been given a copy of the government
officials’ handbook and last May reviewed the plan discussed their roles in the plan with City
Staff. Copies of the revised emergency plan will be distributed to Councilmembers on Friday,
October 7. Staff recommends the Council approve the revised Emergency Preparedness Plan.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8d - Emergency Plan Adoption
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-134
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE UPDATED CITY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
PLAN
WHEREAS, the existing possibility of the occurrence of disasters of unprecedented size
and destruction resulting from fire, floor, tornado, blizzard, destructive winds or other natural
causes, or from terrorist action, or from hazardous material mishaps of catastrophic measure, and
in order to insure that preparations of the City of St. Louis Park will be adequate to deal with
such disasters, it is hereby found and declared to be necessary:
a) To maintain an emergency preparedness plan under the management of the
Emergency Director,
b) To provide for the rendering of mutual aid between the City and other political
subdivisions of the County and State with respect to the carrying out of emergency
preparedness functions,
c) To comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter Twelve Section 12.25, which requires
that each political subdivision of Minnesota shall establish a local organization for
emergency management.
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has adopted an emergency management plan to
assist key city officials and emergency organizations to carry out their responsibilities during
emergency situations;
WHEREAS, the plan has been revised to reflect changes in city organizational structure,
personnel, and current resources and procedures;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City of St. Louis Park adopts a revised
Emergency Preparedness Plan and affirms the authority of the Emergency Director to execute
emergency procedures and operations as necessary.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 10, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8e - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 1
8e Request by SilverCrest Properties for a Major Amendment to a Planned Unit
Development
Location: 3601 Park Center Boulevard
Applicant: SilverCrest Properties
Case No: Case No. 05-33-PUD
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing a Major Amendment
to the Planned Unit Development for the elimination of age
restrictions at the Park Summit Condominiums and changes
to the underground parking structure.
REQUEST:
SilverCrest Properties has requested a major amendment to a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) to remove the age restriction clause for the Park Summit Condominiums within
the previously approved final PUD agreement for the Parkshore campus. The proposal
for the Park Summit Condominiums, part of that final PUD, was first approved by the
City in 2004. SilverCrest has now requested the removal of the age restriction clause.
On September 19, 2005, the City Council requested staff work with SilverCrest
Properties to enhance the PUD characteristics of the Parkshore campus. The following
items are issues that have been identified that would enhance the PUD project:
1. Build the consolidated access driveway for the 3-building campus with the Park
Summit building construction (versus building it in the future). This would:
▪ Avoid a future driveway change for the residents and visitors.
▪ Improve traffic visibility and stacking on Park Center Boulevard at the
time building is first occupied.
2. Improve the parking by jointly using parking on the campus by:
▪ Formally allowing residents of the Park Summit building to use dedicated
underground parking spaces in the Park Shores apartment building.
▪ Formally allowing and directing overflow guest parking from the Park
Summit building to use surface parking on the Park Shores apartment
building.
3. Enhance pedestrian and transit improvements by:
▪ Connecting the campus internally and externally (see attached plan) to
improve movements and allow easier cross usage of surface parking.
▪ Improving the transit stop at 36th Street and Park Center Boulevard by
adding a bus shelter.
4. Add Public Art:
▪ Donate funds to create public art within or near the campus site.
5. Dedicate an easement for Wireless internet access:
▪ Allow the City to utilize the building to incorporate Wifi equipment.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8e - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
The Staff recommends an amount of $40,000 for public art and up to $9,000 for the bus
shelter. The public art amount was arrived at based in part on negotiations and in part
based on the construction value of the project. The dollar amount for the bus shelter is
based upon the approximate cost of a standard shelter. With the items as outlined above,
Staff recommends approving the attached resolution.
Attachments:
• Resolution No. 000, a resolution authorizing a Major Amendment to the PUD for
Park Summit Condominiums.
• Development Summary and Site Plan
• Staff Report, 9-12-05 City Council Study Session
• Staff Report, 8-15-05, City Council Meeting
• Planning Commission Minutes, 7-20-05
Prepared by: Adam W. Fulton, Associate Planner
Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8e - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 05-135
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING
RESOLUTION NOS. 96-153, 96-189, 03-139, AND 04-024,
ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 7, 1996,
DECEMBER 2, 1996, OCTOBER 7, 2003, AND FEBRUARY 2, 2004,
APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
AND CONSOLIDATING CONDITIONS FROM AN EXISTING SPECIAL
PERMIT AND PUD FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-C, MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
GRANTING FINAL PUD APPROVAL FOR A SENIOR HOUSING
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AT 3601 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD
AND
COMBINING PROPOSED AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PARKSHORE CAMPUS AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
3601, 3633 AND 3663 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD
MAJOR AMENDMENT TO PUD FOR
ELIMINATION OF AGE RESTRICTIONS AT THE
PARK SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS
3601 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, SilverCrest Properties, LLC has made application to the City
Council for a Major Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD)
under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow the elimination of
age restrictions at 3601 Park Center Boulevard within a R-C, Multi-Family Residential
Zoning District having the following legal description:
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Silvercrest Addition
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered information related to Planning
Case No. 05-33-PUD and the effect of the proposed elimination of age restrictions 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.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8e - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 4
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Major Amendment to the
Final PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the
community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it cause serious
traffic congestion or hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values.
The Council has also determined that the proposed amendment to the Final PUD is in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply with the requirements
of Section 36-367(b)(5) and 36-266(16).
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 86-62 on May 19, 1986
approving a special permit to allow construction of a 207 unit senior citizen apartment
building at 3663 Park Center Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-153 on October 7, 1996
approving an amendment to the existing special permit for the 207-unit senior apartment
building at 3663 Park Center Boulevard to allow certain site design changes (realignment
of an existing trail and certain concrete curbs; construction of an additional sidewalk
connection; and modifications to the approved landscape plan) in association with
separate PUD approval of a 45 unit assisted living building on a portion of 3601 Park
Center Boulevard (now 3633 Park Center Boulevard); and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-152 on October 7, 1996
approving the Final PUD for the existing office building, removal of the bank with in-
vehicle service and new 45 unit assisted living building at 3601 Park Center Boulevard
(now also 3633 Park Center Boulevard); and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-189 on December 2,
1996 rescinding Resolution No. 96-152 approving the Final PUD in order to correct the
legal description and address; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 99-101 on September 7, 1999
approving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt a Redevelopment Plan for
3601, 3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard allowing certain modifications to ordinance
requirements and parameters for future redevelopment of the office building at 3601 Park
Center Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-102 on September 7,
1999 approving the preliminary and final plat for Silvercrest Addition to reconfigure
internal lot lines allowing a 46 unit addition to the assisted living building on Lot 2 for a
total of 91 units and requiring trail easements over Lots 1, 2 and 3 (3601, 3633 and 3663
Park Center Boulevard respectively), a road easement over Lot 3, trail construction over
Lots 1 and 2, a parking agreement between Lots 2 and 3, certain maintenance
agreements, and cooperation with the City regarding future construction of the north-
south roadway and trail on Lot 3; and
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8e - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 5
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2143-99 on September 7,
1999 vacating certain drainage, utility and trail easements at 3601, 1633 and 3663 Park
Center Boulevard effective upon recording new easements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-140 on December 6,
1999 amending and restating the conditions of Resolution No. 99-102 to extend the plat
filing deadline to January 6, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 03-138 on October 7, 2003
approving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to revise the text of the
Redevelopment Plan to allow density and floor area ratio (FAR) averaging over the 3601,
3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard properties, to increase the allowable average floor
area ratio for all three properties, to increase allowable height for future redevelopment of
the 3601 Park Center Boulevard, and to allow a curb cut on the south edge of the 3601
Park Center Boulevard property (until such time as access consolidation could be
achieved), and to adopt an overall Redevelopment Plan for the three properties;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 03-139 on October 7, 2003
approving a Preliminary PUD for redevelopment of the 3601 Park Center Boulevard
office building for a 150 unit senior housing condominium building and consolidating
conditions from the PUD for 3601 and 3633 Park Center Boulevard and special permit
for 3663 Park Center Boulevard granting Preliminary PUD approval for proposed and
existing development of the Parkshore Campus at 3601, 3633 and 3663 Park Center
Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, a Final PUD was approved regarding the subject property pursuant
to Resolution No. 04-024 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated February 2, 2004
which contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are
now necessary, requiring the amendment of that Final PUD; and
WHEREAS, it is also the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the
conditions of Resolution Nos. 96-153, 96-189, 03-139, and 04-024 to add the
amendments now required, to reference the required conditions of Resolution No. 99-
140, and thereby to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject properties into this
resolution, and
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 86-20-SP, 96-16-PUD, 96-25-CUP, 99-
14-CP, 99-15-S, 99-16-V, 03-37-CP, 03-38-PUD, and 05-33-PUD are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing and the record of decision for this case.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8e - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 6
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 04-024 (filed as
Document No. 8440134) is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which
continues and amends a Final Planned Unit Development to the subject property for the
purpose of permitting the elimination of age restrictions within the R-C, Multi-Family
Residential Zoning District at the location described above based on the following
conditions:
A. From special permit Res. 96-153 3663 Park Ctr. Blvd. (now also 3633 Park
Center Blvd.):
1. That the site be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A
- Site Plan; Exhibit B - Ground Floor Plan; Exhibit C - Ground Floor Plan;
Exhibit D - First Floor Plan; Exhibit E - Typical Floor Plan; Exhibit F - West
Elevation and North Elevation; Exhibit G - East Elevation and South
Elevation; and Exhibit H - Landscape Site Plan, (the floor plans are for
general purposes only.) except as amended by conditions C. 1-11 adopted on
February 2, 2004 and as modified by the following conditions:
2. The use of the site shall be for senior citizen housing containing 207 units.
3. That all trash be stored inside the building and there be no outdoor storage of
trash or trash containers.
4. That all lighting be directed perpendicular to the ground and no direct rays
shall extend beyond the property line.
5. That the driveway and private entrance contain concrete, poured-in-place
curbing measuring six inches above and below the adjacent roadway surface.
6. That the upper portions of the ramp in the interior of the parking lot contain
5% landscaping and pedestrian circulation and additional ornamental trees be
provided along the south and east lot lines as shown on the revised plan, and
that up to 20 parking spaces be permitted to be eliminated to provide for the
additional landscaping.
7. That erosion control provisions be employed during the construction phase to
protect Wolfe Lake and to minimize erosion on the site and runoff of erosion
material into other private or public property.
8. That the entrance road be designed and constructed in a manner so as to
protect the City storm sewer system and as specified by the Director of Public
Works.
9. That driveways be constructed at a grade not to exceed 6%.
10. That the link from the cul de sac to the sidewalk be constructed at a grade not
to exceed 5% and that all other walkways be constructed at a grade not to
exceed 4% and curb drops be provided at all intersections with the private and
public roads.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8e - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 7
11. That the east-west walkway along the north property line be at least as wide as
the adjacent trail in Wolfe Park to which it is to link with. Said walkway to be
extended by the applicant to the walkway in Wolfe Park and be lighted using
decorative lighting to match the lighting in Wolfe Park.
12. That prior to construction, an easement be provided to the City permitting the
five feet parallel to Park Center Boulevard to be used for pedestrian purposes
and that a pedestrian easement approximately 25 feet wide be provided along
the north property line for pedestrian purposes. (The width is wider to
accommodate the curvilinear nature of the design.)
13. That all improvements including buildings, landscaping, parking, curbing and
other improvements as contained on the improved exhibits be completed by
May 15, 1988; however, if a certificate of full occupancy is received by
September 1, 1987, all landscaping and other improvements must be
completed by October 15, 1987.
14. The continued special permit shall be amended pursuant to Planning Case No.
96-25-CUP to permit realignment of an existing trail and certain concrete
curbs; construction of an additional sidewalk connection; and modifications to
the approved landscape plan to allow construction of a 45 unit Assisted Living
facility on 3633 Park Center Boulevard subject to the following conditions:
a) The northern portion of the site shall be developed, used and maintained
in accordance with Exhibit I: Demolition Plan, Exhibit J: Site Plan,
Exhibit K: Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Exhibit L:
Landscape Plan such documents incorporated by reference herein.
b) Prior to issuance of an erosion control permit and commencement of site
work, a 14 feet wide trail easement shall be dedicated to the City in a
form acceptable to the Director of Park and Recreation and the City
Attorney.
c) Prior to issuance of utility permits, details of the proposed storm sewer
connection shall be approved by the City Engineer.
d) Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit for the adjacent Assisted
Living facility, the trail realignment shall be completed by the applicant
in accordance with City specifications and in a manner acceptable to the
Director of Park and Recreation, unless a letter of credit in an amount
equal to 125% of the cost of said trail construction has been submitted in
a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
15. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant prior to issuance
of erosion control permit and commencement of site work.
B. From Res. 96-189 final PUD for 3601 Park Center Blvd. (now also 3633 Park
Center Blvd.):
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8e - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 8
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit
A: Demolition Plan, Exhibit B: Site Plan, Exhibit C: Grading, Drainage and
Erosion Control Plan, Exhibit D: Landscape Plan, Exhibits E and F:
Elevations, Exhibit G: Fence, Enclosure Designs, except as amended by
conditions C. 1-11 adopted on February 2, 2004, and the following conditions:
a) Approval of the Final PUD does not grant any concept approval for
future phases of development involving this property.
b) Approval of the Final PUD is contingent upon City Council approval of
an amendment to the Continued Special Permit for the Parkshore Place
apartment property to address associated improvements involving that
property; approval of the Final PUD is further contingent upon adherence
by the applicant to any conditions of such Special Permit approval.
c) Approval of the Final PUD includes modification of the lot width
requirement in the "R-C" District from 80 feet to 40 feet and allows for
administrative approval of a subdivision to create a separate lot for the
Assisted Living property (3633 Park Center Boulevard) as shown on
Exhibit B.
d) Approval of the Final PUD is contingent upon termination of the drive
thru bank lease, once the current term expires, and removal of the drive
thru building.
e) Evidence of Watershed District approval shall be submitted prior to
issuance of erosion control and building permits; the project shall comply
with other City, State, and Federal agency requirements as applicable.
f) Final Utility Plans and evidence of property owner consent to sanitary
sewer connections shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer
prior to issuance of utility and building permits.
g) Samples of final building materials and colors and potential minor
changes to the exhibits, as needed, shall be submitted and approved by
the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of buildings
permits. Use of vinyl siding is expressly prohibited.
h) A development agreement between the applicant and EDA shall be
executed prior to issuance of building permits.
i) Irrigation and Site Lighting Plans (including photometric) shall be
approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building
permits.
j) Sprinkler and Fire Alarm Plans shall be approved by the Fire Marshall
prior to issuance of building permits.
k) Joint parking and access agreements between the office/bank property,
Assisted Living Property, and Parkshore Place apartment property, in a
form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be executed prior to issuance
of an Occupancy Permit for the Assisted Living facility.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8e - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 9
l) All improvements shall be completed in a manner acceptable to the City
prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit, except that a temporary
Occupancy Permit may be issued prior to completion of landscaping
improvements provided a letter of credit in an amount equal to 125% of
the cost of said improvements is submitted in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney.
C. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on February 2, 2004 to
incorporate all of the preceding conditions and to grant Final PUD approval for a
150 unit senior condominium development (“Park Summit Condominiums”) at
3601 Park Center Boulevard and consolidation of access and related
improvements at 3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard subject to the following
conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the
Final PUD official exhibits, which shall include the revised Parking Structure
plan sheet stamped as Received by the City December 22, 2003 and the
Proposed Access and Internal Circulation Plan stamped as Received by the
City December 30, 2003. The Proposed Access and Internal Circulation Plan
may be revised based upon more detailed future roadway design work. The
Official Exhibits shall also include the revised Description Sketch survey
showing existing trail and roadway easements stamped as Received by the
City January 16, 2004, and the revised Dimensional Site Plan stamped as
Received by the City on January 16, 2004. The Proposed Alternate Entrance
on the Dimensional Site Plan is not approved.
2. Prior to any site work, including demolition, the developer shall meet the
following requirements:
a) Development and maintenance agreement(s) shall be executed between
the developer and the City. The agreement(s) shall include, but not be
limited to, conditions for the developer meeting the following
requirements:
i) Construction vehicles shall access the site from Hwy. 100, 36th
Street, and Park Center Blvd. utilizing the interim curb cut as a left-
in, right-out only. Construction vehicles shall not be permitted on
Park Center Blvd. south of the senior condominium property.
ii) Public sidewalk and trail construction.
iii) Repair and cleaning of public streets.
iv) Tree replacement.
v) Constructing a consolidated driveway access to all three properties
as shown conceptually on the Proposed Access and Internal
Circulation Plan (dated December 30, 2003) of the Official Exhibits.
vi) Cost sharing for the road improvements to Park Center Boulevard
and the possible traffic signal at the consolidated access driveway.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8e - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 10
vii) On-going responsibility for maintaining the strip of park land
located east of the condominium and west of the park access drive
off of 36th Street.
viii) Adherence to the parking management plan and requirements to
convert the proof-of-parking spaces if directed by the City in
response to on- or off-site parking problems.
ix) Agreement to pay the equivalent of special service district fees
previously paid by the office development for the 3601 Park Center
Blvd. property.
x) Adherence to required conditions in the homeowner’s association
declaration documents.
b) Submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in
the amount of 125% of the costs of public sidewalk and trail installation,
repair/cleaning of public streets/utilities, and tree
replacement/landscaping.
c) Required tree protection, erosion control fencing, trail closed signs, and
safety fencing shall be in place and approved by the City prior to any
grading and demolition activities.
d) The homeowners association documents shall be as approved by the City
Attorney and shall prohibit the rental or sale of guest parking spaces and
the sale or rental of any parking spaces to non-residents. The
homeowners association documents shall also address continued
payment of Special Service District fees equivalent to fees previously
paid by the office development at 3601 Park Center Blvd.
e) Record all cross-easement agreements for utilities and drainage for the
three lots within the PUD and record any required changes to the joint
parking and access agreements, maintenance agreement, and trail
easement.
f) Reimburse the City for City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such
documents.
g) Obtain demolition, work in the right of way and erosion control permits,
Watershed District permit and other necessary permits from the City and
other agencies.
h) Sign Assent Form and Official Exhibits.
i) Meet City and Public Works Department requirements for utility
connections and disconnects, including pavement restoration, protection
of sidewalk, trail, lighting and streetscape elements and replacement of
any damaged elements,
j) Meet solar shading requirements or obtain approval of a variance.
k) Meet any other conditions of the development agreement required prior
to site work.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8e - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 11
3. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional
requirements, the developer shall comply with the following:
a) Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements during
construction.
b) Building materials samples to be submitted to and approved by the City.
c) Lighting plans, including photometrics to be submitted to and approved
by the City for the entire development. Lighting design is to be
compatible throughout the development, and shall meet all City
standards.
d) Meet any other conditions as required by the Development Agreement
prior to building permit.
4. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during
construction:
a) All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be
no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on
weekdays and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays.
b) Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all
times.
c) The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto
neighboring properties including the City aquatic facility.
d) Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as
necessary.
e) Construction vehicles are prohibited from entering the site from park
land property.
f) The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it
becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on
surrounding properties.
g) A left-in, right-out temporary construction entrance is allowed on the
3601 Park Center Blvd. property (Lot 1) in accordance with the approved
grading plan and Condition C.2.a) i) of this resolution.
5. A PUD modification to allow a sign setback of 15 feet is approved subject to
approval of a sign permit. Sign permits are required prior to installation of
any temporary or permanent signs and shall include designation of guest
parking spaces.
6. The developer shall comply with the following conditions prior to occupancy
of the senior condominium building:
a) All permanent site and building improvements shall be complete, other
than landscaping, and a letter of credit for 125% of the cost of
landscaping shall be submitted.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8e - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 12
b) Submit as-built plans to the City in electronic or Mylar format for all
civil infrastructure.
c) Meet any other conditions as required by the development agreement
prior to occupancy.
d) If reasonably possible, complete improvements in Condition 7.
Otherwise, make the temporary construction access "permanent" until
such time as the consolidated access is completed.
7. The developer agrees to close the driveway access on the 3601 Park Center
Blvd property (Lot 1), repair the right-of-way, and construct the consolidated
PUD access, at developer's or property owners' expense, at the time of
reconstruction of Park Center Blvd. adjacent to the PUD site.
8. The developer or property owners agree to pay a fair share of any future
traffic signal at the consolidated PUD access.
9. The developer or property owners agree to continue paying the equivalent of
special service district fees previously paid by the office development at 3601
Park Center Blvd.
10. The developer or property owners agree to comply with the conditions of
Resolution 99-102, including but not limited to cooperation with the City
regarding future construction of the north-south roadway and additional trail
construction on the 3663 Park Center Blvd. property (Lot 3).
11. The developer or property owner(s) shall pay an administrative fine of $750
per violation of any condition of this approval.
D. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on October 10, 2005 to
incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
1. No age restrictions shall be placed on future residents at the Park Summit
Condominiums, to be located at 3601 Park Center Boulevard.
2. The developer will provide a minimum of 255 parking spaces for the Park
Summit condominium building at 3601 Park Center Boulevard. A minimum of
240 of those spaces must be provided underground.
3. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Park Summit
Condominiums, the developer shall:
a. Construct a consolidated driveway access to the campus, completing all
driveway and sidewalk connections as shown on the official site plan.
This requirement shall supersede any other requirement in this
Resolution regarding the construction of the consolidated campus
driveway.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8e - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 13
b. Grant the City of St. Louis Park an easement for the purpose of the
installation of wireless internet equipment and related appurtenances.
c. Donate $40,000 for the purpose of erecting public art within or near the
campus area for the benefit of the residents of the campus and the City.
The developer shall work with the Director of Parks and Recreation to
facilitate the decision process regarding the type and location of the
public art installation.
d. Ensure that all mechanical equipment, including that mechanical
equipment already installed on other buildings within the PUD, is
completely and fully screened from off-site view in accordance with
zoning regulations.
4. The direct access point to 3601 Park Center Boulevard will be closed and the
access to the campus shall be via the consolidated campus driveway as shown
on the official site plan. This requirement shall supersede any other
requirement in this Resolution regarding the direct access point to 3601 Park
Center Boulevard.
5. The developer will provide up to $9,000 toward the cost of transit shelters at
the intersection of West 36th Street and Park Center Boulevard.
6. The developer shall dedicate a minimum of 15 underground parking spaces at
the Park Shores apartment building at 3663 Park Center Boulevard to residents
of the Park Summit Condominium building at 3601 Park Center Boulevard.
Such shall be clearly marked as spaces available only to residents of Park
Summit Condominiums.
7. The developer shall provide a parking easement from the Park Shores
apartment building at 3663 Park Center Boulevard to the Park Summit
condominiums at 3601 Park Center Boulevard allowing Park Summit residents
and visitors to use the Park Shores surface parking spaces.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8e - Park Summit PUD Amendment
Page 14
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee
of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval.
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit.
Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 10, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8f - Holiday Station CUP & Variance
Page 1
8f Holiday Station - Conditional Use Permit for Rebuilding Convenience Store
and a Variance for Off-Street Parking.
Case Nos. 05-41-CUP and 05-42-VAR
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution of approval for a parking space
variance, reducing the required number of parking spaces by 10
spaces, for a total of 16 available parking spaces.
Motion to adopt a resolution of approval of the Conditional Use
permit to reconstruct the convenience store at the Holiday
Station located at 5430 Minnetonka Boulevard, subject to
conditions.
Zoning Designation: C-2, General Commercial
Comp. Plan Designation: Commercial
Site Area: 38,149 square feet (0.87 acres)
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Apollo Oil Company, owner of the Holiday Fuel Station on the northwest corner of
Minnetonka Boulevard and Highway 100, is proposing to reconstruct the existing
convenience store. The existing site includes a two-story convenience store, gasoline
pumps and a canopy, and a car wash. The applicant is not planning any changes to the
car wash, gasoline pumps, or canopy at this time.
The proposal calls for the complete demolition of the existing two-story convenience
store. The applicant plans to continue offering gasoline sales during the reconstruction; it
is anticipated that the car wash will be temporarily retrofitted for a cashier’s office and
that no sales except gasoline will take place during the construction period.
As part of the reconstruction process, the applicant intends to eliminate one of the four
driveways presently serving the store, reconstruct the site’s drive aisles and parking areas,
and improve the landscaping. Stormwater improvements are also included as part of the
applicant’s reconstruction plans. The proposed changes will decrease the site’s
impervious surface area while improving the landscaping and overall site aesthetic.
The applicant and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), with the
assistance of the City, have worked cooperatively to ensure that no problems occur
during the future reconstruction of Highway 100. The applicant and Mn/DOT are both
aware of the complicated issues surrounding the redevelopment of the Holiday Station.
Attached are letters from each party acknowledging the development and explaining how
each party intends to proceed during the reconstruction of Highway 100. Changes to the
site will likely occur when the new exit ramp from Highway 100 is constructed. Such
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8f - Holiday Station CUP & Variance
Page 2
changes would likely include alterations to the Holiday Station’s easterly driveway,
precluding patrons from exiting the car wash. At that time, the car wash will likely have
to be altered or removed.
BACKGROUND:
The site of the existing Holiday Station at 5430 Minnetonka Boulevard has been a gas
station since at least 1958. The last update to the Holiday Station involved the
reconstruction of the gasoline pumps and canopy in 1994.
A portion of the site is leased from the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT). The lease requires MnDOT to provide only 60 days of notification prior to
terminating the lease. For that reason, the 8 easterly parking spaces are not included in
the officially counted number of off-street parking spaces at the site. The leased property
also includes the Holiday Store’s eastern entrance.
Apollo Oil Company has worked with the City for several years in an attempt to
reconstruct the existing convenience store. Apollo Oil Co. believes that the site’s present
condition warrants reconstruction, given the ambiguity surrounding the timing of the
future reconstruction of Highway 100. When Highway 100 is reconstructed, the car wash
itself or its associated entrance will have to be rebuilt or redesigned as the turning
movements require the use of the leased MnDOT property. The letters from Mn/DOT
and the applicant provide further details on the potential future changes to the site, and
are attached.
ZONING REQUIREMENTS:
The proposed reconstruction of the convenience store at the Holiday Station meets all
zoning requirements for a motor fuel station in the C-2 General Commercial zoning
district except the requirements for off-street parking. The property leased from Mn/DOT
is used only for parking and is not required to meet any zoning regulations. The
following table summarizes applicable zoning regulations. Parking regulations are
summarized in the analysis of the variance request.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8f - Holiday Station CUP & Variance
Page 3
ZONING ANALYSIS:
ISSUES:
• Is the proposed use addressed in the Comprehensive Plan?
• How will the site’s use change as a result of the reconstruction?
• Will the proposed reconstruction affect off-street parking at the site?
• How will the proposed reconstruction affect the surrounding properties?
• What traffic impacts are associated with the proposed reconstruction?
• What stormwater impacts are associated with the proposed reconstruction?
ANALYSIS:
Is the proposed use addressed in the Comprehensive Plan?
The property on which the Holiday Station is located is designated as commercial
property in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that a business
like the Holiday Station serves many neighborhood needs while its location provides
access for customers traveling longer distances through and within the community using
Minnetonka Boulevard and Highway 100.
Because of the site’s relatively small size and location, it is unlikely that it would be used
for an office complex or for a neighborhood or community shopping center. The
Comprehensive Plan does not specifically dictate where in the City motor fuel stations
should be located; however, it does list a goal of “aesthetically and functionally positive
image for public and private property in commercial areas through proper design of
landscaping, parking, architecture, street furniture and signage.” The proposed
improvements to the site would accomplish that goal on this site.
Zoning Regulation Required Provided
Setbacks
Front (Vernon Ave.) 5 feet 51 feet
Rear (East side) 0 feet 20 feet
Sides abutting a street 15 feet 24 feet (Minnetonka Blvd) 15
feet (Hwy 100 Ramp)
Building Height Six stories or 75 feet One story, 27 feet
Parking See below See below
Bufferyards Bufferyard F and B Bufferyard requirements met
Architectural Standards Minimum 60%
Class I materials
Minimum requirements met,
using Brick, Glass, Stucco
Sidewalks Required along
public streets
New sidewalk to be
constructed along Vernon
Avenue.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8f - Holiday Station CUP & Variance
Page 4
How will the Holiday Station’s use change as a result of the reconstruction?
The proposed changes to the Holiday Station will not impact the use of the site. No
additional gasoline pumps or changes to the car wash are proposed. The proposed
convenience store is of a smaller size than the existing store; additionally, the applicant
does not intend to rebuild the second floor offices. For this reason, Staff has determined
that the applicant’s proposal will decrease the intensity of use at the site.
Will the proposed reconstruction affect off-street parking at the site?
The proposed reconstruction will improve the quality of parking on the site. Furthermore,
the building’s reconstruction will reduce the number of spaces required by the Zoning
Code from 34 spaces to 26 spaces. Due to the way in which the Zoning Code counts off-
street parking spaces, the proposal does not meet the required number of off-street
parking spaces in the Zoning Code. [Parking spaces are discussed in greater detail later
in the report as a part of the variance discussion.] For this reason, a variance from those
requirements has been requested by the applicant and is discussed below.
How will the proposed reconstruction affect the surrounding properties?
The proposed reconstruction will not result in negative effects for surrounding properties.
The new building would be built of higher-quality materials than the existing building,
providing an aesthetic benefit to surrounding properties. Additionally, the reconstruction
of the parking area, drive aisles and landscaping will benefit the surrounding properties
by reducing any negative effects associated with the outdoor activities, traffic generation,
and extended hours of operation found at motor fuel stations.
What traffic impacts are associated with the proposed reconstruction?
The site plan eliminates the westernmost access point to the Holiday Station along
Minnetonka Boulevard. This will increase driver safety on Minnetonka Boulevard and
on the site. In addition, the other entrance points to the site will be reduced in width,
which will improve driver safety when entering and exiting the site.
Traffic adjacent to the Holiday Station is not expected to change as a result of the
proposed building reconstruction. The Holiday Station’s convenience store will be
rebuilt to a slightly smaller size, and no change in sales is expected. Parking is not
allowed on any streets surrounding the Holiday Station.
What stormwater impacts are associated with the proposed reconstruction?
Staff from the Public Works Department has reviewed the stormwater plans provided by
the Holiday Station and has determined that the plans provided are adequate given the
site’s constraints. The determination is based upon the reduction in impervious surface at
the site (from 87% impervious to 80% impervious) and the addition of two stormwater
structures to the site.
Stormwater concerns for the site extend to the north, where the site borders a highway
off-ramp. Staff contacted the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) in
regard to the construction of a small stormwater pond or rain garden to be located
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8f - Holiday Station CUP & Variance
Page 5
between the highway off-ramp and the proposed Holiday Station. The applicant
indicated a willingness to construct and maintain such a pond or rain garden. However,
MnDOT would not allow stormwater facilities in the right-of-way, and indicated that if
an interim improvements to Highway 100 are made, MnDOT would address stormwater
issues at that time.
The two proposed stormwater structures include a trench to the north of the existing car
wash and a catch basin near the center entrance to the site, along Minnetonka Boulevard.
The infiltration trench would collect water from the site and act as a filter for much of the
water from the eastern portion of the site. Roof drains from the proposed building will
run directly to the catch basin in the center of the site.
The applicant is aware of the informal ponding that currently occurs on MnDOT right-of-
way between the store’s existing parking lot and the Highway 100 off-ramp. Because
MnDOT has indicated that the applicant cannot mitigate the problem in the adjacent
right-of-way, an alternative proposal by the applicant will remove much of the water that
currently runs from the site into that area. Though the plans currently show a curb-cut to
the north of the store, a condition has been included that the applicant remove that curb-
cut and run all stormwater from that side of the site to the catch basin on the south side of
the site near the center entrance.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
The Planning Commission reviewed the applicant’s proposal twice. Subsequent to the
first review by the Planning Commission, the applicant made several changes to the
proposed site plan. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of both the
variance and the CUP. Changes to the site plan included:
• The proposed building was relocated to the north, to improve site circulation and
safety for both pedestrians and vehicles.
• Mechanical equipment was relocated to the interior of the proposed store, and
would be placed atop the building. If the equipment is not placed within the roof,
a screening device, such as a parapet wall, will be provided.
• The drive aisle to the south of the store was widened to accommodate two-way
traffic. The aisle has increased from 16’ wide to 22’ wide.
• A sidewalk along Vernon Avenue was added, enabling pedestrians to reach the
Holiday Station from the north. The city’s sidewalk plan, enclosed, does not call
for sidewalks to be built along Vernon Avenue. Pedestrians are discouraged from
crossing the off-ramp from Highway 100 at Vernon Avenue; the intersection
features signs designed to decrease pedestrian traffic at that point.
VARIANCE:
The applicant is requesting a variance from the requirements of City Code Section
36.361, “Off-street parking, paved areas, and loading spaces”. The variance request is for
a reduction of 10 spaces from the required 26 spaces for a total count of 16 available off-
street parking spaces.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8f - Holiday Station CUP & Variance
Page 6
Parking requirements for variance request:
City Code states that variances shall only be granted where the strict application of the
zoning regulations results in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue
hardship. In this case, the circumstances result in an inability to count all available
parking spaces on the site. Staff is currently conducting research into parking
requirements for motor fuel stations. Staff is particularly concerned that the existing
zoning regulations do not allow for the counting of all parking spaces under the canopy.
The Zoning Code allows only 25% of the spaces provided under the canopy to be used as
officially counted parking spaces; for this reason, only 3 of the existing 12 parking spaces
are officially counted. The additional 9 spaces function as available parking for the gas
station and convenience store. In addition, 8 spaces are provided in a portion of the site
that is leased from MnDOT. The Zoning Code does not allow those spaces to count
toward the total, per Section 36.361, which states that “the use of the parking facilities
[not in the same ownership as the principle parking facilities] shall be protected by
covenants that run with the land.” However, field observations at various times
throughout the day show that the MnDOT spaces are rarely used for parking by Holiday
Station customers.
The additional 17 spaces result in an informal total of 33 parking spaces available on-site.
The availability of 17 additional parking spaces on an informal basis results in the
applicant exceeding the formal parking requirement by 7 spaces.
VARIANCE CRITERIA:
Variances shall be granted only provided that the following evaluation criteria from the
City Code, Section 36-33 “Application and review process for conditional use permits
and variances,” can be satisfactorily answered:
Holiday Station Parking
Total proposed spaces
33 spaces
Ownership reduction: Mn/DOT Right-of-Way -8 spaces
Zoning reduction: Spaces under canopy -9 spaces
Total spaces as counted by zoning regulations
16 spaces
Total spaces required
Convenience store: 21 spaces
Fuel station: 8 spaces
Transit deduction: -3 spaces
26 spaces
Variance request 10 spaces
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8f - Holiday Station CUP & Variance
Page 7
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by
reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application or the terms of this chapter
would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship
upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary
and legally permissible within the use district in which such lot is located.
The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would place practical difficulties on the
owner of the property. The proposed new store is smaller in footprint and overall square
footage than the existing building, resulting in a reduction in the required parking from
33 to 26 spaces. A new building would have to become much smaller to accommodate
the parking required. There is not sufficient area on the site to accommodate the required
parking, however by ordinance and providing more parking would result in the owner not
being able to use the lot in the manner it has been used in the past.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the
property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other
land or structures in the use district in which the land is located.
A condition that applies to this property is that there are, for all practical purposes, an
additional 17 spaces available on the site. As it is operating now, 8 of the additional
spaces are rarely used. The other 9 at the pumps may be used for convenience store
parking. As a practical matter, parking on site is currently sufficient to meet the needs of
the customers.
3. The granting of the proposed variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.
The granting of the variance will allow the property owner to continue to use his property
as he has for many years, with a new building and several site improvements.
4. The granting of the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the
public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
The granting of the variance will not impair light and air to any adjacent properties,
increase congestion, danger of fire or endanger public safety. This proposal, in fact,
improves the overall circulation of the site, and provides a safer situation for vehicles
entering and exiting the site.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8f - Holiday Station CUP & Variance
Page 8
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health,
safety, and comfort of the area.
The variance will serve to allow the site improvements, which will favorably impact the
character of the neighborhood.
6. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
chapter and the comprehensive plan.
The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Plan.
7. The granting of a variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,
rather it allows a new, smaller building with improved site circulation, parking,
appearance and landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of a resolution granting a variance from Section 36.361,
reducing the number of required parking spaces by 10 spaces, for a total of 16 available
parking spaces, based on the conclusion that sufficient parking exists on the site and the
practical difficulty of providing more parking on an existing site.
Staff recommends adoption of a resolution granting a Conditional Use permit to
reconstruct the convenience store at the Holiday Station located at 5430 Minnetonka
Boulevard, subject to the conditions found in the resolution.
Attachments:
• Resolution No. 05-____, a resolution granting a Conditional Use Permit to
reconstruct the convenience store at the Holiday Station located at 5430 Minnetonka
Boulevard.
• Resolution No. 05-____, a resolution granting a variance for off-street parking
• Memo from Julie Whitcher, P.E., Minnesota Department of Transportation, dated
October 4, 2005.
• Letter from Gary Thorson, Owner, Apollo Oil Company, dated 10/3/05.
• Staff report, Planning Commission meeting of August 3, 2005.
• Minutes, Planning Commission meeting of August 3, 2005.
• Location Map
• Site Plan
• Existing Conditional Use Permit
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8f - Holiday Station CUP & Variance
Page 9
Prepared by: Adam W. Fulton, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8f - Holiday Station CUP & Variance
Page 10
RESOLUTION NO. 05-137
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
UNDER SECTION 36-194 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE
CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT THE
RECONSTRUCTION OF A MOTOR FUEL STATION FOR
PROPERTY ZONED C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
LOCATED AT 5430 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
FINDINGS
1. Apollo Oil Company 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 reconstructing a motor fuel station within a C-2 General Commercial District located
at 5430 Minnetonka Boulevard for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
Lot 15, except the North 80 feet thereof and Lot 16, except North 80 feet thereof,
Auditor’s Subdivision No. 351, except those parts conveyed to the County of
Hennepin in Document No. 3876998
and
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 31,
Township 29, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying westerly of the
southerly extension of the east line of said Lot 16, lying northerly of the easterly
extension of the south line of said Lot 16, and lying southeasterly of the
southeasterly line of said Lot 16
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 05-41-CUP) and the effect of the proposed motor fuel station 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 motor fuel station 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 motor fuel station is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 05-41-CUP are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8f - Holiday Station CUP & Variance
Page 11
CONCLUSION
The Conditional Use Permit to permit the reconstruction of a motor fuel station at the
location described is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the
following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with
Exhibits incorporated by reference herein, subject to any changes referenced herein.
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, including revisions in the depth and design
of the stormwater infiltration trench.
B. Building and architectural screening materials samples & colors
must be submitted to and approved by Zoning Administrator.
C. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for
during construction.
D. Reduce in size the proposed entrance to the site along Vernon
Avenue from 33 feet to 30 feet.
E. Eliminate the proposed curb cut along the northern curb between
the store’s northern drive aisle and the Hwy 100 off-ramp.
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 be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned
as necessary.
E. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it
becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction
on surrounding properties.
4. No future building expansions or alterations of any kind to the site, with the
exception of interior or exterior renovations to either the convenience store or
the car wash, shall be permitted without Holiday Station or future occupant
first coming into full compliance with the City’s requirements for stormwater.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8f - Holiday Station CUP & Variance
Page 12
5. All mechanical equipment and utility structures, including but not limited to
dumpsters and storage containers, shall be fully screened from view in
accordance with the Zoning Code.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an
administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval.
Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if
the building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and
owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit.
Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of
the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 10, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8f - Holiday Station CUP & Variance
Page 13
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. 05-136
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 36-361 OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT A DEDUCTION OF
10 OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE C-2
GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AT 5430 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. Apollo Oil has applied for a variance from Section 36-361 of the Ordinance Code
relating to zoning to permit a deduction of 10 off-street parking spaces from the
required 26 off-street parking spaces for a total of 16 off-street parking spaces for
property located in the C-2 General Commercial District at the following location,
to-wit:
Lot 15, except the North 80 feet thereof and Lot 16, except North 80 feet
thereof, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 351, except those parts conveyed to the
County of Hennepin in Document No. 3876998
and
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 31,
Township 29, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying westerly of the
southerly extension of the east line of said Lot 16, lying northerly of the easterly
extension of the south line of said Lot 16, and lying southeasterly of the
southeasterly line of said Lot 16
2. On August 3, 2005 the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received
testimony from the public, discussed the application and moved to continue
consideration of the request. On September 7, 2005 the Planning Commission
moved to recommend approval of a variance to permit a deduction of 10 off-street
parking spaces from the required 26 off-street parking spaces for a total of 16 off-
street parking spaces.
3. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect
on values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed
variance upon the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is
possible to use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not
impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably
increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 101005 - 8f - Holiday Station CUP & Variance
Page 14
the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals,
or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
such property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to
other land or structures in the district in which such land is located.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship
or difficulty.
7. The contents of Planning Case File 05-42-VAR are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case.
8. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned,
revoked, or canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one
year after the variance is granted.
9. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be revoked and cancelled if the
building or structure for which the variance is granted is removed.
CONCLUSION
The application for the variance to permit a deduction of 10 off-street parking spaces
from the required 26 off-street parking spaces for a total of 16 off-street parking spaces is
granted based upon the finding(s) set forth above.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of
the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 10, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk