Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/10/17 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA October 17, 2005 7:30 p.m. 6:30 p.m. Study Session 1. Call to Order a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call 2. Presentations - None 3. Approval of Minutes - None 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 6. Public Hearings 6a Public Hearing on the Levying of Assessments for Delinquent Fees and Charges This action adds to the responsible party’s 2006 property taxes any delinquent City utility charges and other fees. Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to adopt resolution to assess delinquent water, sewer, refuse and other fees and charges. 6b Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing: Alley Paving – 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue This report considers paving the alley in the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue Recommended Action: Mayor to open and close Public Hearing: • Motion to adopt the attached Resolution ordering the construction of a concrete alley in the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue, Project No. 2005-1800, approving plans and specifications and authorizing receipt of bids. Mayor to open and close Assessment Hearing: • Motion to adopt the attached resolution establishing the assessment for Project No. 2005-1800. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a Consideration of the use of excess public land to address the need for “move up” homes for families Recommended Action: Mayor to open and close forum for public comments. No other action is recommended. 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 17, 2005 SECTION 4: CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 4a Motion to approve 2nd reading of an ordinance setting 2006 fees called for by ordinance, approve the summary and authorize summary publication 4b Motion to approve second reading of an ordinance authorizing payment of claims by the Finance Director, approve the summary and authorize summary publication. 4c Motion to adopt the attached Resolution to enter into an Preliminary Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the replacement of a traffic control system on Trunk Highway 7 at Aquila Avenue. 4d Resolution appointing a responsible authority and data practices compliance officer. 4e Motion to adopt resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $ 15,659.16 for completion of contract sealcoating – Allied Blacktop Company (City Contract No. 82-05) 4f Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing a Hennepin County Grant Agreement to fund the City’s curbside recycling program. 4g 2nd reading of ordinance increasing the Mayor and Councilmembers salaries, effective January 1, 2006. 4h Motion to accept Vendor Claim report for filing (supplement) AGENDA SUPPLEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ***October 17, 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: 101705 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2006 Fees Page 1 4a Motion to approve 2nd reading of an ordinance setting 2006 fees called for by ordinance, approve the summary and authorize summary publication Background: At the meeting of October 10th, Council considered first reading of the ordinance setting fees for 2006. All fees, except for those related to Enterprise Funds which are called out by ordinance, have been studied and adjustments have been made. Enterprise Fund rates will be forwarded for Council review by the end of 2005. The Finance Department staff will continue to evaluate service and program fees set administratively by Department Directors and will make appropriate recommendations for changes to those fees as needed throughout the year. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the 2006 Fees as outlined in Appendix A of the ordinance. Attachment: Ordinance Setting 2006 Fees Prepared by: Jean McGann, Director of Finance Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2006 Fees Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2301-05 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 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2006 Fees Page 3 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 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 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2006 Fees Page 4 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 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 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2006 Fees Page 5 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 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 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2006 Fees Page 6 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 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 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2006 Fees Page 7 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 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 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2006 Fees Page 8 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 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 36-361 Parking Lot Permit Installation/Reconstruction $75 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2006 Fees Page 9 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: 101705 - 4b - 2nd Reading Payment of Claims Page 1 4b Motion to approve second reading of an ordinance authorizing payment of claims by the Finance Director, approve the summary and authorize summary publication. Background: At the meeting of October 10, 2005, Council held first reading of an amendment to Chapter 2 of the City Code granting authority to the Finance Director to pay certain claims without direct Council approval. This action is consistent with current practice. Attachments: Ordinance Summary Prepared By: Jean McGann, Director of Finance Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4b - 2nd Reading Payment of Claims Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2302 - 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 October 17, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4b - 2nd Reading Payment of Claims Page 3 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2302 -05 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF CLAIMS BY THE FINANCE DIRECTOR This ordinance states that 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 will prepare a list of newly paid claims for review at each regular meeting of the city council. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council October 17, 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 27, 2005 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4c - Traffic Signal Improvement (TH 7 at Aquila) Page 1 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The Minnesota Department of Transportation/Metro District Traffic Section (Mn/DOT) has been in the process of scoping fiscal year 2008 safety improvement projects. One of the projects identified by Mn/DOT is a signal revision project at the intersection of T.H. 7 and Aquila Avenue South. As part of the safety improvement, the northbound to eastbound “slip ramp” would be eliminated and the existing island area would be reconfigurated. This would require relocating and replacing the signal pole and traffic control system, thus creating enhanced safety for the intersection. Actual construction plans for the project have not yet been completed. However, in order to continue proceeding with the project development process, Mn/DOT needs concurrence from participating agencies with project support, cost participation and partnering in order to enable the project to proceed. It is anticipated that the project would be both state and locally funded. Cost percentages are computed based upon the percentage of intersection legs controlled by each roadway authority, per current Mn/DOT cost participation policy, and as follows: Agency Estimated % Estimated Share City of St. Louis Park 25% $ 25,000 Hennepin County 25% $ 25,000 Mn/DOT 50% $ 50,000 Total $100,000 Mn/DOT would assume responsibility for the cost of design. The above amounts include all construction costs. It is expected that a project letting would not occur until May of 2008. It is expected that the City’s share of the project cost would be allocated from Municipal State Aid funds. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution authorizing a preliminary agreement for the replacement of the traffic control system at T.H. 7 and Aquila Avenue South. Attachments: Resolution Project Location Maps (2) Prepared By: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager 4c Motion to adopt the attached Resolution to enter into an Preliminary Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the replacement of a traffic control system on Trunk Highway 7 at Aquila Avenue St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4c - Traffic Signal Improvement (TH 7 at Aquila) Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 05-143 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PRELIMINARY AGREEMENT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM ON TRUNK HIGHWAY AT AQUILA AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has identified the need for a signal revision project on Trunk Highway 7 at Aquila Avenue South; and WHEREAS, said signal revision project would be constructed in the year 2008; and WHEREAS, said intersection location includes roadways under the jurisdiction of Mn/DOT, Hennepin County, and the City of St. Louis Park; and WHEREAS, Mn/DOT requests cost participation from Hennepin County and the City of St. Louis Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the City of St. Louis Park agrees to participate in the cost, with the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: To remove the existing traffic control signal and install a new traffic control signal with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect, and signing on Trunk Highway 7 at Aquila Avenue South. Said cost participation shall be based on designations and amounts provided in a letter to the City of St. Louis Park from Mn/DOT dated August 23, 2005, providing for a contribution amount of $25,000 from the City of St. Louis Park. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Manager of the City of St. Louis Park are hereby authorized and directed to execute such agreements, upon receiving from Mn/DOT prior to construction. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 17, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4d - Responsible Authority Appointment Page 1 4d Resolution appointing a responsible authority and data practices compliance officer. Background: Chapter 13 of Minnesota State statutes requires the City to formally appoint both a "Responsible Authority", M.S. 13.02, subd.16, and a "Data Practices Compliance Official", M.S. 13.03, subd.13. The appointment must be made to a specific person, not just to a position. This was previously held by Cynthia Reichert, former City Clerk. Recommendation: Pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, the attached resolution will appoint Nancy J. Stroth, City Clerk, the designation of Responsible Authority and Data Practices Compliance Official for the City of St. Louis Park. Attachment: Resolution Prepared By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4d - Responsible Authority Appointment Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 05-144 CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF NANCY J. STROTH, CITY CLERK, AS THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY AND DATA PRACTICES COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL WHEREAS, Chapter 13 of Minnesota State statutes requires the City to formally appoint both a "Responsible Authority", M.S. 13.02, subd.16, and a "Data Practices Compliance Official", M.S. 13.03, subd.13. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, to appoint Nancy J. Stroth, City Clerk, the designation of Responsible Authority and Data Practices Compliance Official for the City pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 17, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4e - 82-05 Allied Blacktop Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 05-145 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON CONTRACT SEALCOATING CITY PROJECT NO. 2005-0001 CONTRACT NO. 82-05 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated July 5, 2005, Allied Blacktop Company has satisfactorily completed the contract for sealcoating, as per Contract No. 82-05. 2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the work. 3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full. Original Contract Price $218,371.10 Overrun $ 8,423.18 Final Contract Price $226,794.28 Previous Payments $(211,135.12) Balance Due $ 15,659.16 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 17, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4f - HC2005 Recycling Grant Agreement Page 1 4f Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing a Hennepin County Grant Agreement to fund the City’s curbside recycling program. Background: Annually in February the city submits a grant report and application for SCORE funding. SCORE (Select Committee On Recycling and the Environment) was established by Governor Perpich to provide a funding source for solid waste programs throughout Minnesota. SCORE funds are derived from a 6.5% tax on garbage collection and disposal fees. The State has $2.58 million in SCORE funds for 2005, compared to $2.6 million in 2004. These funds are distributed to Counties for solid waste programs, particularly recycling collection. Since 1988 the City has received annual grants from Hennepin County as an aid in supporting the residential curbside recycling program that serves all single family through four-plex residential structures. The County’s share of SCORE funds is divided between cities on a proportional basis by the number of households. The County’s current funding policy (grant program) covers the period from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2007, and provides for the proportional distribution of SCORE funds, which the County receives from the State of Minnesota. In February 7, 2005 Council approved a motion to adopt a Resolution (05-024) authorizing application for the grant to fund our curbside recycling program. This report and request is based on a Hennepin County requirement to provide a Council Resolution authorizing each agreement. This particular resolution covers the Municipal Recycling Grant Agreement terminating December 31, 2007. The Agreement also lists the initial grant payment, for the year 2005 as $92,641. Summary: Attached to this report is a resolution authorizing the Municipal Recycling Grant Agreement to fund the City’s curbside recycling program. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Sarah Hellekson / Scott Merkley Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4f - HC2005 Recycling Grant Agreement Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 146 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 115A.552, Counties shall ensure that residents have an opportunity to recycle; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires each City to implement a recycling program to enable the County to meet its recycling goals; and WHEREAS, the County has adopted a funding assistance policy for source separated recyclables to distribute funds to Cities for the development and implementation of waste reduction and recycling programs; and WHEREAS, to be eligible to receive these County funds, Cities must meet the conditions set forth in the funding policy and the agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the City Council authorizes and directs the Mayor, City Manager and City to execute on behalf of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota an agreement in its entirety which covers the furnishing of a recycling program during 2005 through 2007. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as a condition to receive funds under the Hennepin County funding assistance policy, the City agrees to implement a waste reduction and recycling program as committed to by its submission of the 2005 Hennepin County recycling grant application and that the City will use such County funds for the limited purpose of implementing the City’s waste reduction and recycling program and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the agreement with the Hennepin County Contract Compliance Officer. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 17, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4g - 2nd Reading 2006 Council and Mayor Salaries Page 1 4g 2nd reading of ordinance increasing the Mayor and Councilmembers salaries, effective January 1, 2006. Background: Per City Charter, City Council compensation is set by ordinance. A public hearing was held on October 10th at which time Council also approved a salary increase for commissioners of the Economic Development Authority. Following adoption of this ordinance, the summary will appear and the ordinance will become effective on December 1, 2005. Effective January 1, 2006, annual compensation will be as follows: Mayor $10,985 Councilmembers $7,165 Attachments: Ordinance Ordinance Summary Prepared By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4g - 2nd Reading 2006 Council and Mayor Salaries Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2303-05 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 17, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 4g - 2nd Reading 2006 Council and Mayor Salaries Page 3 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2303-05 AN ORDINANCE SETTING SALARIES FOR THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS that 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. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2006. Adopted by the City Council October 17, 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: November 10, 2005 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 6a - Public Hearing Delinquent Utilities Page 1 6a Public Hearing on the Levying of Assessments for Delinquent Fees and Charges This action adds to the responsible party’s 2006 property taxes any delinquent City utility charges and other fees. Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to adopt resolution to assess delinquent water, sewer, refuse and other fees and charges. Background: The City Council is authorized to direct the assessment of delinquent utility accounts, nuisance abatements, false alarm fees, tree removal/injection and other miscellaneous charges after holding a public hearing. Accounts remaining delinquent and unpaid at the close of business on November 18, 2005 will be sent to the County for inclusion with next year’s property tax bill. This process follows the same schedule each fall and is developed from the County’s deadline for filing certified totals near the end of November. The Process Prior to the Hearing: In advance of the public hearing date, individual letters are mailed to property owners advising them of the assessment and their right to be heard before Council. This year 1,407 letters were sent to property owners, which is approximately the same amount of letters that were sent last year. Balances past due as of September 23rd are considered delinquent. Individuals have until Friday, November 18th to pay the outstanding amount or contact the City to make payment arrangements. The deadline to submit a request for a Public Hearing appearance was Wednesday, October 12th. The City has not received any requests for a Public Hearing appearance. The majority of property owners pay their assessment prior to the deadline, or allow the amount to be certified to their property tax bill. There are several hundred property owners who do contact the City with questions about their outstanding balance, the certification process and/or payment arrangements. Analysis: The following table reflects an updated view of the delinquent charges as of October 12th, 2005. The amounts shown do not include interest, or the $26.50 per account administrative fee. These numbers will continue to change as payments are received until the payment deadline of November 18th. In December, council will be provided a final analysis of the delinquent charges that were sent to Hennepin County for certification with a comparison to the previous year. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 6a - Public Hearing Delinquent Utilities Page 2 Number of Accts as of 10/12/2005 Outstanding amt as of 10/12/2005 Utility Accounts 983 280,749$ Tree Removal/Injection 133 109,935 Grass/Weed Cutting 17 2,618 False Alarm/Misc.34 3,870 Total 397,172$ Next Steps: Staff will continue to collect payments related to the delinquent accounts and work with residents to resolve issues they may have related to their delinquent accounts. All delinquent accounts outstanding as of November 18th will be certified to the County for collection. After certification, the delinquent amounts will become a lien on the individual properties. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Jodi Bursheim, Assistant Finance Director Reviewed by: Jean McGann, Director of Finance Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 6a - Public Hearing Delinquent Utilities Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 05 ___ LEVYING ASSESSMENT AND REASSESSMENT FOR DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS, TREE REMOVAL/INJECTION, NUISANCE ABATEMENTS, FALSE ALARM FEES AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore determined by ordinance the rates and charges for water, sewer and refuse services of the city and has provided for the abatement of tree removal/injection, grass/weed cutting and other miscellaneous charges to a home or business shall be at the expense of the owners of the premises involved; and WHEREAS, all such sums become delinquent and assessable against the property served under Section 6-158, Section 6-206, Section 9-103, Section 9-110, Section 11-2004 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code and Minnesota Statutes 18.023, 18.271, 443 and 429; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has prepared an assessment roll setting forth an assessment against each tract or parcel of land served by water, sewer and refuse services of the City or charged for the costs of abating grass/weed cutting, tree removal/injection, false alarm fees and other miscellaneous charges which remain unpaid at the close of business on November 18, 2005; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that said assessment roll is hereby adopted and approved, and there is hereby levied and assessed or reassessed against each and every tract of land described therein an assessment in the amounts respectively therein abating grass/weed cutting, tree removal/injection, false alarm fees and other miscellaneous charges which remain unpaid at the close of business on November 18, 2005; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to deliver said assessment or reassessment roll to the Auditor of Hennepin County for collection of the assessment in the same manner as other municipal taxes are collected and payment thereof enforced with interest from the date of this resolution at the rate of five point five seven percent (5.57 %) per annum. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 17, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 6a - Public Hearing Delinquent Utilities Page 4 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Public Hearing Page 1 6b Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing: Alley Paving – 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue This report considers paving the alley in the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue Recommended Action: Mayor to open and close Public Hearing: • Motion to adopt the attached Resolution ordering the construction of a concrete alley in the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue, Project No. 2005-1800, approving plans and specifications and authorizing receipt of bids. Mayor to open and close Assessment Hearing: • Motion to adopt the attached resolution establishing the assessment for Project No. 2005-1800. Background: At its September 19, 2005 meeting, the City Council approved the City Engineer’s Report for construction of a concrete alley in the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue, and scheduled a Public Hearing/Assessment Hearing for October 17, 2005. The City’s assessment policy (Res. #00-078) for funding alley improvements requires abutting property owners to pay 100 % of the improvement costs. A petition for this work, signed by 74% of the benefited property owners, has been submitted to the City. A neighborhood meeting attended by 9 property owners was held September 7, 2005. Staff reviewed the proposed construction, assessment costs and options on a construction schedule. The property owners who attended the meeting favored the construction project with a Spring 2006 construction start date. The purpose of holding the assessment hearing prior to implementation of the project is to allow the City to consider any objections to the assessment or the project before it is built. General background information on the alley project is summarized below: Location: 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue Proposed Project: Paving existing gravel alley with concrete Assessment Data: 100% of the cost for the concrete alley paving is proposed to be assessed to the abutting property owners. The costs will be apportioned in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy with direct and indirect benefits. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Public Hearing Page 2 Estimated Cost: Estimated cost: $69,000 Total Assessment: $69,000 Number of parcels: 21 Assessment Period: 20 years Interest rate: 5.70% Notification: Abutting property owners have received written notice of the public hearing and assessment hearing, including date, time and assessment amount. Alley Improvement Project Timetable: • Public Hearing & Assessment Hearing October 17, 2005 • End of 30 Day Appeal on Assessments November 16, 2005 • Advertise for bids February/March 2006 • Bid Opening February/March 2006 • Bid Tab Report to Council, Council can award the bid and order the project or delay the project if there are any assessment appeals March 2006 • Construction April/May 2006 Total construction time should be 3-4 weeks. Recommendation: Staff recommends proceeding with this project as outlined above and in the earlier City Engineer’s Report dated September 19, 2005. Attachments: Resolution (Order Project & Authorize Advertisement for Bids) Resolution (Adopt Assessment Improvement) Assessment Spread Sheet Map City Engineer’s Report Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Public Hearing Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 05-142 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AND ORDERING AN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE ALLEY IN THE 2900 BLOCK OF OTTAWA AND PRINCETON AVENUE, PROJECT NO. 2005-1800, AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS & AUTHORIZING THE PROJECT LETTING FOR SPRING 2006 WITH CONSTRUCTION TO COMMENCE THEREAFTER WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park on the 19th day of September, 2005, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of a concrete alley in the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue and has presented such plans and specification to the City Council for approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. Such improvement is necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in the City Engineer’s Report. 2. The proposed project is hereby established and ordered. 3. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the direction of the City Engineer, are approved. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official newspaper and at least one week in the Construction Bulletin, an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvement under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time of receipt of bids, and specify the work to be done, state 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 bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. 5. The City Engineer shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly after the scheduled Spring 2006 letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a recommendation to the City Council for award of contract. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 17, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Public Hearing Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 05-____ RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT IMPROVEMENT NO. 2005-1800, ALLEY PAVING IN THE 2900 BLOCK OF OTTAWA AND PRINCETON AVENUE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows: 1. Notice of hearing on this improvement was duly mailed on October 3, 2005 and published in the official City newspaper, the St. Louis Park Sailor, on October 6, 2005 and October 13, 2005 as required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. 2. A public hearing having been held on this date and opportunity having been given at the hearing to all persons to make known their objections to the proposed assessment, and the Council being fully advised of the pertinent facts, the proposed assessment as it deems just is adopted and shall constitute the special assessment levied against the respective lands therein described, and each tract of land is found to be specifically benefited by the improvements in the amount of assessment levied against it. 3. The assessment shall be payable, unless prepaid, in equal annual installments extending over the period of 20 years. The first installment shall be payable concurrently with general taxes levied in the year 2006, and payable in the year 2007, and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.70 percent per annum. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from November 1, 2006, until December 31, 2006, the year in which the assessment will be levied. For subsequent installments, interest shall be added for one year on the total of all unpaid installments. No interest will be charged as to any parcel if the entire assessment is paid at the Office of the Treasurer within 30 days from the date of adoption of the assessment resolution. 4. The location of the construction improvement over which installments are to be extended for a period of 20 years is as follows: Improvement # Type of Improvement Location 2005-1800 Alley Paving 2900 Block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenue 5. The Finance Department shall transmit a certified copy of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 17, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Public Hearing Page 5 Estimated Cost: $69,000 March 2005 Revised Aug. 19,2005 70% Direct Benefit (garage or access) 30% Indirect Benefit (dust, noise, and mud) (A) Direct Benefit: 721 total footage and $66.99 per front foot (B) Indirect Benefit:1074 total footage and $19.27 per front foot. total $69,000.00 direct $48,300.00 indirect $20,700.00 ********* Indirect ************ ******** Direct ********** Total Indirect Direct Direct & Address Ind feet % Indirect Allocation Dir feet % Direct Allocation Indirect 2901 Princeton Ave. S 40 3.72 $771 0 0.00 $0 $771 2905 Princeton Ave. S. 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2909 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2913 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2917 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2921 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2925 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2929 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2933 Princeton Ave S 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2939 Princeton Ave S 86 8.01 $1,658 86 11.93 $5,761 $7,419 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Public Hearing Page 6 ********* Indirect ************ ******** Direct ********** Total Indirect Direct Direct & Address Ind feet % Indirect Allocation Dir feet % Direct Allocation Indirect 2900 Ottawa Ave. S 70 6.52 $1,349 0 0.00 $0 $1,349 2908 Ottawa Ave. S. 45 4.19 $867 45 6.24 $3,015 $3,882 2912 Ottawa Ave. S. 45 4.19 $867 45 6.24 $3,015 $3,882 2916 Ottawa Ave. S. 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2920 Ottawa Ave. S. 40 3.72 $771 0 0.00 $0 $771 2924 Ottawa Ave. S. 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 2928 Ottawa Ave. S. 80 7.45 $1,542 0 0.00 $0 $1,542 2936 Ottawa Ave. S. 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 4800 Minnetonka Blvd 40 3.72 $771 40 5.55 $2,680 $3,451 4806 Minnetonka Blvd 65 6.05 $1,253 65 9.02 $4,354 $5,607 4820 Minnetonka Blvd 123 11.45 $2,371 0 0.00 $0 $2,371 Total 1074 $20,700 721 $48,300 $69,000 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Public Hearing Page 7 Proposed Alley Paving St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Public Hearing Page 8 ****REPORT FROM MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2005**** 4b. City Engineer’s Report: Alley Paving – 2900 block between Ottawa and Princeton Avenues – Motion to adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report, establishes this Improvement Project and sets a Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing date of October 17, 2005. – Project No. 2005-1800. Background: On April 8, 2005, the residents in the 2900 block of Ottawa and Princeton Avenues submitted a petition to the City requesting that the alley adjacent to their properties be paved in accordance with the City’s standard for alleys. The petition was signed by enough property owners (74%) to advance the project. The City’s policy states that at least 51% of the properties must sign the initial petition. The alley is an “L” shaped alley that runs south from W. 29th Street to the rear property line of 4800 Minnetonka, then west to Princeton Avenue. Twenty-one (21) properties abut the alley of which all would be assessed under our policy. City Alley Paving Special Assessment Policy: The City’s Alley Paving Special Assessment Policy is as follows: A. The cost of alley improvements for residential properties shall be assessed when at least 51 percent (alley front feet) of the property owners petition for the improvement: 1. Thirty (30) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against all properties abutting the alley. (INDIRECT BENEFIT) 2. Seventy (70) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against directly benefited properties as defined in paragraph 5(B). (DIRECT BENEFIT) B. A property is directly benefited if it has an existing garage with direct access to the alley, if an access to the alley could be constructed from an existing garage, or if no garage exists, there is sufficient area on the lot to build a garage with access to the alley. C. Commercial and multi-family property owners shall be assessed 100 percent of the cost of the improvement. D. Alleys shall be constructed of concrete and shall be assessed for a period of 20 years. Analysis: The City’s standard design for alley paving specifies a six (6)-inch thick concrete pavement, 10 feet in width, with driveway apron connections between the paved alley and abutting paved driveways. In accordance with City practice, the driveway connections will match existing materials and grades. Pavement grades will be established to provide positive drainage without requiring additional storm sewer construction, whenever possible. Staff has recently completed plans and a detailed estimate of the proposed alley. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Public Hearing Page 9 Public Involvement Process: Staff held an informational meeting for area residents on September 7, 2005 to inform residents of the assessment process and to review the preliminary plans. Nine (9) residents attended the meeting representing seven (7) properties. Staff provided an overview of the project and answered the resident’s questions. At the meeting staff posed a question about construction timing and what schedule might be favored. Two schedules were presented, a fast track schedule for construction yet this Fall and a Spring 2006 schedule. Staff explained that with fast track schedule, bid prices may be higher because of the limited time left in this year’s construction season. Upon discussing the pros and cons of each schedule, all of the residents attending the meeting agreed that construction in Spring 2006 would be best. Staff plans to provide a follow-up letter to the all of the abutting residents of the proposed alley project. The letter will included a review of the information provided at the neighborhood meeting along with an estimated assessment for each for the abutting parcels. The letter will also offer those residents unable to attend the meeting an opportunity to contact staff with any questions or arrange a meeting to view the plans at City Hall. Once the project is awarded, staff will schedule another meeting with the affected property owners to discuss the construction schedule. Financial Considerations: The City’s Policy for funding alley improvements requires the abutting property owners to pay 100% of the improvement costs. The Policy also provides for the assessments to be levied as direct and indirect benefits based upon abutting frontage. To assist the petition sponsor, City staff provides the petition forms and a rough estimate of the alley construction cost before the sponsor begins to gather signatures. Our initial rough estimate which considers only concrete paving with a limited amount of grading work was $48,530. Now that preliminary plans are complete, staff has prepared a detailed estimate that puts the cost at $69,000. The increased cost is a result of additional grading work which is required to provide positive drainage throughout the length of the alley. An estimate of the assessment amount for each property is attached. A summary of the estimated costs and revenue sources is as follows: Estimated Costs: Construction Costs $50,350 Engineering & Administrative (12%) $ 6,050 Contingencies $12,600 TOTAL $69,000 Revenue Sources: Special Assessments $69,000 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 6b - 2900 Ottawa-Princeton Alley Public Hearing Page 10 Alley Improvement Project Timetable: Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated that the following schedule could be met: • City Engineer’s Report to City Council September 19, 2005 • City Council holds Public Hearing & Assessment Hearing October 17, 2005 • End of 30 Day Appeal on Assessments November 16, 2005 • Advertise for bids February 2006 • Bid Opening February/March 2006 • Bid Tab Report to Council March 2006 • Preconstruction meeting with residents Spring 2006 • Construction Spring 2006 Feasibility: The project, as proposed herein, is cost-effective and feasible under the conditions noted and at the costs estimated. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 1 1 8a Consideration of the use of excess public land to address the need for “move up” homes for families Recommended Action: Mayor to open and close forum for public comments. No other action is recommended. PURPOSE The purpose of this agenda item is two fold. One purpose is to present the findings, conclusions and recommendations from the ten month evaluation of excess public land for possible use as new family home sites; and, the second is to provide the public the opportunity to speak directly to the City Council with any comments, concerns or questions that they have regarding the sale of any or all the excess land parcels. The City Council is not being asked to make any decisions at this meeting. The purpose is to provide technical information, background information, recommendations from the Excess Land Task Force and comments from the community. The goal is to set the stage for City Council discussion of this topic at the November 14th Council Study Session and City Council action at the December 5th regular City Council meeting. The spacing between these meetings will provide time for staff to do any additional analysis or research requested by the City Council and also time for residents to submit additional comments as follow-up this meeting. SUMMARY Need for Larger Family Homes The City’s survey of St. Louis Park residents selling their homes showed that in a typical year many families leave SLP and move into larger homes. Their family has grown and their existing home is no-longer adequate. When these growing families leave SLP to meet their needs, it can be a loss to the city and our school district as well as a painful dislocation for the family. Families with kids are the life blood for our schools. Without the vibrancy of kids and families our schools decline and the community is lessened. Community Vision SLP’s vision is, “A community of choice for a lifetime”. That means having housing for families or persons at each stage of their lives. To make that vision reality we need to do a variety of things including increasing the opportunities for move up family housing. And we are. Earlier this year the City Council initiated 5 special programs to encourage families to remodel and expand their existing homes to meet the needs of their growing families. But not everyone has a home suitable for expansion and many families move instead. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 2 2 A Housing Opportunity Today, SLP has a very rare opportunity for a fully developed community. SLP has an opportunity to create as many as 17 new single family home sites. Approximately six acres of vacant land public land has been identified that is not needed for public purposes, and can be developed as new single family home sites. Some of these sites have been identified as “excess public land” for more than a decade, but have remained in public ownership out of inertia and lack of initiative on the City’s part. Others are surplus parcels identified more recently. In many cases these parcels are tax-forfeited land. Sale of these parcels provides an opportunity to increase the number of move-up family homes in SLP. Admittedly, the number of new home sites that can be created from excess public land is small; but, adding 17 new homes is not a trivial increase either. It is a very real addition to the supply of single family homes in SLP. Excess Land Task Force In pursuit of the goal of increasing the availability of family housing the City Council created the Excess Land Task Force in January of this year. The goal itself came from the two year Housing Summit process that reviewed the City’s housing priorities. It identified the need for more “move-up” housing (3+ bedrooms and 2+ bathrooms) as a high priority. This need was also identified during the City’s Visioning process in the 1990’s. The Excess Land Task Force was given 19 (25 acres) parcels to evaluate for family home sites. Seven of these parcels (13 acres) are owned out right by the City. Three of the parcels (1 ½ acres) were public parking lots. Six of the parcels (4 ½ acres) are tax forfeited parcels the city controls; and, three more of the parcels (3 1/2 acres) are excess MNDOT rights of way, which the City can acquire for sale. The Task Force set criteria to evaluate the sites, visited all the sites and held a public meeting to seek input from the community. They recommended that the City Council sell most of the sites but that additional info gathering and analysis was needed before a final decision was made to sell parcels for move up family homes. Many important issues were raised by the community at the Task Force’s public meeting and the Task Force felt it was important to address those issues before a final decision to sell any property was made. Technical Analysis of Parcels The City Council accepted the Task Force recommendation and directed staff to do the necessary work to address the issues raised by the community. Over the past summer surveys, title work, wetland delineations, soil tests and reviews of the history of parcels were completed. In the end 9 parcels (6 acres) were identified as suitable single family sites and 2 parcels (2 acres) were identified as suitable for town homes or condo development. Seventeen homes could be accommodated on the nine potential single-family home move-up housing sites. The results of the summer’s analysis was shared with the community on the City’s website and at an open meeting held September 20th. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 3 3 Change in City Open Space Sale of 17 (6 acres) move-up family home sites would result in a decrease in the total public land in the City, even if it is a very small decrease. If the home sites are sold the City would see a reduction in the total open space and park land of less than 1%. A decrease from 820 acres to 814 acres. It is important to note that the City is continually evaluating its open space needs and making adjustments and improvements to its parks and open space system. The same studies that identified excess public land in 1995-96 also identified parkland needs. It recommended several land acquisitions and park improvements. In the decade since the park/open space study in 1995-6 was completed, the City has added or otherwise made available 55 acres of park land and made numerous improvements to existing parks. Community Wide Perspective The City seeks to provide a park and open space system for the benefit of all its residents and continually adjusts its park system to maximize the benefits to the whole community through the use of the community’s resources and assets. The parcels that are being proposed for sale are in many cases valued assets in the neighborhoods and sub-neighborhoods in which they are located. It is understandable that the effected neighbors deeply value these parcels and do not relish the prospect of the sale of parcels near them. It could also be stated that the parcels proposed for sale are of limited benefit to the community as a whole and they are owned by the whole community, not individual neighborhoods. To not at least consider the sale and reuse of the assets from these parcels for the benefit of the larger community would be irresponsible. Sale of the excess land parcels for new family homes redirects public resources to address an important community need, the need for more move-up housing opportunities. Sale of excess land provides an opportunity for 17 SLP families to grow and stay in SLP. Staff and the Excess Land Task Force, after careful consideration, detailed analysis and extensive public input, recommend that the attached list of public lands be sold for move up single-family homes. BACKGROUND Public Use of Land for Parks and Open Space In 1995 the City appointed a Parks and Open Space Task Force to study parks and opens space issues related to development. The focus of the task force was to determine the community or neighborhood need for public use, as park or open space, for all of the vacant parcels in the city. The task force’s process for evaluating properties was driven in large part, by community issues and ideas addressed in Vision St. Louis Park. The task force set up “value statements” to establish important factors which should be consider in evaluating public and private parcels. The group then developed a set of ten questions which were asked about each parcel, with the emphasis on measuring the impact on the community and its neighborhoods St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 4 4 The 1995 Task Force completed a comprehensive inventory of all 397 parcels of public and private park land, open space and property vacant of buildings. They conducted a community based assessment of perceived needs for park facilities and open spaces and analyzed the concentration, density and dispersion of parks in the city and its neighborhoods. They evaluated each parcel for potential park development or open space and finally estimated the potential impact of community and its neighborhoods of expanding or reducing the amount of park and open spaces. Recommendations of the 1995 Park and Open Space Task Force The Task Force concluded that a large majority of the parcels (340) should be kept in public ownership and preserved for future public use, and private parcels would be left in private ownership. They identified private parcels with a clear community or neighborhood need for public use and recommended they be acquired. They identified parcels, and portions of parcels, where there was not a clear community or neighborhood need for public use and recommended that publicly owned parcels be put on market for sale. Outcome of Park and Open Space Task Force: Acquisition of Park and Open Spaces The map on the next page shows that since the 1990’s the City followed many of the recommendations to expand park and open space and acquired or otherwise put into place almost 55 acres for parks and open spaces. The most notable park and open spaces that have been added to the city and neighborhoods are: • Blackstone Neighborhood Park • Louisiana Oaks Park Addition (over 20 acres) • Town Green at Excelsior & Grand • Knollwood Green Park • Hutchinson Spur Trail • Lamplighter Lake was expanded with a walking trail installed around it. • The trail on the LRT corridor has been built. Outcome of Park and Open Space Task Force: Adoption of Policy for the Disposition of Use of Public Land The recommendation of the 1995 Task Force to sell parcels resulted in the adoption in 1997 of a policy for the disposition or use of public land by private parties. It provided a process by which a private party could seek use or purchase of public land from the City. We are not aware that any land has been sold using this process. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 5 5 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 6 6 Loss of Families in St. Louis Park and Housing Vision St. Louis Park In 1994 the Housing Task Force of Vision SLP identified the need for large family homes, “move-up” housing as one of the primary needs of the community. The recommendation was to encourage expansion of existing homes and to use suitable vacant properties for move-up housing. Housing Summit 2003-05 In 2003, City policy makers embarked on a two year Housing Summit to study our residents’ needs and housing needs. This summit included: a thorough exploration of city and regional demographic and housing trends; a city wide housing survey; a move –out survey for homeowners leaving the city; and almost a dozen residential focus groups. Issues explored during the summit found that • Families migrated to St. Louis Park following the housing boom of the late 40’s and 50’s during which 85% of all our homes were built. By 1960; almost half the residents in St. Louis Park were under 19 years of age. Today only 20% of our residents are under 19 years of age. • In 1960 there were 3.5 persons per home, today there are just over 2 persons per household. • Families of the 1950’s and 60’s managed to live in our small cape cods and ramblers. Today’s families seek more living space. • Families with children are moving from the city; in 2004, 70% of the families with children that moved from the city, moved to larger homes. One of the primary housing goals that emerged from the 2003-05 Housing Summit is: “The city acknowledges that there is demand for different types and sizes of housing units, but due to limitation of available space and other resources, all demands cannot be fully satisfied. At the present time, the greatest deficit and need is for the creation and maintenance of detached, owner-occupied single family housing which is large enough to accommodate families. City housing efforts and resources should primarily address this need.” Housing Programs • A proactive Move up in the Park set of remodeling incentives including a remodeling tour, remodeling fair, technical and design assistance and financial assistance has been implemented. • Through the Home Renewal Program the city has purchased blighted homes and replaced them with family sized homes. • The new Brookside development was encouraged to include 5 single family homes in the redevelopment of the old Brookside school site. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 7 7 2005 Excess Land Task Force Background The review of publicly owned excess land began in January 2005 with the Council’s approval of a citizen task force composed of four neighborhood representatives, one from each ward, Planning, Park & Rec and Housing Authority Commissioners and a real estate agent. • Between January and April the task force met to make preliminary recommendations regarding the use of the 19 parcels for single family homes. The criteria the Task Force implemented for evaluation of each parcel’s suitability for building homes is attached. • A public meeting/open house on April 12, 2005 attended by almost 200 residents/interested parties provided an opportunity to review the task force findings and provide feedback. • On May 3, 2005 the Council toured the parcels and on May 16, 2005, based on the Task Force recommendations, directed staff to complete technical analysis and research, meet with neighborhoods as appropriate and take actions needed to further evaluate the potential to use the excess land parcels for housing. • During the summer, fieldwork, title research and historical research was conducted on specific parcels. Six neighborhood meetings were held to solicit input from residents. • A public meeting/open house on September 19, 2005 attended by 80 residents provided an opportunity to review the technical findings and conclusions and provide feedback. Residents’ Comments Attached to this report is a documentation of all input staff has received from residents regarding the issue. The comments include a summary of 254 individuals’ comments, notes from 2 open houses and 6 neighborhood meetings. Findings Attached to this report is detailed information for each parcel. The table below summarizes the number of homes that could be developed based on the technical analysis and Task Force recommendations. • Nine parcels appear to be developable as single family home sites. Together they could accommodate 17 large single family homes. • Two parcels are suitable for townhomes and/or condos. As many as 16 housing units could be accommodated on these sites. • Three parcels are public parking lots and have been recommended by the Excess Land Task Force to remain as parking lots. • Two parcels are not available for development at this time. • Three parcels appear, based on technical analysis, to be unsuitable for development. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 8 8 Table. Potential Development of Excess Land Parcels Parcel No. Address Potential Single Family Homes No. Owner Occupied Multi Housing Units No. of Future SF Homes Developable as Single Family Homes 2 2715 Monterey Ave S 1 3 2600 Natchez Ave S 2 6 2005 Louisiana Ave S 1 10 9019 Cedar Lake Road 4 12 2601 Pennsylvania Ave S 4 16 7701 Edgebrook Ave S 1 17 5609 Wood Lane 1 18 4525 Morningside Ave S 1 19 4200 Natchez 2 Developable as Townhouses/Condos 7 13th Lane West 5 8 Texas Ave and Frontage Road 11 Retain as Parking Lots 1 2814 Inglewood (Parking Lot) 14 6534 Walker (Parking Lot) 15 3301 Gorham (Parking Lot) Future Potential Development 4 Cedar Lake Road and Hwy 100 5 20 Belt Line Blvd Unsuitable for Development 5 2015 Louisiana Ave S 0 11 9258 Club Road 0 9 1608 Utah Ave S 0 Total 17 16 5 NEXT STEPS • At the November 14, 2005 Study Session, the Council will discuss this issue further • At the December 5, 2005 Council meeting the Council is scheduled to provide specific direction on the parcels which should be sold . ATTACHMENTS Findings and Task Force Recommendations of Excess Land Parcels Public Comments Excess Land Process Task Force Evaluation Criteria Proposed Sale Guidelines Proposed Design Guidelines Prepared By: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director, Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 9 9 FINDINGS AND TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS #1 2914 Inglewood Avenue South Zoning Parcel Size Estimated Market Value R1 10,920 sq. ft. $164,000 Conclusion of Technical Analysis This parcel is deemed unsuitable for a single family house and should be retained as parking lot. Ongoing discussions between the owner of the adjacent building and the city regarding possible redevelopment are underway. The City will ensure that redevelopment of the building provides adequate parking and that parking is available for adjacent synagogue. Task Force Recommendation Consensus that parcel should be used as parking lot and city should sell or lease lot. Summary of Public Input There were very few comments regarding this parcel. Representatives from the adjacent synagogue and businesses expressed concern that parking remains available at existing lot. One resident has requested this lot still be available for use by residents to relieve on street parking in neighborhood. Two developers indicated interest to do a mixed use redevelopment of the site. Residents at the Fern Hill neighborhood meeting did not discuss this lot. Findings • Physical Considerations. Parking lot requires repair. • Title. City currently holds deed, so the sale or lease will not be complicated. • Other Discussions with possible buyer of Treasure Island, synagogue and a possible party interested in redeveloping Treasure Island and the adjacent building have occurred and will continue. The synagogue and neighboring businesses require parking space. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 10 10 #2 2715 Monterey Avenue South Zoning Parcel Size Estimated Market Value R1 10,920 sq. ft. $164,000 Conclusion of Technical Analysis This parcel is deemed suitable for building a large single family home. Task Force Recommendation Consensus that this parcel to be sold for development of single family home pending determination of suitability for building. Summary of Public Input There was little discussion at the public meeting about this parcel and strong support for selling. Well over 2 dozen individuals have expressed interest in purchasing. There was little discussion of this parcel at the Fern Hill neighborhood meeting, and one attendee was interested in purchasing this lot. Findings • Physical Considerations Lot is suitable for building a single family home as evidenced by surrounding development. Drainage and soil conditions confirm suitability for building. A survey to confirm boundary lines will be conducted if determination made to sell this parcel. • Title Tax forfeited property would require purchase by the City through Hennepin County. • Other City should require easement for utilities and amend Comp Plan. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 11 11 #3 2600 Natchez Avenue South Zoning Parcel Size Estimated Market Value R1 22,000 sq. ft. $100,000/per lot Conclusion of Technical Analysis The NE upland portion of parcel is deemed suitable for building up to two large single family homes based on the topographical survey, wetland delineation study and soil analysis and lot requirements. Task Force Recommendation A small upland portion (NE corner) of this parcel would be a good home site, unless the site proves to be unsuitable for building a home. Summary of Public Input There is opposition to selling a portion of this parcel based on: selling wetlands and open space; impact on wildlife; loss of trees; and concern regarding buried construction debris. All except 2 residents at the Fern Hill neighborhood meeting were opposed to building on this site. There is support to sell a portion of this parcel as it is thought to be a good home site, and over 12 individuals expressed interest in purchasing a portion of this parcel. Findings • Physical Considerations. A topographical survey, wetland delineation study and soil analysis were conducted on this property. Copies of the survey showing the buildable area siting one and two homes are attached. It is believed that building on a small portion of this parcel could result in 1-2 homes and protect the wetland and ensure a habitat for wildlife. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 12 12 The buildable area above the 100 year flood elevation is 24,696 sq feet. The total parcel area is 186,401 sq ft (4.28 acres). The buildable area is outside the wetland. Zoning requirements would allow two homes to be sited on the NE upland portion of the parcel. The dominant vegetation of the upland plot includes boxelder, an unknown grass, silver maples, eastern cottonwood, common buckthorn and black willow, there are a few oaks on the NE corner. Tree loss would occur with building. Soil analysis indicates home could be built; excavation and clean fill would be required. The impact on wildlife during construction and with additional 1-2 homes is anticipated to be neutral, as only a small upland portion would be developed. The wildlife access to the wetland will still exist on the east, south and Princeton Ave side; the wetland habitat will still be large enough to sustain wildlife populations. There would be a temporary displacement of wildlife during the construction process itself, but with the size of existing wetland there is room for wildlife to move during construction. • Title City to work with County (tax forfeit) to purchase only the NE upland portion, with the remainder of the parcel to remain in public ownership. • Other A plat and subdivision and amendment to the Comp Plan would be required. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 13 13 #4 Cedar Lake Road & Highway 100 Zoning Parcel Size Estimated Market Value R2 Approx. 67,300 sq. ft. $68,000/per lot Conclusions of Technical Analysis This parcel is deemed suitable for building single family homes. However MNDOT does not plan to convey title to City now or in the near future. Task Force Recommendation General consensus that city should continue to attempt to purchase parcel from MNDOT and explore how parcel could be subdivided and sold to multiple bidders for construction of up to five homes (if lot allows) rather than sell whole parcel to one developer. This parcel would be a good home site for up to 5 homes. Summary of Public Input Comments were related to ensuring that any single family homes be a “little nicer” than surrounding homes and that there was one very vocal angry neighbor. The comments seemed to be evenly split between selling and retaining vacant lot. Findings • Physical Considerations Due to the existence of previous homes on this site and neighboring homes this site is deemed to be suitable for building. • Title City unable to purchase from MNDOT. • Other Track MNDOT’s long range plans for this parcel and proceed with conveyance if/when possible. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 14 14 #5 2015 Louisiana Avenue South Zoning Parcel Size Estimated Market Value R2 10,720 sq. ft. $64,000 Conclusions of Technical Analysis This parcel is deemed unsuitable for building a single family home based on findings from the topographical survey and drainage study of this parcel and the surrounding area. See survey. Task Force Recommendation Consensuses that drainage issues be further explored and sell lot if drainage allows building of single family home. Also consider selling the 2015 Louisiana Ave parcel to adjacent neighbor. Summary of Public Input There were very few comments (3) regarding this parcel and all expressed concern regarding drainage issues for this lot and impact on surrounding properties if a home were to be built. Findings • Physical Considerations A topographical survey, wetland delineation study and soil analysis were conducted on this property. This parcel is on the easterly edge of the Lamplighter Pond watershed area. This parcel contains no wetlands. The topographical survey of this parcel and surrounding area indicates that drainage for the surrounding lots and streets feed to this parcel. Building on this parcel would require a drainage pipe to ensure adequate drainage to the storm sewer. However the storm sewer on Louisiana Ave is a shallow storm sewer, and the elevation difference is inadequate for drainage. The soils were found to be poorly graded sand with silt, silty sand, clayey sand and peat, though soil correction possible. • Title. Tax forfeited property would require purchase by city through Hennepin County. • Other. Work with abutting owners to sell parcel to minimize City’s maintenance costs. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 15 15 #6 2005 Louisiana Avenue South Zoning Parcel Size Estimated Market Value R2 10,720 sq. ft. $64,000 Proposed Recommendation This parcel is deemed to be suitable for building a large single family home based on topographical survey, wetland delineation and drainage study. Task Force Recommendation Consensuses that drainage issues be further explored and sell lot if drainage allows building of single family home. Summary of Public Input There were very few comments (2) regarding this parcel and both expressed concern regarding drainage issues. Findings • Physical Considerations A topographical survey, wetland delineation study, soil analysis and drainage analysis was conducted on this site. The buildable area is 11,105 square feet, this meets lot size requirements. This parcel does not contain a wetland. This parcel is also on the easterly edge of the Lamplighter Pond watershed area. The topographical survey and drainage study of this parcel and surrounding area indicates this lot is at a slightly higher elevation than adjacent lots, and consequently the drainage patterns will not adversely impact building on this site, nor adversely impact neighbors. The soil borings and analysis indicate that excavation of soil would be required and that it be replaced with clean fill and with soil corrections a home with basement could be built. • Title. Tax forfeit property would require purchase by the City through Hennepin County. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 16 16 #7 13th Lane West Zoning Parcel Size Estimated Market Value R3 38,500 sq. ft. $525,000 Conclusions of Technical Analysis This parcel is a deemed suitable for building. However, due to the location on the frontage road, it is not ideal for detached single family homes. It could be developed as mixed-use housing and retail and/or office. Based on the task force recommendation for use, the sale process of this parcel might be better suited as a “request for development proposal” process that incorporates housing and other uses rather than single family homes. Task Force Recommendation Consensus that City should pursue selling this parcel and that design guidelines be appropriate to invite mixed use or work loft development. Summary of Public Input The majority of comments were related to what and how this lot could be developed and that single family housing did not seem appropriate. Two developers expressed interest in this parcel. Residents directly to the south expressed concern about the appearance of buildings they would be facing, and would prefer not to be fronting backyards. One resident expressed concern that mixed use might not fit with single family neighborhood. Findings • Physical Considerations. This site is deemed suitable for building. • Title. MNDOT has verbally agreed to convey title to the city. • Other Work with MNDOT to secure title, conduct survey, amend comp plan, plat and consider rezoning parcel. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 17 17 #8 Texas and I-394 Frontage Rd Zoning Parcel Size Estimated Market Value R1 50,400 sq. ft. Too be determined Conclusions of Technical Analysis This parcel is deemed suitable for building. Due to its location and surrounding uses it would be better suited to low density owner-occupied multi-housing units than single family homes. As a multi housing site, eleven units could be built, and as a single family home site, four large family homes could be built. See surveys. Task Force Recommendation Consensus that City should pursue selling this parcel and that design guidelines be appropriate to low density multi-housing (8-10 units). Summary of Public Input The majority of comments were related to what and how this lot could be developed and that single family housing did not seem appropriate. One resident expressed concern that building on this space would impact habitat greenway with the Nature Center and nature of the neighborhood. There were also concerns regarding increase in traffic due to addition of housing. Findings • Physical Considerations A topographical survey was conducted. This parcel contains no wetlands. The parcel is 57,028 sq. feet and has significant grade differences. Up to eleven units could be constructed on the parcel along with a storm water pond, or four single family homes. • Title. MNDOT has verbally agreed to convey title to the city. • Other. Easement for Public Works pump station, amend comp plan, plat and rezone parcel. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 18 18 #9 1608 Utah Ave South Zoning Parcel Size Estimated Market Value R1 16,200 sq. ft. $150,000 Conclusions of Technical Analysis This parcel is deemed unsuitable for building a large single family home based on findings of from the topographical survey and city lot size requirements. Due to its size and irregular shape, the largest home that could be built without variances would have a footprint of 30’ by 25’, or 750 square feet. Task Force Recommendation The Task Force suggested that wetland issues, lot size and park issues be more fully addressed before moving forward with the sale of this parcel. A portion of this parcel could be set aside for passive recreational use and an easement, and the remaining portion for a home site. Summary of Public Input Numerous comments opposing the selling of this lot and requesting that it be retained as passive recreation area were made. The Westwood Hills Neighborhood Association submitted a survey of residents strongly favoring passive use of this parcel. A neighborhood meeting was conducted and those attending opposed the development of this parcel based on wetland and wildlife concerns, impact of construction on the pond, lack of a nearby park area is met by the vacant lot, and concerns about fitting a home on this narrow lot. There is strong interest from developers and individuals in purchasing this lot. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 19 19 Findings • Physical Considerations A topographical survey, wetland delineation study and flooding analysis were conducted on this site. The dominant upland vegetation includes American elm, and turf grass. The upland portion of the plot is disturbed during the growing season by mowing. The impact of one more home on the Utah Pond would likely have minimal impact on birds and other wildlife. The total parcel size above the 100 year flood elevation 15,271 sq. feet. The buildable area would meet zoning requirements for lot size. However the irregular lot shape would only allow a home size of 30’by 25’ to be built. This is considered too small for a large single family home. • Other The city should maintain pond access for storm water purposes and possible use for passive recreation. Abutting owners could be contacted to purchase portions of this parcel to minimize city maintenance and liability, while retaining a portion of passive recreation use and storm water pond access. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 20 20 #10 9019 Cedar Lake Road Zoning Parcel Size Estimated Market Value R1 Portion of 14.37 acre $100,000/lot Conclusions of Technical Findings This parcel is deemed suitable for building housing based on the findings from the topographical survey and wetland delineation study. See survey. This multi-lot parcel (up to four single family homes) has significant grade challenges. Due to the steep grades and proximity to the lake and wetland, it is suggested that “requests for development proposals” of the full parcel be let to developers and residents with demonstrated capacity to develop such a parcel. Task Force Recommendation General consensus that further exploration of slope and wetland issues be completed before pursuing subdividing the upland portion for development of up to 2 single family homes. Summary of Public Input There was little comment regarding this parcel. Some residents have expressed concern that their view of Hannnon Lake would be obstructed. One resident expressed interest in building a vineyard on this site. Other residents around Hannon Lake were very curious as they believed another development on the South side of Hannon Lake was being proposed. Findings • Physical Considerations A topographical survey and wetland delineation study was conducted on this parcel. The survey does show significant grade changes within this parcel. The upland vegetation inlcudes American elms, willows, unknown grasses, reed canary grass and green ash. The buildable area above the 100 year flood plan is 50,620 sq. feet and four single family homes could be sited on the parcel. • Title. The City holds the warranty deed. • Other. A subdivision and comp plan amendment would be required. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 21 21 #11 Vacant land NW of Cedar Manor school along Highway 169 (9258 Club Rd) Zoning Parcel Size Estimated Market Value R1 5.58 acres $80,000 - 100,000/lot Conclusions of Technical Analysis The complexity of building on this parcel is significant and is complicated by the fact that this is the only excess land parcel being considered that was obtained by the City specifically as an extension of a park - the Cedar Manor Park. The City entered into a partnership with the School District in 1993, and passed a resolution (6-0) extending Cedar Manor Park to include this parcel. However, the Park and Recreation Department has since concluded this land is not appropriate or needed for parkland. The city should initiate planning efforts with the neighborhood to decide the future of this parcel. The significant physical challenges to development are related to the wetland located on the parcel and difficulty with road access. Task Force Recommendation The Task Force was divided on their recommendation on this parcel, there was not consensus to sell or not sell. They recommended that historical issues raised by residents be further explored along with gathering information related to wetland issues and access. It was also suggested it might be reasonable to build only one home on this parcel and avoid the wetland and access issues. Summary of Public Input There is strong opposition regarding development of the 9258 Club Road parcel. The concerns raised were related to the City’s change of purpose, loss of open space, loss of vegetation, wetland impact concerns and the difficulty of road access to this parcel. A neighborhood resident provided a lengthy letter outlining the issues that were addressed that led to the city purchasing this parcel in 1993. The developer who had previously attempted to develop this St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 22 22 parcel commented that if the city proceeds with the sale and development he will take action against the city. There has been very little interest expressed for purchasing this parcel. Findings • Physical Considerations The development files from 1992 and 1993 were reviewed and indicate that building on this site does present significant challenges, due to the DNR regulated wetland located on the parcel and required space for road access. A determination regarding the ability of the developer to meet wetland regulations was highly controversial and never resolved. The wetland is located on the northern portion of the parcel and prevents road access to the southern portion of the parcel. In 1992 the City Fire Marshall had tentatively approved a substandard road width of 50’ wide to accommodate the wetland regulations. It was determined that a road meeting city requirements and the wetland requirements was not feasible, though this was not fully resolved. MNDOT’s role in allowing access from Highway 169 was confusing and at the time also under legal review. Finally, there is no utility access nor sanitary and storm sewers. • Historical In 1992 a development proposal for single family homes was made by Rick Bateson. Mr. Bateson submitted a Conditional Use Permit application that was legally challenged. While neighborhood opposition to development was intense, the controversy was grounded in disputes about the physical data required by the permits to and from the DNR, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and MNDOT. The only component that was not challenged was the Phase I Environmental Assessment which indicated there was little chance for on site contamination In 1993, the resolution of the pending legal challenges to the city and developer, the inablitiy to meet wetland regulations, and complications with MNDOT regarding access was reached. The owner represented by the developer agreed to sell the land to the City. At this point the City and School District purchased the land from the original owner. The City passed a resolution stating that the public purpose of purchasing this parcel was to extend the Cedar Manor Park. • Title City holds the warranty deed. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 23 23 #12 Wooded area on the W side of Cedar Knoll Park (2601 Pennsylvania Av. S.) Zoning Parcel Size Estimated Market Value R1 2.65 acres Approx. $400,000 for up to 5 lots Conclusions of Technical Analysis This parcel is deemed suitable for building up to four single family homes. The findings from the topographical survey and wetland delineation study indicate significant challenges to building on this multi-lot parcel. The coordination of wetland mitigation, extending a road, providing utility access and soils corrections would best be met by a developer. Staff would suggest that due to the unique complexities of this site, a “request for proposal” be let to determine the marketability of homes. By requesting development proposals, market forces will test whether the high cost of construction exceeds the potential sale values. This parcel was considered by the off leash dog park task force and is considered a possible option for a future dog park. Task Force Recommendation Strong consensuses that drainage and access issues be further explored and sell lots for single family homes. Summary of Public Input At the 1st public meeting no objections were raised regarding use of this parcel for homes, but one women expressed strong objection to the proposed dog park for the site. Another resident thought a dog park would be preferable to housing. Most of the comments were from a development stand point asking "how are you going to get a road in there?" At the North Side neighborhood meeting attended by 23 residents, the consensus was that homes should not be built on this parcel. Concerns were related to retaining open space, saving trees and wildlife and the recreational use of the space. There was strong concern that the wooded area blocks both the sound and the view of the railroad, and removal of the wooded area was not desired. Residents requested that if the parcel were to be sold, sound and visual barriers be built, and that the road St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 24 24 access not be located behind the exiting homes. Two residents have submitted strong comments of opposition and two residents have commented that the city should sell to add homes and improve the city. Findings • Physical Considerations A topographical survey and wetland delineation study were conducted. The buildable area is 99,479 sq feet, and up to four homes could be sited within this parcel, meeting wetland and zoning requirements. The wetland does not include DNR protected waters and wetlands and the upland and wetland dominant vegetation is common buckthorn and boxelder trees. The wetland study shows the wetland is located in approximately in the center of the parcel and extends onto the current road easement, thereby complicating the extension of the current roadway. This parcel would be difficult to simply subdivide and sell lots. Access to utilities, sanitary sewer and water does not exist. Road access does not exist. The proximity to railroad tracks may impact potential sale price of homes. Finally, soil corrections would be required and homes would need to be built on pilings. The coordination of wetland mitigation, building a road and providing utility access would best be met by a developer. • Title Tax forfeited property would require purchase by the City through Hennepin County A plat and subdivision would be required. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 25 25 #14 6534 Walker Street Zoning Parcel Size Estimated Market Value C2 9,370 sq. ft. $150,000 Conclusions of Technical Analysis This parcel is deemed unsuitable for building a single family house and should be retained as a parking lot for needed parking. Task Force Recommendation Consensus that the parking lot be retained as a parking lot and the City should sell or lease the lot to adjacent business owners. Summary of Public Input There were very few comments related to the parking lot and the consensus was the parking lot should remain as a parking lot. Though there were a few inquiries about using the parcel to build a new commercial building. Findings • Physical Considerations The parking lot will be in need of improvements and Public Works has completed a scope of improvements for the parking lot. • Title City holds deed • Other Discussions regarding lease and/or purchase issues are ongoing with adjacent business owners. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 26 26 #15 3301 Gorham Avenue Zoning Parcel Size Estimated Market Value C2 43,170 sq. ft. $350,000 Conclusions of Technical Analysis This parcel is deemed unsuitable for building a single family house and should be retained as a parking lot for needed parking. Task Force Recommendation Consensus that the parking lot be retained as a parking lot and the City should sell or lease the lot to adjacent business owners. Summary of Public Input There were very few comments related to the parking lot and the consensus was the parking lot should remain as parking lot. Findings • Physical Considerations The parking lot will be in need of improvements and Public Works has completed a scope of improvements for the parking lot. • Title City holds deed • Other Discussions regarding lease and/or purchase are ongoing with adjacent business owners. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 27 27 #16 7701 Edgebook Drive Zoning Parcel Size Estimated Market Value R2 13,650 sq. ft. $80,000 – 100,000/lot Conclusions of Technical Analysis This parcel is deemed suitable for building one single family home based on the findings from the topographical survey and soil analysis. See survey. Task Force Recommendation Consensus that parcel should be sold for single family home if soil investigations determine building is feasible. Summary of Public Input The primary concern related to this parcel was that the lot contained construction fill, which was believed to placed by the City in the 1950s. There has been no opposition to developing this parcel and minimal interest in purchasing the parcel. Findings • Physical Considerations The total parcel size is 13,125 sq. feet, which allows citing of one home on the parcel. The grade differences from the front to rear of the parcel should not prevent construction of a home. The soil borings and analysis did confirm that the soil contains traces of concrete and bituminous and that the fill typically consisted of poorly graded sand with silt over sandy lean clay. The analysis recommends that excavation and backfill will be required and that a typical basement 8 feet below existing grade can be constructed. • Other - An amendment to the Comp Plan would be required. • Title - City holds deed St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 28 28 #17 5609 Wood Lane Zoning Parcel Size Estimated Market Value R1 24,300 sq. ft. $250,000 Conclusions of Technical Analysis This parcel is deemed suitable for building a large single family home based on findings from the topographical survey, wetland delineation study and soil analysis. The parcel is large enough to accommodate a buildable area for one home that would not encroach on the flood plain. Requiring an easement along the shore line could be considered to retain public control over creek shoreline. Task Force Recommendation Consensus was not reached regarding sale of this parcel. Some members opposed selling this parcel due to loss of open space adjacent to the creek. They did agree to the steps recommended by Task Force to explore issues related to creek, wetlands and historical transfer of property and meeting with the neighborhood. The discussion centered around retaining creek shore land as public land, the “market desirability” of this lot, building on open spaces, and the use of this lot by a relatively small number of residents. Summary of Public Input The neighbors are strongly opposed to the development of this parcel, raising issues about the desire for use as open park space and the negative impact of construction on the neighborhood as well as on the creek Residents also expressed concern that the purpose behind the original purchase of this lot would be undermined by selling. Neighbors presented a petition signed by 47 residents that oppose building a home on this site. Over 20 residents have expressed interest in purchasing this lot, along with other interested individuals. A meeting was held with the Wood Lane residents and there was strong opposition to selling and building on this parcel. Concerns expressed were related to selling creek shore land, negative impact on the creek, loss of natural space, loss of vegetation and loss of passive recreation space. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 29 29 The Wood Lane neighbors have been working with the Brookside neighborhood association, which has also expressed opposition to selling the parcel. Neighboring residents contacted the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requesting assistance in maintaining this parcel as public land Findings • Physical Considerations A topographical survey, wetland delineation study and soil analysis were conducted on this parcel. The survey indicates the total parcel is 24,010 sq. feet with a buildable area of 12,606 sq feet, which allows citing a home above the 100 year flood elevation line. The wetland study indicates the dominant vegetation is boxelder, river bank grape, and burr oak. Red maple and ash are also present in limited amounts within the upland plot. The soil borings shows there is 1 foot of topsoil over glacially deposited soils of poorly graded sand with silt and silty sand. Ground water was observed at 10 feet. The analysis indicates fill and backfill will be required and recommends on basement 2’ below grade or slab on grade construction. Neither road nor utility access currently exists. • Historical In 1969 the cities of St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, and Hopkins entered into a joint cooperative agreement with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and submitted a grant application to HUD for purposes of creek improvement, and acquisition of creek front properties throughout the three cities. Of the grant $300,000 funds received, approximately $10,000 was used for the acquisition of the Wood Lane parcel which was purchased for $15,000. The goal of the acquisition was to acquire public ownership or easements of all properties on both sides of the creek throughout the three cities. One of the reasons for acquisition was to protect the flood plain. Though St. Louis Park did acquire significant contiguous parcels on the northern portion of the creek, acquisition beyond Yosemite Avenue proved unsuccessful except for the Wood Lane parcel. Consequently Wood Lane is an isolated publicly owned parcel on the creek. • Title The City holds a warranty deed on this parcel which was recorded in 1975. In 1978 a restrictive covenant was placed on the deed which stated that HUD’s approval would be required prior to the city’s disposition of this parcel. In 1984 HUD repealed the restrictive covenant on this parcel along with other parcels acquired with open space grant funds. • Other The Wood Lane residents contacted the MCWD when discussions about possible sale began. City staff has met with the MCWD staff on several occasions this summer. Public Works has been working on erosion control at the end of Wood Lane and Community Development St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 30 30 staff has met regarding use of the parcel. At the most recent meeting the MCWD suggested interest in purchasing the parcel from the city and gaining natural easements from Wood Lane creek front residents. MCWD staff indicated they would be contacting the creek side homeowners on Wood Lane to encourage them to grant natural easements along the shoreline. Their progress on this effort is currently unknown. An amendment to the Comp Plan would be required. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 31 31 #18 4525 Morningside Road Zoning Parcel Size Estimated Market Value R1 15,500 sq. ft. $175,000 Considerations of Technical Analysis This parcel is deemed suitable for building a single family house. A topographical survey was not conducted since the physical characteristics of this parcel are consistent with adjacent parcels already developed as single family homes. The Park and Recreation Department conducted soil analysis prior to the building of the park building which confirms that construction can occur. A plat map of this parcel and the Browndale Park is attached which indicates that lot size requirements can be met. Task Force Recommendation Consensus regarding the suitability of this parcel for building a home was not reached and the Task Force acknowledged the strong concern of the neighbors in selling this parcel. The Task Force suggested that a meeting with neighbors should occur before moving forward. It was also noted this might be an opportunity to offer to sell a portion of the lot to the adjacent neighbor. The Task Force discussion was related to the notable opposition to building on this lot adjacent to the Browndale Park, the sale process and design guidelines to ensure a home would be compatible with the neighborhood. Summary of Public Input There is strong opposition by neighbors toward the development of this parcel. Comments were primarily related to the sense that this parcel is part of the Browndale Park and should be retained. A Browndale meeting was attended by eight residents and the concerns expressed reflected the input received from numerous neighbors. Concerns are that this is considered the gateway to the Park, the trees on this parcel should be protected, and this is an open family play area that is valued by residents. A petition has been received signed by over 120 residents requesting parcel be retained as is. A lawn sign and call–in campaign opposing the sale has generated numerous calls, some of which support selling the parcel. Some residents have St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 32 32 suggested that if the parcel is sold, the revenue could be used to plant additional large trees in the Browndale Park, and enhance the current park improvements. There is strong interest in purchasing the lot with over 24 individuals expressing interest. Findings • Physical Considerations The proposed parcel is currently platted as two parcels with dimensions of 250 feet deep and 50 feet wide. These two parcels could be combined and the depth narrowed to approximately 150 feet, to be similar in size to nearby lots and meet lot size requirements. The Browndale Park is approx 10 acres in size and this parcel would be 15,000 sq ft. Soil conditions are sound and the zoning requirements can be met. • Other An amendment to the Comp Plan would be required along with a plat change with subdivision. • Title – City holds deed St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 33 33 #19 4200 Natchez Ave S Zoning Parcel Size Estimated Market Value R2 19,580 sq. ft. $196,000 – 250,000/2 lots Conclusions of Technical Analysis This parcel is deemed suitable for building up to two large single family homes based on findings from the topographical survey, wetland delineation study and soil analysis. See survey. Task Force Recommendation The Task Force recommended that soil conditions and drainage issues be further evaluated before moving forward with selling the parcel. Summary of Public Input Most comments regarding this lot were related to ensuring the design of one or two new homes is compatible with the neighborhood. There was concern expressed about the soil conditions and drainage issues. A neighborhood meeting attended by five residents of Minikahda Vista resulted in the following input: there is a strong preference for building one home, not two; a desire that trees on East side of parcel not be removed; that drainage issues on East side of lot be addressed. Questions and concerns about the potential design of home(s) were expressed with emphasis that the homes not be “too large” and the design fits the style of the neighborhood. There have been over 24 individuals expressing interest in purchasing this lot along with several developers. Findings • Physical Considerations This parcel contains no wetlands. The total parcel size is 18,855 sq. feet. An easement exists on the East side of the parcel, which was intended for the extension of Natchez Avenue. There are significant number of trees on the East boundary along with a elevation changes St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 34 34 and drainage leading to the South. Two homes could be built and meet City zoning requirements. Homes would be cited to front West 42nd Street. The City had previously conducted soil borings which confirms peat soil. The preliminary analysis indicates that soil stabilization could be accomplished and that construction would require pilings. This would add to the cost of construction. There is no utility access, but this could be accomplished from Natchez Avenue. The lowlands to the south would be retained as city property as a component of the city wide storm sewer plan. • Title – City holds deed St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 35 35 #20 3315 Belt Line Boulevard Zoning Parcel Size Estimated Market Value RC 260,000 sq. feet $1,125,000 Conclusions of Technical Analysis Due to the recommendations of the Task Force to retain this parcel for future redevelopment the physical studies were not conducted on this parcel to determine its suitability for building single family homes. Task Force Recommendation The Task Force reached consensus that this parcel be retained for future redevelopment consistent with Wolfe Lake redevelopment plans. Summary of Public Input There have been very few comments regarding this parcel. The few related to questions about the interim dog park and exploratory calls from developers. Findings • Physical Considerations Currently this is used for the tennis courts and interim dog park. It is believed that soil clean up may be necessary. • Title Tax forfeited property would require purchase by the City through Hennepin County St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 36 36 COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM RESIDENTS REGARDING NEED FOR FAMILY HOMES AND POSSIBLE SALE OF PUBLIC LANDS JANUARY 2005 THROUGH OCTOBER 10, 2005 A ten month time period for public input related to the use of land and need for family homes included two citywide open houses, six neighborhood meetings and dissemination of updated information three mailings, the city website, Cable TV, the Park Perspective, Star Tribune and Sun Sailor articles. During this time residents were encouraged to provide comments to assist the City Council in making an informed decision. And they did. Residents raised valuable issues related to physical considerations as well as title and historical information that were further explored. Residents provided thoughtful input into possible sale and design guidelines if parcels are to be sold. 1. General Comments Received Via Phone, Email and Letters. Over 300 phone calls, emails and letters from 254 individuals have been tracked to get a handle on residents’ thoughts about this issue. • 50% of the comments indicated interest in purchasing parcels (129 individuals) • 22% opposed sale of a parcel(s), usually a nearby parcel (54) • 19% were miscellaneous comments related to sale process and request for info (47) • 9% supported the sale of parcels to provide housing and/or revenue (24) 2. Summary of September 19, 2005 Open House Approximately 80 residents and non residents attended the meeting on September 20, 2005 at the Rec Center. Following a presentation of the conclusion of technical analysis for each of the 20 parcels, attendees asked questions and provided verbal and written comments. During the Q&A session the dominant voice was from residents in close proximity to, and opposing the sale of the 4245 Morningside parcel. Along with general concerns related to loss of park, open space, trees and proximity to wetland. Some attendees also expressed frustration that they feel as if they are not being heard. The table below shows the number of individuals and households that signed in and the parcel to which their address is in very close proximity. Table. Attendees that signed in at the September 20, 2005 Excess Land Open House Parcel Number Address # Indiv # HH St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 37 37 # 11 Cedar Manor School Site 20 17 Potential Purchaser List Scattered - SLP, Mpls, Blmgton 15 15 # 18 4525 Morningside Road 12 10 # 3 2600 Natchez Ave S 10 9 # 5& 6 2005 & 2015 Louisiana Ave S 3 3 # 7& 8 Texas Ave & Frontage Road 3 1 Address Unknown 3 3 # 2 2715 Monterey Ave 1 1 # 9 1608 Utah Ave 1 1 # 12 2601 Pennsylvania Ave S 1 1 # 17 5609 Wood Lane 1 1 #19 4200 Natchez Ave S 1 1 Misc 1 1 Total 72 64 Based on the verbal comments noted above, staff was surprised that a review of the addresses of those attending, shows that almost half of the attendees that signed in live in proximity to the Cedar Manor School (20) or are individuals with addresses from the interested in purchasing mailing list (15). Both these groups were relatively silent during the question and comment period. The Cedar Manor School group lack of comments was likely due to the conclusion that development of this parcel is impeded by lack of access. Perhaps due to the relatively long question and comment session, few written comments, were received, all of which are below: • I’m in favor of developing the lots in general and the Morningside lot specifically. We live in a great city and this provides an opportunity for more great homes and other great benefits for St. Louis Park. • Interested in purchasing 2715 Monterey Ave S • Interested in purchasing in 5609 Wood Lane • I really appreciate all the thought that has gone into the lots, the potential buyers, and the future homes. I am a former resident and would love to move back into a home that would meet the needs of a modern family. • Parcel #12, 2601 Pennsylvania Ave. I am opposed to sale for construction of homes due to the wetlands/woods that protect current homes owners from the railroad. Access and construction would disrupt the current home owners with adjacent property. I am a resident with property that sits along the Cedar Knoll Park area. The reason why we are living here is the wooded park lot views. • Parcel #17, 5609 Wood Lane. Most people that live immediately around the Wood Lane property include more than 50 adult residents oppose the sale of the property. Most of us believe that it was good public policy in the 1970’s to purchase this land as part of a comprehensive plan to preserve lands along Minnehaha Creek. The policy participated in by St Louis Park, HUD, Met Council and others. Nothing has chanced since then. The land should continue to be held as open space. Should the Council not agree with maintaining this policy, it is recommended that the property St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 38 38 be removed from the list of properties to be sold immediately. Further negotiations would then be undertaken with the neighborhood to find a suitable agreement o the disposition of the property. Signed, John Madole, 5617 Wood Lane. • Parcel # 18, 4525 Morningside Road. No sale – keep it as part of the park 3. Neighborhood Meetings Held in Response to Concerns about Specific Parcels. 76 residents representing 58 households attended 6 neighborhood meetings conducted of the summer. Notes and minutes from the neighborhood meetings are attached. The general tone of each meeting was to seek more information and provide input expressing concern about loss of vacant lot. Meetings were respectful and residents provided helpful insights related to parcels in their neighborhood. . Detailed comments and notes from the meetings are attached. Wood Lane residents 5609 Wood Lane 8 residents Browndale NA 4525 Morningside 10 residents Westwood Hills NA 1608 Utah Drive 15 residents Minnekahda Vista NA 4200 Natchez 5 residents Northside meeting 2601 Pennsylvania 23 residents Fern Hill meeting 2600 Natchez & 2715 Monterey 15 residents 4. April 12, 2005 Open House to Discuss Task Force Preliminary Recommendations Approximately 200 people attended the open house/public meeting on Tuesday, April 12, 2005. • 132 residents signed in representing 129 separate addresses. • 54 comment cards were submitted (19 interested in purchasing parcels) • Additional input was provided on large sheets. General Comments. Each number represents an individual’s comment submitted at the open house... 1. Current SLP resident who will be displaced by the Hwy 100 project – our 4 BR house will be torn down. Actively looking for a site to build a new house. Please consider selling (on a fair basis) any possible lots to families to build homes. 2. I have lived in SLP for 8 years…it has been my first and holy home so far. We love it here in SLP and I commend the city for the insight of looking a developing “move up” homes. My single story, 2 BR, 1 ½ bath, 1 car garage has served me well…but we just started a family and space is getting tight already. Over the past few years I have seen my friends and neighbors move out to the suburbs…I DO NOT want to. Thank you for considering the future growth of SLP. Please open up these parcels of land for development of “move up” homes. 3. If you want to provide “move up” housing shouldn’t the city consider larger lots? If you parcel the lots to match existing/neighboring lots, it seems that you are just perpetuating the problem SLP faces of having small homes on tiny lots. I’d like to St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 39 39 hear what the long term plan is for making the city a more viable place for larger homes. 4. This is just a quick note to forward on my opinion about the excess land in St. Louis Park. I read in the March 31 issue of the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor a notice about the possibility of turning some of that land into a dog park. I want to let you know that there are many, many dog owners in St. Louis Park who would love a dog park -- and would be willing to pay a small yearly fee to help maintain it if a decent place were made available. I was so excited when I heard about the "temporary" dog park going in last summer -- I ran over to check it out, checkbook in hand to be ready to run over to City Hall to pay my fee. But after I saw it... well, I wouldn't want to use an area like that. I know your intentions were good, but hopefully you aren't basing the reaction to that spot on your future consideration of a dog park. No dog owner I have spoken with would use that temporary location. I sincerely hope you consider my opinion representative of many dog owners and tax payers in our city. We hope we can have a dog park in St. Louis Park! It's not only a great way to exercise our dogs - - in a safe and lawful environment -- but a wonderful way for people in the city to get to know each other! Thank you for listening. 5. Why does city dump snow on Texas Ave. at Mtka? Blvd. vacant lot & not clean up. Actually owned by Fine 6. I read the Sun Sailor article on potential usage of unused parcels of land in St. Louis Park. While an off leash dog park is a "nice gesture," as I see it, the City and tax payers cannot afford "nice gestures." My taxes are going up over $1000 for the next year and I'm getting fewer services than ever. I'm all for using these parcels of land for housing. I, for one, do not want to subsidize dogs and their owners. 7. The location of St. Louis Park makes it a demand area for home owners, especially when there is access to move up housing. The parcels being considered for an off leash dog park would generate between 11 to 15 new residences. If each of these 11- 15 parcels were taxed at $2000, that would be $22,000 to $30,000 in new tax revenue. Thirty thousand dollars would pay for an entry level teacher or keep some school programs from being cut or discontinued. 8. If an off leash dog park wins out, I sincerely believe, users need to pay fees that would mirror the lost tax revenue. If not enough fees are generated to reflect the property tax loses, and then the land needs to zoned residential. We need to use our resources to aid people. 9. Should build affordable housing options. 10. Is it possible to sell parcels for affordable housing – supports affordable housing 11. Infill lots are too tiny for developers to bother with – don’t you have any larger parcels? Sale Process Comments submitted. 1. As a SLP resident I strongly believe SLP City residents should have priority in purchasing land! Please consider this. 2. Current SLP Resident. Looking to build to stay in SLP. Please make sure all sites sell to individual people – No contractors. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 40 40 3. Current SLP resident. Active community resident looking to stay in SLP. No Developers/builders. 4. Think buying process should include a preference for current SLP residents to purchase land first. 5. Several of the sites currently have buckthorn (the invasive bush). Removal of all buckthorn on each site should be sale criteria. 6. As a SLP resident for almost 8 years, we hope you consider bids from SLP resident looking to “move up” before those offers by builders/contractors, etc. who have little or not interest in our community. 7. The meeting last night was very beneficial. I like the general guidelines for new home construction (step-up housing, not starter houses). I do like the idea of current neighborhood residence possibly being given a chance to buy the land. I also like the idea of submitting a design (design competition). 8. Suggest sealed bids, agrees with design guidelines for homes, preference for residents. 9. Will these parcels be available to individual parties interested in building, or only to Developers? When would they be available? Would there be a bidding process? 10. If parcels are to be sold, consider a preference for residents already living in SLP. Bidding should be fair for individuals and not favor builders- though this was not further defined. 11. It would be nice to see residents of St Louis Park have first option on buying these lots for sale. I am concerned that developers will be able to pay more for the land and offset the increased cost in the price of the new home. 12. Please consider selling the excess land to current residents who want to stay in the city, but are hoping to build a new home (rather than selling it to a developer). 13. I think the guidelines are great for building of the new homes. 14. Would prefer to see the land offered to SLP residents first. If a decision is made to sell the lots, would be good to allow at least 6 months for people to put together some plans and identify a builder to work with. April 12, Open House Comments Related to Specific Parcels Parking Lots- Parcel 1, 14 & 15 Property #1 – 2914 Inglewood Avenue South (Parking Lot) 1. Upgrade lot at time of sale? 2. Keep the lots available for surrounding commercial businesses, they could jointly rent it. 3. Poor upkeep on the lot – new owner should do better than old. 4. Ensure lot is available for residents to use – helps prevent street parking on Natchez Property #14 – 6534 Walker Street (Parking Lot) 1. Possible interest in purchasing lot for commercial use. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 41 41 Property #15 – 3301 Gorham Avenue South (Open Space) 1. I thought this public parking lot was being used as excess parking for Park Frank baseball field, for over flow parking for Park Tavern, and for the new condo development in the old concrete plant lot. Property #2 – 2715 Monterey Avenue South (Utilities) 1. Good site for development, please move forward with this. 2. Concerned about sites (i.e. Natchez) with borderline wetland. 3. Glad the city is doing this; family growth is stressing my one-car garage home. 4. It would be nice to see a “cap” on the number of parcels one person/company can purchase. Either by dollar amount/square feet/#of parcels. 5. City residents should have priority in purchasing/building. 6. Thank you for regarding more housing options, long overdue! 7. Let quality/design of project factor into buying process. 8. Great to have some new home options. Property #3 – 2600 Natchez Avenue South (Open Space) 1. Wildlife and wetland disturbance is a major concern of the neighborhood. You will be hearing more from us! 2. Thank you for regarding more housing options, long overdue! 3. Let quality/design of project factor into buying process. 4. Great to have some new home options. 5. Good site for development, please move forward with this. 6. Concerned about sites (i.e. Natchez) with borderline wetland. 7. It would be nice to see a “cap” on the number of parcels one person/company can purchase. Either by dollar amount/square feet/#of parcels. 8. City residents should have priority in purchasing/building. Property #4 – Cedar Lake Road/Trunk Highway 100 (Vacant) 1. Not high density, keep north end undeveloped, move access road? 2. Leave alley the same, don’t like the property used by Luther V.W parking, fence maintained, lot size PUD, vacant non-buildable areas to property owners to maintain this area, MN Dot promised/agreed usages, is this a single family legal lot size? Tree preservation. 3. This site would be great for single family detached town homes and the landscaping could be geared to benefit both existing homes and future development. 4. Community garden Property #5 – 2015 Louisiana Avenue South (Vacant) St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 42 42 Property #6 – 2005 Louisiana Avenue South (Vacant) 1. 2013 - 2015 Louisiana Ave. is a major drainage area. Most springs there is standing water in this lot. It is the natural low point of the block. 2. My driveway and back yard abut the lots at 2015 Louisiana Ave. In the spring and when it rains, this lot floods and has standing water. I am afraid if a builder builds a house and raises the level of the lot that my drive will flood. I may be interested in buying the lot, but not developing it. Property #7 - 13th Lane West (Vacant) 1. Proposal to keep a green space. We value green, undeveloped spaces in our city other than parks. A community garden would be sane and community building venture for this space. 2. Problem/concern for potential developers – the wells were never capped! Ground water/pesticides can get in the water system due to this non-capping of the wells. We can save money by not spraying pesticides on the city parks. There are others ways to maintain the park through aeration/seeding. 3. Community garden 4. When MNDOT removed houses they did not cap the wells. Property #8 –Texas Avenue South/394 Frontage Road (Vacant) 1. While I don’t object to the development of the property, the space is connected as a “greenway” with Westwood Nature Center. I hope that any building design take that into consideration. We have a lot of “wildlife traffic” in our neighborhood & would hate to see that disrupted by poor design. My other concern is traffic which can also be affected by this, especially in the winter months & during the Jr. High start/ending times. Please keep our neighborhood informed during the process. Property #9 – 1608 Utah Avenue South (Pond Access) 1. This is my play area please don’t build a house- 9 year old 2. If you decide to build a house on this lot it will break my heart (the only place to play in the whole neighborhood)- 12 year old 3. This is a walking neighborhood. An attractive park like setting would be an asset and lovely spot to stop and chat/sit while in a serene setting. 4. All new cities are developed allowing for areas of undeveloped land to benefit wildlife and neighborhood communities – why does SLP want to move backward? 5. There is no neighborhood recreational lot in this neighborhood and the neighborhood association (with the support of neighbors) would like this lot to remain available for neighborhood use by adding benches and swings/garden area to enhance area. 6. This is a beautiful lot in a great neighborhood and a good opportunity for a beautiful new home. 7. What about the wildlife that already use this area as a home? St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 43 43 8. Westwood Hills Neighborhood Association officially opposes development of a single family home on this lot! 9. Survey submitted by WHNA with a 48% response of 100% opposition to a single family development. 10. Development will be detrimental to the health of the pond. 11. Lot is too narrow! 12. City has not been doing any upkeep of this lot. A neighbor has mowed the grass. 13. Why is there such a desire to fill up empty spaces? Are tax dollars more important than providing natural open spaces that neighbors can gather & enjoy? SLP is already to densely populated. 14. How does the city justify using a property that is too small to build on if they have to Compromise on the building codes (e.g. set back from street, smaller home that the neighborhood should have). 15. One short bus tour to touch the dirt hardly seems adequate to make an educated assessment of this parcel. Unless you are there in the early hours- 5:30 am or late evening hours when the 1000’s of ducks, geese land in the pond of on the lot- you’ve missed the real value of the habitat. The habitat that is in place, other communities would die for. Why destroy it now. Adjoin the entire parcel to the pond as a common parcel. Allow the pond assn. along with WW Hills neighborhood take care of it. 16. Don’t build a house in the lot. Don’t build a house in the lot this is my play area. You will break my heart if you build a house on my lot. 17. Please notify if land at 1608 Utah Ave. is to be sold ASAP 18. If you build a house on the lot, you wont have any access to the pond some of the pond will be filled in this is also our play area and we have lived there all our lives and grew up the there. If you decide to build a house it will break my heart. 19. Most of the homes across the street lack backyards (too steep) the lot is currently used by kids for golf practice kick ball, etc. I don’t think we should have to send our kids to the Jr. High to play kickball. 20. The Westwood Hills Neighborhood conducted a survey of residents regarding the possible sale of the 1605 Utah property. 20 Residents responded that they support the WHNA’s proposal of a natural rain garden, benches & gazebo for neighborhood use, or to leave the lot as it is. Not survey respondents support the recommendation of construing and selling a single family home. Comments noted on the survey results are: • Leave it as it is • WHNA proposal of a natural rain garden. • Please keep this beautiful (last few pieces of land without a house or building on it) open & accessible to the neighborhood for use and enjoy. We were specifically told by the city of SLP (1986) when we bought our house (across the street) 1627 Utah that this piece of property would never be built on for housing. The land was too narrow. This was one of the reasons we bought our home: for the natural beauty and the view & to let our child have a place to play, watch the ducks and other animals who also share the land. (We are destroying their habitat when we build another house on an open space). So many of the children growing up on this street learned how to ice skate on this pond. In winter they walk through this stretch of land. in summer they play baseball, kickball, golf, putting, catch, St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 44 44 Frisbee or simply fly a kite. We’ve been very fortunate to enjoy this property. We’ve also have been very grateful to the few neighbors who have continually mowed the grass each summer- no charge- because the city did not maintain this property. So you can see the determined neighbors want their children to be able to play here-so please don’t take this away. Please consider how this neighborhood chooses to enjoy this treasure. • WHNA Proposal of natural rain garden. • WHNA proposal of natural rain garden. • WHNA proposal of natural rain garden/ community vegetable garden. • WHNA proposal of natural rain garden. • WHNA proposal of natural rain garden/ play ground for kids & parents to get together. • WHNA proposal of natural rain garden/ or leave it as it is. • WHNA proposal of natural rain garden. • WHNA Proposal of natural rain garden. • WHNA proposal of natural rain garden. • WHNA proposal of natural rain garden. • WHNA proposal of natural rain garden. • WHNA proposal of natural rain garden. • Place to sit and relax as people walk around pond with benches. Property #10 – 9019 Cedar Lake Road (Open Space) • See attachment Property #11 – 9258 Club Road (Open Space) 1. Is MNDOT planning a northbound access off of Cedar Lake Road? 2. Resident will be sending a letter of a 300 member group opposed to developing this lot. Housing is a concern, increased traffic and wetland issues. Would a meeting where this property is the only discussion. Building houses is a separate issue from land use. Probably should have separate meetings 3. Dog Park would be possible if traffic is controlled. 4. FEMA declared it a flood zone-need extra insurance if mortgage. 5. Should not be sold- due to very poor access and large wetland area. Property #12 – 2601 Pennsylvania Avenue South (Drainage) 1. I have major concerns of access of emergency vehicles to the property and traffic flow turn around, especially if 4-5 houses are built on the property and houses are designed to be up scale houses with garages. Years when there is a lot of snow and or rain fall this parcel of land fills up with weather drainage of water is a big concern. 2. Red fox & Falcon live on this parcel of land. Nature needs to be preserved their existence. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 45 45 3. The neighborhood residents have knowledge of the traffic flow and baseball park activity works. I have been to meetings regarding the dog park but did not feel our concerns were heard. Every concern that was brought up was shot down with a comment such as “dog owners are polite” that answer shows lack of understanding the concern & lack of showing that the concern was heard. The second meeting should have been a follow up of the first meeting with acknowledgement of the concerns. The person conducting did not remember concerns brought up at the first meeting and asked for the residents to state their concerns again. This meeting showed that the task force did not care about the resident concerns. Our concerns are parking, traffic flow, proximity to houses, sharing space w/ baseball field, losing nature which is housing for a red fox & a falcon. I will write up the concerns and email to the task force. Property #16 – 7701 Edgebrook Drive (Open Space) 1. Lot is deep (about 25 feet) and filled with concrete, black top and a few televisions. People that use the park use this lot for parking so not to block alley. Only 85 feet left to building on, how do you figure 2 lots? 2. People should know that train switching goes on at night, loud banging noises. Property #17 – 5609 Wood Lane (Vacant) 1. I oppose the sale of the parcel of land on Wood Lane. It is open space on the Minnehaha Creek 2. I live across the creek where this house would be built- trees would have to be cut down. We bought our house for the privacy in the summer months there are no houses to be seen from, my backyard. This house being build would be an invasion of privacy not just for me but for many. 3. Please contact me regarding the property as process goes forward. 4. I oppose the sale of the lot on our street. It was designated as park land. Why & when was the designation changed? It is one of the last open spaces owned by the city on Minnehaha in our area. It needs to be preserved. What are the environmental impacts of extending the street & building so close to the creek? Don’t cut down old trees for more pavement. Our neighborhood would like a meeting with city official to discuss these issues. 5. Petition signed by 47 individuals stating “we are opposed to the sale of the Wood Lane property by the city of St. Louis Park and would prefer to see it remain as open space or park land in perpetuity.” Property #18 – 4525 Morningside Road (Open Space) 1. Already considered (and used as) part of Browndale Park, which is unique for its beauty and recreational versatility (sledding, skating, hockey and baseball) 2. This lot contains several very old, tall trees, which might not survive house construction. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 46 46 3. The corner of Browndale/Morningside is a meeting ground for the neighborhood. 4. Undoubtfully this lot, because of its spectacular location, will fetch a high price, but the residents would like it to be saved for all to share. 5. So far, over 150 people have signed a petition to spare this parkland. 6. Task Force did a great job. This lot is great for one house and would not negatively impact the park or neighborhood. 7. This property is only 1 of 2 pieces out of the 20 lots that currently adjoins present parkland. While it would be a great home site, the public use should come first. 8. This lot is lovely. The new sidewalk on S. Side of Morningside Rd provides nice walking access to the park and should remain if developed. SLP resident should be given priority for building on this lot. Lot should not be sold to a developer/contractor. This is a nice opportunity for a larger home but should not dwarf the feel of the park & existing homes Property #19 – 4200 Natchez Avenue South (Vacant) 1. The point is in the middle of the lot so whoever builds homes on the site should be aware of this and plan accordingly. 2. Please make sure all trees on e side of lots will be protected, they are a feature of the neighborhood. The lots are so small seems it should be sold as 1 lot not 2. 3. All the houses on the odd side of Ottawa are built on foundations supported by pilings, as it is all peat 6’ below grade. This parcel is the same ground structure. This land was my playground as a kid in the late 50’s, early 60’s. Do it well. 4. An important consideration today is to be interactive with neighbors with architectural issues every one benefits from aesthetics well placed, there has been a lot of bad precedent to learn from, with neighborhoods existing housing quality. Some what in scale with and not just the most square footage the lot will accommodate. 5. Might be better suited for 1 house. Grove of trees on E & S side is a neighbor block feature & should be kept. Creek drainage on E side (big elevation difference) alley on W side not shown on picture. This lot is very low, will need lots of fill. No monster houses. This is not a country club. 6. Please address drainage issue on this lot. A non binding vote by the Minikahda Vista neighbors of this lot should be made to see what the neighbors would like Property #20 – 3515 Belt Line Boulevard (Tennis Court) No comments! St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 47 47 Comments and Notes from Neighborhood Meetings with Residents and Staff May 2005 – August 2005 Fern Hill Neighborhood Meeting Tuesday, August 16, 2005, 7 – 8:30 pm City Hall Council Chambers 15 residents representing 12 households near the excess public land located at 2814 Inglewood, 2715 Monterey and 2600 Natchez attended. Staff provided an update on the technical findings of the wetland delineation study, soil borings and topographical survey on the 2600 Natchez parcel. The majority of comments expressed opposition to building on the 2600 Natchez parcel. Concerns expressed were related to impact on the wetland, loss of trees, concern about type of fill and disruption of habitat and wildlife. The general tone of the meeting was that building on the 2715 Monterey lot was acceptable, that the parking lot at 2814 Inglewood should be retained as a parking lot for use by businesses and residents. Two residents were interested in purchasing parcels, one the Monterey parcel and one the Natchez parcel. One resident noted that the Fern Hill Neighborhood has abundant park and open space and that building a home on the Natchez parcel seemed reasonable. North Side Neighborhood Meeting Thursday, August 11, 2005, 7 – 8:30pm Jr. High School, Media Room Purpose of meeting to discuss forming a new North Side Neighborhood Association and opportunity for residents to provide input regarding excess public land located at 2601 Pennsylvania 1. Martha McDonell led discussion on forming a neighborhood association St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 48 48 2. SLP Officer Pam Long provided information on forming Crime Watch, Block Clubs 3. Kathy Larsen provided a brief recap on move up housing & excess land 4. Residents provided the following input regarding the possible sale of the 2601 Pennsylvania parcel: • Trees keep down the railroad noise on Oregon/Pennsylvania/Nevada and loss of trees will impact noise to current neighbors. • Neighbors say 6 trains run midnight to 9:00 a.m. and about 15 a day. • Neighbors see value added to their property because the trees and overgrowth black the view of the trains (even in the winter). • Neighbors had concerns about parcels being sold to developers • Soil conditions need to be checked • Years ago this property was a lake (50 year resident stated) • Property tends to flood and is water run for the railroad (stated by several neighbors). • Building will be risky due to poor soil (stated by one neighbor). • Neighbors says kids do congregate at this site • Neighbor would like to know where the row of pine trees in the easement are dividing new and existing homes. • Neighbor felt that a road added in front or behind their homes will decrease value. Preference is for road to be added by railroad tracks. • A suggestion was made to install a sound wall by railroad tracks and to add significant trees to separate new homes from existing backyards. 5. The next steps were discussed - Public meeting/open house at Rec Center and Council meeting –Monday, October 17. North Side Residents in attendance: : Parker Vladimir 2234 Oregon Ct. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Tim and Anne Arimond 2244 Pennsylvania Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Nate and Tonia Boike 2544 Pennsylvania Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 GMS Kumar 2246 Neveda Ave. , Apt. #1 St. Louis Park, MN 55426 David and Marsha Hinze 2550 Pennsylvania Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Chad Gulydelach 2321 Rhode Island Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Gerald and Darlene Mickelson 2517 Oregon Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Marsha Wolk 2530 Pennsylvania Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 49 49 Frank Freedman 2530 Pennsylvania Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Bruce Frohman 2557 Oregon Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 LeRoy and Mary Anne Murray 2331 Rhode Island Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Rod Thompson 2545 Oregon Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Mary Steinke 2316 Sumter Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Denise and Todd Bauchman 2553 Oregon Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Ronna Bartness 2540 Pennsylvania Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Ron Lewis 2549 Oregon Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Mark Toretsky 2554 Pennsylvania Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 City Staff: Martha McDonell, Community Outreach, Office Pam Long & Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Minnekahda Neighborhood Association Excess Public Land – 4200 Natchez July 28, 2005, 7 PM City Hall, Community Room – 1st Floor Five residents attended: Gary Wimner, 4512 W 42nds St, lives directly across from parcel, Jerry & Betty Worrell, 3804 Kipling, interested in purchasing, Christine Lehman, 4225 Ottawa, MVNA, Board, and Claudia Johnson-Madison, MVNA Board. City staff, Kathy Larsen Input: Desire that trees on East side of parcel not be removed Strong preference for 1 home, not 2 Due to drainage issues on east side of lot retention of trees sensitivity to residents that will be “losing” the vacant lot Interested in seeing how home on east boundary would impact drainage Questions/concerns about design of homes – concern that homes not be “too large” for lot(s) neighborhood; that design fit in, that site retains trees Interested in purchasing parcel for “empty nester” home – questioned if there is sq footage requirement. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 50 50 Browndale Neighborhood Association Excess Public Land June 14, 2005, 7 PM City Hall, Council Chambers Attendance, Mike and Chris Foley, Mari Salveson & Steve Schmidt, Susan Denk, 4909 Morningside, Mary Lawson & John, 4320 Browndale, Dan Brcyak, 4306 Browndale Amy & Jim Clancy,-4363 Coolidge, Joe Favour, Task Force. City Staff, Kevin Locke, Kathy Larsen Purpose of meeting - opportunity for residents to provide additional input for council consideration. Following introductions and an update residents provided the following comments: • Are there guidelines for how much park and open space is appropriate • Sale of open space could set precedence for future sales of open space when budgets are tight. • Consider that increased size of new park bldg impacts the whole park and open space w/I park – should more open space be lost? • This is the shadiest part of park and makes park useable on hot sunny days. • Is there any way the neighborhood can stop the process at this time/ • Residents that live around park need to be considered by City of St. Louis Park • Park & Rec should consider adopting open space policy for future situations. • There is sign move up housing (remodels) in the Browndale & Minikahda Vista neighborhoods – is one more house really needed? • Anyone that would be able to afford this lot & building, could afford to build anywhere else. • The value of this piece of land is that it is an open space in the park and allows for flexibility of uses, i.e. unstructured playing. • Someone should/could count/monitor use on this parcel compared to whole park area • Neighborhood is willing to work with city to find a solution that does not include building a home • Would trees be lost? St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 51 51 • Neighborhood feels very connected to the n’hood park – residents have invested in trails & plantings. Residents have shown it is a very active participant in the park. We invest in the park, can the city invest in us? • Neighborhood would like to visit/meet with Park & Rec Comm to discuss open space in City of St. Louis Park • This is a funky gateway to the park – parcel acts as entryway to park from surrounding areas. • How can 1 parcel make a difference in increasing the number of move up homes • Doesn’t make logical sense to lose open spece for just 1 home. Wood Lane Neighborhood Meeting May 8, 2005 5609 Wood Lane Update. City Council will receive task force summary & recommendations directing staff to: Research issues raised through public comments - historical issues, clear titles, conduct surveys, explore wetland and soil issues Meet with neighbors as appropriate Refine task force recommendations for use of revenues Formalize design guidelines Determine sale process Publicize steps Schedule recognition of task force May – July 2005. Staff completes activities noted above. Early August 2005. Council will be advised of analysis of property issues and provide direction regarding sale of parcels. Residents discussed with staff, Kevin Locke, their concerns about loss of the creekside property as open public space. Residents requested information and relayed information related to the history of the lot and the city’s acquisition. All the residents attending expressed a strong desire for the parcel to remain as is. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 52 52 Following Are Full Emails That Have Been Received And Not Incorporated In Previous Comments through Oct 10, 2005 9258 Club Road, 9019 Cedar Lake Road and 1608 Utah Attention: Task force, et al (excessland@stlouispark.org): I was out of town and unable to attend the public meeting on 4/12/05. I have familiarized myself with each of the task force’s proposed housing development parcels by: 1) reviewing information found on the City’s website*; 2) personally reviewing several of the sites; and 3) discussing the meeting with a neighbor who did attend. In my opinion it’s a stretch to call these green spaces “excess” or suitable for “larger move-up housing”. What I find, after reviewing the sites in question, is that most are highly suitable for leaving well enough alone. #11 9258 Club Road The wooded areas in the 9258 Club Road proposal are a wonderful habitat for waterfowl, other birds and wildlife, compliment Cedar Manor Lake, a natural extension to the adjacent park and playfield as well as a natural buffer to Highway 169 for many in the Cedar Manor neighborhood. #10 9019 Cedar Lake Road This is a welcome “open space” for a view of Hannon Lake from Cedar Lake Road for commuters and pedestrian traffic. #9 1608 Utah Once again, seems a bit small for anything in the “larger move-up” category… It does, however, seem like a wonderful green space adjacent to a small pond. Some of the task force’s other proposals appear to make some sense; however because I do not live or frequent the other areas in question, I do not know the local flow of the land. In general I am strongly in favor of leaving open spaces open wherever they are found in this already overbuilt suburb. St. Louis Park does its current resident’s disservice by further overdevelopment. Sincerely, 9258 Club Road (Cedar Manor School Site) I am writing to express my opposition to selling the property at 9258 Club Road for housing or an off-leash dog park. My reasons are as follows: 1. There is no good access to the property for either use. While you may be considering closing the frontage road on Highway 169, I believe the neighborhood strongly opposed that step when you asked us in 2003. If you would like me to go on about why I oppose closing the frontage road, let me know. Otherwise, I will spare you. 2. The area is a wetland. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 53 53 Homes could not be built without encroaching on a wetland. It provides drainage to Highway 169 3. The wood hosts much fast-growing greenery, which helps filter the pollution given off by the highway. 4. The spot is unsuitable for homes. a. It is too close to the highway. And while there are no immediate (or even long-term) plans to widen 169, it seems inevitable that a thoroughfare as popular as 169 will be widened in our lifetimes. It does not make sense to build homes where it is clear they must be torn down again so soon. b. Noise from the highway will limit their property value. c. The swamp is shallow; in very wet years, water collects in ponds fairly close to the highway. 5. The property is not consuming substantial City resources. The City currently does not maintain the property. If a dog park were put there, it would require mowing, fencing and other maintenance. 6. The swamp is an educational asset to the school. I don't know if they still do, but when I attended Cedar Manor we had field trips into the swamp to look at various aspects of nature. 7. The property currently has recreational value. My point isn't that developing it would keep people from playing there, but that no additional work need be done to reach that goal. 8. On a more emotional note, egrets are starting to settle in the swamp and I fear that construction of homes or a dog park with disrupt them. I confess I am annoyed to have this issue come up again. Aretz, the original developer, did not think the property was fit to develop. In the 90’s, the Council agreed that the property was not suitable for homes. Please just leave this parcel alone. 9258 Club Road (Cedar Manor School Site) What happened to the promise of perpetual wildlife area when another builder had the property and was forced to sell it to the city? • egrets, Canada geese and deer abound in the area--dogs chase them • flooding--that area floods in heavy rains--if houses are built where does the water go? One of those awful bare ponds we see around the roads? • parking--where? Did the city ever find out who owns the road? Are they going to cut down trees and bare the land like all developments do and put back spindly little bushes instead of the mature trees? • Dogs near the school fence--some children are afraid of dogs and they bark. • Now the trees are a sound barrier from HWY 169--new houses are not. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 54 54 I love dogs so don't feel I am against dog owners. I just want the promises of the past kept and not destroyed in favor a few more houses for taxes. I will protest to that end like we did the last time. 8 residents have called urging city not to sell this parcel, loss of open space, woods and wetlands 5609 Wood Lane I are completely opposed to the city's objective of selling off the green space lot at the end of Wood Lane. It is not excess land any more than a park is. We are sure that most of the 50 people who signed our petition opposing the sale agree with us that this is a re-election issue. We are also opposed to the way this decision process has been implemented. At no time have we been contacted by a city employee seeking my opinion, even though we have lived one plot away from this green space for 17 years, paying hefty taxes each of those years. In a democracy, government officials -- elected and otherwise -- work for the citizens. Citizens shouldn't have to work to get their views noticed. Residents on our street have repeatedly asked for dates for the next step and for a separate meeting with this task force. We have heard only silence. Shame on you at every step of the way, so far. A letter has been received from another resident requesting a meeting with Wool Lane neighbors and city staff – the meeting is being scheduled. 7 individuals have called to state objection to selling this, stating impact on creek, loss of open space.. There is strong interest in purchasing this property. 2600 Natchez 6 individuals have called opposing selling this parcel, generally citing concern about impact on wetland and wildlife. Concern about loss of trees and open space. 2 individuals called stating sale of the corner parcel would not have neg impact on wetland. 2601 Pennsylvania Ave S We have concerns about the possible development of "excess public land" at 2601 Pennsylvania. We have lived for 21 years in our current house, which abuts the proposed area of development from the west. The undeveloped property at 2601 Pennsylvania is a great asset to the neighborhood. If properly developed we might not have any issues. However, given the early stage of the process the answers to most questions are "We don't know..." - and that's kind of scary! About ten years ago the property immediately south of us (across the railroad tracks) was developed. Prior to that it was a very nice undeveloped wooded parcel of land. Suddenly we noticed that many of the trees were marked to be cut. When we called the City to ask what was going on we were told "This is private property; the owner can do whatever he/she wants (within zoning requirements), and the owner has St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 55 55 decided to develop small warehouse spaces." So the trees disappeared, the buildings appeared, and that was that! We're concerned that a similar process might happen now. We fear that just like what happened ten years ago, we could be told "It's the developer's land, he/she has the right to develop (i.e. cut down the trees) right up to the lot line", or something like that. Certainly our preference would be for the land to be undeveloped. As we talked to our kids about the fact that the woods might change the immediate comment from one of our kids was "Why does every undeveloped area of land have to be developed?" We were unable to answer that - We're not sure why everything needs to be developed - or why now? However, as a compromise, if "inviolable" restrictions can be applied to the sale, appropriate development could be acceptable. From our perspective, as long as the western-most 50 feet of the property were left undisturbed, we would have less of an issue. However, we would be very upset if we woke up one morning and saw development occurring right up to the edge of our lot. I would assume that most of the neighbors would have a similar perspective. About 15 years ago the City proposed using this parcel of land to store wood chips and excess sand cleaned from city streets. Like with tonight's meeting, a discussion was held to explain the proposal. (The City's needs were eventually met in a different way, and so the property has obviously not been used to hold sand or chips.) During the presentation SLP's Director of Public Works at the time, Jim Grube, said that it would be almost impossible for development to occur on this land. He said that the railroad deeded the land to the City, County and State. He said that for development to occur all three government entities would have to agree and that would never happen. So, I don't know if he was mistaken, or if things have changed. In any case, those kind of unkept promises, coupled with what happened across the tracks a decade ago, make us extremely leery of any promises that possible developments would be good for the neighborhood. 2 residents called in strong opposition, stating woods should be maintained as open space. 2 40 year residents called stating building homes would diminish nuisance behavior in the woods, and would be a good addition to the neighborhood. Highway 100- Cedar Lake Road Greetings and thank you for your efforts with the public meeting tonight. It is commendable how you and your staff are communicating these important decisions to the entire city, and I personally thank you for your time in allowing my neighbors and I the opportunity to participate in the discussions and ramifications of the possible sale of vacant land. I am writing on behalf of several neighbors in the Cedarhurst neighborhood whose property is directly adjacent to the vacant parcel under consideration. We are currently and collectively objecting to development of this parcel for numerous reasons as listed below: St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 56 56 1- The parcel was previously with single family housing, which was consequently demolished in partnership with MnDot to provide space in the future for potential highway considerations. It would be a travesty to allow a family to develop a home at this site. and then to have MnDot need the site 20 years from now. We should consider planning ahead for all of our future, and make appropriate decisions based on the fact that at some point, this land will be utilized and necessary as our city grows and space becomes significantly more expensive. 2- The parcel is currently acting as a buffer to the highway and roads among other positive attributes to the Cedarhurst neighborhood. Development on this site would potentially drive down housing values in an already transitionary neighborhood. The City would do far better to increase tax revenues in the future by allowing existing homeowners to creatively and effectively increase the size and scope of use for their respective homes by allowing variances in the spirit of building a community and tying Cedarhurst more closely to the upper-end neighborhoods of South Tyrol Hills and Lake Forest. 3- The parcel allows for an unoffical "park" as neighbors utilize the parcel for walking and exercising dogs, playing with children, and enjoying the magnificent, large oak trees. This vacant land is the reason many of us along Princeton Avenue feel we have value to our homes above a similar home in a fully developed neighborhood. We also pay increased taxes over similar homes in fully developed neighborhoods as the vacant parcel provides for this excellent atmosphere even though we have close proximity to the highway. My property taxes increased 21% this year, and I truly believe the vacant parcel contributes to the value of my home and those near and adjacent to the parcel. 4- If the parcel were to be purchased from MnDot, we are concerned that a developer would not chose to develop single family detached housing as the property is too close to the highway. Consequently we are concerned that the City, in it's haste to generate revenue and wash its hands of the land would consequently sell the parcel to a developer of high density housing, thus severely reducing the value of all homes adjacent to the parcel. 5- This parcel allows neighbors to feel a sense of "space" in our neighborhood as we typically do not have large lots. This feeling of space is significant to the ovelall quality of the neighborhood, and to the long-term value of the properties within the neighborhood. 6- Currently, the cul-de-sac of Quentin Ave. serves as overflow parking for the Westside VW site. If development were to occur, parking restrictions would become mandatory for the entire neighborhood, and we would all see increased amounts of traffic and parked vehicles in the fronts of our homes. This would be a detriment to the entire value of the homes within the neighborhood. 7- The large oak trees are irreplacable in our lifetime, and serious consideration should be given to the benefits they provide to the entire neighborhood by reducing noise from the highway, as well as adding the natural beauty they possess. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 57 57 In the event that MnDot does desire to sell the land to SLP, whereas SLP would then sell for development, we all would request the sale be only for detached, single level senior or residential housing as the property is elevated 8-10 feet above many of us along Princeton Ave. Dwellings any higher (taller) would damage the value of the existing housing by dwarfing existing structures and making them visually much less appealing. Lastly, please make available pictures from all aspects and sightlines of the property in question for the Council's consideration. The picture at the meeting was rather attractive, however, one should see what a potential homeowner would look at if the property were to be developed. I do not see the potential for higher-end housing along this protion of a very busy highway and frontage road, and I think pictures from all angles would tell a more realistic story. In the event anyone from the City of Saint Louis Park would need further information from any of the Cedarhurst Neighborhood, I would be happy to coordinate any communication the City would find helpful in this process. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Sincerely, 1 letter requesting lot not be sold because MNDOT will need land in the future. 1605 Utah Ave 4/11/05 To the City of St. Louis Park, I am a resident of the Westwood Hills Neighborhood in St. Louis Park. I live at xxxx Utah Ave. directly across from a piece of land 1608 Utah Ave. which is under consideration for a property sale through the city. This property borders a lovely pond which is home to different species of wildlife. My husband, son and I have lived in this home since 1986. Before purchasing our house we contacted the City and asked if this vacant strip of land would ever be developed in any way in the future.We were very interested in buying this house because of the beautiful view, the wildlife and a sense of openness that the empty space provided. Also the house we were about to purchase had a very small backyard on a steep hill and the front yard was also fairly small. The open lot would provide a place for our son to play, as it had provided for the families in the neighborhood for many years. There was not a park near by so this empty property was a huge selling point for us. We were told by the City that the property would not be developed because this strip of land was ³too narrow and small for a house to be built on and that there were city codes etc. to be followed and it did not meet this criteria.² The realtor also confirmed this and we then proceeded to buy our dream home. Our next door neighbor at one point was Chris Gears, who was the Park and Rec. manager for St. Louis Park. He too had said that this would be highly unlikely that the land would ever be developed. Our St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 58 58 current neighbors were also given this information when they purchased his house. Now nearly 20 years later we are suddenly quite surprised to be informed that this property is being considered for a sale either for a home or a home and a recreation space.We were also told originally that the narrow dimension of the land would be a safety issue if developed. How can either prospects be considered when this property is too small,too narrow and too close to the pond! When did this shift in description so radically change? We understand that the City is trying to keep maintenance costs down, raise revenue and create upstart homes for people trying to expand and stay in the Park but this property is a very unusual choice. First of all, for as long as we have lived here I think that the City has mowed the lawn maybe a dozen times. Our neighbor across the street has graciously mowed the lawn summer after summer free of charge,nobody asked him to do it and no complaints. Chris Gears and a few other neighbors also extended their good will and cut the grass as well. This has been a very huge gift to the neighborhood on their part and they should be commended. Also, these neighbors have plowed a path in the snow each winter to make a way down to the pond for people to go ice skating. The neighbors have basically maintained the property all along, so I can¹t see where $400.00 yearly for maintenance costs,as was quoted being spent to maintain the different properties in question, ever went to this particular piece of land. The reason that we care so much about this property and people have been willing to take care of it is because it has provided this neighborhood with so many positive things.First of all we have such a beautiful view of the pond and the setting sun each day. Our children have all grown up playing catch,kickball, tee ball,golf putting,frisbee,flying kites,skating on the pond or just simply watching the ducks, turtles,an occasional group of deer and watching the natural habitat that was here long before any of us were. This pond is in position of a migratory pattern as well. The ducks and geese fly from Lamplighter Lake to this pond and then on to the Nature Center lake. By building a house here you will disrupt this process and interfere with the natural order of things. Why is it that human beings always have the tendency to build something on every open piece of land . I would be curious to know how the Nature Center would view this prospect of building on this last open space up in this neighborhood. We are devastated by this thought and can¹t even imagine loosing our view and our wonderful play space for the many children who live in this area . It is quickly growing and there would be nowhere to play nearby. We understand some of the neighbors would like to request a rain garden or a few benches etc. This seems to be a more practical endeavor were there to be a change here,but certainly not a house. If the City can¹t afford to maintain a small park or rain garden maybe the neighbors could join together to take care of it . Another option would be to simply leave it as is. We would be willing to contribute to maintaining it either way if this was the course taken. It would however be a generous gesture if the City could offer some assistance since there has been very little upkeep thus far. I understand that funding is difficult with so many budget cuts but it doesn¹t hurt to express and ask. If assistance isn;t feasible then please let us take the matter of maintenance into our own hands and allow us to come up with a creative solution ourselves.I do want to express a thank you for St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 59 59 the recent clean up of dead branches and trees that you provided with people performing volunteer community service work. We all appreciate this. The people who live around the pond have an association which has covered many costs for cleaning the pond. I feel by building a house these efforts could be greatly jeopardized. A considerable amount of landscaping and tree removal would have to take place in order to build a house because of the narrow shape of the land. Building could easily disrupt and damage the progress made so far by the association. They have put so much time and energy into this project that it would be very disheartening. Please consider our wishes and take them to heart.Let us also speak for the animals who call this their playground as well. I have always considered St.Louis Park to be very progressive in environmental issues and in the forefront of city planning. You¹ve done a marvelous job with Wolfe Lake Park and the new Excelsior and Grand development and many other endeavors.Please leave this little Slice of Heaven alone and honor what was said to us 20 years ago.There is a lot of history here and a lot at stake. Most Sincerely, I am writing you about lot #9 at 1608 Utah. I feel this will be a terrible mistake to build a home on the only piece of natural property in the area that kids can play on. It is a nice lot for the natural beauty. The lot is so narrow and small that you would need to bring in fill that would change everything about the area. It would affect the pond as well as the drainage system. This is the only public access to the pond – especially during the winter when many people from the neighborhood enjoy skating. It is an area where children often play and it would be sad to take that away from them. I live on the pond and I’m sure people would have to go in our lawns to have access to this beautiful area. The only other option for children to play that is nearby is to play in the street. This area is a habitat for much wildlife also. It enhances the entire neighborhood to leave this in it’s natural habitat. Please reconsider this and leave the lot as is. Thank you for your consideration in this manner. 4525 Morningside Ave As a resident of the Browndale Neighborhood, I am concerned that property #18 (4525 Morningside Road) may be sold for a single-family home. This parcel should be left untouched. It is considered by residents of the neighborhood and those who use Browndale Park as part of the park. I disagree that the parcel has no benefit for the park - it is an extension, or a gateway, to the park for those who live on the Browndale (western) side of the park. Further, another house so near the play area of the park would significantly change the character of this area, as well as possibly blocking the view of the play area from Morningside. The park has had enough vandalism without adding another obstacle to keeping the park beautiful and safe for everyone. I strongly urge you not to sell this parcel. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 60 60 20 residents have called opposing the sale, citing loss of open space, loss of trees, loss of neighborhood amenitiy, parcel should remain as park. 1 resident opposed to sale, stated he resented the signs in the park. Over 2 dozen residents have expressed interest in purchasing. 2 residents think the loss of the parcel will not be a negative impact on park, and it should be sold Support & Interest 1 To whom it may concern My name is Nathan Wegener. I live in the Texa-Tonka neighborhood and I receive Park Perspective news paper. In the latest issue the article regarding the City's consideration of selling excess land peeked my interest. In May I will be getting marred. My fiancee and I are considering leaving St Louis Park in favor of an area where we could build a new construction home. However, we like St Louis Park a lot and we would miss it if we were to move away. Obviously, the article peeked my interest because if the city does sell off this land it would give us a chance to satisfy both of our desires. We could build a new home and remain in the city that we have grown to love. I have visited each of the parcels listed in the article and several of them would suite our needs well. Here are the top few lots i would be interested in purchasing. 2600 Natchez Ave S 1608 Utah Ave S 5609 Wood Lane 9091 Cedar Lake Rd 2. I wanted to write to you today to thank you, the city council and the excess land taskforce for understanding the need for additional "move up" housing and looking out for the future of our city. Without larger "move up" type homes in the city citizens such as myself are forced to look elsewhere to find their next home. In just the last few years I have seen friends and neighbors of mine who lived in SLP move out to Eden Prairie, Maple Grove, Waconia, Savage, Shakopee and Chanhassen. These are just people that I know personally who chose to move "out" in order to find bigger housing that fit their growing family's needs. I can only imagine how many others have done the same. I did attend last nights meeting and I realize there were some very emotionally charged view points on putting these parcels of land up for sale. I know most of the neighbor's of these properties are against it, and to a certain degree I can understand why. If I had an empty lot next to me that I could use for "free" I would probably oppose it too. And like a lot of the people who were opposing this last night I would probably oppose it under the guise of "protecting the environment." I think its human nature to shift some of the "blame" on to something else (the environment) rather than admit that they want the lot to remain empty for selfish reasons. Now, I'm not insinuating that these people don't care about the environment...I just think they St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 61 61 are exaggerating their concerns for personal reasons. Again, it's hard for me to blame them if I were in their shoes. The main reason for my writing you today is to let you know there are a lot of citizens who would support your decision if you chose to sell some or all of these parcels. The need for additional "move up" housing is great. If we don't do something we will continue to loose our citizens with growing families to the "suburban sprawl." If we keep loosing our growing families what will that do to our schools? Our Retailers? Our places of worship? Our sense of community? It seems negative feedback often over shadows the positive...so I simply wanted to let you know you have my support and interest if you decide to sell some or all of the parcels of land. If parcels do go up for sale I would definitely be interested...but I think you already have my contact info from an e-mail that I sent you a week or so ago. (I also wrote it on a card last night.) As for the bidding process if they do go for sale...I would hope that the design/quality of the proposed home would be a significant factor in the process. Being a citizen of SLP I selfishly would like it if current citizens would be given preference to the parcels. I would also like to see preference given to those who are actually going to live in the home vs. someone building it for profit. Thanks again for looking out for the long term needs of our city. I am a resident of SLP and have been for 7 years. We have two children one of which who is attending school. SLP has been a wonderful place to live and raise a family. I personally brag about SLP to many of my friends and co-workers as to what a great place it is to live. We have lived in the same home for 7 years. As we began a family our home did get a bit tight - so we made a decision to add-on and remodel. Our current home is now 4 bedrooms and much more spacious. Now that is has been a few years the thought of something else is always on our minds. We do love SLP and we do not want to move out - as we have met many of the parents, neighbors, etc and enjoy the community. When we heard the news of the Excess Land being sold - I thought what a great opportunity to build a new home and yet stay in SLP. I was very excited and interested. I drove around and looked at many of the sites first hand. Three in particular caught my eye. What I am so confused about is why so many of the residents (mainly neighbors in close proximity) are so distraught about the land being sold. I know that we all get comfortable in our surroundings and the space around us - but I am baffled as to the pure anger and negativity towards not wanting a new neighbor. I find it hard to believe that building on 50-60 feet of land will impact wildlife or the use of a park. SLP has done so much to add to the community in the parks arena. Personally I feel there is a park facility to use around every corner or within a few short blocks in SLP. By selling off 50 feet - aren't there acres left of park facility to use. Will the people who use the park really be impacted by a new backyard?? St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 62 62 Also - regarding the wildlife - I am positive that 50-60 feet will not impact the birds, squirrels, chipmunks, etc to such a degree that it extinct them. I am positive they have plenty of trees, wetlands and parks to roam. I curious as to whether these complaints are the true feelings of our residents, or is it just an outcry to try and prevent a new neighbor to entertain? Are these "real" concerns or just something the neighbors can cling to prevent this? I believe selling the excess land will add beautiful homes to a community that is already beautiful. It will only enhance the area. It will allow some residence to stay and raise their family in a community they love. It seems odd that we are defending the building of a new home on a few empty lots. I feel as though the neighbors think the new homes will destroy their neighborhood. Won't a new neighbor who decides to build on one of these spaces also be concerned about the look of the neighborhood? Won't they try and have a home that has curb appeal? Provide landscape - plant trees and flowers and - quite possible "enhance " the neighborhood? I am surprised that the neighbors don't think of this as something good. My guess is there are quite a few. I personally am not sure if I will or will not be interested in buying the land. I do however want the children and parents whom my children have become friendly with to stay in our district. I want the children that my kids go to elementary school with to continue on to middle and high school and become life long friends. I feel that proving opportunity for growth in our homes through the excess land and the remodel project only enhance the desire I have for my children to have life long friendships. I congratulate the city for recognizing this and hope that they continue with the excess land sale - I hope that those oppose can welcome new neighbors - and get beyond thinking of grand ideas to "shoo" them away. Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts ~ Am y Dvorak SLP Resident 6019 Minnetonka Blvd St. Louis Park, MN 55416 952-926-6671 As a 5 year resident of St. Louis Park I feel that the land should be sold for move-up housing. As my family is growing I would love to stay in the area, but there are to few larger houses, and I may have to move out myself. I believe that the residential lots should first be offered to exististing St. Louis Park home-owners. This would ensure your goal of keeping existing home-owners from moving out. Selling them to developers would not be in the spirit of the long term goal of actually keeping people in St. Louis Park. That would be more like offering them up to somebody to make a quick buck, and could actually look like a potentially shady deal, especially depending on the prices. There will likely be a lot of interest in these lots from current St. Louis Park residents, myself included, as I would like to stay in the city. I think that somehow a clause should be added to ensure that homes built on the land are required to be homesteaded to prevent house flipping. Another concern of mine is that this may just add more rental properties to St. Louis Park as somebody will see this as an St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 63 63 opportunity to move into a larger house and rent out their current home. We already have enough rental units in most neighborhoods, and I feel we suffer because of it. One drive down my street and the rentals are fairly easy to pick out based upon exterior maintenance. Thanks Chad Laux 3104 Georgia Ave. I commend the City for identifying the possibility of converting unused land to land for homes, therby increasing the tax base and adding residents to the City. The described process for this project sounds great. Drive it to conclusion--sell the land. Duane W. Krohnke 2505 Princeton Court St. Louis Park, MN 55416 TEL: 952-926-5974 In general, I'm in favor of providing "move up" opportunities for St Louis Park residents. I've been a resident for some time, and think this is the right thing to do for our city. I know that some of the neighboring residents to these potential lots have intense interest and are making their opinions known...which is great. I just want to make sure that other SLP resident voices are heard who also have a vested interest in our great city. Using the criteria documented on the city's website, I decided to use a specific parcel (5425 Morningside) to demonstrate why I believe the sale is good for St Louis Park: Is 4525 Morningside a good location for a single family home? BW's answer: Absolutely. This lot would be a good location for a single family home. Accessibility to the neighoring Browndale park is certainly an attractive feature, and I believe another St Louis Park family should be able to enjoy this feature, similar to how the current "residents" of Browndale park are able to take advantage of essentially living on the park. Would a new home on this parcel be consistent with the city's vision and move-up housing goals? BW's answer: As I mentioned above, this lot certainly does so. It's big enough and provides great park accessibility for a family looking to "move up." To take my specific case, I currently live in a good sized 3 bedroom house in Minikahda Vista...if my family were to "move up" to 4525 Browndale, we would also open up another "move up" opportunity for another family in St Louis Park. It's a "win win"! Is the parcel "buildable"? (soil conditions, flood plain, zoning, vehicle access, etc.) BW's answer: Obviously this is up to the experts...not me. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 64 64 Does sale of the parcel make financial sense? (marketability, sale proceeds, additional taxes generated, etc.) BW's answer: Yes. This lot is very marketable and should generate valuable revenues for the city. Would allowing the parcel to remain vacant benefit the neighborhood? BW's answer: I noticed in the update on the city's website the following statement: "Some attendees said they wanted the parcel in their neighborhood left vacant to avoid the loss of wildlife habitats and/or recreational opportunities in sites near ponds, creeks and wetlands." Obviously each lot is different, but I think in general some of the same principles apply. For instance, the current "residents" of Browndale Park would see some impact (e.g. loss of ability to walk thru the vacant lot, loss of ability to play in the vacant lot, etc.) if this lot is develped. However, I believe this impact is minimal. My reasoning is that these neigboring residents already have a wonderful park, with a new warming house under construction, to use for recreational opportunities that most of us only dream of having so close. 4525 Morningside is not remotely necessary for "Browndale Park" to continue on as a wonderful recreational opportunity for that area. Please consider my thoughts (and those of both the residents close to the proposed lots, as well as the other residents of St Louis Park) above as you continue to review and research this issue. If necessary, feel free to send a reply to this address if you have any questions or comments. Thanks. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 65 65 EXCESS PUBLIC LAND PROCESS The chronology of public process that has been implemented to address the potential use of designated parcels for consideration of selling for the use of single family homes is noted: 1. City Council establish Task Force, January 2005 2. Task Force Meetings a. January 11, 2005 b. January 29, 2005 c. February 8, 2005 d. March 1, 2005 3. Public Open House April 12, 2005 4. Final Task Force April 21, 2005 4. Council Tour May 3, 2005 7. Study Session Report May 16, 2005 8. Neighborhood Meetings a. Wood Lane May 8, 2005 5609 Wood Lane b. Bowndale NA June 14, 2005 4525 Morningside c. Westwood Hills NA June 16, 2005 1608 Utah Drive d. Minnekahda Vista NA July 28, 2005 4200 Natchez e. North Side August 11, 2005 2601 Pennsylvania f. Fern Hill meeting August 16, 2005 2600 Natchez g. The Cedar Manor unorganized neighborhood commented they felt it unnecessary to meet to discuss the possible sale. They feel they have adequately made their concerns known, and that their input is being considered. They stated they will attend the Council to speak directly with the Council. 9. Research on Parcels: Geotechnical, surveys, title work, historical June – August 2005 10. City Council Update August 22, 2005 11. Public Open House September 20, 2005 12. City Council Meeting October 17, 2005 St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 66 66 Excess Land Task Force - Criteria for Evaluating Vacant Parcels January 11, 2005 Is this parcel a good location for single family home(s)? 1. What is current use? 2. Parcel size? 3. Number of potential lots/homes? 4. Is single family home compatible with surrounding uses, if not, what use is? 5. Are there other uses for the parcel such as; commercial use, wetland bank, or could the parcel be combined with adjacent lot? Is building a home on this parcel consistent with City Vision and goals? 6. Will new home(s) on lot help meet housing goals? 7. Is parcel size consistent with neighborhood development patterns? Will use fit Comp Plan policies and direction? 8. Does it meet zoning designation? 9. Consider 1995 Parks & Recreation Task Force Recommendation where applicable. Can home(s) be built on the parcel? 10. Is parcel partially located in a flood plain (or storm water area) that may increase construction costs, etc.? 11. Can soil conditions and or contamination be resolved during construction? 12. Are utilities currently available? If not, can utilities be extended to lot? 13. Is there vehicular access to site? If not, could it be provided or would the potential cost prohibit development? 14. What is environmental impact of new construction? City Financial Considerations – Economic Viability 15. What cost to city to purchase site (where necessary)? 16. Are there additional city costs? 17. What is potential revenue generated by sale? 18. What is estimated tax generated in future if developed? 19. What is marketability of new home – will it sell? Other considerations? 20. Is vacant parcel benefit to neighborhood? St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 67 67 PROPOSED SALE GUIDELINES The City’s legal counsel has reviewed the proposed sale process and advises that a residency preference is legally sound. The process is designed to ensure individual residents are allowed equal access to the purchase process as there was strong consensus from task force members and residents that developers should not have an advantage in purchasing parcels. 1. The proposal process would be announced and communicated clearly and often to ensure interested parties are informed. A pre-proposal meeting will be conducted. This meeting will outline the requirements of the proposal process, design standards, design review process, and requirements of development agreement. 2. The following components would provide a “level playing field” for purchase by residents. a. The selected buyers of single family lots would be the residents with the highest offer that agrees to: occupy the home; comply with the design standards, submit to the design review process and contractual requirements; and, demonstrates financial capability. A house plan would not be required to make a proposal, but agreement to comply with the standards would be required. b. In the event resident offers do not meet the minimum fair market appraised value, the highest non-resident offer would be selected. c. Each buyer could only purchase one single family parcel. d. The multi-lot parcels requiring coordination of developing roads and utility access would be offered to both developers and residents that demonstrate development capability. No parcels would be sold until a proposal with site design and house plans that meet all applicable city codes was approved by the design review committee. 3. Purchase of a parcel or a portion of a parcel by adjacent owners. a. For oversized excess land parcels, offer adjacent property owners the opportunity to purchase a portion of the excess land parcel. This would provide an opportunity for adjacent owners to expand their existing homes. b. Provide adjacent property owners the option to purchase a parcel or portion where parcels are deemed unsuitable for building a new single family home. 4. Potential buyers will submit their offer price and signed statement of agreement to comply with design guidelines, comply with the decision of the design review committee, adhere to a completion date, and use a licensed contractor. 5. The person with selected offer will have six weeks to provide: a. plan in compliance with design standards and zoning and building codes for review by the design review committee b. proof of demonstrated financial capability to build their proposed home c. references of the builder d. proof of builder’s insurance St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 68 68 e. general contractor license number f. estimated completion date 6. Staff will conduct initial review of house and site plan and other provisions. 7. The house and site design will be forwarded to the design review committee, which will be composed of: a residential architect; a landscape architect; an individual from the respective neighborhood association; a builder or realtor; and an Excess Land Task Force member. The committee will meet with the perspective buyer to provide feedback regarding the design. The City/HA would retain the right to refuse any offer or design plan found unsuitable by the Design Review Committee... The house and site plan must be approved prior to sale. 8. The Housing Authority and buyer would execute a development agreement at the time of sale committing the buyer to build a home consistent with the approved plans within a reasonable period of time. St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 69 69 PROPOSED DESIGN GUIDELINES These design guidelines would ensure that the new homes will blend with the surrounding area and address specific design desires of the City and neighboring residents. There is a strong preference for designs that fit urban lots and have streetscape appeal by using details such as front porches or defined front entrances. Potential buyers are expected to consult with an architect on the house design. The city’s architectural design assistance service can be accessed for this purpose. A design review committee will review the site and house plans, providing feed back to the individual during the design phase. In addition, all plans must meet zoning and building code requirements. 1. Interior Building Design • Each home shall be single-family, owner-occupied. • Minimum of three bedrooms. • Two full bathrooms are preferred, however, a minimum of one full bathroom and a ½ bathroom will be considered. • A full basement shall be provided in the house unless soil conditions warrant otherwise, or unless the selected design results in a split level basement or walkout. • Value added amenities such as greatrooms, dens or porches are required. 2. Exterior Building Design • The goal is to build a large single family home with height and mass of the new home compatible with the scale of the surrounding neighborhood. Two story homes on a block of one story homes can be designed with compatible style and finishes. Architectural details such as roofline, gables, and window detailing shall be compatible with existing buildings in the neighborhood. • Plans must present a balanced and pleasing distribution of wall and window areas from all views. Windows shall be presented on all building elevations. Double hung windows are preferred, especially on the front of the house facing streets. • Exterior materials (siding, soffits, doors, windows) should be low in maintenance. Steel, brick and stucco are preferred exterior materials. High-grade synthetics and new siding materials will be considered. 3. Garage Design • A two-car garage, attached or detached, must be provided on the site for a single family house. • The garage should not be the predominant feature of the home; if there is an alley, it must be used for garage access. If there is not alley access, the home shall be designed to minimize the view of the garage doors to the street (e.g. garage doors turn away from the street, garage set back from the front façade, etc.) St. Louis Park City Council Meeting Item: 101705 - 8a - Use of Excess Public Land for Family Homes Page 70 70 4. Site and Grounds • The entire ground shall be landscaped to be aesthetically pleasing in all seasons. Land forms and plant materials shall be used to define the site and blend with the adjoining property. • Existing trees shall be preserved when possible. Care should be taken to preserve existing root systems. Tree wrap reinforcement shall be used on trees directly adjacent to active grading and construction areas. In the event tree removal is required to build, tree replacement is required. • All air condition units must be located in rear or side yard.